Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34298644›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Preclinical In Vivo-Models to Investigate HIPEC; Current Methodologies and Challenges.

Roxan F C P A Helderman, Daan R Löke, Pieter J Tanis, Jurriaan B Tuynman, Wim Ceelen, Ignace H de Hingh, Kurt van der Speeten, Nicolaas A P Franken, Arlene L Oei, H Petra Kok and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Advances in the management of peritoneal malignancies.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Roxan F C P A HeldermanCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology (LEXOR), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9692-7115
Daan R LökeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-3310
Jurriaan B TuynmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5952-8000
Wim CeelenDepartment of GI Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7692-4419
Ignace H de HinghDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, 5602 ZA Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Kurt van der SpeetenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, 3600 Genk, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-7834
Nicolaas A P FrankenCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology (LEXOR), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-9406
Arlene L OeiCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Laboratory for Experimental Oncology and Radiobiology (LEXOR), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H Petra KokDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes CrezeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7474-0533
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLGhent University Hospital · BERadboud University Nijmegen · NLZiekenhuis Oost-Limburg · BE

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 10595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment modality for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) of various origins which aims for cure in combination with cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Efficacy of CRS-HIPEC depends on patient selection, tumor type, delivery technique, and treatment parameters such as temperature, carrier solution, type of drug, dosage, volume, and treatment duration. Preclinical research offers a powerful tool to investigate the impact of these parameters and to assist in designing potentially more effective treatment protocols and clinical trials. The different methodologies for peritoneal disease and HIPEC are variable. This study aims to review the objectives, methods, and clinical relevance of in vivo preclinical HIPEC studies found in the literature. In this review, recommendations are provided and possible pitfalls are discussed on the choice of type of animal and tumor model per stratified parameters and study goal. The guidelines presented in this paper can improve the clinical relevance and impact of future in vivo HIPEC experiments.

Indexed as

cytoreductive surgery (CRS)hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)peritoneal carcinomatosisperitoneal metastasis

Identifiers

PMID34298644
PMCPMC8303745
OpenAlexW3179960158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.