Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34298849›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Hyperthermic Intrathoracic Chemoperfusion for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tommi Järvinen, Juuso Paajanen, Ilkka Ilonen, Jari Räsänen

Abstract 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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Tommi JärvinenDepartment of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, 00029 Helsinki, Finland.
Juuso PaajanenDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, 00029 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4364-2201
Ilkka IlonenDepartment of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, 00029 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8149-3550
Jari RäsänenDepartment of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, 00029 Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy of the pleural lining with exceptionally poor survival. Hyperthermic intrathoracic chemoperfusion (HITHOC) is commonly used with surgery in limited disease. However, data on its effect on survival are limited. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analyzed a total of 11 observational articles. HITHOC was compared to control arm that did not receive HITHOC in three studies including 762 patients. The pooled analysis of these studies revealed an SMD of 0.24, with 95% CI of 0.06-0.41 favoring the HITHOC group, reaching statistical significance. The survival effect of HITHOC in epithelioid MPM vs. non-epithelioid MPM was analyzed in four studies. Pooled analysis showed an SMD of 0.79 (95% CI = 0.48-1.10) favoring epithelioid MPM. Based on available data, there seems to be a benefit with HITHOC in regards to overall survival in the treatment of all mesothelioma patients. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to validate and standardize this treatment approach.

Indexed as

hyperthermic intrathoracic chemoperfusionmalignant pleural mesothelioma

Identifiers

PMID34298849
PMCPMC8307465

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.