Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34328799›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment

Neoadjuvant Intraperitoneal and Systemic Chemotherapy Versus Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy With Docetaxel, Oxaliplatin, and S-1 for Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastasis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Xin Zhang, Hejing Huang, Dejun Yang, Peng Wang, Xin Huang, Zunqi Hu, Yu Zhang, Ronglin Yan, Zhenxin Zhu, Qingping Cai

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Role of surgery in metastatic gastric cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xin ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Hejing HuangDepartment of Ultrasound, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Dejun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Peng WangDepartment of Radiology, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Xin HuangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zunqi HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Ronglin YanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zhenxin ZhuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Qingping CaiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 56652Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8088-0463
Second Military Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal treatment for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) remains debatable. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS) versus neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NSC) for GCPM.

methodsPatients of GCPM received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, oxaliplatin and S-1 between January 2011 and June 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was carried out to reduce the selection bias. Multivariate Cox regression model was applied to screen the prognostic factors.

resultsAfter PSM processing, 71 patients in each group were matched among the 186 GCPM patients included. NIPS yielded a better ascites and cytology response to chemotherapy, higher conversion resection rate and R0 resection rate than NSC. The overall survival (OS) rate in NIPS group was better than that in NSC group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the P stage, ascites response, conversion surgery rate and R0 resection rate were independent prognostic factors. Subgroup analysis indicated that NIPS showed a survival benefit over NSC only in patients with cT3-4a, P1-2, whose cytology turned negative, and who received conversion surgery; while not in patients with cT4b, P0 or P3, whose cytology did not turn negative, or who did not receive conversion surgery.

conclusionsNIPS is a safe and feasible treatment for GCPM, which showed more benefit than NSC.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousAdministration, OralAdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsAscitesDocetaxelDrug CombinationsFemaleGastrectomyHumansInfusions, ParenteralMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm, ResidualDocetaxelDrug CombinationsOxaliplatinOxonic AcidS 1 (combination)Tegafurconversion gastrectomygastric cancerneoadjuvant chemotherapyperitoneal metastasispropensity score matched analysis

Identifiers

PMID34328799
PMCPMC8327225
OpenAlexW3184007816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.