Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34422631›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Safety and Effectiveness of High-Precision Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Perfusion Chemotherapy in Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Real-World Study.

Mingchen Ba, Shuzhong Cui, Hui Long, Yuanfeng Gong, Yinbing Wu, Kunpeng Lin, Yinuo Tu, Bohuo Zhang, Wanbo Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mingchen BaIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shuzhong CuiIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Hui LongDepartment of Pharmacy, Guangzhou Dermatology Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Yuanfeng GongIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yinbing WuIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Kunpeng LinIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yinuo TuIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Bohuo ZhangIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Wanbo WuIntracelom Hyperthermic Perfusion Therapy Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital & Institute of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Guangzhou Medical University · CNGuangzhou Institute of Dermatology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been reported to effectively control peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in various patient populations, but there is a lack of real-world data. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of HIPEC in patients with PC in a real-world setting.

methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with PC treated with the high-precision BR-TRG-I type HIPEC device between December 2006 and December 2016. Vital signs during HIPEC and adverse events were recorded. Effectiveness was evaluated by total objective remission rate (ORR), which was based on ascites' remission 4 weeks after HIPEC.

resultsA total of 1,200 patients were included. There were 518 males and 682 females, with a mean age of 58.6 ± 6.5 years (range, 32-76 years). Among the patients, 93.6% of the patients (1123/1200) successfully received the three sessions of HIPEC, 158 had massive ascites. The changes of vital signs during HIPEC were within acceptable ranges, and patients only had a transient fever and abdominal distension. Regarding the HIPEC-related complications, hemorrhage was observed in seven (0.6%) patients, anastomotic leakage in four (0.5%), and intestinal obstruction in eight (0.7%). Nine (0.8%, 9/1200) patients had CTCAE grade IV bone marrow suppression, and three (0.3%, 3/1200) patients had severe renal failure (SRF), which were considered to be drug-related. The ORR of malignant ascites was 95.6% (151/158).

conclusionThis real-world study strongly suggests that HIPEC was safe in treating PC patients with a low rate of adverse events and leads to benefits in PC patients with massive malignant ascites.

Indexed as

a real-world studydesignhigh-precisionhyperthermic intraperitoneal perfusion chemotherapyperitoneal carcinomatosis

Identifiers

PMID34422631
PMCPMC8378327
OpenAlexW3193242513

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.