ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Value of cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy to treat malignant peritoneal mesothelioma.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the clinical efficacy of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treating malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) and to assess the impact of this approach on patient prognosis.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 44 patients with MPM was performed. The control group (CNG, N = 23) was treated with CRS combined with postoperative intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy, while the observation group (OG, N = 21) was treated with CRS combined with HIPEC. The treatment efficacy, volume of blood loss, operation time, postoperative length of stay, and 3-year survival rate (SR) were compared, and the factors affecting the prognosis of MPM patients were analyzed by multivariate analysis.
resultsThe OG showed decreased volume of blood loss and operation time, while also showing increased overall treatment efficacy compared with the CNG. The SR in the OG was 65.22% compared with a rate of 33.33% in the CNG, and the 3-year SR in the OG was significantly higher than that in the CNG. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, and treatment modality were independent risk factors for the prognosis of MPM patients.
conclusionCRS combined with HIPEC for MPM has a favorable treatment efficacy and prolongs the survival of MPM patients. Additionally, TNM stage, ECOG score, and treatment modality are independent risk factors for the prognosis of MPM patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34650746PMC8506998W3207372147What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.