Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34656802›Full record

ArticleBiomedical journal2022

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

Wei-Chun Chen, Huei-Jean Huang, Lan-Yan Yang, Yu-Bin Pan, Kuan-Gen Huang, Cheng-Tao Lin, Min-Yu Chen, Yun-Hsin Tang, Ting-Chang Chang, Chyong-Huey Lai and 1 more

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

Article in Biomedical journal, 2022. 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
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. A concerted effort combating hepatitis.Biomedical journal · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Wei-Chun ChenDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Institute of Biomedical Engineering, International Intercollegiate Ph.D. Program, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Keelung, Keelung, Taiwan.
Huei-Jean HuangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Lan-Yan YangClinical Trial Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Yu-Bin PanClinical Trial Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Kuan-Gen HuangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Cheng-Tao LinDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Min-Yu ChenDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Yun-Hsin TangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ting-Chang ChangDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chyong-Huey LaiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Gynecologic Cancer Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Hung-Hsueh ChouDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Electronic address: ma2012@cgmh.org.tw.
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TWLinkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWKeelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate outcomes and morbidity of patients undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in recurrent ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsBetween April 2014 and January 2019, a total of 51 recurrent ovarian cancer patients receiving secondary CRS and HIPEC were retrospectively reviewed.

resultsAmong the 51 patients, median peritoneal cancer index score was 13 (range 3-34), and completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score of 0/1 was achieved in 41 patients (78.8%). Regimen of HIPEC included cisplatin and paclitaxel in 39 (75%) cases. The median follow-up duration of survivors was 20.2 months. Sixteen (30.8%) patients remained free of recurrence after HIPEC. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 11.8 months and 34.5 months respectively. Multivariate analysis showed previous chemotherapy <2 lines (HR 0.24, 0.11-0.52; p = 0.001), chemotherapy-free interval ≥6 months (HR 0.19, 0.09-0.37; p < 0.001) and CA125 < 35 U/mL before HIPEC (HR 0.133, 0.021-0.0832; p = 0.031) were good prognostic factors for PFS. CC0/1 was not significant in multivariate analysis. The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was anemia (17.3%), pleural effusion (11.5%) and renal insufficiency (5.7%). Patients with age ≥50, peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) ≥ 11, operation time ≥10 h and diaphragm surgery had significantly higher incidence of pleural effusion.

conclusionsThe current study showed adding HIPEC to secondary CRS might prolong PFS especially in patients with previous chemotherapy <2 lines, chemotherapy-free interval ≥6 months and CA125 < 35 U/mL before HIPEC.

Indexed as

Hyperthermia, InducedOvarian NeoplasmsPeritoneal NeoplasmsPleural EffusionAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansHyperthermic Intraperitoneal ChemotherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateCytoreductive surgeryHIPECHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyOvarian cancerRecurrent

Identifiers

PMID34656802
PMCPMC9661499
OpenAlexW3205784686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.