ReviewPleura and peritoneum2022
A systematic review on quality of life (QoL) of patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) who underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).
Review in Pleura and peritoneum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Review
- Assessing data completeness in the international society for the study of pleura and peritoneum (ISSPP) PIPAC database: a multicenter evaluation from 2020-2024.Pleura and peritoneum · 2025Article
- Real-world data on Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed therapy in patients with peritoneal metastases; Third annual report from the ISSPP PIPAC database.Pleura and peritoneum · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Impact of laparoscopic ultrasound during PIPAC directed treatment of unresectable peritoneal metastasis.Pleura and peritoneum · 2024Article
- Article
- Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Safety-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy-Results from the First Hundred Consecutive Procedures.Cancers · 2024Article
- Application and progress of palliative therapy in advanced gastric carcinomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has recently emerged as a palliative alternative for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastasis (PM). Quality of life (QoL) has increasingly been used as an endpoint to evaluate treatment outcomes. This review aims to identify evidence on how PIPAC would impact the QoL of PM patients. Content: A systematic review was performed on articles identified from Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and Web of Sciences. A meta-analysis was conducted on further selected studies. ACROBAT-NRSI was attempted to assess the risk of bias (RoB). Summary: Nine studies using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire to assess QoL after repeated PIPAC cycles were identified. Majority was found to be moderately biased and a great extent of heterogeneity was observed. Four studies on PM from either gastric cancer (GC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) were included for meta-analysis. In 31 GC patients and 104 EOC patients, QoL remained stable in 13/14 and 11/14 EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. PIPAC was inferior to cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) in global QoL and functioning but superior in symptom reduction. Outlook: PIPAC is a well-tolerated option for most GC and EOC patients with irresectable PM. Future trials are warranted to confirm the findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.