ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug Distribution and Penetration of Foam-Based Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (FBIC).Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Triple-Therapy of Peritoneal Metastasis-Partial-Dehydration under Hyperthermic Condition Combined with Chemotherapy: The First Preliminary In-Vitro Results.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Intraoperative parameters and postoperative follow-up of foam-based intraperitoneal chemotherapy (FBIC).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Evaluating the concept of gas‑based intraperitoneal hyperthermia beyond 43˚C in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis: A pilot study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Article
- Safety, feasibility, and application of intraperitoneal gas-based hyperthermia beyond 43°C in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis: AnFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While hyperthermic intraperitoneal (i.p) applications are highly efficient in treating peritoneal metastases (PM), they are currently limited to temperatures of 41 - 43° Celsius (C). First data on gas-based i.p. hyperthermia is promising, as this novel method allows a significant temperature rise in superficial peritoneal layers without increasing core temperatures. Until now, key mechanisms of this novel tool, e.g. thermodynamic energy transfer, have not been investigated. This study aims to explore the volume of thermodynamic energy transfer during gas-based i.p. hyperthermia at 48-50°C and its peritoneal effects. Methods: For this study, three swine were subjected to gas-based i.p. hyperthermia at varying temperatures (48°, 49° and 50°C) in a diagnostic laparoscopy setting with a high-flow air stream. Temperatures of the i.p. cavity, in- and outflow airstream at the trocar were measured and the thermodynamic energy transfer was calculated. Tissue samples were collected on postoperative day 7 for histopathologic analyses. Results: According to our data, temperatures within the intraabdominal cavity and at the outflow site remain relatively stable at < 40°C. An increase in thermodynamic energy transfer is observed with increasing applied temperatures. Gas-based i.p. hyperthermia induced capillary coagulation and white blood cell infiltration within peritoneal layers. Conclusions: Gas-based i.p. hyperthermia is an innovative approach which enables the i.p. delivery of specific amounts of thermodynamic energy. Following this procedure, our data indicate remarkable histologic changes on the superficial peritoneal layer most likely attributable to the applied thermodynamic energy. Further studies are required to investigate how these findings can be applied in PM management.
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.