Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36115993›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2022

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for patients with gastric cancer based on laboratory tests is safe: a single Chinese center analysis.

Yunzi Wu, Xiaohao Zheng, Chunyang Sun, Shenghui Wang, Shikang Ding, Ming Wu, Jing Zhang, Bingzhi Wang, Liyan Xue, Lin Yang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yunzi Wu *Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiaohao Zheng *Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Chunyang Sun *Department of General Surgery, The Central Hospital of Jia Mu Si City, Jia Mu Si, Hei Long Jiang, China.
Shenghui Wang *Department of General Surgery, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shikang Ding *Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Ming WuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Yun Cheng Center Hospital, Yuncheng, Shanxi, China.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, Huanxing Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China.
Bingzhi WangDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Liyan XueDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Lin YangDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yantao TianDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. tianyantao@cicams.as.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6479-7547
Yibin XieDepartment of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. yibinxie_2003@163.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0255-3018
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNAviation General Hospital · CNCancer Hospital of Huanxing Chaoyang District Beijing · CNYuncheng University · CN

Funding

CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine 2016-I2M-1-007Yuncheng Science and Technology Planning project SKJJ2020091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAbout 15%-40% of gastric cancer patients have peritoneal metastasis, which leads to poor prognosis. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is considered to be an effective treatment for these patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of HIPEC in patients with gastric cancer diagnosed from laboratory tests.

methodsThe clinical and pathological data of 63 patients with gastric cancer who underwent HIPEC in 2017-2021 were prospectively recorded. Fifty-five patients underwent cytoreductive surgery + HIPEC, and eight patients received HIPEC alone. The factors associated with HIPEC safety and efficacy were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival.

resultsThe average patient age was 54.84 years and 68.3% of patients were male. Moreover, 79.4% of patients had a peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) score of ≤ 7 and 61.9% had a completeness of cytoreduction score of 0. Because of peritoneal metastasis, 29 patients (46.03%) were classified as stage IV. Laboratory tests showed no differences in pre-HIPEC blood test results compared to post-HIPEC results after removing the effects of surgery. HIPEC treatment did not cause obvious liver or kidney damage. Serum calcium levels decreased significantly after HIPEC (P = 0.0018). The Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score correlated with the patient's physical function and improved after HIPEC (P = 0.0045). In coagulation tests, FDP (P < 0.0001) and D-dimer (P < 0.0001) levels increased significantly and CA242 (P = 0.0159), CA724 (P < 0.0001), and CEA (P < 0.0014) levels decreased significantly after HIPEC. Completeness of cytoreduction score was an independent prognostic factor. HIPEC did not show a survival benefit in patients with gastric cancer (P = 0.5505).

conclusionHIPEC is a safe treatment for patients with gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis based on the laboratory tests. However, the efficacy of this treatment on gastric-derived peritoneal metastases requires further confirmation.

Indexed as

Hyperthermia, InducedPeritoneal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsCalciumCarcinoembryonic AntigenChinaCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansHyperthermic Intraperitoneal ChemotherapyMaleMiddle AgedSurvival RateCalciumCarcinoembryonic AntigenGastric cancerHIPECSafetySurgeryTreatment

Identifiers

PMID36115993
PMCPMC9482732
OpenAlexW4296249083

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.