ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Response Evaluation in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis Treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- KRAS inhibition is an effective therapy for appendiceal adenocarcinoma.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy for Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- KRAS inhibition is an effective therapy for appendiceal adenocarcinoma.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The Role of Inflammatory Biomarkers in PIPAC: Predicting Survival and Treatment Completion in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis.Journal of Cancer · 2026Article
- 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
- Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC) directed therapy of patients with malignant pleural effusion and pleural metastasis.Pleura and peritoneum · 2024Article
- Review
- Impact of laparoscopic ultrasound during PIPAC directed treatment of unresectable peritoneal metastasis.Pleura and peritoneum · 2024Article
- 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
- Outcome of patients with peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).Pleura and peritoneum · 2024Article
- RNA expression profiling of peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).Pleura and peritoneum · 2024Article
- Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy-Results from the First Hundred Consecutive Procedures.Cancers · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed therapy emerged as a treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) a decade ago. The response assessment of PIPAC is not uniform. This narrative review describes non-invasive and invasive methods for response evaluation of PIPAC and summarizes their current status. PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible publications, and data were reported on an intention-to-treat basis. The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) showed a response in 18-58% of patients after two PIPACs. Five studies showed a cytological response in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid in 6-15% of the patients. The proportion of patients with malignant cytology decreased between the first and third PIPAC. A computed tomography showed stable or regressive disease following PIPAC in 15-78% of patients. The peritoneal cancer index was mainly used as a demographic variable, but prospective studies reported a response to treatment in 57-72% of patients. The role of serum biomarkers of cancer or inflammation in the selection of candidates for and responders to PIPAC is not fully evaluated. In conclusion, response evaluation after PIPAC in patients with PM remains difficult, but PRGS seems to be the most promising response evaluation modality.
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.