Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37205988›Full record

ReviewMedicine international

HIPEC for gynaecological malignancies: A last update (Review).

Chrysoula Margioula-Siarkou, Aristarchos Almperis, Alexios Papanikolaou, Antonio Simone Laganà, George Mavromatidis, Frederic Guyon, Konstantinos Dinas, Stamatios Petousis

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Chrysoula Margioula-Siarkou2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aristarchos Almperis2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Alexios Papanikolaou2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Antonio Simone LaganàUnit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS 'Civico-Di Cristina-Benfratelli', Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, I-90121 Palermo, Italy.
George Mavromatidis2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Frederic GuyonGynaeocologic Oncology Unit Institute Bergonie, 33076 Bordeaux, France.
Konstantinos Dinas2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Stamatios Petousis2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRInstitut Bergonié · FRUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advanced-stage gynaecological cancer represents a clinical entity with challenging surgical treatment in an effort to optimize prognosis. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has been reported as a method potentially eligible to improve prognosis. However, no definitive conclusions have yet been made on which types of cancer and which context HIPEC may actually have a beneficial impact. The present review discusses the efficacy and safety of HIPEC as a treatment option for patients with primary/recurrent ovarian, endometrial and cervix cancer, as well as peritoneal sarcomatosis. A literature search was conducted using MeSH terms for each topic in the PubMed database and supplemented with a manual search to retrieve additional articles eligible for inclusion/fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The implementation of HIPEC appears to be beneficial in terms of survival in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as well as in patients with recurrent EOC. Statistical superiority is not justified by current studies regarding other gynaecological malignancies with peritoneal dissemination. Furthermore, as regards safety, HIPEC following CRS does not appear to significantly increase the mortality and morbidity rates compared to the use of CRS alone. The rationale for using HIPEC and CRS in the treatment of ovarian cancer, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting, as well as for recurrences, is adequately evidenced, with acceptable safety and post-operative complication rate profiles. Its current place in the multimodal strategy for patients with peritoneal metastases remains uncertain, however. Randomized clinical trials are warranted to further examine the use of HIPEC and establish the optimal regimen and temperature settings. The role of optimal cytoreduction and no residual disease, as well as the proper patient selection remain basic parameters for maximizing survival parameters.

Indexed as

cervix cancercytoreductive surgeryendometrium cancergynaecological malignancieshyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyovarian cancerperitoneal sarcomatosisupdate

Identifiers

PMID37205988
PMCPMC10189421
OpenAlexW4368370996

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.