ReviewPleura and peritoneum2023
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, reasons for interrupting treatment: a systematic review of the literature.
Review in Pleura and peritoneum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Design and Validation of an Impaction-Nozzle Nebuliser for Enhanced Distribution Uniformity in Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Applications.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
- Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: a comprehensive meta-analysis of feasibility, efficacy, and safety.Gastroenterology report · 2025Review
- Article
- 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) gives encouraging results in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The current recommendations require at least 3 sessions of PIPAC. However, some patients do not complete the full treatment course and stop after only 1 or 2 procedures, hence the limited benefit. A literature review was performed, with search terms including "PIPAC" and "pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy." Content: Only articles describing the causes for premature termination of the PIPAC treatment were analysed. The systematic search identified 26 published clinical articles related to PIPAC and reporting causes for stopping PIPAC. Summary: The series range from 11 to 144 patients, with a total of 1352 patients treated with PIPAC for various tumours. A total of 3088 PIPAC treatments were performed. The median number of PIPAC treatments per patient was 2.1, the median PCI score at the time of the first PIPAC was 19 and the number of patients who did not complete the recommended 3 sessions of PIPAC was 714 (52.8%). Disease progression was the main reason for early termination of the PIPAC treatment (49.1%). The other causes were death, patients' wishes, adverse events, conversion to curative cytoreductive surgery and other medical reasons (embolism, pulmonary infection, etc…). Outlook: Further investigations are necessary to better understand the causes for interrupting PIPAC treatment and also improving the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from PIPAC.
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.