ArticlePleura and peritoneum2024
Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineering human peritoneum in vitro: A novel microfluidic platform for modeling peritoneal physiology and pathophysiology.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
- Hepatocellular Carcinoma-on-a-Chip Based on Microfluidic Well Array for Personalized Drug Evaluation.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Dormancy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Tissue Engineering Opportunities forTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2026Review
- Three-DimensionalInternational journal of biological sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is still evolving. Conducting a randomized trial is challenging due to the high heterogeneity in the presentation of peritoneal disease and various surgical approaches. Biological research may facilitate more rapid translation of information into clinical practice. There is an emerging need for a preclinical model to improve HIPEC treatment protocols in terms of drug doses and treatment durations. The aim of the study is to design a tool that serves as an Methods: We determined the effects of current therapy options using a 3D static disease model on human colon carcinoma cell lines (HCT 116) and transforming growth factor-β1 induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) HCT 116 lines at 37 °C and 42 °C for 30, 60, and 120 min. We determined oxaliplatin's half maximal inhibitory concentrations in a 3D static culture by using viability assay. Clinical practices of HIPEC were applied in the developed model. Results: EMT-induced HCT 116 cells were less sensitive to oxaliplatin treatment compared to non-induced cells. We observed increased cytotoxicity when increasing the temperature from 37 °C to 42 °C and extending the treatment duration from 30 to 120 min. We found that 200 mg/m Conclusions: The tool map provide insights into creating more realistic pre-clinical tools that could be used for a patient-based drug screening.
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.