Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38879697›Full record

SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Efficacy and safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in ovarian cancer: a systematic review of current evidence.

Matteo Pavone, Floriane Jochum, Lise Lecointre, Nicolò Bizzarri, Cristina Taliento, Stefano Restaino, Giuseppe Vizzielli, Anna Fagotti, Giovanni Scambia, Denis Querleu and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Innovative landscapes in intraperitoneal therapy of ovarian cancer.Drug delivery and translational research · 2025
    Review
  8. 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

11 authors.

Matteo PavoneInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, 1 place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France. matteopavone.21@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9791-9464
Floriane JochumDepartment of Gynecologic Surgery, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Lise LecointreInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, 1 place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France.
Nicolò BizzarriUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Cristina TalientoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Stefano RestainoClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Maria Della Misericordia University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Giuseppe VizzielliClinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Maria Della Misericordia University Hospital, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Anna FagottiUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Denis QuerleuInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, 1 place de l'Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France.
Cherif AkladiosDepartment of Gynecologic Surgery, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

Fondation de l'Avenir pour la Recherche Médicale Appliquée ANR-10-IAHU-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPIPAC is a recent approach for intraperitoneal chemotherapy with promising results for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. A systematic review was conducted to assess current evidence on the efficacy and outcomes of PIPAC in patients affected by ovarian cancer.

methodsThe study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to December 2023. Studies reporting data on patients with OC treated with PIPAC were included in the qualitative analysis.

resultsTwenty-one studies and six clinical trials with 932 patients who underwent PIPAC treatment were identified. The reported first access failure was 4.9%. 89.8% of patients underwent one, 60.7% two and 40% received three or more PIPAC cycles. Pathological tumour response was objectivated in 13 studies. Intra-operative complications were reported in 11% of women and post-operative events in 11.5% with a 0.82% of procedure-related mortality. Quality of life scores have been consistently stable or improved during the treatment time. The percentage of OC patients who became amenable for cytoreductive surgery due to the good response after PIPAC treatment for palliative purposes is reported to be 2.3%.

conclusionThe results showed that PIPAC is safe and effective for palliative purposes, with a good pathological tumour response and quality of life. Future prospective studies would be needed to explore the role of this treatment in different stages of the disease, investigating a paradigm shift towards the use of PIPAC with curative intent for women who are not eligible for primary cytoreductive surgery.

Indexed as

AerosolsOvarian NeoplasmsPeritoneal NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansInfusions, ParenteralQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeAerosolsAntineoplastic AgentsOvarian cancerPeritoneal carcinomatosisPIPACPressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38879697
PMCPMC11392984

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.