ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Impact of PIPAC-Oxaliplatin on Functional Recovery, Good Days, and Survival in a Refractory Colorectal and Appendiceal Carcinomatosis: Secondary Analysis of the US PIPAC Collaborative Phase 1 Trial.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements in nebulizers for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).Pleura and peritoneum · 2025Review
- Management of Peritoneal Metastasis in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- ASO Author Reflections: Resolving Postoperative Cough in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: The Brave Challenge of Sisyphus's Endless Cycle.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel, minimally invasive, safe, and repeatable method to treat carcinomatosis. Evidence regarding the clinical benefit (quality of life and survival) of PIPAC compared with that of conventional standard therapy (ST) is lacking.
methodsThis is the secondary analysis of the phase 1 US-PIPAC trial for refractory colorectal and appendiceal carcinomatosis. A PIPAC cohort was compared with a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients receiving ST. The primary outcome was number of good days (number of days alive and out of the hospital). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and objective functional recovery (daily step count).
resultsThe study included 32 patients (PIPAC, 12; ST, 20) with similar baseline characteristics. Compared with the ST cohort, the PIPAC cohort had lower median inpatient hospital stays (> 24 h) within 6 months (0 vs 1; p = 0.015) and 1 year (1 vs 2; p = 0.052) and higher median good days at 6 months (181 vs 131 days; p = 0.042) and 1 year (323 vs 131 days; p = 0.032). There was no worsening of HRQoL after repeated PIPACs. Step counts diminished immediately after PIPAC but returned to baseline within 2-4 weeks. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a favorable association between receipt of PIPAC and OS (median, 11.3 vs 5.1 months; p = 0.036).
conclusionCompared with ST, PIPAC was associated with higher number of good days, reduced hospitalization burden, and longer OS without a negative impact on HRQoL with repeated PIPACs. These findings are foundational for evaluation of PIPAC in a randomized clinical trial.
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.