Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845320›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024

Peritoneal chemotherapy delivery systems for ovarian cancer treatment: systematic review of animal models.

Marcelo Simonsen, Rossana Verónica Mendoza López, Simone Maistro, Lucas Takeshi Ikeoka, Glaucia Fernanda de Lima Pereira, Ademar Benévolo Lugão, José Carlos Sadalla, Maria Lúcia Hirata Katayama, Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

9 authors.

Marcelo SimonsenDepartamento de Radiologia e Oncologia, Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rossana Verónica Mendoza LópezDepartamento de Radiologia e Oncologia, Comprehensive Center for Precision Oncology (C2PO), Centro de Investigação Translacional em Oncologia (CTO), Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Simone MaistroDepartamento de Radiologia e Oncologia, Comprehensive Center for Precision Oncology (C2PO), Centro de Investigação Translacional em Oncologia (CTO), Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Lucas Takeshi IkeokaFaculdade de Medicina, Undergraduate program, Universidade de Sao Paulo (FMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Glaucia Fernanda de Lima PereiraInstituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Ademar Benévolo LugãoNuclear and Energy Research Institute, IPEN-Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear (CNEN)/SP-University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
José Carlos SadallaDepartamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de Sao Paulo do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Maria Lúcia Hirata Katayama *Departamento de Radiologia e Oncologia, Comprehensive Center for Precision Oncology (C2PO), Centro de Investigação Translacional em Oncologia (CTO), Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira *Departamento de Radiologia e Oncologia, Comprehensive Center for Precision Oncology (C2PO), Centro de Investigação Translacional em Oncologia (CTO), Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo (HCFMUSP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer treatment has controversial benefits as most methodologies are associated with significant morbidity. We carried out a systematic review to compare tumor response, measured by tumor weight and volume, between intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivered via drug delivery systems (DDSs) and free intraperitoneal chemotherapy in animal models of ovarian cancer. The secondary aim was to assess the toxicity of DDS-delivered chemotherapy, based on changes in animal body weight. Methods: Based on PRISMA and SYRCLE guidelines, we identified 38 studies for review, of which 20, were used in the meta-analysis. We evaluated outcome, through tumor volume and tumor weight and, toxicity, through animal weight. Analysis was based on drugs employed and treatment duration. Results: Most studies were performed on mice. Ovarian cancer cell lines most commonly used to induce xenografts were SKOV3 (19 studies) and A2780 (6 studies). Intraperitoneal device, also known as drug delivery systems (DDS), consisted in nanoparticles, hydrogels, lipid polymer and others. The most commonly used drugs were paclitaxel and cisplatin. Most studies used as the control treatment the same chemotherapy applied free intraperitoneally and tumor response/animal weight were evaluated weekly. There was a small benefit in overall tumor reduction in animals treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy applied through the slow release device compared with animals treated with intraperitoneal free chemotherapy, as evaluated through tumor weight - results in standardized mean difference. (-1.06; 95% CI: -1.34, -0.78) and tumor volume (-3.72; 95% CI: -4.47, -2.97), a benefit that was seen in most weekly evaluations and for most chemotherapy drugs, such as carboplatin (tumor weight: -5.60; 95% CI: -7.83, -3.37), paclitaxel (tumor weight: -1.18; 95% CI: -1.52, -0.83), and cisplatin (tumor volume: -2.85; 95% CI: -3.66, -2.04) carboplatin (tumor volume: -12.71; 95% CI: -17.35, -8.07); cisplatin (tumor volume: -7.76; 95% CI: -9.88, -5.65); paclitaxel (tumor volume: -2.85; 95% CI: -3.66, -2.04). Regarding animal weight, there was no weight reduction in animals treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy applied through the slow-release device compared with animals treated with intraperitoneal free chemotherapy. However, significant heterogeneity was observed in some comparisons. Conclusion: slow-release devices are overall safe and effective in animal models of ovarian cancer. It was not possible to evaluate which one is the most promising device to treat ovarian cancer, because many different types were used to apply chemotherapy intraperitoneally. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021224573.

Indexed as

animal modeldrug delivery systemsintraperitoneal chemotherapymeta-analysisovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID39845320
PMCPMC11750819

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.