ReviewGastroenterology report2025
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: a comprehensive meta-analysis of feasibility, efficacy, and safety.
Review in Gastroenterology report, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Catheter based intraperitoneal chemotherapy using taxane for peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer: from bench to bedside-a narrative review.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Review
- The Role of Diagnostic Laparoscopy in Staging and Treatment Planning of Gastric Cancer: A 400-Patient Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Integrating artificial intelligence and in-silico modeling to redefine therapeutic strategies for peritoneal seeding: A disulfiram repurposing concept.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Treatment Limitations and Missing Information in Peritoneal Metastatic Gastric Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for treating advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases. Herein, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of PIPAC in this patient population. The literature between January 2011 and February 2024 was comprehensively searched on the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search, guided by the Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) framework, focused on studies reporting on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of PIPAC. Data were pooled by using log transformation (PLN) or Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Of the 451 initially identified studies, 18 were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 671 patients who underwent 1,357 PIPAC procedures. Our data analysis indicated that 32.6% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.5%-42.3%) completed three or more PIPAC procedures. Conversely, 2.3% of patients (95% CI, 0.6%-5%) either did not have access to or could not undergo PIPAC. The average rate of histological response across the included studies was 66.3% (95% CI, 59.1%-73.1%). Pooled results showed that 13.1% of patients (95% CI, 7.0%-20.7%) had reduced ascites after PIPAC, and 7.8% (95% CI, 4.8%-11.4%) became resectable. Adverse events were reported in 17.1% of patients (95% CI, 5.3%-33.4%), with 3.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.6%) experiencing severe adverse events (grade 3-5, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). The pooled mortality related to PIPAC was 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.5%). The pooled proportions for 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year overall survival rates were 82.4% (95% CI, 69.2%-92.8%), 54.0% (95% CI, 45.7%-62.3%), and 20.0% (95% CI, 11.3%-30.3%), respectively. The average median overall survival was 11.7 months (95% CI, 9.3-14.0 months). Our study suggests that most patients can benefit from PIPAC treatment, such as improved quality of life and significantly longer median overall survival. Patients who received first-line chemotherapy prior to PIPAC and concomitant systemic chemotherapy during PIPAC treatment, and who underwent the PIPAC procedure on more than three occasions, exhibited a more favorable survival prognosis.
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.