Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40520131›Full record

ReviewGastroenterology report2025

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: a comprehensive meta-analysis of feasibility, efficacy, and safety.

Ruijian Chen, Zifeng Yang, Renjie Li, Yuesheng Yang, Jiabin Zheng, Junjiang Wang, Yong Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Ruijian ChenShantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2689-7729
Zifeng YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Renjie LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yuesheng YangShantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Jiabin ZhengDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Junjiang WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yong LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1799-4841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

efficacyfeasibilitygastric cancerperitoneal metastasespressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapysafety

Identifiers

PMID40520131
PMCPMC12167634

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.