ArticleThe oncologist2026
Real-world effectiveness and safety of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundBoth hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP) have shown survival benefits in ovarian cancer (OC), but direct comparisons between the two perfusion modalities are lacking. This study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety between HIPEC and conventional IP in OC.
methodsThis retrospective real-world study analyzed 606 patients with stages II-IV OC who received HIPEC or IP following cytoreductive surgery between 2013 and 2024. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events were secondary endpoints. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate result robustness and subgroup analyses to explore potential effect modification.
resultsAfter a median follow-up of 26 months, disease progression occurred in 40.6% of patients in the HIPEC group and 55.0% in the IP group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; P = .103). Mortality rates were 13.2% and 22.5%, respectively (HR 0.83; P = .434), showing no significant differences in progression and survival between the two groups. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a trend toward improved progression-free outcomes with HIPEC, particularly among patients with BRCA wild-type or BRCA1-mutated tumors and early postoperative perfusion. Hypoalbuminemia was the most common event in both groups (HIPEC 27.2%; IP 15.6%). HIPEC group had more abdominal distension and wound dehiscence, whereas IP patients experienced nausea and rash more frequently.
conclusionsHIPEC did not significantly improve survival over conventional IP in the overall population, but showed greater benefit in specific subgroups, underscoring the importance of individualized intraperitoneal chemotherapy strategies in OC.
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.