ArticleBMC cancer2026
Propensity score-matched evaluation of prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in geriatric patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer: safety and survival benefits.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe role of prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in elderly patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer (LACRC) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative safety and survival benefits of HIPEC using propensity score matching (PSM).
methodsA total of 166 elderly LACRC patients who underwent curative surgery were included between January 2017 to January 2022. After 1:2 PSM, 40 patients received prophylactic HIPEC, while 80 served as controls. Postoperative complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared. Multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed, with subgroup analysis focusing on lymph node status.
resultsThe overall postoperative complication rates were comparable between the HIPEC and control groups (22.5% vs. 15.0%, P = 0.445). Multivariable Cox regression showed no significant improvement in OS or DFS with HIPEC in the overall cohort. However, in the lymph node-positive (N+) subgroup (HIPEC, n = 20; Control, n = 31; P = 0.327), HIPEC was associated with significantly better OS (P = 0.017) and DFS (P = 0.022), with a significant interaction between HIPEC and N-stage (OS: P = 0.013; DFS: P = 0.006). These associations remained significant after applying the Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple testing within this subgroup. KM analysis confirmed prolonged survival in N+ patients receiving HIPEC (OS: P = 0.038; DFS: P = 0.038).
conclusionIn conclusion, prophylactic HIPEC following radical resection did not increase perioperative complications in elderly patients with LACRC. While overall survival benefits were not significant, prophylactic HIPEC significantly improved OS and DFS among patients with N+ disease. These findings suggest a selective benefit for high-risk patients, warranting further validation.
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.