ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastases: a scoping review of clinical evidence across emerging indications.
Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) delivers aerosolised cytotoxics directly into the peritoneal cavity under pressure, exploiting physical principles to enhance local drug exposure. Its use is expanding across palliative, neoadjuvant/conversion, and prophylactic settings for peritoneal metastases from multiple primary tumours. This scoping review maps the available clinical evidence by indication and tumour type, and evaluates what the data can and cannot support.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, OpenAlex, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to March 2026 following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies were categorised by evidence level and clinical scenario. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to observational studies. Quantitative synthesis was not performed given heterogeneity across designs, populations, and endpoints.
resultsNinety-four studies were included (64 primary clinical studies; over 3000 patients, 5000 procedures). Procedural mortality was below 1% and severe complications occurred in 2-3%, though these figures reflect expert centres with selected populations. Histopathological regression (PRGS 1-2) was reported in 56-68% of patients, but this surrogate endpoint remains unvalidated. Median overall survival ranged from 7 to 27 months across tumour types; all figures are from single-arm, uncontrolled studies. No completed trial has included a comparator arm. Two Phase III trials are currently recruiting.
conclusionsPIPAC appears feasible and acceptably safe at experienced centres, but its clinical benefit over standard alternatives has not been demonstrated. It should be offered within clinical trials or prospective registries until Phase III results become available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42240806What 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.