ReviewCureus2026
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer: Distinguishing Prophylactic and Therapeutic Roles Within Contemporary Multimodal Management.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peritoneal metastasis (PM) remains one of the most clinically important determinants of poor outcome in gastric cancer (GC), given the limited efficacy of systemic therapy within the peritoneal compartment. This has driven sustained interest in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), administered after cytoreductive surgery (CRS), as a strategy to improve locoregional disease control, although its role remains controversial in both prophylactic and therapeutic settings. A narrative review of the literature was performed using published randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective comparative analyses, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses evaluating HIPEC in GC. Particular emphasis was placed on biological rationale, patient selection, disease burden, completeness of cytoreduction, treatment protocols, perioperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes. The prophylactic and therapeutic applications of HIPEC were evaluated separately to avoid conflating two biologically and clinically distinct questions. In high-risk resectable disease, prophylactic HIPEC demonstrates a recurrent signal toward reduced peritoneal recurrence and improved disease-free survival, although supporting evidence remains heterogeneous and largely nonrandomized. In established PM, earlier studies and selected retrospective analyses suggested a survival signal with CRS-HIPEC; however, contemporary randomized trials, particularly GASTRIPEC-I and PERISCOPE II, have not demonstrated a convincing overall survival benefit and have highlighted important concerns regarding treatment-related morbidity and clinical trade-offs. Across both settings, outcomes appear highly dependent on patient selection, especially peritoneal cancer index, tumor biology, and the feasibility of complete cytoreduction. Overall, HIPEC remains biologically compelling but clinically unconfirmed as routine care in GC. At present, prophylactic HIPEC should be regarded as investigational but promising, whereas therapeutic CRS-HIPEC for established gastric PM should remain restricted to highly selected patients managed in experienced centers and, ideally, within clinical trials or prospective registries.
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.