The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications
Open accessAbstract
Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was introduced as a new treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases in November, 2011. Reports of its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy have encouraged centres worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a novel drug delivery technique. In this Review, we detail the technique and rationale of PIPAC and critically assess its evidence and potential indications. A systematic search was done to identify all relevant literature on PIPAC published between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2019. A total of 106 articles or reports on PIPAC were identified, and 45 clinical studies on 1810 PIPAC procedures in 838 patients were included for analysis. Repeated PIPAC delivery was feasible in 64% of patients with few intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications (3% for each in prospective studies). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events greater than grade 2) occurred after 12-15% of procedures, and commonly included bowel obstruction, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Repeated PIPAC did not have a negative effect on quality of life. Using PIPAC, an objective clinical response of 62-88% was reported for patients with ovarian cancer (median survival of 11-14 months), 50-91% for gastric cancer (median survival of 8-15 months), 71-86% for colorectal cancer (median survival of 16 months), and 67-75% (median survival of 27 months) for peritoneal mesothelioma. From our findings, PIPAC has been shown to be feasible and safe. Data on objective response and quality of life were encouraging. Therefore, PIPAC can be considered as a treatment option for refractory, isolated peritoneal metastasis of various origins. However, its use in further indications needs to be validated by prospective studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., Dancey, J., Arbuck, S., Gwyther, S., Mooney, M., et al. (2009) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · Cited by 29,534
Drug penetration in solid tumours
Minchinton, A. I., & Tannock, I. F. (2006) · Nature reviews. Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1893 · Cited by 2,805
Intraperitoneal Cisplatin and Paclitaxel in Ovarian Cancer
Armstrong, D. K., Bundy, B., Wenzel, L., Huang, H. Q., Baergen, R., Lele, S., Copeland, L. J., Walker, J. L., & Burger, R. A. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052985 · Cited by 2,625
Verwaal, V. J., van Ruth, S., de Bree, E., van Slooten, G. W., van Tinteren, H., Boot, H., & Zoetmulder, F. A. N. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.04.187 · Cited by 2,049
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations
McCulloch, P., Altman, D. G., Campbell, W. B., Flum, D. R., Glasziou, P., Marshall, J. C., & Nicholl, J. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61116-8 · Cited by 1,820
Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis
Jacquet, P., & Sugarbaker, P. H. (1996) · Cancer Treatment and Research · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1247-5_23 · Cited by 1,708
Pujade-Lauraine, E., Hilpert, F., Weber, B., Reuss, A., Poveda, A., Kristensen, G., Sorio, R., Vergote, I., Witteveen, P., Bamias, A., et al. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.51.4489 · Cited by 1,622
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer
van Driel, W. J., Koole, S. N., Sikorska, K., Schagen van Leeuwen, J. H., Schreuder, H. W. R., Hermans, R. H. M., de Hingh, I. H. J. T., van der Velden, J., Arts, H. J., Massuger, L. F. A. G., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1708618 · Cited by 1,426
Cited by
Primary and metastatic peritoneal surface malignancies
Cortés-Guiral, D., Hübner, M., Alyami, M., Bhatt, A., Ceelen, W., Glehen, O., Lordick, F., Ramsay, R., Sgarbura, O., Van Der Speeten, K., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-021-00326-6 · Cited by 308
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Alyami, M., Hübner, M., Grass, F., Bakrin, N., Villeneuve, L., Laplace, N., Passot, G., Glehen, O., & Kepenekian, V.
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e368-e377
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2954661925
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 37.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30318-3
- The paper
- Alyami, M., Hübner, M., Grass, F., Bakrin, N., Villeneuve, L., Laplace, N., Passot, G., Glehen, O., & Kepenekian, V. (2019). Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30318-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.