Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 827

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Open access
Quénet, François, Elias, Dominique, Roca, Lise, Goéré, Diane, Ghouti, Laurent, Pocard, Marc, Facy, Olivier, Arvieux, Catherine, Lorimier, Gérard, Pezet, Denis, Marchal, Frédéric, Loi, Valeria, Meeus, Pierre, Juzyna, Beata, de Forges, Hélène, Paineau, Jacques, Glehen, Olivier, MARIANI, Pascale, BRIGAND, Cécile, BEREDER, Jean-Marc, MSIKA, Simon, PORTIER, Guillaume, RAT, Patrick·2021·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery has been associated with encouraging survival results in some patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who were eligible for complete macroscopic resection. We aimed to assess the specific benefit of adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery compared with receiving cytoreductive surgery alone. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 17 cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18–70 years and had histologically proven colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, a Peritoneal Cancer Index of 25 or less, and were eligible to receive systemic chemotherapy for 6 months (ie, they had adequate organ function and life expectancy of at least 12 weeks). Patients in whom complete macroscopic resection or surgical resection with less than 1 mm residual tumour tissue was completed were randomly assigned (1:1) to cytoreductive surgery with or without oxaliplatin-based HIPEC. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation, and stratified by centre, completeness of cytoreduction, number of previous systemic chemotherapy lines, and timing of protocol-mandated systemic chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin HIPEC was administered by the closed (360 mg/m 2 ) or open (460 mg/m 2 ) abdomen techniques, and systemic chemotherapy (400 mg/m 2 fluorouracil and 20 mg/m 2 folinic acid) was delivered intravenously 20 min before HIPEC. All individuals received systemic chemotherapy (of investigators' choosing) with or without targeted therapy before or after surgery, or both. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received surgery. This trial is registed with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00769405, and is now completed. Findings Between Feb 11, 2008, and Jan 6, 2014, 265 patients were included and randomly assigned, 133 to the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 132 to the cytoreductive surgery alone group. After median follow-up of 63·8 months (IQR 53·0–77·1), median overall survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 36·2–53·8) in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 41·2 months (35·1–49·7) in the cytoreductive surgery group (hazard ratio 1·00 [95·37% CI 0·63–1·58]; stratified log-rank p=0·99). At 30 days, two (2%) treatment-related deaths had occurred in each group.. Grade 3 or worse adverse events at 30 days were similar in frequency between groups (56 [42%] of 133 patients in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group vs 42 [32%] of 132 patients in the cytoreductive surgery group; p=0·083); however, at 60 days, grade 3 or worse adverse events were more common in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group (34 [26%] of 131 vs 20 [15%] of 130; p=0·035). Interpretation Considering the absence of an overall survival benefit after adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery and more frequent postoperative late complications with this combination, our data suggest that cytoreductive surgery alone should be the cornerstone of therapeutic strategies with curative intent for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Funding Institut National du Cancer, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique du Cancer, Ligue Contre le Cancer.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30599-4

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 827

Metadata

Authors
Quénet, F., Elias, D., Roca, L., Goéré, D., Ghouti, L., Pocard, M., Facy, O., Arvieux, C., Lorimier, G., Pezet, D., Marchal, F., Loi, V., Meeus, P., Juzyna, B., de Forges, H., Paineau, J., Glehen, O., MARIANI, P., BRIGAND, C., BEREDER, J.-M., MSIKA, S., PORTIER, G., & RAT, P.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
256-266
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3126104714
Cited by
827
References
20
FWCI
122.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30599-4
The paper
Quénet, F., Elias, D., Roca, L., Goéré, D., Ghouti, L., Pocard, M., Facy, O., Arvieux, C., Lorimier, G., Pezet, D., Marchal, F., Loi, V., Meeus, P., Juzyna, B., de Forges, H., Paineau, J., Glehen, O., MARIANI, P., BRIGAND, C., . . . RAT, P. (2021). Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30599-4

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.