Cited by 24Intraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentBRCA gene mutations in cancer

Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Management of Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Open access
Jewell, Andrea, McMahon, Megan, Khabele, Dineo·2018·Cancers

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has several potential benefits. Higher doses of chemotherapy can be used with HIPEC because the plasma-peritoneal barrier results in little absorption into the blood stream. HIPEC offers higher peritoneal penetration in comparison to an intravenous (IV) regimen and does not have the traditional normothermic intraperitoneal (IP) regimen limitation of post-operative adhesions. Hyperthermia itself has cytotoxic effects and can potentiate antineoplastic effects of chemotherapy in part by increasing the depth of tumor penetration by up to 3 mm. For the treatment of ovarian cancer, HIPEC has been evaluated in the recurrent setting with secondary cytoreduction. Recent studies, including a prospective trial, have evaluated its role in primary management of ovarian cancer. This review summarizes previous and ongoing studies regarding the use of HIPEC in the management of ovarian cancer.

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 · 10.3390/cancers10090296

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Partial systemic restriction of intraperitoneal administration resulted in reduced toxicity and treatment-related complications.

    “Furthermore, the partial systemic restriction of intraperitoneal administration resulted in reduced toxicity and treatment-related complications (44–46).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jewell, A., McMahon, M., & Khabele, D.
Affiliations
University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Jewell, Andrea
Venue
Cancers
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-09-01
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
296
ISSN
2072-6694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2891510959
Cited by
24
References
44
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Keywords
hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, advanced ovarian cancer, recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary cytoreductive surgery, primary cytoreduction, hyperthermia, peritoneal penetration, postoperative adhesions, chemotherapy dosing

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