ArticlePleura and peritoneum2025
Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): the first Australian experience.
Article in Pleura and peritoneum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeated PIPAC in advanced peritoneal metastases: technical feasibility in a real-world case series.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
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
Objectives: Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel surgical technique for patients with peritoneal metastases not amenable to curative treatment. PIPAC delivers pressurised aerosolised chemotherapy using a hyperbaric capnoperitonem established laparoscopically. This study sought to investigate the feasibility and safety of PIPAC in an Australian population. Methods: We undertook a cohort analysis of prospectively-collected data on patients undergoing PIPAC across two Australian hospitals. Participants were planned to have three PIPAC procedures, each 6 weeks apart. Study outcomes included post-operative complications including 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and patient quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 scores). Results: 18 patients underwent 50 completed procedures. 13 patients had two or more PIPACs. The most common primary malignancy was colorectal cancer (n=8), followed by gastric cancer (n=4), appendiceal cancer (n=4) and mesothelioma (n=2). One grade four but no grade five complications occurred, with zero 30-day mortality. Median LOS was 1 day. Mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score increased from 47.8 at baseline to 53 post second PIPAC. Due to the heterogeneity of our cohort, survival analysis and statistical comparisons were unable to be made. Conclusion: PIPAC is feasible, safe and well tolerated in an Australian population with a lack of severe complications and zero 30 day mortality. Due to the small number of patients and the heterogeneity of our study's sample, it was not possible to perform survival analysis. The study is nonetheless valuable as the first investigation of implementation of PIPAC in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.