ArticlePleura and peritoneum2025
Real-world data on Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed therapy in patients with peritoneal metastases; Third annual report from the ISSPP PIPAC database.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In 2020, the International Society for the Study of the Pleura and Peritoneum (ISSPP) launched a database monitoring real-world data on Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed therapy in patients with peritoneal metastases (PM). This study covers data from the third annual report on the ISSPP PIPAC database. Methods: Systematic analysis of all data reported to the ISSPP PIPAC database between June 15th, 2020, and November 1st, 2024. We hypothesize that ISSPP PIPAC data align with existing literature. Results: Seventeen PIPAC centers reported 3224 PIPAC treatments in 1126 patients with PM (median number of treatments 2, range 1-33). The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) at PIPAC 1 was 19 and remained unchanged during subsequent treatments. The number of patients with >500 mL ascites significantly decreased from the first three PIPAC treatments to PIPAC 4+ (p<0.01). Major complications (Dindo-Clavien ≥3b) occurred in 0.7 % of the treatments, while Common. Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grades ≥3 were reported in 5.2 %. Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) was performed in 2306 (72 %) of the treatments. At PIPAC 1, 2, and 3, complete or major response (mean PRGS ≤2) was achieved in 57 %, 72 %, and 75 % of the patients, respectively. Median overall survival from PIPAC 1 was 12.5 months. Patients with complete/major response (mean PRGS ≤2) at PIPAC 1-3 had a longer overall survival compared to patients with minimal/no response (mean PRGS >2). Conclusions: This study from the ISSPP PIPAC database provides substantial real-world data demonstrating the feasibility, safety, and potential effect of PIPAC-directed therapy in patients with PM.
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.