ArticleCancer medicine2026
Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Costs of CART Versus Paracentesis for Malignant Ascites: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study in Japan.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParacentesis temporarily relieves malignant ascites but causes hypoalbuminemia. Cell-free and concentrated ascites reinfusion therapy (CART) reinfuses autologous proteins to prevent hypoalbuminemia and has been increasingly used in Japan. However, CART has not been widely adopted outside of Japan, and its benefit remains unclear. We evaluated the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of CART compared with paracentesis in metastatic cancer.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included hospitalized patients with metastatic solid cancer receiving CART or paracentesis across Japan (April 2016-March 2023). Baseline characteristics were balanced using overlap propensity-score weighting. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, functional disability, and 30-day unplanned readmission. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), albumin administration or re-drainage rates, and costs. Mortality risk was assessed using a modified Poisson regression. The composite primary outcomes were assessed using a win-ratio approach.
resultsAmong 1159 patients (CART: 457, paracentesis: 702) from 51 hospitals, the CART group had lower mortality than the paracentesis group (28.6% vs. 36.7%; risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]: 0.64-0.94). The win-ratio analysis also favored the CART group over the paracentesis group (win ratio: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.09-1.64). Additionally, CART was associated with lower mortality and better composite outcomes than paracentesis, particularly among males, patients with serum albumin ≤ 2.5 g/dL, and those with non-gastrointestinal cancer. Despite higher procedural costs, CART was associated with shorter median LOS (14.1 vs. 19.0 days), lower albumin administration (11.6% vs. 17.3%) and re-drainage (32.7% vs. 52.7%) rates, and lower total median costs (4490.9 [interquartile range: 2042.3-7054.5] vs. 5084.1 [interquartile range: 3054.7-8659.7] USD) than paracentesis.
conclusionsCART was associated with improved clinical outcomes and healthcare costs over paracentesis among hospitalized patients with metastatic cancer, particularly in males, patients with serum albumin ≤ 2.5 g/dL, and those with non-gastrointestinal cancer. These findings may support clinical decision-making and resource allocation.
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.