ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
Interval debulking with HIPEC in patient with VP shunt.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with cytoreductive surgery has demonstrated survival benefits in advanced ovarian cancer. However, the safety of HIPEC administration in patients with indwelling ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts remains unknown, as no prior cases have been reported. Theoretical risks include shunt infection, chemical ventriculitis, and potential central nervous system (CNS) metastasis via retrograde flow through the shunt catheter. The absence of established management guidelines poses a significant challenge for clinicians treating ovarian cancer patients with concurrent VP shunts. Case Presentation: A 60-year-old G1P1 with a 6-year history of a programmable VP shunt for hydrocephalus secondary to cerebellar hemangioblastoma presented with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, FIGO stage IIIA2. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, she underwent interval debulking surgery with cisplatin-based HIPEC. A multidisciplinary approach was employed: neurosurgery externalized the VP shunt catheter from the peritoneal cavity and wrapped it in metronidazole-soaked gauze during HIPEC administration and the shunt was replaced at case completion. Postoperative vancomycin, cefepime, and metronidazole were provided for five days for meningitis prophylaxis. The patient experienced no shunt-related complications and was discharged on postoperative day 4. At 10-month follow-up, she demonstrated excellent oncologic response with CA-125 normalization and no evidence of shunt malfunction or CNS involvement. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that HIPEC can be safely performed in patients with indwelling VP shunts when a multidisciplinary strategy incorporating intraoperative shunt externalization and antimicrobial prophylaxis is utilized. This approach expands treatment options for ovarian cancer patients with VP shunts who may otherwise be excluded from potentially beneficial HIPEC therapy.
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.