Surgery combined with intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IHIC) for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IHIC) is a therapy which combines thermotherapy and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. It is theoretically powerful for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC), but is there evident advantage in clinical practice? We need evidence to guide our decision-making. OBJECTIVES: Meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IHIC) for patients with resectable locally advanced gastric cancer, and to provide the reference for clinical practice and study. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese databases (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang) electronically and also retrieved papers from other sources (tracing related references and communication with other authors). All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were collected to compare surgery combined with IHIC to surgery without IHIC for AGC. There were no language restrictions. After independent quality assessment and data extraction by two reviewers, meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS: 16 RCTs involving 1,906 patients were included. Compared with surgery alone, combination therapy (surgery plus IHIC) was associated with a significant improvement in survival rate at 1 year (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.21 to 4.05; p < 0.00001), 2 years (HR = 2.43; 95%CI = 1.81 to 3.26; p < 0.00001), 3 years (HR = 2.63; 95%CI = 2.17 to 3.20; p < 0.00001), 5 years (HR = 2.49; 95%CI = 1.97 to 3.14; p < 0.00001), and 9 years (HR = 2.14; 95%CI = 1.38 to 3.32; p = 0.0007). Compared with surgery alone, combination therapy was associated with a significant reduction in recurrence rate at 2 years (RR = 0.42; 95%CI = 0.29 to 0.61; p < 0.00001), 3 years (RR = 0.35; 95%CI = 0.24 to 0.51; p < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR = 0.47; 95%CI = 0.39 to 0.56; p < 0.00001). IHIC was not found to be associated with higher risks of anastomotic leakage, ileus, bowel perforation, myelosuppression, gastrointestinal reaction and hypohepatia, but it increased the incidence of abdominal pain (RR = 21.46; 95%CI = 5.24 to 87.78; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with surgery alone, surgery combined with IHIC can improve survival rate and reduce the recurrence rate, with acceptable safety. However, safety outcomes should be further evaluated by larger samples and high quality studies. Additionally, hyperthermia for the intraperitoneal chemotherapy needs more clinical research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".