MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018355035 · doi:10.3109/02656736.2013.768359

Surgery combined with intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IHIC) for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2013· review· en· W2018355035 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hyperthermia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyRandomized controlled trialHazard ratioConfidence intervalSurgeryCancerMEDLINEInternal medicineOncologyCytoreductive surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0350.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it