MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735932923 · doi:10.2196/resprot.7790

Treatment of Peritoneal Dissemination in Stomach Cancer Patients With Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): Rationale and Design of the PERISCOPE Study

2017· article· en· W2735932923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosa T. van der Kaaij, H.J. Braam, Henk Boot, Maartje Los, Annemieke Cats, Cecile Grootscholten, Jan H.M. Schellens, Arend G. J. Aalbers, Alwin D. R. Huitema, Catherijne A. J. Knibbe, Djamila Boerma, Marinus J. Wiezer, Bert van Ramshorst, Johanna W. van Sandick

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyOxaliplatinLaparotomyCancerGastrectomyPseudomyxoma peritoneiCarcinosisSurgeryOncologyColorectal cancerInternal medicineCytoreductive surgeryPeritoneal carcinomatosisAppendixOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis have a very poor prognosis; median survival is 3 to 4 months. Palliative systemic chemotherapy is currently the only treatment available in the Netherlands. Intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has an established role in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis originating from colorectal cancer, appendiceal cancer, and pseudomyxoma peritonei; its role in gastric cancer is uncertain. Currently, there is no consensus on the choice of chemotherapeutic agents used in HIPEC for gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE: The main objectives of this study are (1) to investigate the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of gastrectomy combined with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC after systemic chemotherapy, as a primary treatment option for patients with advanced gastric cancer with tumor positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal carcinomatosis; and (2) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of intraperitoneal docetaxel in combination with a fixed dose of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin. METHODS: The PERISCOPE study is a multicenter, open label, phase I-II dose-escalation study. The MTD of docetaxel will be studied using a 3+3 design. Patients with locally advanced (cT3-cT4) gastric adenocarcinoma are eligible for inclusion if the primary gastric tumor is considered resectable, tumor positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal carcinomatosis is confirmed by diagnostic laparoscopy/ laparotomy, and prior systemic chemotherapy was without disease progression. At laparotomy, cytoreductive surgery (complete removal of all macroscopically visible tumor deposits) and a total or partial gastrectomy with a D2 lymph node dissection is performed. An open HIPEC technique is used with 460mg/m2 hyperthermic oxaliplatin for 30 minutes (41°C to 42°C) followed by normothermic docetaxel for 90 minutes (37°C) in a dose that will be escalated per 3 patients (0, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 mg/m2). The primary endpoint is treatment related toxicity. RESULTS: Patient accrual is ongoing and the first results are expected in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The PERISCOPE study will determine the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of gastrectomy combined with cytoreduction and HIPEC using oxaliplatin in combination with docetaxel after systemic chemotherapy as primary treatment option for gastric cancer patients with tumor positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal carcinomatosis. This study will provide pharmacokinetic data on the intraperitoneal administration of oxaliplatin and docetaxel, including the MTD of intraperitoneal-administered docetaxel. These data are a prerequisite for the safe conduct of future HIPEC studies in patients with gastric cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registration (NTR): NTR4250; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/ rctview.asp?TC=4250 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rWJONgkt).

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207