Developing a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) gynecologic oncology program: a Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment option for epithelial ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery. The intraperitoneal spread of the disease makes the peritoneal cavity an ideal target for drug delivery. HIPEC has shown promising results in improving overall survival in epithelial ovarian cancer patients when performed during interval cytoreductive surgery. Recent studies have provided level 1 evidence supporting increased overall survival in stage III ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC during interval cytoreduction. Meta-analyses have further confirmed the survival improvement in women receiving HIPEC. Despite its inclusion in guidelines, many centers have been hesitant to implement HIPEC programs due to perceived obstacles, such as increased morbidity, cost, and resource requirements. Studies have shown that morbidity rates are acceptable in selected patients, and the addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery is cost effective. Therefore, the main barrier to implementing HIPEC programs is related to resource requirements and logistics, but with proper preparation, these challenges can be overcome. Establishing a successful HIPEC program requires institutional support, a knowledgeable and dedicated team, adequate resources and equipment, and proper training and audit. This review aims to provide evidence based information to guide the development of successful HIPEC programs, including preoperative, anesthetic, and surgical considerations. It also reviews the different equipment and protocols for the perfusion and common postoperative events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".