MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415207914 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32100568

Retrospective Cohort Study of Intrapericardial Cisplatin for Risk Reduction of Malignant Pericardial Effusion Recurrence

2025· article· en· W4415207914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F.J. Muñoz i Carrillo, Roxana Reyes, David Pesántez, Gemma Carrera, Enric Cascos, Pedro Castro, Sara González Fernández, Carme Font, Laura González-Aguado, Ignacio Grafiá, Lucía Llavata, Inés Monge‐Escartín, Joan Padrosa, Noemı́ Reguart, Adrián Téllez, Albert Tuca, Margarita Viladot, Carles Zamora, Patrícia Amorós-Reboredo, Javier Marco‐Hernández

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGeneralitat de CatalunyaCentres de Recerca de Catalunya
KeywordsPericardial effusionRetrospective cohort studyCardiac tamponadeCisplatinAdverse effectCohortSingle CenterMedical recordTamponade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) is a life-threatening condition in patients with cancer, with common recurrences after simple pericardiocentesis. Consequently, the intrapericardial instillation of sclerosing or cytotoxic agents has been explored, with limited evidence from small studies with different methodologies. We undertook an observational, retrospective, single-centre study, including all patients diagnosed with a solid neoplasm and clinically significant and/or recurrent, cytology-confirmed MPE, treated with Intrapericardial Instillation of Cisplatin (IPIC), between 2009 and 2022. Patients with hematological malignancies were excluded. The procedure followed a multidisciplinary approach and a standardized protocol. Variables collected included baseline patient characteristics, neoplasm details, MPE impact, adverse events (AEs) from procedures (pericardiocentesis and IPIC) and outcomes (time to MPE recurrence and survival). This study adhered to the STROBE guidelines. A total of 41 patients were included, 51% female, with a median age of 61 (51-69) years. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the predominant primary tumour (78%) and in 44% of the cohort, MPE was identified at cancer diagnosis. Most patients (90.2%) presented symptoms related to MPE at diagnosis, and 88% had cardiac tamponade on echocardiography. IPIC was administered a median of four times. IPIC-related AEs occurred in 10 patients (24.4%), with transient atrial fibrillation (AF) being the most frequent one. Two patients (4.9%) experienced MPE recurrence within 30 days after IPIC. The median survival time from MPE diagnosis was 161 days (5.4 months; IQR 73-455 days). IPIC appears to be a feasible, effective and safe option for reducing the risk of MPE recurrence, mainly in NSCLC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207