impact of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy on quality of life and symptoms in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a retrospective cohort study
Clicks: 162
ID: 181866
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
162 views
18 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #122 of 188 articles by views in colloids and surfaces a: physicochemical and engineering aspects
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 188 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background. Peritoneal cancer treatment aims to prolong survival, but preserving Quality of Life (QoL) under treatment is also a priority. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel minimally invasive repeatable treatment modality. The aim of the present study was to assess QoL in our cohort of PIPAC patients. Methods. Analysis of all consecutive patients included from the start of PIPAC program (January 2015). QoL (0–100: optimal) and symptoms (no symptom: 0–100) were measured prospectively before and after every PIPAC procedure using EORTC QLQ-C30. Results. Forty-two patients (M : F = 8 : 34, median age 66 (59–73) years) had 91 PIPAC procedures in total (1 : 4x, 17 : 3x, 12 : 2x, and 12 : 1x). Before first PIPAC, baseline QoL was measured as median of 66±2.64. Prominent complaints were fatigue (32±4.3) and digestive symptoms as diarrhea (17±3.75), constipation (17±4.13), and nausea (7±2.54). Overall Quality of Life was 64±3.75 after PIPAC#1 (p=0.57), 61±4.76 after PIPAC#2 (p=0.89), and 70±6.67 after PIPAC#3 (p=0.58). Fatigue symptom score was 44±4.86 after PIPAC#1 and 47±6.69 and 34±7.85 after second and third applications, respectively (p=0.40). Diarrhea (p=0.31), constipation (p=0.76), and nausea (p=0.66) did not change significantly under PIPAC treatment. Conclusion. PIPAC treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis had no negative impact on patients’ overall QoL and its components or on main symptoms. This study was registered online on Research Registry (UIN: 1608).
| Reference Key |
farinha2017gastroenterologyimpact
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Hugo Teixeira Farinha;Fabian Grass;Amaniel Kefleyesus;Chahin Achtari;Benoit Romain;Michael Montemurro;Nicolas Demartines;Martin Hübner |
| Journal | colloids and surfaces a: physicochemical and engineering aspects |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.1155/2017/4596176
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.