↓ Skip to main content

Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis; the COLOPEC randomized multicentre trial
Published in
BMC Cancer, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1430-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte E L Klaver, Gijsbert D Musters, Willem A Bemelman, Cornelis J A Punt, Victor J Verwaal, Marcel GW Dijkgraaf, Arend GJ Aalbers, Jarmila DW van der Bilt, Djamila Boerma, Andre JA Bremers, Jacobus WA Burger, Christianne J Buskens, Pauline Evers, Robert J van Ginkel, Wilhelmina MU van Grevenstein, Patrick HJ Hemmer, Ignace HJT de Hingh, Laureen A Lammers, Barbara L van Leeuwen, Wilhelmus JHJ Meijerink, Simon W Nienhuijs, Jolien Pon, Sandra A Radema, Bert van Ramshorst, Petur Snaebjornsson, Jurriaan B Tuynman, Elisabeth A te Velde, Marinus J Wiezer, Johannes HW de Wilt, Pieter J Tanis

Abstract

The peritoneum is the second most common site of recurrence in colorectal cancer. Early detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by imaging is difficult. Patients eventually presenting with clinically apparent PC have a poor prognosis. Median survival is only about five months if untreated and the benefit of palliative systemic chemotherapy is limited. Only a quarter of patients are eligible for curative treatment, consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CR/HIPEC). However, the effectiveness depends highly on the extent of disease and the treatment is associated with a considerable complication rate. These clinical problems underline the need for effective adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients to minimize the risk of outgrowth of peritoneal micro metastases. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) seems to be suitable for this purpose. Without the need for cytoreductive surgery, adjuvant HIPEC can be performed with a low complication rate and short hospital stay. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PC in patients with colon cancer at high risk of peritoneal recurrence. This study will be performed in the nine Dutch HIPEC centres, starting in April 2015. Eligible for inclusion are patients who underwent curative resection for T4 or intra-abdominally perforated cM0 stage colon cancer. After resection of the primary tumour, 176 patients will be randomized to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in the experimental arm, or to systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Adjuvant HIPEC will be performed simultaneously or shortly after the primary resection. Oxaliplatin will be used as chemotherapeutic agent, for 30 min at 42-43 °C. Just before HIPEC, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin will be administered intravenously. Primary endpoint is peritoneal disease-free survival at 18 months. Diagnostic laparoscopy will be performed routinely after 18 months postoperatively in both arms of the study in patients without evidence of disease based on routine follow-up using CT imaging and CEA. Adjuvant HIPEC is assumed to reduce the expected 25 % absolute risk of PC in patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer to a risk of 10 %. This reduction is likely to translate into a prolonged overall survival. NCT02231086 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 13%
Other 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 40 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 58%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 48 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,284,363
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,568
of 8,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,686
of 267,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#41
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,297 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.