Correction: Reasons for stopping Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A retrospective study to improve future patient selection
Anne-Cécile Ezanno, Brice Malgras, Pierre-Louis Conan, Adeline Aime, Jade Fawaz, Hugo Picchi, Solène Doat, Marc Pocard
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
In the Results section, there is an error in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: The origins of the PM were gastric, colorectal, ovarian, mesothelioma, biliopancreatic or other in 40 (44.9%), 25 (28.1%), 5 (5.7%), 7 (7.9%), 6 (6.7%) and 6 (6.7%) patients, respectively.
In the Discussion section, there is an error in the third sentence of the last paragraph. The correct sentence is: We included seven cases of mesothelioma, but for this kind of PM etiology the patients had an average of six PIPAC procedures, which may point to some effectiveness of PIPAC for this indication.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Ezanno A-C, Malgras B, Conan P-L, Aime A, Fawaz J, Picchi H, et al. Reasons for stopping Pressurized Intra Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A retrospective study to improve future patient selection. P Lo S One. 2023;18(11):e 0287785. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287785 38033087 PMC 10688840 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗