Meta-analysis of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer

Table 1 Data from 11 randomized controlled trials

Author	Country	Publication time	Chemotherapy regimens	IPT	Surgery	Follow-up (mo)	Quality score
				(number of death/total)
Rosen HR	Austria	1998	MMC+Carbon	23/46	27/45	36	4
Sautner T	Austria	1994	Cisplatin	29/33	31/34	60	3
Takahashi T	Japan	1995	MMC+Carbon	35/56	46/57	36	3
Yu W	Korea	2001	MMC+5-Fu	55/125	72/123	60	2
Yonemura Y	Japan	2001	MMC+CDDP	44/92	27/47	60	1
Hamazoe R	Japan	1993	MMC	18/42	22/40	60	1
Chen ZX	China	1996	DDP	8/25	13/21	18	1
Zhang WS	China	1998	5-Fu	14/37	15/26	36	1
Fujimoto S	Japan	1998	MMC	27/71	36/70	96	1
Tan CQ	China	2000	MMC	2/22	11/29	36	1
Gao ZA	China	2002	MMC+DDP+HCPT	17/60	31/60	36	2

Table 2 Subgroup analysis

Characteristic	No. of trials	OR	95%CI
IPT (without CH and IHCP)	2	0.57	(0.35-0.92)
IPT (only with CH)	2	0.52	(0.29-0.94)
IHCP	7	0.48	(0.35-0.67)
Follow-up time (mo) < 60	6	0.40	(0.27-0.59)
Follow-up time (mo) ≥ 60	5	0.60	(0.44-0.82)
Asia	9	0.49	(0.38-0.64)
Non-Asia (Austria)	2	0.67	(0.32-1.41)

IPT: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy; CH: Carbon particles; IHCP: Intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion.