Intraperitoneal drug delivery for XXXX : why, how, who, what, and when?

@entity1 @entity43 @entity137 @entity3003 @entity16 @entity900 @entity786 @entity1311 @entity902
In 1996, intraperitoneal (IP) administration of @entity900 plus intravenous (i.v.) @entity786 proved superior to both drugs given intravenously at the same doses--which, at the time, was the standard treatment in the United States. The IP 'option' was not adopted, however, because the standard treatment had shifted to i.v. @entity900 plus @entity1311 .Two additional phase III trials by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) comparing IP versus i.v. @entity900 , but including other variables, have shown similar superior effects of the IP route on outcome, but with @entity137 -particularly local tolerance and @entity16 --increased. An ongoing trial by the GOG is again looking into an IP versus i.v. comparison, and introducing in one of the IP arms the substitution of IP @entity3003 for IP @entity900 . All three arms of this trial contain bevacizumab (Avastin). Two other trials comparing i.v. versus IP administration of platinums or platinums and @entity1311 have just been launched, led by Japanese and Canadian investigators, respectively. While awaiting additional data on the ongoing debate over IP versus i.v. therapy, it is important that we consider issues concerning why the IP route may be relevant, how can one increase the safety of this route, and who should be treated and with what drugs, particularly when faced with a @entity1 outside the clinical trials setting. The underlying hypothesis for use of IP therapy is based on the existence of a dose-effect relationship for @entity902 drugs in @entity43 . We review the known data on this relationship, and explore why interest in @entity902 drugs has become the central focus of @entity43 treatment.
