Table 1:

Relevant characteristics reported in include studies.

S.No.	Study	Year	Location	Total patients with PM (n)	Patients with GC associated PM (n)	Intent of PIPAC	Chemotherapya	Average PIPAC procedures per patient	Adverse effect>2 CTCAE	QOL following PIPAC	Remark
1	Graversen et al.	2018	Denmark	35	5	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	3.6b	14.2%b	Stable	Safe and feasible, associated with histological and cytological regression
2	Teixeira Farinha et al.	2018	Switzerland	42	3	Palliative	Oxaliplatin	2b	NR	Stable	No significant systemic toxicity even after repeated PIPAC
3	Alyami et al.	2017	France	73	26	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	2.2b	9.7%b	NR	PIPAC is feasible along with systemic chemotherapy.
4	Robella et al.	2016	Italy	14	6	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	2.8	0 %	No deterioration	No significant hepatic or renal toxicity.
5	Rezniczek et al.	2016	Germany	63	1	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	NR	NR	NR	Measuring gene expression changes after PIPAC has a predictive and prognostic role.
6	Girshally et al.	2016	Germany	21	3	Neoadjuvant	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	NR	NR	Stable	PIPAC as an effective neoadjuvant strategy to lower the PCI for good CRS and HIPEC
7	Khomyakov et al.	2016	Russia	31	31	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	1.8	3.2 %	NR	Well tolerated procedure, can induce objective tumor regression
8	Odendahl et al.	2015	Germany	91	29	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	1.7b	7.5%b	Stable	Potential to stabilize QOL in patients
9	Nadiradze et al.	2015	Germany	24	24	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	2.5	37.5 %	NR	Low-dose PIPAC is safe and associated with objective tumor regression.
10	Solass et al.	2014	Germany	3	1	Palliative	Cisplatin and Doxorubicin	2	0 %	Stable	Complete microscopic peritoneal disease response.

^aIn patients with gastric cancer.

^bFor the whole cohort and not exclusively to the patients with gastric cancer.