Outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before CRS-HIPEC for patients with appendiceal cancer

Current Status of Treatment among Patients with Appendiceal Tumors-Old Challenges and New Solutions?

The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the digestive system distinguishes four categories of appendiceal tumors (ATs): serrated lesions and polyps, mucinous neoplasms, adenocarcinomas, and neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). The differential diagnosis of ATs can be challenging in medical practice, due to their rarity and lack of data from randomized controlled trials on a large, diverse group of patients. ATs are usually noted in specimens obtained during appendectomies due to clinical acute appendicitis. In the European population, most ATs (65%) occur over the age of 50 and among women (56.8%). According to histological type, 54.6% are neuroendocrine tumors (NETs); 26.8% cystic, mucinous, and serous neoplasms; and 18.6% adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS). On pathologic analysis, most AT findings are benign lesions or small NENs that do not require further therapeutic measures. The presence of appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (AMN) can lead to pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). While the multimodal treatment for abdominal malignancies has evolved over the past several decades, the clinical workup and treatment of ATs remain a challenge. Therefore, this review aims to describe the diagnostic possibilities, molecular-based diagnosis, staging, differences in the treatment process, and prognostic factors associated with ATs.

Is cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy still beneficial in patients diagnosed with colorectal peritoneal metastasis who underwent palliative chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND

With a 5-year overall survival of less than 5%, colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CPM) patients are often managed with palliative chemotherapy (CTx). In the past few decades, cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been introduced as a possible curative treatment for highly selective CPM patients. We share our experience of CRS and HIPEC given the unique characteristics of the medical system and the benefit of CRS and HIPEC in palliative setting.

METHODS

From April 2017 to October 2021, CPM patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC were analyzed. Patients were allocated into perioperative and palliative CTx arm based on the duration between initial diagnosis of CPM to undergoing CRS and HIPEC of 6 months. Data including perioperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, and survival were analyzed with a median follow-up of 28.5 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-six CPM patients underwent CRS and HIPEC. Mean time from diagnosis of CPM to CRS and HIPEC was 5.5 months with 14 patients in the perioperative arm and 12 patients in the palliative arm. Perioperative group showed a longer RFS of 13.5 months compared to 8 months in the palliative group. Median overall survival of palliative group was 41.50 months, and 18 patients among all groups are alive at the time of this report.

CONCLUSION

CRS and HIPEC could be a treatment option for a carefully selected CPM patients performed by experienced surgeons. Overall survival of 41.50 months in palliative group compared to 16.8 months from conventional systemic CTx supports CRS and HIPEC even in palliative patients.

Validation of the AJCC 8th Edition Staging System for Disseminated Appendiceal Cancer Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Multi-institutional Analysis

BACKGROUND

The AJCC 8th edition stratifies stage IV disseminated appendiceal cancer (dAC) patients based on grade and pathology. This study was designed to externally validate the staging system and to identify predictors of long-term survival.

METHODS

A 12-institution cohort of dAC patients treated with CRS ± HIPEC was retrospectively analyzed. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Univariate and multivariate cox-regression was performed to assess factors associated with OS and RFS.

RESULTS

Among 1009 patients, 708 had stage IVA and 301 had stage IVB disease. Median OS (120.4 mo vs. 47.2 mo) and RFS (79.3 mo vs. 19.8 mo) was significantly higher in stage IVA compared with IVB patients (p < 0.0001). RFS was greater among IVA-M1a (acellular mucin only) than IV M1b/G1 (well-differentiated cellular dissemination) patients (NR vs. 64 mo, p = 0.0004). Survival significantly differed between mucinous and nonmucinous tumors (OS 106.1 mo vs. 41.0 mo; RFS 46.7 mo vs. 21.2 mo, p < 0.05), and OS differed between well, moderate, and poorly differentiated (120.4 mo vs. 56.3 mo vs. 32.9 mo, p < 0.05). Both stage and grade were independent predictors of OS and RFS on multivariate analysis. Acellular mucin and mucinous histology were associated with better OS and RFS on univariate analysis only.

CONCLUSIONS

AJCC 8th edition performed well in predicting outcomes in this large cohort of dAC patients treated with CRS ± HIPEC. Separation of stage IVA patients based on the presence of acellular mucin improved prognostication, which may inform treatment and long-term, follow-up strategies.

Exposure to Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin-Containing Chemotherapy, Does it Effect Intraperitoneal Hyperthermic Chemotherapy Perfusion?

INTRODUCTION

Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) are commonly exposed to oxaliplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) regimens. The impact of systemic exposure to oxaliplatin prior to HIPEC with oxaliplatin is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional registry of CRS/HIPEC cases who received oxaliplatin-containing NAT, and compared patients who underwent HIPEC with oxaliplatin versus cases perfused with mitomycin C. The primary outcome was survival, defined by overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Subgroup analysis was performed based on primary tumor etiology and completeness of cytoreduction.

RESULTS

A total of 333 cases satisfied the selection criteria-159 appendiceal primaries (all high-grade disease) and 174 colorectal cases. Thirty-one cases (9.3%) underwent HIPEC with oxaliplatin, with the remaining 302 cases (90.7%) receiving mitomycin C. Both cohorts were identical in regard to baseline characteristics, and both groups were alike in regard to NAT regimens and oxaliplatin exposure. There was no difference in survival outcomes. OS times were 2.9 (± 2.8) and 2.8 ( ± 3.6) years for oxaliplatin and mitomycin C perfusions, respectively (p = 0.94), and the 5-year OS rates were also similar at 9.7 and 18.5% (odds ratio [OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-1.67, p = 0.24) for oxaliplatin and mitomycin cases, respectively. Likewise, DFS findings were similar, with survival of 2.5 (± 4.5) and 1.8 (± 2.4) years for oxaliplatin and mitomycin perfusions, respectively (p = 0.21). There was no difference in 5-year DFS rates, at 10.5 and 7.8% (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.30-6.56, p = 0.68) for oxaliplatin and mitomycin C, respectively. Subgroup analysis found minimal discordant findings from the main results.

CONCLUSION

This analysis found no discernable association with NAT oxaliplatin exposure in regard to survival outcomes following CRS/HIPEC stratified out by perfusion agent.

Association of Systemic Chemotherapy Approaches With Outcomes in Appendiceal Peritoneal Metastases

INTRODUCTION

Many patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for appendiceal adenocarcinoma peritoneal metastases (APM) undergo preoperative systemic chemotherapy. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate differences in oncologic outcomes among two popular chemotherapy approaches in patients with APM undergoing CRS-HIPEC.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective review of patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC for APM due to high or intermediate grade disease between 2013 and 2019. Patients in the total neoadjuvant therapy group (TNT) received 12 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy. Patients in the "sandwich" chemotherapy group (SAND) received six cycles of preoperative chemotherapy with a maximum of six cycles of postoperative chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) defined as months from date of first treatment or surgery, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients were included in this analysis, with 25 (64%) patients in the TNT group and 14 (36%) patients in the SAND group. Patients in the TNT group had a median OS of 62 mo, while median OS in the SAND group was 45 mo (P = 0.01). In addition, patients in the TNT group had significantly longer RFS compared to the SAND group (35 versus 12 mo, P = 0.03). In a multivariable analysis, TNT approach was independently associated with improved OS and RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter retrospective analysis, a TNT approach was associated with improved overall and recurrence-free survival compared to a sandwiched chemotherapy approach in patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC for high or intermediate grade APM.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for high-grade appendiceal cancer after cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

There are no available data on the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in stage IVA/B high-grade mucinous appendiceal cancer treated with CRS/HIPEC. We evaluated the association between ACT and survival in this cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-institution retrospective cohort study using a prospective database was conducted. Stage IVA/B high-grade mucinous appendiceal cancer patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC with CC-0/1 were included. Survival was compared between ACT and no chemotherapy (NoCT) patients. Subgroup analysis was performed with adjustment for confounding variables.

RESULTS

We identified 180 patients: 77 ACT and 103 NoCT. ACT regimens included 5-FU/capecitabine (13%), oxaliplatin-based (63%), and irinotecan-based (21%), combined with bevacizumab in 27% of cases. Median number of cycles was 9 (IQR: 6-12). Median overall survival (OS) did not significantly differ between ACT and NoCT (53 vs 75 months, p = 0.566). Multivariable Cox regression showed no OS benefit for ACT vs NoCT in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.14; 95%CI: 0.38-3.39) or without it (HR 1.33; 95%CI: 0.69-2.57), with signet ring cell (HR 0.89; 95%CI: 0.38-2.06) or other histologies (HR 1.11; 95%CI: 0.50-2.46), positive lymph nodes (HR 1.60; 95%CI: 0.74-3.49), or peritoneal cancer index ≥20 (HR 1.08; 95%CI: 0.55-2.11) after adjusting for other factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, colon-type ACT was not associated with better OS in stage IVA/B mucinous appendiceal cancer after CRS/HIPEC, even after adjusting for confounders. This may be due to different tumor biology than colon cancer or small sample size. Prospective collaborative studies are needed.

Do Lymph Node Metastases Matter in Appendiceal Cancer with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis? A US HIPEC Collaborative Study

BACKGROUND

Whether formal regional lymph node (LN) evaluation is necessary for patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) who have peritoneal metastases is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of LN metastases on survival in patients treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the US HIPEC collaborative, a multi-institutional consortium comprising 12 high-volume centers, was performed to identify patients with AA who underwent CRS-HIPEC with adequate LN sampling (≥ 12 LNs).

RESULTS

Two hundred-fifty patients with AA who underwent CRS-HIPEC were included. Outcomes were compared between LN - and LN + disease. Baseline patient characteristics between groups were similar, with most patients undergoing complete cytoreduction (0/1: 86.0% vs. 76.8%, p = 0.08), respectively. More adverse tumor factors were found in patients with LN + disease, including poor differentiation, signet ring cells, and lymphovascular invasion. Multivariate analysis of overall survival (OS) found LN + disease was independently associated with worse OS (HR: 2.82 95%CI: 1.25-6.34, p = 0.01), even after correction for receipt of systemic therapy. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, median OS was lower in patients with LN + disease (25.9 months vs. 91.4 months, p < 0.01). LN + disease remained associated with poor OS following propensity score matching (HR: 4.98 95%CI: 1.72-14.40, p < 0.01) and in patients with PCI ≥ 20 (HR: 3.68 95%CI: 1.54-8.80, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multi-institutional study of patients with AA undergoing CRS-HIPEC, LN status remained associated with worse OS even in the setting of advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis. Formal LN evaluation should be performed for most patients with AA undergoing CRS-HIPEC.

The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced appendiceal cancers: summary of the literature and future directions

Appendiceal cancer is rare and encompasses a diverse group of tumours ranging from low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms to high-grade adenocarcinomas. Appendiceal cancers often spread to the peritoneal cavity causing extensive mucinous dissemination and peritoneal metastases. Prognosis varies with histological subtype. Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy is well-established as the most effective treatment achieving long-term survival in some patients. Chemotherapy regimens used to treat appendiceal cancer are extrapolated from the colorectal cancer setting, but disease biology differs and outcomes are inferior. The role of chemotherapy in the treatment of appendiceal cancer remains poorly defined. There is an urgent need to develop novel tailored treatment strategies in the perioperative and unresectable setting. This review aims to evaluate the literature for patients who received intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy for appendiceal cancers.

Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastasis of non-primary origin

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to analyze the role of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy that has developed in the treatment of patients with peritoneal metastasis of non-primary origin.

METHODS

Patients who underwent treatment for secondary gastrointestinal and ovarian malignancies over a 20-year period were reviewed. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and the log-rank test was used to assess differences between subgroups.

RESULTS

The study included 293 patients. The most common histology was ovarian cancer (56.3%). Median PCI was 16 and CC0-1 resection was obtained in 88.1% of cases. Grade III and IV complications occurred in 12 patients (4.1%) and 47 patients (16%), respectively. The 30- and 60-day mortality rate was 1.3% (4 patients) and 2.4% (7 patients). Five-year OS was 21.7%, 73.6%, 42.1%, and 0 for colorectal, appendiceal, ovarian, and gastric cancer (p =  < 0.0001), respectively, whereas 5-year DFS was 12.4%, 48.4%, 24.3%, and 0 (p =  < 0.0001), respectively. Survival outcomes were significantly higher for CC0 in each subgroup of patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite being a complex procedure, cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy should be considered a safe treatment with acceptable postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, if performed in high-volume centers. Good survival outcomes have been increasingly obtained in selected patients with peritoneal metastasis of non-primary origin.