Epidemiology of and prognostic factors for appendiceal carcinomas: a retrospective, population-based study

Which is the appropriate surgical procedure for appendiceal adenocarcinoma: appendectomy, partial colectomy or right hemicolectomy?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the appropriate surgical procedure and clinical decision for appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 1,984 appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients from 2004 to 2015 were retrospectively identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. All patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of surgical resection: appendectomy (N = 335), partial colectomy (N = 390) and right hemicolectomy (N = 1,259). The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of three groups were compared, and independent prognostic factors were assessed.

RESULTS

The 5-year OS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 58.3%, 65.5% and 69.1%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P < 0.001; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.285; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.045). The 5-year CSS rates of patients who underwent appendectomy, partial colectomy and right hemicolectomy were 73.2%, 77.0% and 78.7%, respectively (right hemicolectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.046; right hemicolectomy vs partial colectomy, P = 0.545; partial colectomy vs appendectomy, P = 0.246). The subgroup analysis based on the pathological TNM stage indicated that there was no survival difference amongst three surgical procedures for stage I patients (5-year CSS rate: 90.8%, 93.9% and 98.1%, respectively). The prognosis of patients who underwent an appendectomy was poorer than that of those who underwent partial colectomy (5-year OS rate: 53.5% vs 67.1%, P = 0.005; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 78.7%, P = 0.003) or right hemicolectomy (5-year OS rate: 74.2% vs 53.23%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS rate: 65.2% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) for stage II disease. Right hemicolectomy did not show a survival advantage over partial colectomy for stage II (5-year CSS, P = 0.255) and stage III (5-year CSS, P = 0.846) appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Right hemicolectomy may not always be necessary for appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients. An appendectomy could be sufficient for therapeutic effect of stage I patients, but limited for stage II patients. Right hemicolectomy was not superior to partial colectomy for advanced stage patients, suggesting omission of standard hemicolectomy might be feasible. However, adequate lymphadenectomy should be strongly recommended.

Race and Ethnicity Impacts Overall Survival of Patients with Appendiceal Cancer Who Undergo Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Appendiceal cancer treatment may include cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). We investigated whether patient race/ethnicity influences outcomes and overall survival for patients with appendiceal cancer who undergo CRS/HIPEC. We queried the National Cancer Database for adult patients with appendiceal cancer treated with CRS/HIPEC from 2006 to 2018. Patients were stratified by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, and Other. Sociodemographics and outcomes were compared using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Log-rank tests assessed differences in overall survival (OS). Cox Multivariate Regression evaluated factors associated with OS. In total, 2532 patients were identified: 2098 (82.9%) NHW, 186 (7.3%) NHB, 127 (5.0%) Hispanic, and 121 (4.8%) Other patients. The sociodemographics were statistically different across groups. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar. OS was significantly different by race/ethnicity (p = 0.0029). NHB patients compared to Hispanic patients had the shortest median OS (106.7 vs. 145.9 months, p = 0.0093). Race/ethnicity was independently associated with OS: NHB (HR: 2.117 [1.306, 3.431], p = 0.0023) and NHW (HR: 1.549 [1.007, 2.383], p = 0.0463) patients compared to Hispanic patients had worse survival rates. Racial/ethnic disparities exist for patients with appendiceal cancer undergoing CRS/HIPEC. Despite having similar tumor and treatment characteristics, OS is associated with patient race/ethnicity.

Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoma: Role of Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Goblet cell carcinoma (GCC) encompasses a separate entity in appendiceal neoplasms with mixed glandular and neuro-endocrine pathological features. GCC mostly presents as an acute appendicitis duo to luminal obstruction or as an incidental finding on the surgical appendectomy specimen. In case of tumour perforation or presence of other risk factors, guidelines suggest additional treatment with a completing right hemicolectomy or cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). We report the case of a 77-year-old male with symptoms of appendicitis for which an appendectomy was performed. The appendix was ruptured during the procedure. There was an incidental finding of GCC on the pathological specimen. Because of possible tumour soiling, the patient received a prophylactic CRS-HIPEC. A literature review was performed to investigate the potential role for CRS-HIPEC as a curative treatment in patients with GCC. GCC of the appendix is an aggressive type of tumour with a high risk of peritoneal and systemic dissemination. CRS and HIPEC is a treatment option: both in a prophylactic setting and in patients with established peritoneal metastases.

Goblet Cell Adenocarcinoma of the Appendix: A Systematic Review and Incidence and Survival of 1,225 Cases From an English Cancer Registry

Background

Goblet cell adenocarcinoma (GCA) of the appendix is a rare and aggressive tumour with varying nomenclature and classification systems. This has led to heterogeneity in published data, and there is a lack of consensus on incidence, survival, and management.

Methods

We provide an overview of GCA with a comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology and a retrospective analysis of all cases recorded in the English National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service database between 1995 and 2018. The Kaplan–Meier estimator was used to calculate overall survival, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify prognostic factors.

Results

The systematic review demonstrated an incidence of 0.05–0.3 per 100,000 per year among North American registry studies. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate was 95.5%, 85.9%–87.6%, and 76.0%–80.6%, respectively. Age, stage, and grade were identified as prognostic factors for survival. Our analysis included 1,225 cases. Age-standardised incidence was 0.0335 per year in 1995 and gradually rose to 0.158 per year in 2018. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate was 90.0% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 85.4–94.0], 76.0% (95% CI: 73.8–80.9), and 68.6% (95% CI: 65.9–72.2), respectively. On univariate Cox regression analyses, female sex, stage, and grade were associated with worse overall survival. On multivariate analysis, only stage remained a statistically significant prognostic factor.

Conclusions

GCA of the appendix is rare, but incidence is increasing. We report a lower incidence and survival than North American registry studies. Higher stage was associated with decreased survival. Further prospective studies are required to establish optimal management.

Disparities in the Management of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

Peritoneal surface malignancies are a group of aggressive cancers involving the peritoneum. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy can improve outcomes and survival in select patients. Despite significant advancements in care, racial disparities in peritoneal malignancy outcomes persist and may have even worsened over time. Poor adherence to guideline-recommended therapy introduces wide variability in patient care and often results in fewer options and suboptimal treatment of vulnerable populations. This review explores biological, sociodemographic, and environmental factors that contribute to disparities in peritoneal malignancy outcomes.

Impact of high-risk features for stage II adenocarcinoma of the appendix

BACKGROUND

Clinico-pathological high-risk features are frequently utilized in adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) decisions in stage II colorectal cancer and their utility in stage II appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) is not established. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of high-risk features in clinical outcomes and whether high risk features are predictive of AC benefit in stage II AA.

METHODS

Patients with pathological stage II AA between 2010 and 2015 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) using ICD-O-3 morphology and topography codes: 8140, 8480 and C18.1. High risk stage II AA was defined as having at least one of the following clinicopathological features: T4 tumor, <12 lymph nodes examined, poorly differentiated histology, positive margins, or lymphovascular invasion. Patients with none of these features were defined as low-risk.

RESULTS

A total of 1040 patients with pathological stage II AA were identified. 51.0% males, 84.5% Caucasian; median age 61 (range, 19-90). 46.4% were determined to have high-risk stage II AA. High-risk status was associated with worse OS compared to low-risk in univariate (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.18-2.02; p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.03-1.79; p = 0.028). High-risk stage II AA patients had significantly worse 5-year OS compared to low-risk patients (67.1% vs. 74.5%, p = 0.0013). AC was administered in 34.4% (n = 166) of high-risk patients and in 36.5% (n = 203) of low-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, AC was not associated with better OS in univariate (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.59-1.26; p = 0.448) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.90-2.04; p = 0.151) compared to no AC. Similarly, among low-risk patients, AC was not associated with better OS in univariate (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.60-1.39; p = 0.679) and multivariable analyses (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.81-2.02; p = 0.299) compared to no AC. For high-risk patients, 5-year OS was 68.3% in patients that received AC vs. 66.5% in patients that did not (p = 0.722). For low-risk patients, 5-year OS was 74.0% in patients that received AC vs. 76.3% in patients that did not (p = 0.813).

CONCLUSION

High-risk stage II AA patients had significantly worse 5-year OS compared to low-risk patients. AC did not improve survival regardless of high-risk features in stage II AA in this retrospective study. A prospective randomized clinical trial would be required to determine the impact of high-risk features on AC in stage II AA.

Predictors of lymph node metastases in patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis (LN+) is a prognostic factor in appendiceal cancers, but predictors and outcomes for LN+  in mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma (MAC) remain poorly defined.

METHODS

Patients were identified from the 2010 to 2016 NCDB who underwent surgical resection as first-line management for Stage I-III mucinous appendiceal cancer. A LN+ risk-score model was developed using multivariable regression on a training data set and internally validated using a testing data set. Three-year overall survival (OS) was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Of 1158 patients, LN+ (N = 244, 21.1%) patients were more likely to have higher pT group and grade of disease, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and positive margins on univariate analyses. Predictive factors associated with LN+ on multivariable analysis included positive surgical margins (odds ratio [OR] 3.00, P <.0001), higher grade (moderately differentiated: OR, 2.16, P < .0001; poorly or undifferentiated: OR, 3.07, P < .0001), and LVI (OR, 7.28, P < .0001). A validated risk-score model using these factors was developed with good performance (AUC 0.749). LN+ patients had a worse 3-year OS compared with LN- patients (17.4% vs 82.6%, hazard ratio 1.96, P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

LN+ is associated with worse survival in patients with MAC. A risk-score model using margin status, LVI, and grade can accurately risk stratify patients for LN+.