Quality of life and cost effectiveness in a randomized trial of patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases

Patient-reported outcomes during first-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: a single-arm phase II trial (CRC-PIPAC-II)

BACKGROUND

The CRC-PIPAC-II study prospectively assessed bidirectional therapy (BT) consisting of first-line palliative systemic therapy and electrostatic precipitation oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC-OX) in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). This study describes the exploration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

In this phase II trial, 20 patients with isolated CPM were treated with up to three cycles of BT, each cycle consisting of two to three courses of systemic therapy, followed by ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m2). Patients were asked to complete the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaires at baseline, during the first cycle of BT, and one and four weeks after each consecutive BT cycle. PRO scores were calculated and compared between baseline and each subsequent time point using linear-mixed modeling (LMM). PROs were categorized into symptom scales and function scales. Symptom scales ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the maximum symptom load. Function scales ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 representing optimal functioning.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent a total of 52 cycles of bidirectional therapy. Most PROs (29 of 37, 78%) were not significantly affected during trial treatment. In total, only eight PROs (22%) were significantly affected during trial treatment: Six PROs (index value, global health status, emotional functioning, C30, appetite, and insomnia) showed transient improvement at different time points. Two PROs transiently deteriorated: pain initially improved during the first BT cycle [- 16, p < 0.001] yet worsened temporarily one week after the first two BT cycles (+ 20, p < 0.001; + 17, p = 0.004; respectively). Abdominal pain worsened temporarily one week after the first BT cycle (+ 16, p = 0.004), before improving again four weeks after treatment ended (- 10, p = 0.004). All significant effects on Pros were clinically significant and all deteriorations in PROs were of temporary nature.

DISCUSSION

Patients undergoing BT for unresectable CPM had significant, but reversible alterations in several PROs. Most affected PROs concerned improvements and only two PROs showed deteriorations. Both deteriorated PROs returned to baseline after trial treatment and were of a temporary nature. These outcomes help to design future studies on the role of ePIPAC in the palliative setting.

Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for people with peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Results

The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons.

Limitations

We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges.

Conclusions

In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation).

Future work

More randomised controlled trials are necessary.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Impact of Primary Tumor Location on Demographics, Resectability, Outcomes, and Quality of Life in Finnish Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients (Subgroup Analysis of the RAXO Study)

The primary tumor location (PTL) is associated with the phenotype, metastatic sites, mutations, and outcomes of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, but this has mostly been studied according to sidedness (right vs. left sided). We studied right colon vs. left colon vs. rectal PTL in a real-life study population (n = 1080). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed multi-cross-sectionally with QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, EQ-5D, and 15D. A chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression were used to compare the groups. The PTL was in the right colon in 310 patients (29%), the left colon in 396 patients (37%), and the rectum in 375 patients (35%). The PTL was associated with distinct differences in metastatic sites during the disease trajectory. The resectability, conversion, and resection rates were lowest in the right colon, followed by the rectum, and were highest in the left colon. Overall survival was shortest for right colon compared with left colon or rectal PTL (median 21 vs. 35 vs. 36 months), with the same trends after metastasectomy or systemic therapy only. PTL also remained statistically significant in a multivariable model. The distribution of symptoms varied according to PTL, especially between the right colon (with general symptoms of metastases) and rectal PTL (with sexual- and bowel-related symptoms). mCRC, according to PTL, behaves differently regarding metastatic sites, resectability of the metastases, outcomes of treatment, and HRQoL.

Resectability, Resections, Survival Outcomes, and Quality of Life in Older Adult Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (the RAXO-Study)

Older adults are underrepresented in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) studies and thus may not receive optimal treatment, especially not metastasectomies. The prospective Finnish real-life RAXO-study included 1086 any organ mCRC patients. We assessed repeated centralized resectability, overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QoL) using 15D and EORTC QLQ-C30/CR29. Older adults (>75 years; n = 181, 17%) had worse ECOG performance status than adults (<75 years, n = 905, 83%), and their metastases were less likely upfront resectable. The local hospitals underestimated resectability in 48% of older adults and in 34% of adults compared with the centralized multidisciplinary team (MDT) evaluation (p < 0.001). The older adults compared with adults were less likely to undergo curative-intent R0/1-resection (19% vs. 32%), but when resection was achieved, OS was not significantly different (HR 1.54 [CI 95% 0.9-2.6]; 5-year OS-rate 58% vs. 67%). 'Systemic therapy only' patients had no age-related survival differences. QoL was similar in older adults and adults during curative treatment phase (15D 0.882-0.959/0.872-0.907 [scale 0-1]; GHS 62-94/68-79 [scale 0-100], respectively). Complete curative-intent resection of mCRC leads to excellent survival and QoL even in older adults. Older adults with mCRC should be actively evaluated by a specialized MDT and offered surgical or local ablative treatment whenever possible.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Curative Resection and/or Local Ablative Therapy or Systemic Therapy in the Finnish RAXO-Study

Metastasectomy and/or local ablative therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients often provide long-term survival. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in curatively treated mCRC are limited. In the RAXO-study that evaluated repeated resectability, a multi-cross-sectional HRQoL substudy with 15D, EQ-5D-3L, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires was conducted. Mean values of patients in different treatment groups were compared with age- and gender-standardized general Finnish populations. The questionnaire completion rate was 444/477 patients (93%, 1751 questionnaires). Mean HRQoL was 0.89−0.91 with the 15D, 0.85−0.87 with the EQ-5D, 68−80 with the EQ-5D-VAS, and 68−79 for global health status during curative treatment phases, with improvements in the remission phase (disease-free >18 months). In the remission phase, mean EQ-5D and 15D scores were similar to the general population. HRQoL remained stable during first- to later-line treatments, when the aim was no longer cure, and declined notably when tumour-controlling therapy was no longer meaningful. The symptom burden affecting mCRC survivors’ well-being included insomnia, impotence, urinary frequency, and fatigue. Symptom burden was lower after treatment and slightly higher, though stable, through all phases of systemic therapy. HRQoL was high in curative treatment phases, further emphasizing the strategy of metastasectomy in mCRC when clinically meaningful.

Patient-reported outcomes during repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

CRC-PIPAC prospectively assessed repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) as a palliative monotherapy (i.e., without concomitant systemic therapy in between subsequent procedures) for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during trial treatment.

METHODS

In this single-arm phase 2 trial in two tertiary centers, patients with isolated unresectable CPM received 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²). PROs (calculated from EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) were compared between baseline and 1 and 4 weeks after the first three procedures using linear mixed modeling with determination of clinical relevance (Cohen's D ≥ 0.50) of statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent 59 procedures (median 3 [range 1-6]). Several PROs solely worsened 1 week after the first procedure (index value - 0.10, p < 0.001; physical functioning - 20, p < 0.001; role functioning - 27, p < 0.001; social functioning - 18, p < 0.001; C30 summary score - 16, p < 0.001; appetite loss + 15, p = 0.007; diarrhea + 15, p = 0.002; urinary frequency + 13, p = 0.004; flatulence + 13, p = 0.001). These PROs returned to baseline at subsequent time points. Other PROs worsened 1 week after the first procedure (fatigue + 23, p < 0.001; pain + 29, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 32, p < 0.001), second procedure (fatigue + 20, p < 0.001; pain + 21, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 20, p = 0.002), and third procedure (pain + 22, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 22, p = 0.002). Except for appetite loss, all changes were clinically relevant. All analyzed PROs returned to baseline 4 weeks after the third procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving repetitive PIPAC-OX monotherapy for unresectable CPM had clinically relevant but reversible worsening of several PROs, mainly 1 week after the first procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03246321; Netherlands trial register: NL6426.

Primary and metastatic peritoneal surface malignancies

Peritoneal surface malignancies comprise a heterogeneous group of primary tumours, including peritoneal mesothelioma, and peritoneal metastases of other tumours, including ovarian, gastric, colorectal, appendicular or pancreatic cancers. The pathophysiology of peritoneal malignancy is complex and not fully understood. The two main hypotheses are the transformation of mesothelial cells (peritoneal primary tumour) and shedding of cells from a primary tumour with implantation of cells in the peritoneal cavity (peritoneal metastasis). Diagnosis is challenging and often requires modern imaging and interventional techniques, including surgical exploration. In the past decade, new treatments and multimodal strategies helped to improve patient survival and quality of life and the premise that peritoneal malignancies are fatal diseases has been dismissed as management strategies, including complete cytoreductive surgery embedded in perioperative systemic chemotherapy, can provide cure in selected patients. Furthermore, intraperitoneal chemotherapy has become an important part of combination treatments. Improving locoregional treatment delivery to enhance penetration to tumour nodules and reduce systemic uptake is one of the most active research areas. The current main challenges involve not only offering the best treatment option and developing intraperitoneal therapies that are equivalent to current systemic therapies but also defining the optimal treatment sequence according to primary tumour, disease extent and patient preferences. New imaging modalities, less invasive surgery, nanomedicines and targeted therapies are the basis for a new era of intraperitoneal therapy and are beginning to show encouraging outcomes.

Oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with single drug versus multiple drug treatment for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Long-term survival for selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) is possible when treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The objective of this study was to compare three different oxaliplatin-based (OX)-HIPEC regimens. Primary end-point was disease-free survival (DFS), and secondary endpoints, morbidity and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of all patients with colorectal PM treated with CRS and HIPEC between 2004 and 2015 from the prospectively maintained Uppsala HIPEC database. One hundred and thirty-three patients were identified. Three HIPEC regimens were included: OX-HIPEC, OX-HIPEC + post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and oxaliplatin-irinotecan-based (OXIRI)-HIPEC. Multivariable Cox regression for DFS was performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients received OX-HIPEC, 24 patients received OX-HIPEC + 5-FU EPIC, and 48 patients received OXIRI-HIPEC. The DFS for the OX-HIPEC group was 10.5 months, OX-HIPEC + EPIC 11.9 months, and OXIRI-HIPEC 13.4 months (OX-HIPEC vs. OXIRI HIPEC, P=0.049). The morbidity and OS did not differ between the groups. In the multivariable analysis, low peritoneal cancer index (PCI), absence of liver metastases, low completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score, and multiple drug (EPIC or OXIRI) HIPEC regimen were independent prognostic factors for DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed improved DFS with an intensification of HIPEC by adding irinotecan or EPIC compared to oxaliplatin alone without an increase in morbidity or mortality.

Sequential postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases: a narrative review

Sequential postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (SPIC) is a chemotherapy abdominal infusion given as a postoperative adjuvant treatment for 6 months after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal surface malignancies. It has most commonly been used in conjunction with ovarian cancer where the SPIC treatment has been integrated with adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. This review investigates the role of SPIC in the setting of colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases. The focus is on the CRS+SPIC combination treatment with no systemic chemotherapy component. Several cohort studies, several comparative studies, and one randomized trial have been reported with several important endpoints. The following aspects will be covered in this review: overall survival, disease-free survival, morbidity, quality-of-life, and cost-effectiveness. In comparison to systemic chemotherapy alone for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases, CRS+SPIC is superior concerning overall survival, has no difference in morbidity, is similar in quality-of-life, and SPIC is cost-effective. In comparison to HIPEC, results are conflicting in multivariate analysis; but in a univariate analysis HIPEC (most often combined with systemic adjuvant therapy) appears superior to SPIC alone (no systemic component). The future of SPIC is uncertain. However, a combination of HIPEC and SPIC ± a systemic chemotherapy component is a possible direction to explore further.

Cost-analysis of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy: An Australian perspective with global application

BACKGROUND

Cost-effective cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy remains an ongoing financial challenge for healthcare systems, hospitals and patients. This study aims to describe the detailed in-hospital costs of CRS and HIPEC compared with an Australian Activity Based Funding (ABF) system, and to evaluate how the learning curve, disease entities and surgical outcomes influence in-hospital costs.

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive costing review of all CRS and HIPEC cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from April 2017 to June 2019. In-hospital cost variables included staff, critical care, diagnosis, operating theatre, and other costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between actual cost and the provision of funding, and potential factors associated with these costs.

RESULTS

Of the 118 CRS and HIPEC procedures included in the analyses, the median total cost was AU$130,804 (IQR: 105,744 to 153,972). Provision of funding via the ABF system was approximately one-third of the total CRS and HIPEC costs (p < 0.001). Surgical staff proficiency seems to reduce the total CRS and HIPEC costs. Surgical time, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay are the main predictors of total CRS and HIPEC costs.

CONCLUSION

Delivery of CRS and HIPEC is expensive with high variability. A standard ABF system grossly underestimates the specific CRS and HIPEC funding required with supplementation essential to sustaining this complex highly specialised service.

Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases and high peritoneal cancer index may benefit from cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal cancer index (PCI) >20 is often seen as a contraindication for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the overall survival in colorectal PM patients with PCI >20 and PCI ≤20 treated with CRS and HIPEC to those having open-close/debulking procedure only.

METHODS

All patients with colorectal PM and intention to treat with CRS and HIPEC in Uppsala Sweden 2004-2017 were included. Patients scheduled for CRS and HIPEC were divided into three groups, PCI >20, PCI ≤20, and those not operated with CRS and HIPEC stated as open-close including those treated with palliative debulking.

RESULTS

Of 201 operations, 112 (56%) resulted in CRS and HIPEC with PCI ≤20, 45 (22%) in CRS and HIPEC with PCI >20 and 44 (22%) resulted in open-close/debulking. Median survival for CRS and HIPEC and PCI >20 was 20 months (95%CI 14-27 months) with 7% surviving longer than 5 years (n = 3). For CRS and HIPEC and PCI ≤20 the median survival was 33 months (95%CI 30-39 months) with 23% (n = 26) surviving >5years. The median survival for open-close was 9 months (95%CI 4-10 months), no one survived >5years.

CONCLUSION

Patients with PM from colorectal cancer and PCI >20 that were treated with CRS and HIPEC experience a one year longer and doubled overall survival compared with open-close/debulking patients. In addition to PCI, more factors should be taken into account when a decision about proceeding with CRS or not is taken.