Referral pathways and outcome of patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis (CRPM)

Prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in T4 colorectal cancer: Can it improve the oncologic prognosis? - A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Some studies show that cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may improve overall survival and is a possible curative treatment for selected colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with restricted peritoneal metastasis (PM). The value of HIPEC in preventing PM of CRC is still controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective propensity score matching (PSM) cohort study, all patients with cT4N0-2M0 undergoing treatment at a single institution in China (2014-2018) were reviewed. The 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was set as the primary outcome, and the 3-year PM rate was also analyzed.

RESULTS

220 patients were included in this study for analysis. After 1:3 PSM: HIPEC (n = 45) and No HIPEC (n = 135). Through analysis, it was found that prophylactic HIPEC correlated to better DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.95; p = 0.037], and N2 stage correlated to worse DFS [HR 1.97, 95 % CI 1.09-3.56; p = 0.025]. For laparoscopic surgery subgroup analyses, 3-year PM rate of patients with laparoscopic surgery was 13.8 % in No HIPEC group, and 2.6 % in HIPEC group (p = 0.070). Besides, no post-operative death occurred, the anastomotic leakage rate was 2.2 % in HIPEC group and 0.7 % in the control group (p = 0.439).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic HIPEC may improve the prognosis in patients with cT4N0-1M0 CRC, but not in cT4N2M0 CRC, and it does not significantly increase surgery-related complications. Laparoscopic surgery followed by HIPEC for T4 stage CRC may not increase risk of PM.

Comparison of outcomes between surgical treatment of colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver and the peritoneum: Review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Liver and peritoneum are two of the most common sites of colorectal metastases.

METHODS

We searched for articles comparing outcomes of surgical management for metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver and peritoneum.

CONCLUSION

Cytoreductive surgery/heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy has a similar safety profile and survival outcomes as hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after stratifying by resection status and should be incorporated earlier in the management algorithm for colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases METHODS: We performed a wide search on PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for articles comparing outcomes of surgical management for metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver and peritoneum. We focused on studies comparing their perioperative clinical outcomes as well as their oncological outcomes. The following words were included in the search: comparison, outcomes, metastasectomy, colorectal cancer, liver, peritoneal surface disease, hepatectomy, and cytoreduction.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty studies were evaluated. Six of these studies met the criteria for this review.

Open versus Closed technique for administration of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Morbidity and Mortality outcomes from a high-volume centre

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an established treatment in selected patients with peritoneal metastases, delivered in the UK in specialist centres. HIPEC can be administered via the open coliseum technique as first described by Sugarbaker (O-HIPEC) or using a closed technique (C-HIPEC). Data comparing the safety and outcomes of these different approaches is limited. This study aims to compare morbidity and mortality rates of O-HIPEC and C-HIPEC following CRS for peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer and appendiceal tumours.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing CRS with open (05/2019-04/2020) and closed (05/2020-04/2021) HIPEC were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Baseline data including primary pathology, HIPEC agent and major operative procedures were analysed using Chi-squared and Fishers exact tests to ensure comparability of groups. Primary outcomes were 30- and 60-day postoperative mortality and morbidity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, CTCAE). Secondary outcomes were length of critical care and overall hospital stay. In addition, morbidity and mortality were compared between HIPEC agents (mitomycin and oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil).

RESULTS

99 patients (39.3%) and 153 patients (60.7%) underwent O-HIPEC, C-HIPEC respectively. Groups were well matched for baseline demographics, pathology, and HIPEC agent. In the O-HIPEC and C-HIPEC groups respectively, the incidence of 60-day complications (CTCAE 1-4) was 40.4% vs 39.3% (chi squared 0.94) and severe complications (CTCAE 3-4) 14% vs 13% (Fisher's exact p = 1) There was no perioperative mortality but one death in each group within the follow up period. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between those receiving mitomycin or oxaliplatin.

CONCLUSION

Closed administration of HIPEC is safe with no difference in post-operative morbidity or mortality compared to open HIPEC administration. Differences in longer term oncological outcomes including overall survival and disease-free survival between open and closed HIPEC techniques are yet to be determined.

Clinical epidemiology of peritoneal metastases in China: The construction of professional peritoneal metastases treatment centers based on the prevalence rate

OBJECTIVE

To understand the tumor burden of peritoneal metastases (PM) in China, and to guide the construction of professional PM treatment centers in China.

METHODS

Based on the cancer statistics by the National Cancer Center of China published in 2016, the prevalence of PM in 2020 was calculated according to the population statistics in China and the survival and mortality rates of various PM.

RESULTS

The prevalence rates of PM in China were as follows: gastric cancer PM 371.0/million, absolute number 523,937; colorectal cancer PM 47.1/million, absolute number 66,482; ovarian cancer PM 97.1/million, absolute number 137,083; pseudomyxoma peritonei 25.1/million, absolute number 35,425; malignant peritoneal mesothelioma 2.6/million, absolute number 3737; the above total was 766,664. According to the annual high-quality treatment volume of 365 cases in each professional PM treatment center, China needs to establish 1194 specialized PM treatment centers. At present, there are 1580 tertiary first-class hospitals in China. Therefore, for every 3 first-class tertiary hospitals in China there should be at least 2 PM treatment centers in full operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the large number of PM patients in China and the relatively small number of professional PM treatment centers, more resources should be devoted to the promotion and construction of PM treatment centers.

Patterns and Timing of Recurrence following CRS and HIPEC in Colorectal Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis

INTRODUCTION

Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is an established treatment of Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases (CRPM). This study aims to determine the timing and patterns of recurrent disease on imaging following complete CRS/HIPEC.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a national peritoneal tumour service database identified CRPM patients with complete CRS/HIPEC(CC0) from 2005 to-2018. Patients with<2 years follow-up or and those where post-operative histology from the CRS/HIPEC procedure did not confirm CRPM from their original colorectal cancer were excluded. Time to recurrence was measured from surgery to first radiologically illustrated recurrence. CT was the primary modality used, supplemented by PET-CT or MRI if required. Outcomes of interest were survival data (including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and peritoneal-recurrence free survival (PRFS)), timing and patterns of recurrent disease.

RESULTS

146 of the 176 patients identified were eligible for inclusion. Median OS for all study patients was 45.2 months (95% CI 38-53 months), median DFS was 11.7 months (95% CI 9-14 months), and median PRFS was 25.2 months (95% CI 14.7-30 months). Recurrent disease was seen in 112 cases (77%), radiologically classified as intraperitoneal in 50 patients (44%), single site systemic in 21 patients (19%) and multi-site in 41 patients (37%). CT detection rate for disease recurrence was 88%. Subgroup analyses showed that PCI ≥12, positive nodal primary disease and synchronous peritoneal disease were associated with worse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Patients selected for CRS/HIPEC for CRPM have an OS > 45 months, with the majority recurring systemically within a year. Peritoneal recurrence is a later event after several years. Surveillance programs in this group should be most intensive in the first 2 years after surgery, using CT with oral and intravenous contrast.

RAS Mutation Status Should Not Be Used to Predict Outcome from Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Genetic biomarkers guide systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) in metastatic colorectal cancer. It has been suggested they have a role in selecting patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM) for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). This study aims to quantify the effect of mutation status on overall survival (OS), adjusting for confounders such as pre-operative systemic anticancer treatment (SACT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for CRPM at a national peritoneal tumour centre (2004-2017) was performed. Demographics, treatment history and operative data were extracted. Known biomarker gene mutation status was noted including: KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and MMR. Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to determine overall survival.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-five patients were included. Median follow-up time was 34.7 months (range 5.4-184.9 months) and median OS was 38.7 months (95% CI 32.4-44.9 months). Biomarker status was as follows: KRAS (n = 114), NRAS (n = 85), BRAF (n = 44), PIK3CA (n = 15) and MMR (n = 21). Mutation rates were 45.6%, 3.5%, 13.6%, 13.3% and 14.3%, respectively. Seventy-four per cent underwent complete cytoreduction (CC = 0), 81% received SACT pre-CRS/HIPEC and 65% post-CRS/HIPEC. RAS (p = 0.21) or BRAF (p = 0.109) mutation status did not predict OS. Nodal involvement, extramural vascular invasion, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score, CC score, SACT post-HIPEC and NRAS mutation were significant negative predictors of OS in univariate analysis (p < 0.05). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed CC-score > 1 (HR: 7.599, 95% CI 3.402-16.974, p < 0.0001) as a negative predictor of OS. RAS mutation status did not affect outcome (HR: 1.682, 95% CI 0.995-2.843, p = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

RAS mutation status should not in isolation be used to select patients for CRS/HIPEC.

Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: The Impact of the Results of PROPHYLOCHIP, COLOPEC, and PRODIGE 7 Trials on Peritoneal Disease Management

HIPEC is a potentially useful locoregional treatment combined with cytoreduction in patients with peritoneal colorectal metastases. Despite being widely used in several cancer centers around the world, its role had never been investigated before the results of three important RCTs appeared on this topic. The PRODIGE 7 trial clarified the role of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in patients treated with radical surgery. Conversely, the PROPHYLOCHIP and the COLOPEC were designed to chair the role of HIPEC in patients at high risk of developing peritoneal metastases. Although all three trials demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of HIPEC for treating or preventing peritoneal metastases, these results are not sufficient to abandon this technique. In addition to some criticisms relating to the design of the trials and their statistical value, the oxaliplatin-based HIPEC was found to be ineffective in preventing or treating peritoneal colorectal metastases, especially in patients already treated with systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Several studies are ongoing investigating further HIPEC drugs and regimens. The review deeply discussed all the aspects and relapses of this new evidence.

Preface of the Special Issue: "Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (PSM): The SICO (Italian Society of Surgical Oncology) PSM-Oncoteam Experience, Result Analysis, and Studies' Purpose"

Over the past 40 years, strategies to treat neoplastic spread into the peritoneal space have benefitted from a gradually evolving approach, thanks mainly to studies conducted by the charismatic leader in this medical field Professor Paul Sugarbaker, Washington DC [...].

Indications and outcomes for repeat cytoreductive surgery and heated intra-peritoneal chemotherapy in peritoneal surface malignancy

INTRODUCTION

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is offered in specialist centres as a treatment for peritoneal surface tumours. Despite its demonstrated efficacy, intra-abdominal recurrence occurs in 31-57% of patients. The aim of this study is to review the early and long-term outcomes in patients who undergo repeat CRS/HIPEC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who had undergone repeat CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal neoplasms and colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM) from 2003 to 2019 was performed at a single specialist centre. Data pertaining to both short term outcomes and survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 1259 patients who had undergone CRS/HIPEC, 84(6.7%) underwent repeat surgery: 45(53.6%) had pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) secondary to low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMN), 21(25.0%) had appendix carcinoma and 18(21.4%) had CRPM. Demographics, intra-operative findings and short-term outcomes were comparable across tumour types and between procedures. Median (95% CI) interval between procedures was 22.7(18.9-26.6) months and was comparable between tumour types. Median (95%CI) overall survival was not reached for the cohort overall or for those with PMP, but was 61.0(32.6-89.4) months for those with appendix cancer and 76.9(47.4-106.4) months for CRPM (p=<0.001). Survival was favourable in the PMP group (HR [95%CI] 0.044 [0.008-0.262]; p = 0.000) and unfavourable in the CC2-3 at index CRS procedure group (HR [95%CI] 25.612 [2.703-242.703]; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that repeat cytoredutive surgery with HIPEC can result in favourable survival, especially for patients with PMP when complete cytoreduction is achieved at index operation. We recommend that detailed patient assessment is performed through an expert multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT).

Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for colorectal peritoneal metastases. A consensus of the peritoneal surface malignancies onco-team of the Italian society of surgical oncology

AIM

the surgical workup for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRCPM) is complex and should be managed in specialized centers. Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms (DTA) have been proposed to balance optimal patients management and correct use of resources. Aim of this study was to establish a consensus on DTA for CRCPM patients in Italy.

METHOD

a panel of 18 delegated members of centers afferent to Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Onco-team of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology was established. A list of statements regarding the DTA of patients with CRCPM was prepared according to different activities and decision-making nodes with a defined entry and exit point. Consensus was obtained through RAND UCLA methodology.

RESULTS

two different DTA were defined and approved according to the modality of presentation of CRCPM (synchronous and metachronous). A consensus was also obtained on 17 of the 19 statements related to DTA.

CONCLUSION

a shared model of DTA is now available for healthcare providers to monitor appropriateness in diagnosis and treatment of patients with isolated peritoneal metastases from CRC.