Current practices and barriers to referral for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC among colorectal surgeons: A binational survey

Building an Efficient Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Program Despite the Lower-Middle-Income Barriers: Ukraine Experience

PURPOSE

Cytoreductive surgery/hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) programs are often limited to centers in developed countries because of extensive requirements. We aimed to analyze efficacy and challenges of CRS/HIPEC centers in lower-middle-income settings in the Ukraine example.

METHODS

A multicenter descriptive study was conducted using data sets (2008-2022) from Kyiv, Lviv, and Odesa centers. Patients with appendiceal neoplasm (AN); colorectal cancer (CRC); malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM); and epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (EOC) treated with CRS ± HIPEC were included. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed for N ≥ 20 cohorts using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

We included 596 patients. At Kyiv and Lviv centers, 37 and 28 patients with AN had completeness of cytoreduction (CC-0/1) rates of 84% and 71%, respectively. Thirty-day major morbidity stood at 24% and 18%, respectively. Median OS was not reached (NR) at both centers. Nineteen patients with CRC from Kyiv, 11 from Lviv, and 156 from Odesa had CC-0/1 rates of 84%, 91%, and 86%, respectively. Thirty-day major complications occurred in 16%, 18%, and 8%, respectively. Median OS in the Odesa cohort was 35 (95% CI, 32 to 38) months. Among 15 Kyiv, five Lviv, and six Odesa patients with MPM, CC-0/1 rates were 67%, 80%, and 100%, respectively, while major complications occurred in 13%, 0%, and 17%, respectively. OS was not analyzed because of small MPM cohorts. At Kyiv, Lviv, and Odesa centers, 91, 40, and 89 patients, respectively, had primary EOC. CC-0/1 rates were 79%, 100%, and 80%, and 30-day major morbidity rates were 23%, 5%, and 6%, respectively. Median OS was NR, 71 (95% CI, 32 to 110), and 67 (95% CI, 61 to 73) months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CRS/HIPEC programs in lower-middle-income environment can achieve safety and survival that meet global standards. Our discussion highlights common obstacles in such settings and proposes effective overcoming strategies.

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.

Current Opinion and Practice on Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Management: The North African Perspective

Background

The status of peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) management in North Africa is undetermined. The aim of this study was to assess and compare current practice and knowledge regarding PSM and examine satisfaction with available treatment options and need for alternative therapies in North Africa.

Methods

This is a qualitative study involving specialists participating in PSM management in North Africa. The survey analyzed demographic characteristics and current knowledge and opinions regarding PSM management in different institutions. We also looked at goals and priorities, satisfaction with treatment modalities and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) usefulness according to specialty, country, years of experience, and activity sector.

Results

One-hundred and three participants responded to the survey (response rate of 57%), including oncologists and surgeons. 59.2% of respondents had more than 10 years experience and 45.6% treated 20–50 PSM cases annually. Participants satisfaction with PSM treatment modalities was mild for gastric cancer (3/10 [IQR 2–3]) and moderate for colorectal (5/10 [IQR 3–5]), ovarian (5/10 [IQR 3–5]), and pseudomyxoma peritonei (5/10 [IQR 3–5]) type of malignancies. Good quality of life and symptom relief were rated as main priorities for treatment and the need for new treatment modalities was rated 9/10 [IQR 8–9]. The perceived usefulness of systemic chemotherapy in first intention was described as high by 42.7 and 39.8% of respondents for PSM of colorectal and gastric origins, while HIPEC was described as highly useful for ovarian (49.5%) and PMP (73.8) malignancies.

Conclusions

The management of PSM in the North African region has distinct differences in knowledge, treatments availability and priorities. Disparities are also noted according to specialty, country, years of expertise, and activity sector. The creation of referral structures and PSM networks could be a step forward to standardized PSM management in the region.

Barriers to Referral for CS/HIPEC Identified Using a Tailoring Grid Methodology: Interviews With Stakeholders in New York State

INTRODUCTION

Cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CS/HIPEC) has variable uptake, with referrals reliant on other physicians. To characterize barriers to referral for CS/HIPEC, we created a pragmatic "tailoring grid", incorporating the concepts of Pathman's 4 As of awareness, agreement, adoption, and adherence and barriers acting at the individual, practice group, and organization level.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We invited surgeons and medical oncologists from Western New York State who potentially refer patients for CS/HIPEC to participate in tailoring grid interviews.

RESULTS

Interviews of 10 surgeons and 10 medical oncologists were completed. The participants were positioned in the Pathman 4 A's with respect to referrals for CS/HIPEC as follows: (1) A 19 aware (1 not aware); (2) A 3 in agreement (17 not in agreement); (3) A 9 adopters; and (4) A 6 adherent. Among the 9 participants who had referred at least one patient for CS/HIPEC (adopters/adherent), only 2 were in agreement with the appropriateness of CS/HIPEC. Barriers to awareness of included lack of interaction with colleagues and knowledge of indications. Barriers to agreement included lack of high quality of evidence supporting CS/HIPEC such as well-designed RCTs. Barriers to adoption included lack of communication with CS/HIPEC surgeons; lack of inclusion of the procedure into algorithms and defined morbidity/mortality rates. Barriers to adherence included lack of inclusion into guidelines by major societies; perceptions that the procedure is resource-intensive; lack of defined quality measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The tailoring grid efficiently identified barriers to awareness, agreement, adoption and adherence for routine referral for CS/HIPEC. Barriers to increased referrals included lack of high-quality evidence supporting CS/HIPEC. Barriers more easily addressed included communication between referring and CS/HIPEC surgeons, and outcomes at the individual patient and hospital level.

The attitude and practice of general surgeons toward cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A cross-sectional study

Background

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) mandate well-established HIPEC and oncology centers, which are not available in many medical institutions. This study assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practice toward CRS and HIPEC of general surgeons in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Patients and methods

General surgeons (n = 266) from nine hospitals who treat patients with gastrointestinal cancer were surveyed. The responses of surgeons who work in HIPEC and academic centers (Group A) and surgeons working in tertiary and secondary hospitals (Group B) were compared. The survey response rate was 48.1% (128/266).

Results

Surgeons in group B treated significantly more patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis per year than surgeons in group A (P = .001). Group B reported having a HIPEC specialist at their hospital, and 71.4% reported that the nearest HIPEC center was within 30 miles, compared to 4.5% of respondents in group A (P = .001). Lack of access to a HIPEC specialist was reported by 15.5% of surgeons in group B and 0% of surgeons in group A (P = .006). HIPEC as a possible therapeutic option for appendiceal cancer was cited by 60.7% of surgeons in group B compared to 84.1% of surgeons in group A (P = .007) and as a therapeutic option for ovarian cancer by 52.4% of surgeons in group B and 81.8% of surgeons in group A (P = .001).

Conclusion

New strategies are needed to improve the knowledge and implementation of the referral system for HIPEC among general surgeons. Our study was limited by a low response rate.

●

Exposure to HIPEC centers during residency or fellowship training was reported by half of our respondents.

●

Surgeons in tertiary and secondary hospitals treated significantly more patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis per year than surgeons in HIPEC and academic centers.

●

Lack of access to a HIPEC specialist was significantly reported by surgeons working in tertiary and secondary hospitals.

●

HIPEC was significantly cited as an option for appendiceal cancer by surgeons in HIPEC and academic centers compared to surgeons in tertiary and secondary hospitals.

Thermal Intravesical Chemotherapy Reduce Recurrence Rate for Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer accounts for nearly 80% of newly diagnosed bladder cancer cases, which often recur and progress. This meta-analysis was evaluated by the adverse events and recurrence rate of thermal intravesical chemotherapy vs. normal temperature intravesical chemotherapy in the treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Methods: A systematic review and cumulative analysis of studies reporting adverse events and recurrence rate of thermal intravesical chemotherapy vs. normal temperature intravesical chemotherapy was performed through a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochranelibrary.com, CNKI, Wanfang Med Online database and VIP database. All analyses were performed using the Revman manager 5. Result: Twelve studies (11 randomized controlled trials and 1 retrospective study) including 888 patients, 445 in the thermal intravesical chemotherapy group, and 443 in the normal temperature intravesical chemotherapy group, met the eligibility criteria. Patients in the thermal intravesical chemotherapy group had a lower risk of disease recurrence than those who had normal temperature intravesical chemotherapy (24 months follow-up group: RR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.21-0.43, P < 0.00001, I ² = 0%; 36 months follow-up group: RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.54, P = 0.0002, I ² = 0%) while no significant difference in adverse events rate (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.53-1.52; P = 0.67, I ² = 78%). Conclusions: When compared with normal temperature intravesical chemotherapy, thermal intravesical chemotherapy can reduce the recurrence rate without increasing incidence of adverse events in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.