A narrative review of what can HIPEC do

A comparative in vivo study of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cisplatin versus doxorubicin versus cisplatin plus doxorubicin for the treatment of intra-abdominally disseminated alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma in mice

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for advanced intra-abdominal pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with peritoneal sarcomatosis (PS) include cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). However, optimal dosages and combination regimens of drugs used for HIPEC are underexplored. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of HIPEC with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and their combination in vivo.

METHODS

We established PS/RMS mouse model by intraperitoneally injecting RH30 cells into NOD/LtSz-scid IL2Rγ-null mice. Two weeks post xenotransplantation, mice underwent a single HIPEC procedure at 42°C for 60 minutes. Treatment groups received cisplatin (50, 100, and 150 mg/m2) and doxorubicin (30, 45, and 60 mg/m2), administered alone or combined. The control group underwent an intraperitoneal lavage with isotonic saline. Peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was used to quantify the extent of peritoneal tumor spread. Tissue samples were evaluated regarding proliferation (Ki-67) and apoptosis (caspase 3).

RESULTS

Mice treated with cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 (PCI of 3.875, p = .007) and 150 mg/m2 (PCI of 4.556, p = .026), and doxorubicin at 30 mg/m2 (PCI of 2.875, p < .001) and 45 mg/m2 (PCI of 4.143, p = .021) showed reduced PCI, with the combination of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 showing the most prominent effect (PCI of 3.333, p < .001) compared to the control group (PCI of 8.615). Histologically, there was no difference in Ki-67 or caspase 3 expression among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The cisplatin- and doxorubicin-based HIPEC significantly reduces peritoneal tumor dissemination in vivo. Further investigations are needed to explore the underlying molecular responses to optimize therapeutic strategies.

Review of Options to Traditional HIPEC for Prevention and Treatment of Peritoneal Metastases

Cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC has definite application to the management of selected patients with peritoneal metastases. Patients who profit most have a complete cytoreductive surgery. Higher-grade tumors such as colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, and ovarian malignancy are benefited by CRS and HIPEC only under limited circumstances. High-grade tumor invades subperitoneal lymphatics where HIPEC is not effective. Options to traditional HIPEC for treatment of invasive intraabdominal malignancies with peritoneal metastases must be explored.

Metastasis-associated fibroblasts in peritoneal surface malignancies

Over decades, peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs) have been associated with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. However, advancements in perioperative systemic chemotherapy, cytoreductive surgery (CRS), and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have significantly improved clinical outcomes. PSMs predominantly result from the spread of intra-abdominal neoplasia, which then form secondary peritoneal metastases. Colorectal, ovarian, and gastric cancers are the most common contributors. Despite diverse primary origins, the uniqueness of the peritoneum microenvironment shapes the common features of PSMs. Peritoneal metastization involves complex interactions between tumour cells and the peritoneal microenvironment. Fibroblasts play a crucial role, contributing to tumour development, progression, and therapy resistance. Peritoneal metastasis-associated fibroblasts (MAFs) in PSMs exhibit high heterogeneity. Single-cell RNA sequencing technology has revealed that immune-regulatory cancer-associated fibroblasts (iCAFs) seem to be the most prevalent subtype in PSMs. In addition, other major subtypes as myofibroblastic CAFs (myCAFs) and matrix CAFs (mCAFs) were frequently observed across PSMs studies. Peritoneal MAFs are suggested to originate from mesothelial cells, submesothelial fibroblasts, pericytes, endothelial cells, and omental-resident cells. This plasticity and heterogeneity of CAFs contribute to the complex microenvironment in PSMs, impacting treatment responses. Understanding these interactions is crucial for developing targeted and local therapies to improve PSMs patient outcomes.

Intraperitoneal pharmacokinetics of systemic oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and bevacizumab in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases (PM) commonly occur in colorectal cancer patients. Systemic chemotherapy yields poor outcomes for these patients. It is hypothesised that traditional systemic chemotherapy is not very effective for this patient population. This study investigates to what extent systemic anti-cancer therapy crosses the peritoneal barrier.

METHODS

In a Phase I study, eighteen patients received systemic oxaliplatin, 5-FU, and bevacizumab. Plasma and peritoneal fluid samples were collected to measure drug concentrations. A non-compartmental analysis determined the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for oxaliplatin and 5-FU in both matrices. Intraperitoneal (IP) and intravenous (IV) exposure ratios were calculated, along with the bevacizumab concentration IP/IV ratio. The relationship between tumour load and IP/IV ratios and the correlation between the IP/IV ratios of different treatments were assessed statistically.

RESULTS

A total of 438 5-FU samples and 578 oxaliplatin samples were analysed in plasma and peritoneal fluid. Bevacizumab was quantified with 17 measurements in plasma and 15 measurements IP. Median IP/IV ratios were 0.143, 0.352 and 0.085 for 5-FU, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab, respectively. Oxaliplatin exhibited a longer IP half-life than 5-FU. A correlation was found between oxaliplatin and bevacizumab IP/IV ratios (R=0.69, p=0.01). No statistical correlations were found between the other investigated drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that only a small percentage of systemically administered anti-cancer treatment reaches the IP cavity, questioning their efficacy against PM. This strengthens the hypothesis for repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy to reach adequate anti-cancer drug levels.

Population pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal irinotecan and SN-38 in patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal origin

Peritoneal metastases (PM) are common in patients with colorectal cancer. Patients with PM have a poor prognosis, and for those who are not eligible for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), palliative chemotherapy is currently the only option. Recently, we conducted a phase I trial (INTERACT) in which irinotecan was administered intraperitoneally (IP) to 18 patients ineligible for CRS-HIPEC. The primary objective was to evaluate covariates influencing the PK profile of irinotecan and SN-38 after IP administration. Secondly, a population PK model was developed to support the further development of IP irinotecan by improving dosing in patients with PM. Patients were treated with IP irinotecan every 2 weeks in combination with systemic FOLFOX-bevacizumab. Irinotecan and SN-38 were measured in plasma (588 samples) and SN-38 was measured in peritoneal fluid (267 samples). Concentration-Time data were log-transformed and analyzed using NONMEM version 7.5 using FOCE+I estimation. An additive error model described the residual error, with inter-individual variability in PK parameters modeled exponentially. The final structural model consisted of five compartments. Weight was identified as a covariate influencing the SN-38 plasma volume of distribution and GGT was found to influence the SN-38 plasma clearance. This population PK model adequately described the irinotecan and SN-38 in plasma after IP administration, with weight and GGT as predictive factors. Irinotecan is converted intraperitoneal to SN-38 by carboxylesterases and the plasma bioavailability of irinotecan is low. This model will be used for the further clinical development of IP irinotecan by providing dosing strategies.

Local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents: a systematic review of preclinical evidence of interactions and cancer biology

Background

Local anaesthetics are widely used for their analgesic and anaesthetic properties in the perioperative setting, including surgical procedures to excise malignant tumours. Simultaneously, chemotherapeutic agents remain a cornerstone of cancer treatment, targeting rapidly dividing cancer cells to inhibit tumour growth. The potential interactions between these two drug classes have drawn increasing attention and there are oncological surgical contexts where their combined use could be considered. This review examines existing evidence regarding the interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents, including biological mechanisms and clinical implications.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Selection criteria were designed to capture in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies assessing interactions between local anaesthetics and a wide variety of chemotherapeutic agents. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The data were synthesised using a narrative approach because of the anticipated heterogeneity of included studies.

Results

Initial searches yielded 1225 relevant articles for screening, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. The interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents were diverse and multifaceted. In vitro studies frequently demonstrated altered cytotoxicity profiles when these agents were combined, with variations depending on the specific drug combination and cancer cell type. Mechanistically, some interactions were attributed to modifications in efflux pump activity, tumour suppressor gene expression, or alterations in cellular signalling pathways associated with tumour promotion. A large majority of in vitro studies report potentially beneficial effects of local anaesthetics in terms of enhancing the antineoplastic activity of chemotherapeutic agents. In animal models, the combined administration of local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents showed largely beneficial effects on tumour growth, metastasis, and overall survival. Notably, no clinical study examining the possible interactions of local anaesthetics and chemotherapy on cancer outcomes has been reported.

Conclusions

Reported preclinical interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents are complex and encompass a spectrum of effects which are largely, although not uniformly, additive or synergistic. The clinical implications of these interactions remain unclear because of the lack of prospective trials. Nonetheless, the modulation of chemotherapy effects by local anaesthetics warrants further clinical investigation in the context of cancer surgery where they could be used together.

Clinical trial registration

Open Science Framework (OSF, project link: https://osf.io/r2u4z).

Analysis of causes and prognostic impact of tube occlusion during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP), a rare tumor from mucinous appendiceal origins, is treated with Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC). However, tubing blockages during HIPEC treatment pose a common challenge, impeding the smooth progression of therapy. Few studies to date have explored the incidence and risk factors of tube occlusion during HIPEC in patients with appendiceal PMP, as well as its adverse impact on postoperative complications.

METHODS

From October 2017 to June 2023, a total of 80 patients with appendiceal PMP undergoing combined CRS and HIPEC were included in this study. Tubing blockage events were strictly defined, with patients experiencing blockages during HIPEC treatment allocated to the study group, while those with unobstructed perfusion were assigned to the control group. A comparative analysis was conducted between the two groups regarding post-HIPEC health assessments and occurrence of complications. Risk factors for luminal occlusion during closed HIPEC procedures were identified through univariate and multivariate analysis of data from 303 HIPEC treatments.

RESULTS

Tubing blockages occurred in 41 patients (51.3%). The study group experienced prolonged gastrointestinal decompression time (4.1 ± 3.0 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.003) and prolonged time to bowel movement (6.1 ± 2.3 vs. 5.1 ± 1.8 days, P = 0.022) compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups. The 1-year survival rate postoperatively was 97%, and the 3-year survival rate was 81%, with no association found between tubing blockage and poorer survival. Additionally, In 303 instances of HIPEC treatment among these 80 patients, tube occlusion occurred in 89 cases (89/303, 29.4%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed age, diabetes, hypertension, and pathology as independent risk factors for tube occlusion.

CONCLUSION

Tubing blockages are a common occurrence during HIPEC treatment, leading to prolonged postoperative gastrointestinal functional recovery time. When patients are elderly and have concomitant hypertension and diabetes, along with a histological type of low-grade mucinous tumor, the risk of tube occlusion increases. However, this study did not find a significant correlation between tubing blockage and the incidence of postoperative complications or overall patient survival.

Neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer: comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy has an established role in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. However, its role continues to evolve due to both advances in the available treatment modalities, and refinements in the indications for neoadjuvant treatment and subsequent surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of the most recent relevant literature was conducted.

RESULTS

Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have an established role in improving local but not systemic disease control in patients with rectal cancer. Total neoadjuvant therapy offers advantages over short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy, not only in terms of increased local response but also in reducing the risk of systemic relapses. Non-operative management is increasingly preferred to surgery in patients with rectal cancer and clinical complete responses but is still associated with some negative impacts on functional outcomes. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be of some benefit in patients with locally advanced colon cancer with proficient mismatch repair, although patient selection is a major challenge. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with deficient mismatch repair cancers in the colon or rectum is altering the treatment paradigm for these patients.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant treatments for patients with colon or rectal cancers continue to evolve, increasing the complexity of decision-making for patients and clinicians alike. This review describes the current guidance and most recent developments.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC), Oncological Outcomes and Long-Term Survival among Patients with Gastric Cancer and Limited Peritoneal Disease Progression after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The role of surgery in stage IV gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (PM) remains unclear. The objective of the current single-center study was to define the impact of gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on outcomes among Central European GC patients with limited peritoneal disease progression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

Patients with histologically confirmed GC who underwent curative-intent multimodal treatment between 2013 and 2023 were included. Patients without adenocarcinoma, who did not undergo gastrectomy, had early (cT1) or metastatic GC at the time of initial diagnosis, who underwent multivisceral resection, incomplete cytoreduction or palliative care, died before planned curative-intent treatment, or had incomplete clinical or pathological missing information were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients who underwent curative-intent treatment for GC with PM were included in the final analytic cohort. Patients who underwent gastrectomy with CRS+HIPEC were less likely to achieve TOO (CRS+HIPEC: 28% vs. CRS: 57.1%, p = 0.033) compared with individuals after CRS alone. Specifically, patients who underwent gastrectomy with CRS+HIPEC had a higher likelihood of postoperative complications (CRS+HIPEC: 48% vs. CRS: 20.4%, p = 0.018) and longer hospital LOS (median, CRS+HIPEC: 12 vs. CRS: 10, p = 0.019). While administration of HIPEC did not impact long-term survival (median OS, CRS+HIPEC: 16 months vs. CRS: 12 months, p = 0.55), postoperative complications (median OS, CCI < 30:16 months vs. CCI > 30:5 months, p = 0.024) and ICU stay (median OS, no ICU stay: 16 months vs. ICU stay: 5 months, p = 0.008) were associated with worsened long-term survival among GC patients with PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the current study demonstrated a lack of survival benefit among advanced GC patients with PM undergoing gastrectomy with CRS+HIPEC when compared with individuals after gastrectomy with CRS alone. Administration of perioperative chemotherapy and achievement of TO failed to withstand the peritoneal disease progression during NAC.