Rationale and study design of the CHIPPI-1808 trial: a phase III randomized clinical trial evaluating hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for stage III ovarian cancer patients treated with primary or interval cytoreductive surgery

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.

Complexity of surgery and treatment burden in patients with peritoneal malignancy is not determined by addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This study describes surgical and quality of life outcomes in patients with peritoneal malignancy treated by cytoreductive surgery (CRS) alone compared with a subgroup treated with CRS and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

METHODS

Peritoneal malignancy patients undergoing surgery between 2017 and 2023 were included. The cohort was divided into patients treated by CRS and HIPEC and those treated by CRS without HIPEC (including CRS only or maximal tumour debulking (MTB)). Main outcomes included surgical outcomes, survival, and quality of life. Groups were compared using non-parametric tests and log-rank test was used to compare survival curves.

RESULTS

403 had CRS and HIPEC, 25 CRS only and 15 MTB. CRS and HIPEC patients had a lower peritoneal carcinomatosis index (12.0 vs. 17.0 vs. 35.0; P < 0.001) and longer surgical operative time (9.3 vs. 8.3 vs. 5.2 h; P < 0.001), when compared to CRS only and MTB, respectively. No other significant difference between groups was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal management of selected patients with resectable peritoneal malignancy incorporates a combined strategy of CRS and HIPEC. When HIPEC is not utilized, due to significant residual disease or comorbidity precluding safe delivery, CRS alone is associated with good outcomes. Hospital stay and complications are acceptable but not significantly different to the CRS and HIPEC group. CRS alone is a complex intervention requiring comparable resources with good outcomes. In view of our findings 'intention to treat' with CRS and HIPEC should be the basis for resource allocation and funding.

[State of results of HIPEC for epithelial ovarian cancer in the primary treatment or for relapse]

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is an unavoidable development of ovarian cancer, from the first treatment to relapses, and is the main cause of patients death. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), is a hope for cure for patients with ovarian cancer. HIPEC is based on direct application of chemotherapy on the perioneum with high concentration of chemotherapy enhanced with specific effects of hyperthermia. Theoretically, HIPEC could be proposed at different steps of ovarian cancer development. But the hypothesis of efficiency of a new treatment must be assessed before being routinely applied. Numerous clinical series are already published about HIPEC used in primary treatment of ovarian cancer or for relapses. These series are mostly retrospectives and based on heterogeneous parameters as inclusion criteria of patients, intra peritoneal chemotherapy, concentration, temperature, duration of HIPEC. Taking into account this heterogeneity it is not possible to draw strong scientific conclusions about HIPEC efficiency to treat ovarian cancer patients. We proposed a review allowing a better understanding of current recommendations of the use of HIPEC in ovarian cancer patients.

From clinical management to personalized medicine: novel therapeutic approaches for ovarian clear cell cancer

Ovarian clear-cell cancer is a rare subtype of epithelial ovarian cancer with unique clinical and biological features. Despite optimal cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy being the standard of care, most patients experience drug resistance and a poor prognosis. Therefore, novel therapeutic approaches have been developed, including immune checkpoint blockade, angiogenesis-targeted therapy, ARID1A synthetic lethal interactions, targeting hepatocyte nuclear factor 1β, and ferroptosis. Refining predictive biomarkers can lead to more personalized medicine, identifying patients who would benefit from chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. Collaboration between academic research groups is crucial for developing prognostic outcomes and conducting clinical trials to advance treatment for ovarian clear-cell cancer. Immediate progress is essential, and research efforts should prioritize the development of more effective therapeutic strategies to benefit all patients.

Harnessing Hyperthermia: Molecular, Cellular, and Immunological Insights for Enhanced Anticancer Therapies

Hyperthermia, the raising of tumor temperature (≥39°C), holds great promise as an adjuvant treatment for cancer therapy. This review focuses on 2 key aspects of hyperthermia: its molecular and cellular effects and its impact on the immune system. Hyperthermia has profound effects on critical biological processes. Increased temperatures inhibit DNA repair enzymes, making cancer cells more sensitive to chemotherapy and radiation. Elevated temperatures also induce cell cycle arrest and trigger apoptotic pathways. Furthermore, hyperthermia modifies the expression of heat shock proteins, which play vital roles in cancer therapy, including enhancing immune responses. Hyperthermic treatments also have a significant impact on the body's immune response against tumors, potentially improving the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Mild systemic hyperthermia (39°C-41°C) mimics fever, activating immune cells and raising metabolic rates. Intense heat above 50°C can release tumor antigens, enhancing immune reactions. Using photothermal nanoparticles for targeted heating and drug delivery can also modulate the immune response. Hyperthermia emerges as a cost-effective and well-tolerated adjuvant therapy when integrated with immunotherapy. This comprehensive review serves as a valuable resource for the selection of patient-specific treatments and the guidance of future experimental studies.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy After Interval Cytoreductive Surgery for Patients With Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer Who Had Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Importance

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) has shown survival benefits for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the integration of HIPEC into clinical practice.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ICS with HIPEC compared with ICS alone in clinical practice for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, multicenter, comparative effectiveness cohort study enrolled 205 patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer who had received at least 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by ICS with HIPEC or ICS without HIPEC at 7 Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group institutions between September 1, 2017, and April 22, 2022. Nine patients were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria.

Exposures

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by ICS with HIPEC or ICS without HIPEC.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) and the safety profile were the key secondary end points.

Results

This study included 196 patients (median age, 58.0 years [range, 38-82 years]), of whom 109 underwent ICS with HIPEC and 87 underwent ICS without HIPEC. The median duration of follow-up was 28.2 months (range, 3.5-58.6 months). Disease recurrence occurred in 128 patients (65.3%), and 30 patients (15.3%) died. Interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC was associated with a significant improvement in median PFS compared with ICS without HIPEC (22.9 months [95% CI, 3.5-58.6 months] vs 14.2 months [95% CI, 4.0-56.2 months]; P = .005) and median OS (not reached [95% CI, 3.5 months to not reached] vs 53.0 [95% CI, 4.6-56.2 months]; P = .002). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 postoperative complications was similar in both groups (ICS with HIPEC, 3 of 109 [2.8%] vs ICS without HIPEC, 3 of 87 [3.4%]; P > .99). Among patients with recurrence, the frequency of peritoneal recurrence was lower in the ICS with HIPEC group than in the ICS without HIPEC group (21 of 64 [32.8%] vs 41 of 64 [64.1%]; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that ICS in conjunction with HIPEC was associated with longer PFS and OS than ICS without HIPEC for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer and was not associated with higher rates of postoperative complications. The lower rate of peritoneal recurrence after HIPEC may be associated with improved OS.

HIPEC for gynaecological malignancies: A last update (Review)

Advanced-stage gynaecological cancer represents a clinical entity with challenging surgical treatment in an effort to optimize prognosis. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has been reported as a method potentially eligible to improve prognosis. However, no definitive conclusions have yet been made on which types of cancer and which context HIPEC may actually have a beneficial impact. The present review discusses the efficacy and safety of HIPEC as a treatment option for patients with primary/recurrent ovarian, endometrial and cervix cancer, as well as peritoneal sarcomatosis. A literature search was conducted using MeSH terms for each topic in the PubMed database and supplemented with a manual search to retrieve additional articles eligible for inclusion/fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The implementation of HIPEC appears to be beneficial in terms of survival in patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as well as in patients with recurrent EOC. Statistical superiority is not justified by current studies regarding other gynaecological malignancies with peritoneal dissemination. Furthermore, as regards safety, HIPEC following CRS does not appear to significantly increase the mortality and morbidity rates compared to the use of CRS alone. The rationale for using HIPEC and CRS in the treatment of ovarian cancer, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting, as well as for recurrences, is adequately evidenced, with acceptable safety and post-operative complication rate profiles. Its current place in the multimodal strategy for patients with peritoneal metastases remains uncertain, however. Randomized clinical trials are warranted to further examine the use of HIPEC and establish the optimal regimen and temperature settings. The role of optimal cytoreduction and no residual disease, as well as the proper patient selection remain basic parameters for maximizing survival parameters.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Tumor Cytoreductive Surgery plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer

Objective

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian cancer.

Methods

From April 2018 to November 2021, 66 patients with ovarian cancer were admitted to our hospital and randomly allocated to undergo intravenous chemotherapy following CRS (the observation group) or CRS with HIPEC (the experimental group) using a parallel randomized technique, with 33 cases in each group. Clinical effectiveness, intraoperative and postoperative recovery, VEGF level, T-lymphocyte subpopulation cell level, adverse events, and patient survival were all outcome metrics.

Results

CRS plus HIPEC was associated with significantly higher clinical efficacy versus CRS alone (P < 0.05). The difference in the intraoperative bleeding and operative time between the two groups did not meet the statistical standard (P > 0.05). Patients in the experimental group experienced shorter postoperative chemotherapy and length of hospital stay than those in the observation group (P < 0.05). CRS plus HIPEC resulted in significantly lower levels of VEGFA, VEGFB, and VEGFC and higher levels of CD3+, CD4+, and CD3+/CD4+ than CRS alone (P < 0.05). The two groups of patients had a similar incidence of adverse events (P > 0.05). The experimental group showed a longer median survival (25 months) and a 1-year survival rate (79.55%) than the observation group (22 months, 49.56%) (log rank = 20.411, P < 0.05). A significantly lower 1-year recurrence rate was observed in the experimental group than in the observation group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

CRS plus HIPEC effectively improves the clinical efficacy of ovarian cancer patients, prolongs the survival of patients, and improves the level of VEGF and T-lymphocyte subpopulation cells, with a manageable safety. In addition, the treatment method can improve the therapeutic effect, reduce the toxic and side effects, and improve the immunity of the body, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

[Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer]

The achievement of macroscopically complete tumor resection in primary debulking surgery is the most important prognostic factor in advanced ovarian cancer. This results in a median survival benefit of >5 years. Systematic lymphadenectomy (LNE) is not indicated in advanced ovarian cancer with inconspicuous lymph nodes as it does not prolong overall survival and therefore should no longer be carried out above stage IIB with inconspicuous lymph nodes in imaging and by palpation. Primary cytoreductive surgery is the standard in advanced ovarian cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy is currently an option only if primary cytoreduction does not appear to be possible. For the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in primary debulking surgery a survival benefit has so far not been proven and therefore HIPEC is not recommended in this setting.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Heterogeneity, Prognostic Impact, and Relationship with Immune Checkpoints

Epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) are often diagnosed at an advanced stage with carcinomatosis and a poor prognosis. First-line treatment is based on a chemotherapy regimen combining a platinum-based drug and a taxane-based drug along with surgery. More than half of the patients will have concern about a recurrence. To improve the outcomes, new therapeutics are needed, and diverse strategies, such as immunotherapy, are currently being tested in EOC. To better understand the global immune contexture in EOC, several studies have been performed to decipher the landscape of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). CD8+ TILs are usually considered effective antitumor immune effectors that immune checkpoint inhibitors can potentially activate to reject tumor cells. To synthesize the knowledge of TILs in EOC, we conducted a review of studies published in MEDLINE or EMBASE in the last 10 years according to the PRISMA guidelines. The description and role of TILs in EOC prognosis are reviewed from the published data. The links between TILs, DNA repair deficiency, and ICs have been studied. Finally, this review describes the role of TILs in future immunotherapy for EOC.

Epithelial ovarian cancer: Review article

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the second commonest cause of death amongst all gynaecological cancers. Treatment is challenging because almost 75% of cases are diagnosed in advanced stages. Front line treatment with aggressive cytoreduction and adjuvant treatment decides the outcome. Despite the complete response to primary treatment majority will relapse with disease. Treatment options of recurrent disease depends on platinum free interval. Systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment and secondary cytoreduction may be beneficial in selected patients Newer therapeutic agents are being added in the front line and recurrent setting to improve outcome.

Hyperthermia Enhances Efficacy of Chemotherapeutic Agents in Pancreatic Cancer Cell Lines

Chemotherapy (CT) is the standard care for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, with limited efficacy. Hyperthermia (HT) treatment has been suggested as a sensitizer to improve outcomes. However, the direct effect of the HT and CT combination is not fully understood. Therefore, we aim to assess the direct cytotoxic effect of HT in PDAC cells as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapeutics. Different temperatures (37-, 40.5-, 41-, and 41.5 °C) and durations (6-, 12-, and 24 h) were tested in PDAC cell lines (BxPC-3, Capan-1, Capan-2, PANC-1, and MIA-PaCa-2). Different concentrations of gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin were also tested in these conditions. The impact on cell metabolic activity was determined by an MTS assay. Enhancement of chemosensitivity was assessed by a reduction in half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50). HT and chemotherapeutics interactions were classified as antagonistic, additive, or synergistic using the combination index. HT inhibited cell proliferation in a cell type, temperature, and duration-dependent manner. The induction of apoptosis was seen after 6 h of HT treatment, eventually followed by secondary necrosis. The HT and CT combination led to an IC50 reduction of the tested CT. At 12 h of HT, this effect was between 25 to 90% and reached a 95% reduction at 24 h. The additive or synergistic effect was demonstrated in all cell lines and chemotherapeutics, although, again, this depended on cell type, duration, and temperature. HT is cytotoxic and enhances the therapeutic effectiveness of gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin on PDAC cells. This result was further confirmed by the decrease in the expression of RRM2, TS, and ERCC1 in BxPC-3 and Capan-2 cells. These observations warrant further study in specific subsets of PDAC patients to improve their clinical outcomes.

The Role of Hyperthermia in the Treatment of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hyperthermia is used to treat peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM), particularly during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). This manuscript provides a focused update of hyperthermia in the treatment of PSM.

RECENT FINDINGS

The heterogeneous response to hyperthermia in PSM can be explained by tumor and treatment conditions. PSM tumors may resist hyperthermia via metabolic and immunologic adaptation. The thermodynamics of HIPEC are complex and require computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The clinical evidence supporting the benefit of hyperthermia is largely observational. Continued research will allow clinicians to characterize and predict the individual response of PSM to hyperthermia. The application of hyperthermia in current HIPEC protocols is mostly empirical. Thus, modeling heat transfer with CFD is a necessary task if we are to achieve consistent and reproducible hyperthermia. Although observational evidence suggests a survival benefit of hyperthermia, no clinical trial has tested the individual role of hyperthermia in PSM.