Reconstruction after ureteral resection during HIPEC surgery: Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy seems safer than end-to-end anastomosis

Risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with concomitant ureteric reimplantation

OBJECTIVES

There are currently scarce data exploring ureteric reimplantation (UR) during cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing CRS for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) of any origin at a single high-volume unit. UR was defined as ureteroureterostomy, transureterouretostomy, ureteroneocystostomy, ureterosigmoidostomy or ileal conduit performed during CRS. Peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and risk factors for requiring UR were analysed.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-seven CRSs were identified. Twenty-three (3.0%) procedures involved UR. Bladder resection and colorectal cancer (CRC) were associated with increased risk of UR (bladder resection: OR 12.90, 95% CI 4.91-33.90, p<0.001; CRC: OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.05-6.01, p=0.038). UR did not increase the risk of Grade III-IV morbidity or mortality. The rate of ureteric leak was 3/23 (13.0%) in the UR group. Mean survival was equivocal in patients with CRC (58.14 vs. 34.25 months, p=0.441) but significantly lower in those with high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN) undergoing UR (73.98 vs. 30.90 months, p=0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

UR during CRS does not increase major morbidity or mortality for carefully selected patients, and is associated with low rates of urologic complications. Whilst decreased survival was apparent in patients with HAMN undergoing UR, it is unclear whether this relationship is causal.

Clinical features and surgical outcomes of major urological interventions during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotheraphy

Background:

Urinary system resections and reconstructions are needed in peritoneal carcinomatosis due to abdominal malignancies. The effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on these urological procedures after reconstruction remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to evaluate major urological interventions during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in complex abdominal malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Methods:

Forty-four cases underwent surgical intervention related to the urinary system among 208 cases who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy because of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Urinary system procedures performed in these patients (radical-partial cystectomy, partial ureter resection ureteroneocystostomy, ureteroureterostomy, nephrectomy) were evaluated in terms of postoperative morbidity–mortality and survival.

Results:

Urinary system resections were performed during cytoreductive surgery in a total of 44 cases. The mean age was 54 years (20–73). Patients were diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis due to colorectal cancer in 21 (47.8%), ovarian cancer in nine (20.4%), sarcomatosis in five (11.4%), cervical cancer in four (9%) and other cancers (mesothelioma, uterus, breast, gastric) in five (11.4%) cases. Total nephrectomy was performed in three cases and partial nephrectomy in one case. Cystectomy was performed in 21 cases; 16 of these were partial and five were total cystectomies. Ureteroureterocystostomy with double J was performed in four cases and ureteroneocystostomy in 12 cases. While Clavian–Dindo grade 3–4 complications were seen in nine cases (20.4%), three cases (6.8%) became exitus during the first 30-day follow-up.

Conclusions:

Although urinary system involvements have been regarded as inoperable in the past, we think that with adequate experience radical urinary interventions performed in suitable patients can be carried out with acceptable morbidity and mortality as seen in our series.

Total Pelvic Exenteration, Cytoreductive Surgery, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer with Associate Peritoneal Metastases: Surgical Strategies to Optimize Safety

Simple Summary

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a curative treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Pelvic exenteration is an established treatment option for locally advanced pelvic malignancy. Based on the argument that high-risk complications arise from each procedure, the majority of researchers do not recommend performing a CRS/HIPEC with pelvis exenteration. Herein, we critically analyzed the data from 16 patients treated by these two procedures for 15 rectal and one appendiceal adenocarcinomas. Clear resection (R0) margins were achieved in 81.2% of cases. The median hospital stay was 46 days (26–129), and nine patients (56.2%) experienced severe complications that led to death in two cases (12.5%). Survival rates were not clarified, since the follow-up is ongoing. Pelvis exenteration associated with CRS/HIPEC may be a reasonable procedure in selected patients at expert centers. Pelvic involvement should not be considered a definitive contraindication for CRS/HIPEC if a R0 resection could be achieved. However, the morbidity and the mortality are high with this combination of treatment, and further research is needed to assess the oncologic benefit and quality of life before such a radical approach can be recommended.

Abstract

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a curative treatment option for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is an established treatment option for locally advanced pelvic malignancy. These two procedures have high mortality and morbidity, and therefore, their combination is not currently recommended. Herein, we reported our experience on TPE associated with CRS/HIPEC with a critical analysis for rectal cancer with associate peritoneal metastases. Methods: From March 2006 to August 2020, 319 patients underwent a CRS/HIPEC in our hospital. Among them, 16 (12 men and four women) underwent an associated TPE. The primary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results: There was locally recurrent rectal cancer in nine cases, six locally advanced primary rectal cancer, and a recurrent appendiceal adenocarcinoma. The median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 8. (4–16). Mean duration of the surgical procedure was 596 min (420–840). Complete cytoreduction (CC0) was achieved in all patients, while clear resection (R0) margins on the resected pelvic organs were achieved in 81.2% of cases. The median hospital stay was 46 days (26–129), and nine patients (56.2%) experienced severe complications (grade III to V) that led to death in two cases (12.5%). The total reoperation rate for patients was 6/16 (37.5%) and 3/16 (18.75%) with percutaneous radiological-guided drainage. Conclusions: In summary, TPE/extended TPE (ETPE) associated with CRS/HIPEC may be a reasonable procedure in selected patients at expert centers. Pelvic involvement should not be considered a definitive contraindication for CRS/HIPEC in patients with resectable peritoneal surface diseases if a R0 resection could be achieved on all sites. However, the morbidity and the mortality are high with this combination of treatment, and further research is needed to assess the oncologic benefit and quality of life before such a radical approach can be recommended.

Treading the beaten path with old and new obstacles: a report from the Indian HIPEC registry

BACKGROUND

The Indian HIPEC registry is a self-funded registry instituted by a group of Indian surgeons for patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) undergoing surgical treatment. This work was performed to  • Evaluate outcomes of cytoreductive surgery ± HIPEC in patients enrolled in the registry.  • Identify operational problems.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in the registry from March 2016 to September 2017 was performed. An online survey was performed to study the surgeons' attitudes and existing practices pertaining to the registry and identify operational problems.

RESULTS

During the study period, 332 patients were enrolled in 8 participating centres. The common indication was ovarian cancer for three centres and pseudomyxoma peritonei for three others. The median PCI ranged from 3 to 23. A CC-0/1 resection was obtained in 94.7%. There was no significant difference in the morbidity (p = .25) and mortality (p = .19) rates between different centres. There was a high rate of failure-to-rescue (19.3%) patients with complications and the survival in patients with colorectal PM was inferior. A lack of dedicated personnel for data collection and entry was the main reason for only 10/43 surgeons contributing data. The other problem was the lack of complete electronic medical record systems at all centres.

CONCLUSIONS

These results validate existing practices and identify country-specific problems that need to be addressed. Despite operational problems, the registry is an invaluable tool for audit and research. It shows the feasibility of fruitful collaboration between surgeons in the absence of any regulatory body or funding for the project.