HIPEC in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer: Is there a role? A systematic review of short- and long-term outcomes

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.

Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy for people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty in the relative benefits and harms of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) when added to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) +/- systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric, or ovarian cancers.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the medical literature until April 14, 2022 and applied methods used for high-quality systematic reviews.

FINDINGS

We included a total of eight RCTs (seven RCTs included in quantitative analysis as one RCT did not provide data in an analyzable format). All comparisons other than ovarian cancer contained only one trial. For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effect of CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to CRS + systemic chemotherapy. For colorectal cancer, CRS + HIPEC + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and may increase the serious adverse events proportions compared to CRS +/- systemic chemotherapy, but probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone.

INTERPRETATION

The role of CRS + HIPEC in gastric peritoneal metastases is uncertain. CRS + HIPEC should be standard of care in women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval CRS. CRS + systemic chemotherapy should be standard of care for people with colorectal peritoneal metastases, with HIPEC given only as part of a RCT focusing on subgroups and regimes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42019130504.

Developing a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) gynecologic oncology program: a Canadian experience

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment option for epithelial ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery. The intraperitoneal spread of the disease makes the peritoneal cavity an ideal target for drug delivery. HIPEC has shown promising results in improving overall survival in epithelial ovarian cancer patients when performed during interval cytoreductive surgery. Recent studies have provided level 1 evidence supporting increased overall survival in stage III ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC during interval cytoreduction. Meta-analyses have further confirmed the survival improvement in women receiving HIPEC. Despite its inclusion in guidelines, many centers have been hesitant to implement HIPEC programs due to perceived obstacles, such as increased morbidity, cost, and resource requirements. Studies have shown that morbidity rates are acceptable in selected patients, and the addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery is cost effective. Therefore, the main barrier to implementing HIPEC programs is related to resource requirements and logistics, but with proper preparation, these challenges can be overcome. Establishing a successful HIPEC program requires institutional support, a knowledgeable and dedicated team, adequate resources and equipment, and proper training and audit. This review aims to provide evidence based information to guide the development of successful HIPEC programs, including preoperative, anesthetic, and surgical considerations. It also reviews the different equipment and protocols for the perfusion and common postoperative events.

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.

Prediction for 2-year mortality of metastatic ovarian cancer patients based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database

Aim

To establish prediction models for 2-year overall survival of ovarian cancer patients with metastasis.

Methods

In total, 4,929 participants from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were randomly divided into the training set (n = 3,451) and the testing set (n = 1,478). Univariate and multivariable regression were conducted in the training set to identify predictors for 2-year overall survival of metastatic ovarian cancer patients. The C-index was calculated for assessing the performance of the models. The nomogram for the model was plotted. The prediction value of the model was validated in the testing set. Subgroup analysis were performed concerning surgery and chemotherapy status of patients and the metastatic site of ovarian cancer in the testing set. The calibration curves were plotted and the decision curve analysis (DCA) were conducted.

Results

At the end of follow-up, 2,587 patients were survived and 2,342 patients were dead within 2 years. The 2-year survival rate was 52.5%. The prediction models were constructed based on predictors including age, radiation, surgery and chemotherapy, CA125, and bone, liver, and lung metastasis. The prediction model for 2-year overall survival of ovarian cancer patients with metastasis showed good predictive ability with the C-index of the model of 0.719 (95% CI: 0.706–0.731) in the training set and 0.718 (95% CI: 0.698–0.737) in the testing set. In terms of patients with bone metastasis, the C-index was 0.740 (95% CI: 0.652–0.828) for predicting the 2-year overall survival of ovarian cancer patients. The C-index was 0.836 (95% CI: 0.694–0.979) in patients with brain metastasis, 0.755 (95% CI: 0.721–0.788) in patients with liver metastasis and 0.725 (95% CI: 0.686–0.764) in those with lung metastasis for predicting the 2-year overall survival of ovarian cancer patients.

Conclusion

The models showed good predictive performance for 2-year overall survival of metastatic ovarian cancer patients.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) vs CRS alone for treatment of endometrial cancer with peritoneal metastases: a multi-institutional study from PSOGI and BIG RENAPE groups

Objective

To investigate the benefit of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of endometrial peritoneal carcinomatosis compared to CRS alone.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective multicentre study of patients from experienced centres in treating peritoneal malignancies from 2002 to 2015. Patients who underwent surgery for peritoneal evolution of endometrial cancer (EC) were included. Two groups of 30 women were matched and compared: “CRS + HIPEC” which used HIPEC after CRS, and “CRS only” which did not use HIPEC. We analysed clinical, pathologic and treatment data for patients with peritoneal metastases from EC. The outcome measures were morbidity, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

In “CRS plus HIPEC” group, 96.7% of women were treated for recurrence, while in “CRS only” 83.3 were treated for primary disease. There was no significant difference between Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index at laparotomy or Completeness of Cytoreduction score. Grade III and IV complications rates did not significantly differ between “CRS plus HIPEC” group and “CRS only” group (20.7% vs 20.7%, p = 0.739). Survival analysis showed no statistical difference between both groups. Median OS time was 19.2 months in “CRS plus HIPEC” group and 29.7 months in “CRS only” group (p = 0.606). Median PFS survival time was 10.7 months in “CRS plus HIPEC” group and 13.1 months in “CRS only” group (p = 0.511).

Conclusion

The use of HIPEC combined to CRS did not have any significance as regard the DFS and OS over CRS alone in patients with primary or recurrent peritoneal metastasis of endometrial cancer.

Cytoreductive Surgery plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Improves Survival with Acceptable Safety for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Clinical Study of 100 Patients

Background

The mainstay of treatment for advanced ovarian cancer is debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy that includes carboplatin and paclitaxel, but the prognosis is poor. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS+HIPEC) as first-line surgical treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC).

Methods

FIGO stage III/IV AOC patients underwent CRS+HIPEC as first-line surgical treatment at our center from December 2007 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was survival, and the secondary endpoint was safety.

Results

Among 100 patients, the median Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score was 80 (50-100), median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 19 (1-39), median completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score was 1 (0-3), number of organ regions removed was 4 (3-9), number of peritoneal regions removed was 4 (1-9), and number of anastomoses was 1 (0-4). The median follow-up was 36.8 months; 75 (75.0%) patients were still alive, and 25 (25.0%) had died. The median overall survival (mOS) was 87.6 (95% CI: 72.1-103.0) months, and the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival rates were 94.1%, 77.2%, 68.2%, 64.2%, and 64.2%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that better mOS correlated with an age ≤, KPS ≥ 80, ascites ≤ 1000 ml, PCI < 19, and CC score 0-1. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that CC was an independent factor for OS; patients who underwent CRS with a CC score 0-1 had a mPFS of 67.8 (95% CI: 48.3-87.4) months. The perioperative serious adverse event and morbidity rates were 4.0% and 2.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

CRS+HIPEC improves survival for AOC patients with acceptable safety at experienced high-volume centers. Stringent patient selection and complete CRS are key factors for better survival.

Upfront or intermediate treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients with cytoreduction plus HIPEC: Results of a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian cancer patients are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primary or intermediate cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The aim of this study is to evaluate the optimal timing of cytoreduction plus HIPEC for advanced ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

Advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC at three different hospitals between 2005 and 2019 were subgrouped regarding their time of management with cytoreduction plus HIPEC, upfront or intermediate. We retrospectively assessed the overall survival (OS), the progression-free survival (PFS), and the disease-free survival (DFS) of these groups.

RESULTS

A total of 112 ovarian cancer patients were contained. Of whom, 47 patients were in the upfront group with 24 (51.1%) to be alive, while 65 patients were included in the intermediate group with 34 (52.3%) to be alive. OS (48 vs. 30 months) and DFS (42 vs. 20 months) indicated no significant difference. Although the same median PFS was observed in both groups (10 months), a higher mean PFS was observed in the upfront group (11.9 vs. 9 months, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

The treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients with upfront cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC is feasible with the same survival results. Further, larger prospective studies need to verify our results.

Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A 20-Year Single-Center Experience

Despite improvement in treatments, the peritoneum remains the primary site of relapse in most ovarian cancer cases. Patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from epithelial ovarian cancer were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox analyses were used to identify survival rates and prognostic factors. This study included 158 patients. The procedure was mostly performed for recurrent disease (46.8%) and high-grade serous carcinoma (58.2%). The median peritoneal cancer index was 14, and complete cytoreduction was obtained in 87.9% of cases. Grade IV morbidity occurred in 15.2% of patients, mostly requiring surgical reoperation, and one patient (0.6%) died within 90 days. The median follow-up was 63.5 months. The Kaplan-Meier 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 42.1% and 24.3%, respectively. Multiple regression logistic analyses demonstrated that the completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score (p ≤ 0.0001), pancreatic resection (p ≤ 0.0001) and number of resections (p = 0.001) were significant factors influencing OS; whereas the CC score (p ≤ 0.0001) and diaphragmatic procedures (p = 0.01) were significant for DFS. The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy to standard multimodality therapy may improve outcomes in both primary and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer without impairing early postoperative results, but the exact timing has not yet been established. Prospective randomized studies will clarify the role and indications of this approach.

Evaluation of Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Stage III Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Interval cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) showed promising oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, but a large-scale, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy of HIPEC combined with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) has yet to be conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival outcomes between PCS with HIPEC vs PCS alone for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted from January 2010 to May 2017 at 5 high-volume institutions in China. A total of 584 patients with stage III primary epithelial ovarian cancer were treated with either PCS alone or PCS with HIPEC. The median (interquartile range) follow-up period was 42.2 (33.3-51.0) months. Data analysis was conducted from August to December 2019.

EXPOSURES

PCS with HIPEC vs PCS alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were median survival time and 3-year overall survival. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, based on propensity score, was used to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

From a total of 789 patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, 584 patients (74.0%; mean [SD] age, 55.0 [10.5] years) were ultimately included for IPTW in this study. Of the 584 patients, 425 (72.8%) underwent PCS with HIPEC and 159 (27.2%) underwent PCS alone. After IPTW adjustment, the median survival time was 49.8 (95% CI, 45.2-60.2) months for patients undergoing PCS with HIPEC and 34.0 (95% CI, 28.9-41.5) months for patients undergoing PCS alone, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 60.3% (95% CI, 55.3%-65.0%) for patients undergoing PCS with HIPEC and 49.5% (95% CI, 41.0%-57.4%) for patients undergoing PCS alone (weighted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001). Further stratified into complete and incomplete surgery subgroups, patients in the PCS with HIPEC group had significantly better survival than those in the PCS group, except for the 3-year overall survival rate in the incomplete subgroup. Among those who underwent complete surgical procedures and comparing those who received PCS with HIPEC vs those who received PCS alone, the median survival time was 53.9 (95% CI, 46.6-63.7) months vs 42.3 (95% CI, 31.1-59.3) months (P = .02), and the 3-year overall survival rate was 65.9% (95% CI, 60.1%-71.2%) vs 55.4% (95% CI, 44.7%-64.8%) (P = .04); meanwhile, among patients who underwent incomplete surgical procedures and comparing those who received PCS with HIPEC vs those who received PCS alone, the median survival time was 29.2 (95% CI, 22.3-45.5) months vs 19.9 (95% CI, 11.6-39.1) months (P = .03), and the 3-year OS rate was 44.3% (95% CI, 34.6%-53.4%) vs 36.7% (95% CI, 23.4%-50.1%) (P = .19). The treatment was well tolerated in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the PCS with HIPEC treatment approach was associated with better long-term survival. When complete PCS is possible, this approach could be a valuable therapy for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019130504.

Oncologic outcomes and morbidity following heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy at cytoreductive surgery for primary epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has not been universally adopted at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery for primary epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) despite evidence of a 12-month overall survival (OS) benefit in a recent landmark randomized trial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess oncologic outcomes and perioperative morbidity following HIPEC among primary EOC patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to August 2019, for observational and randomized studies of primary EOC patients undergoing HIPEC. We assessed risk of bias using the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal Checklist for single-arm cohort studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for comparative cohort studies, and Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for randomized trials. We qualitatively summarized survival outcomes and calculated the pooled proportion of 30-day grade III-IV morbidity and postoperative death.

RESULTS

We identified 35 articles including 2252 primary EOC patients; one study was a randomized trial, and only six studies included a comparator group of surgery alone. The timing, temperature, and chemotherapeutic agents used for HIPEC differed across studies. Reported OS was highly variable (3-year OS range: 46-77%); three comparative cohort studies and the sole randomized trial reported statistically significant survival benefits for HIPEC over surgery alone, while two comparative cohort studies did not. The pooled proportions for grade III-IV morbidity and postoperative death at 30 days were 34% (95% CI 20-52) and 0% (95% CI 0-5) respectively.

CONCLUSION

One randomized trial suggests that HIPEC at time of interval cytoreductive surgery should be considered in patients with primary EOC. However, there is significant heterogeneity in literature with respect to an appropriate HIPEC regimen, short- and long-term outcomes. High-quality prospective randomized trials are urgently needed to clarify the role of HIPEC in the first-line treatment of primary EOC.

Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Management of Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has several potential benefits. Higher doses of chemotherapy can be used with HIPEC because the plasma-peritoneal barrier results in little absorption into the blood stream. HIPEC offers higher peritoneal penetration in comparison to an intravenous (IV) regimen and does not have the traditional normothermic intraperitoneal (IP) regimen limitation of post-operative adhesions. Hyperthermia itself has cytotoxic effects and can potentiate antineoplastic effects of chemotherapy in part by increasing the depth of tumor penetration by up to 3 mm. For the treatment of ovarian cancer, HIPEC has been evaluated in the recurrent setting with secondary cytoreduction. Recent studies, including a prospective trial, have evaluated its role in primary management of ovarian cancer. This review summarizes previous and ongoing studies regarding the use of HIPEC in the management of ovarian cancer.