HIPEC after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking is associated with development of platinum-refractory or -resistant disease

Complications of HIPEC for ovarian cancer surgery: evaluation over two time periods

OBJECTIVE

Cytoreductive surgery in conjunction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is being explored in the upfront, interval, and recurrent setting in patients with ovarian cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the rate of complications associated with HIPEC in epithelial ovarian cancer surgery over two time periods.

METHODS

This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022328928). A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Ovid/Medline, Ovid/Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2004 to April 2022. We included studies reporting on patients with advanced primary or recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. We evaluated two different time periods: 2004-2013 and 2014-2022. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to produce an overall summary. Subgroup analyses were planned according to recruited period for each specific complication type. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 4928 patients were included from 69 studies for this systematic review; 19 published from 2004-2013, and 50 published from 2014-2022. No significant differences were found between the two time periods in terms of blood transfusions (33% vs 51%; p=0.46; I2=95%) overall gastrointestinal complications (15% vs 21%; p=0.36; I2=98%), infectious diseases (16% vs 13%; p=0.62; I2=93%), overall respiratory complications (12% vs 12%; p=0.88; I2=91%), overall urinary complications (6% vs 12%; p=0.06; I2=94%), or thromboembolic events (5% vs 3%; p=0.25; I2=63%). Also, no differences were found in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (89% vs 28%; p=0.06; I2=99%), reoperations (8% vs 7%; p=0.50; I2=37%), or deaths (3% vs 3%; p=0.77; I2=57%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review showed that overall complications have not changed over time for patients undergoing HIPEC in the setting of primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. There was no decrease in the rates of ICU admissions, reoperations, or deaths.

Prognostic value and adverse events of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in primary advanced and platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The original meta-analysis of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is already outdated, owing to the latest trial results. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and adverse events of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC compared to conventional therapy for advanced and platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, phase II/III controlled trials regarding 'HIPEC' and 'ovarian cancer' were searched for in electronic databases from inception to March 2022.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pooled hazard ratio [HR] in the HIPEC group for progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.83, p = .002) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p < .001) were improved in the HIPEC group compared with the non-HIPEC group. For primary advanced disease, OS and PFS were significantly increased in patients receiving interval debulking surgery + HIPEC, whereas PFS was not significantly different between primary debulking surgery (PDS) + HIPEC and PDS alone. For platinum-sensitive recurrent disease, no correlation was observed for PFS and OS between the HIPEC and non-HIPEC groups (p < .05). The incidence of procedure-related complications was higher in the HIPEC group than in the non-HIPEC group (odds ratio = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.24-3.01, p < .01). The morbidity of leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, hypoalbuminemia, and grades III-IV electrolyte disturbance was higher in the HIPEC group than in the non-HIPEC group. However, HIPEC administration reduced the risk of intra-abdominal bleeding and constipation.

CONCLUSION

HIPEC-based regimens improved the clinical prognosis for primary advanced OC, whereas no significant value was elicited for recurrent OC.

No obvious advantage of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy after interval debulking surgery in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: A retrospective study

Objective

To study the efficacy of interval debulking surgery (IDS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) compared to IDS alone for the treatment of ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with stage IIIC/IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma who underwent surgery at our center from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients who underwent IDS after NACT with (N = 20) or without (N = 42) HIPEC were included. HIPEC was administered after surgery and was combined with 1–2 courses of intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion with normal saline only. We analyzed clinical information and outcomes for the two groups.

Results

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.05 months in the IDS plus HIPEC group and 12.97 months in the IDS group (P = 0.597). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached. After adjustment for age between the two groups, the differences in PFS and OS remained nonsignificant. The change ratio of postoperative CA-125 to preoperative CA-125 was 0.66 in the IDS plus HIPEC group and 0.53 in the IDS group (P = 0.341). The difference in human epididymis protein 4 (HE-4) change ratio between the two groups was nonsignificant (P = 0.225). No significant difference was observed in the occurrence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events between the two groups (P = 0.201).

Conclusion

After NACT, IDS plus HIPEC did not show significant PFS and tumor index change ratio benefits over IDS alone in patients with primary ovarian cancer. Further investigations are needed to assess the role of HIPEC in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): An Overview of the Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Actions and Effects on Epithelial Ovarian Cancers

Most patients with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are at advanced stages (stage III–IV), for which the recurrence rate is high and the 5-year survival rate is low. The most effective treatment for advanced diseases involves a debulking surgery followed by adjuvant intravenous chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Nevertheless, systemic treatment with intravenous chemotherapeutic agents for peritoneal metastasis appears to be less effective due to the poor blood supply to the peritoneal surface with low drug penetration into tumor nodules. Based on this reason, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) emerges as a new therapeutic alternative. By convection and diffusion, the hyperthermic chemotherapeutic agents can directly contact intraperitoneal tumors and produce cytotoxicity. In a two-compartment model, the peritoneal–plasma barrier blocks the leakage of chemotherapeutic agents from peritoneal cavity and tumor tissues to local vessels, thus maintaining a higher concentration of chemotherapeutic agents within the tumor tissues to facilitate tumor apoptosis and a lower concentration of chemotherapeutic agents within the local vessels to decrease systemic toxicity. In this review, we discuss the molecular and cellular mechanisms of HIPEC actions and the effects on EOCs, including the progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). For primary advanced ovarian cancers, more studies are agreeing that patients undergoing HIPEC have better surgical and clinical (PFS; OS) outcomes than those not, although one study reported no differences in the PFS and OS. For recurrent ovarian cancers, studies have revealed better DFS and OS in patients undergoing HIPEC than those in patients not undergoing HIPEC, although one study reported no differences in the PFS. HIPEC appears comparable to traditional intravenous chemotherapy in treating advanced EOCs. Overall, HIPEC has demonstrated some therapeutic benefits in many randomized phase III trials when combined with the standard cytoreductive surgeries for advanced EOCs. Nevertheless, many unknown aspects of HIPEC, including detailed mechanisms of actions, along with the effectiveness and safety for the treatment of EOCs, warrant further investigation.

Interval debulking surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: Single-institution cohort study

To evaluate the additive effects of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval debulking surgery (IDS) in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. From January 2015 to February 2019, 123 patients with stages IIIC-IV ovarian cancer were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by IDS with optimal cytoreduction. Forty-three patients received IDS with HIPEC and 80 patients had IDS without HIPEC. The median follow-up period was 34.4 months. No differences in baseline characteristics in patients were found between the two groups. The IDS with HIPEC group had fewer median cycles of chemotherapy (P = 0.002) than the IDS group. The IDS with HIPEC group had a higher rate of high surgical complexity score (P = 0.032) and higher rate of complete resection (P = 0.041) compared to the IDS group. The times to start adjuvant chemotherapy were longer in the IDS with HIPEC group compared to the IDS group (P &lt; 0.001). Postoperative grade 3 or 4 complications were similar in the two groups (P = 0.237). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that HIPEC with the IDS group had better progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.010), while there was no difference in overall survival between the two groups (P = 0.142). In the multivariate analysis, HIPEC was significantly associated with better PFS (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39 - 0.93). The addition of HIPEC to IDS resulted in longer PFS than IDS without HIPEC not affecting the safety profile. Further research is needed to evaluate the true place of HIPEC in the era of targeted treatments.

Association of preoperative cone biopsy with recurrences after radical hysterectomy

Objective

To evaluate association of preoperative cone biopsy with the probability of recurrent disease after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Methods

This is a retrospective single-center study. Patients with cervical cancer stage IA1 with LVSI to IIA2 and squamous, adenosquamous and adenocarcinoma subtype were included. Patients were analyzed for general characteristics and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results

In total, of 480 patients with cervical cancer, 183 patients met the inclusion criteria (117 with laparoscopic and 66 with open surgery). The median tumor diameter was 25.0 mm (range 4.6–70.0 mm) with 66 (36.2%) patients having tumors smaller than 2 cm. During median follow-up of 54.0 months (range 0–166.0 months), the RFS for the laparoscopic cohort was 93.2% and 87.5% at 3 and 4.5 years, and 79.3% for the open cohort after 3 and 4.5 years, respectively. In total, 17 (9.3%) patients developed recurrent disease, 9 (7.3%) after laparoscopic, and 8 (12.1%) after open surgery. No preoperative cone biopsy (OR 9.60, 95% CI 2.14–43.09) as well as tumor diameter > 2 cm (OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.20–24.25) were significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence. In multivariate analysis, only missing preoperative cone biopsy was significantly associated with increased risk for recurrence (OR 5.90, 95% CI 1.11–31.29)

Conclusion

There appears to be a subgroup of patients (preoperative cone biopsy, tumor diameter < 2 cm) with excellent survival and low risk for recurrence after radical hysterectomy which might benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.