A novel method of bedside hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer

Prophylaxis and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin using hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal carcinomatosis significantly worsens the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. Cytoreduction + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in the prevention and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in advanced gastric cancer (AGC); however, its application remains controversial owing to the variability of the approaches used to perform it and the lack of high-quality evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of surgery and HIPEC in the prevention and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing surgery + HIPEC vs surgery + chemotherapy for the prophylaxis of peritoneal carcinomatosis and cytoreduction + HIPEC vs chemotherapy or other palliative options for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies enrolling 1641 patients were included. Surgery + HIPEC significantly improved overall survival in both prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56) and therapeutic (HR, 0.57) settings. When surgery + HIPEC was performed with prophylactic intent, the pooled 3-year mortality rate was 32%, whereas for the control group it was 55%. The overall and peritoneal recurrence rates were also reduced (risk ratio [RR], 0.59 and 0.40, respectively). No significant difference was found in morbidity between groups (RR, 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Based on the current knowledge, HIPEC in AGC seems to be a safe and effective tool for prophylaxis and a promising resource for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Regarding the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis, the scarcity of large-cohort studies and the heterogeneity of the techniques adopted prevented us from achieving a definitive recommendation.

Survival and complications of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is an advanced stage of intra-abdominal malignancy with a very poor prognosis. In recent years, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has been utilized as an active treatment in the prevention and treatment of PM, with encouraging results. However, compared with CRS alone, the results of the CRS plus HIPEC strategy in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal malignancies are still controversial. This study sought to determine the impact of HIPEC + CRS on patient survival and adverse events (AEs) by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all types of intra-abdominal malignancies.

Methods: A PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov search extracted all RCTs until 12 October 2022, examining the CRS + HIPEC vs. CRS alone strategies in the treatment of various types of intra-abdominal malignancies. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and AEs. The dichotomous data were pooled and reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The survival outcome data were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results: A total of 12 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, including 873 patients in the CRS + HIPEC group and 878 patients in the CRS alone group. The studies included 3 (617 patients) on colorectal cancer, 4 (416 patients) on gastric cancer, and 5 (718 patients) on ovarian cancer. Our analysis showed no difference in OS between the CRS + HIPEC and CRS alone groups (HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.01). Subgroup analysis showed that CRS + HIPEC improved the OS of gastric cancer patients (HR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.32–0.76) compared with CRS alone. However, CRS + HIPEC did not significantly improve the OS of colorectal cancer (HR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.81–1.38) and ovarian cancer (HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.62–1.07) patients. In addition, there was no significant difference in DFS/RFS (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.57–1.07) or PFS (HR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.77–1.38) between the two groups. Compared with CRS alone, CRS with HIPEC had greater nephrotoxicity (OR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21–0.98), while other AEs did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that CRS + HIPEC may improve OS in gastric cancer patients compared with CRS alone, but we did not observe a benefit for DFS/RFS. For patients with ovarian and colorectal cancers, our results suggest that HIPEC + CRS does not appear to improve survival outcomes. In addition, CRS + HIPEC has higher nephrotoxicity than CRS alone. More evidence from RCTs is needed to evaluate whether the use of CRS + HIPEC is an appropriate option.

Hyperthermic intrathoracic/intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus conventional intrapleural/intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the malignant effusion: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of hyperthermic intrathoracic/intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus conventional intrapleural/intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of malignant pleural or peritoneal effusion.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was carried out in 8 cancer centers across China. Patients with malignant pleural or peritoneal effusion were randomly assigned to the study group or control group. Patients in the study group were treated with cisplatin-based hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy (HITHOC) or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), while the control group was treated with conventional intrapleural or intraperitoneal chemotherapy using same chemotherapeutic regime as the study group. The objective response rate (ORR) was analyzed as primary outcome. Quality-of-life (QOL) score was recorded as secondary outcome using the questionnaire 30 (QLQ-C30) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The efficacy and safety of the two treatments were compared.

RESULTS

Total 135 patients were recruited and randomized in this study, with 67 patients in the study group and 68 patients in the control group. The ORR in the study group (80.70%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (31.03%, p < 0.001). However, neither changes of QOL scores, nor incidence rates of adverse events were significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.076 and 0.197, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of HITHOC or HIPEC is superior to that of conventional modality for the treatment of malignant effusion with comparable side effects.

Systematic review of the registered clinical trials for oncological hyperthermia treatment

BACKGROUND

The use of heat to treat various diseases is called hyperthermia treatment (HT). Since the 1970s, the anti-cancer effects of HT have been investigated. Different HT techniques can be categorized as local, regional and whole-body hyperthermia treatment (WBHT). We aim to provide a summary of recent research done on HT to treat cancer.

METHODS

In July 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for all trials including hyperthermia and cancer registered between 2000 and 2020. Studies were excluded when they did not concern hyperthermal treatment, when they were not oncological studies, when they were observational or other non-interventional studies.

RESULTS

Of 1654 identified trials, 235 were included. Of these 235 studies, 123 described the use of HIPEC (52.3%), 44 other types of regional HT (18.7%), 45 local HT (19.1%) and 15 WBHT (6.4%). A steady increase (720%) in research to hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be observed in the last decade. Although HIPEC is the most researched HT modality, an evolution in other HT technologies could be observed during the past decade.

CONCLUSIONS

Research to HT to treat cancer has expanded fast. Some techniques, for example HIPEC start to be used outside of research context, but overall, more research is needed to establish a clear effect of these HT techniques.