Current Opinion and Practice on Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Management: The North African Perspective

Background

The status of peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) management in North Africa is undetermined. The aim of this study was to assess and compare current practice and knowledge regarding PSM and examine satisfaction with available treatment options and need for alternative therapies in North Africa.

Methods

This is a qualitative study involving specialists participating in PSM management in North Africa. The survey analyzed demographic characteristics and current knowledge and opinions regarding PSM management in different institutions. We also looked at goals and priorities, satisfaction with treatment modalities and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) usefulness according to specialty, country, years of experience, and activity sector.

Results

One-hundred and three participants responded to the survey (response rate of 57%), including oncologists and surgeons. 59.2% of respondents had more than 10 years experience and 45.6% treated 20–50 PSM cases annually. Participants satisfaction with PSM treatment modalities was mild for gastric cancer (3/10 [IQR 2–3]) and moderate for colorectal (5/10 [IQR 3–5]), ovarian (5/10 [IQR 3–5]), and pseudomyxoma peritonei (5/10 [IQR 3–5]) type of malignancies. Good quality of life and symptom relief were rated as main priorities for treatment and the need for new treatment modalities was rated 9/10 [IQR 8–9]. The perceived usefulness of systemic chemotherapy in first intention was described as high by 42.7 and 39.8% of respondents for PSM of colorectal and gastric origins, while HIPEC was described as highly useful for ovarian (49.5%) and PMP (73.8) malignancies.

Conclusions

The management of PSM in the North African region has distinct differences in knowledge, treatments availability and priorities. Disparities are also noted according to specialty, country, years of expertise, and activity sector. The creation of referral structures and PSM networks could be a step forward to standardized PSM management in the region.

Current Opinion on Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Treatment: a Survey of the Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ISPSM)

Purpose

Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) are increasingly treated with multidisciplinary combined approaches. The study aim was to assess current practice and perceptions of treatment modalities of PC.

Methods

Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ISPSM) members were invited to complete an online survey. Current practice and perceptions of treatment modalities were assessed through 19 closed questions. Scores were assessed using a Likert scale (0: not important, 5: very important). Treatment modality satisfaction was assessed using a semantic scale (frustrated: 0, perfectly happy: 10). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 4-week intervals.

Results

Fifty-seven out of 182 members completed the survey (31%). Forty percent of participants had an experience of at least 10 years, and 75% stated treating less than 20 PC patients per year. Main treatment goals for patients with PC were cure (5/5) and symptom relief (4/5). Participant’s satisfaction with treatment modalities for ovarian, colorectal, and gastric PC were 6/10, 5/10, and 2/10, respectively. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian (57%) and colorectal (44%) origins were considered to be useful. Clinical usefulness of chemotherapy for gastric PC was rated to be low (17%).

Conclusions

Current treatment modalities fall short to satisfy the needs (cure, symptom relief) of patients with PC. Alternative systemic and intraperitoneal treatment modalities should be assessed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12029-020-00538-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM)

Objectives

Perception of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for treating peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) differ widely among physicians.

Methods

This on-site survey performed during a major oncology congress in 2019 evaluated the current opinion, perceptions, knowledge and practice of HIPEC and PIPAC among oncologists in India.

Results

There were 147 respondents (gynecologists (30%), surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons (64%), and medical oncologists (6%)). Whereas most respondents considered CRS and HIPEC an appropriate therapeutic option, 25% would not recommend CRS and HIPEC. The main barriers to referral to an expert center were inaccessibility to such a center (37.8%), non-inclusion of CRS and HIPEC in clinical practice guidelines (32.4%), and a high morbidity/mortality (21.6%). Variations were found in the various practice patterns of CRS/HIPEC like eligibility criteria, HIPEC protocols and safety measures. Although PIPAC awareness as a novel therapeutic option was high, only a limited number of centers offered PIPAC, mainly because of non-access to technology and missing training opportunities (76.2%).

Conclusions

Lack of widespread acceptance, poor accessibility and low utilization presents a significant challenge for HIPEC and PIPAC in India. There is a need to raise the awareness of curative and palliative therapeutic options for PSM. This might be achieved by the creation of expert centers, specialized training curricula and of a new sub-speciality in oncology.

Perceptions in the management of colorectal peritoneal metastases: A bi-national survey of colorectal surgeons

Background

There is great variability in the uptake of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the management of colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM) in Australia and New Zealand. This study aims to provide a snapshot of perceptions among colorectal surgeons in the management of CRPM.

Methods

A structured ten-question online survey was sent to all colorectal surgeons, with three questions on clinical experience and demographics, one on health economics and six on hypothetical clinical scenarios. Scores were collated and reported based on Likert scales.

Results

Eighty-one respondents (36.2%) completed the survey. Most surgeons (66.7%) strongly disagreed with offering CRS and HIPEC at all hospitals. The majority (87.7%) agreed that CRS and HIPEC offered a higher survival benefit than systemic chemotherapy in pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP), and 69.1% in CRPM (comparators: 60.5% ovarian cancer, 14.8% gastric cancer). There were mixed strategies in managing low-volume, isolated peritoneal recurrences. The majority did not recommend second-look laparoscopy, but favoured operative management of Krukenberg tumours. In the presence of incidental peritoneal metastases, only 29.6% favoured biopsy only and referring the patient to a peritoneal disease centre.

Conclusions

Response rate was relatively low. In Australia and New Zealand, colorectal surgeons see a strong role for CRS and HIPEC in the management of PMP and CRPM. The role of “second look” surgery in high-risk cases is controversial and not supported. Krukenberg tumours are viewed as surgical disease. Regular updates and collaboration with peritoneal centres may help surgeons stay abreast with latest evidence in the field.

Postoperative intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion improve survival for advanced gastric cancer

To evaluate the value of intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion (IPHP) in the treatment of gastric cancer.Gastric cancer (GC) is a malignancy with poor prognosis, recent years have demonstrated advances in the use of IPHP for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC), but the outcome is controversial.Between January 2015 and January 2017, 134 patients with GC were treated with IPHP in our surgery department, 130 of them were advanced GC patients, and other 1439 cases were treated without IPHP for comparison. In this retrospective cohort study, demographic, perioperative data, and follow-up data were analyzed by univariant analysis, Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression survival analysis.We found the 1-year survival in IPHP group was significantly longer than it in non-IPHP group (85.5% vs 73.8%, P = .027). and IPHP decreased mortality 1.8 times in 2-year course (OR = 0.556, P = .004). The incidence rate of total complications in IPHP group was similar to that in the Non-IPHP group (6.67% vs 7.46%, respectively; P = .718). We classified all patients into four groups, operation alone, operation + chemotherapy, operation + IPHP, and operation + IPHP + chemotherapy. The 1-year survival in the groups was 70.2%, 77.5%, 83.1%, and 93.5%, respectively (P = .001), compared with the group of operation alone, the 2-year mortality risk was decreased 1.76 times (OR = 0.569, P = .030) and 2.59 times (OR = 0.385, P = .022) in operation + IPHP group and operation + IPHP + chemotherapy group.Our results suggest that IPHP could contribute to improve survival of patients with gastric cancer. And the modality of operation + IPHP + chemotherapy is the optimal treatment modality for gastric cancer.