Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy - Fading Perspective in the Light of Modern Systemic Chemotherapy?

Molecular Mechanisms and Potential Rationale of Immunotherapy in Peritoneal Metastasis of Advanced Gastric Cancer

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is one of the most frequent metastasis patterns of gastric cancer (GC), and the prognosis of patients with PM is very dismal. According to Paget’s theory, disseminated free cancer cells are seeded and survive in the abdominal cavity, adhere to the peritoneum, invade the subperitoneal tissue, and proliferate through angiogenesis. In these sequential processes, several key molecules are involved. From a therapeutic point of view, immunotherapy with chemotherapy combination has become the standard of care for advanced GC. Several clinical trials of newer immunotherapy agents are ongoing. Understanding of the molecular process of PM and the potential rationale of immunotherapy for PM treatment is necessary. Beyond understanding of the molecular aspect of PM, many studies have been conducted on the modality of treatment of PM. Notably, intraperitoneal approaches, including chemotherapy or immunotherapy, have been conducted, because systemic treatment of PM has limitations. In this study, we reviewed the molecular mechanisms and immunologic aspects of PM, and intraperitoneal approaches under investigation for treating PM.

Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastasis of non-primary origin

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to analyze the role of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy that has developed in the treatment of patients with peritoneal metastasis of non-primary origin.

METHODS

Patients who underwent treatment for secondary gastrointestinal and ovarian malignancies over a 20-year period were reviewed. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and the log-rank test was used to assess differences between subgroups.

RESULTS

The study included 293 patients. The most common histology was ovarian cancer (56.3%). Median PCI was 16 and CC0-1 resection was obtained in 88.1% of cases. Grade III and IV complications occurred in 12 patients (4.1%) and 47 patients (16%), respectively. The 30- and 60-day mortality rate was 1.3% (4 patients) and 2.4% (7 patients). Five-year OS was 21.7%, 73.6%, 42.1%, and 0 for colorectal, appendiceal, ovarian, and gastric cancer (p =  < 0.0001), respectively, whereas 5-year DFS was 12.4%, 48.4%, 24.3%, and 0 (p =  < 0.0001), respectively. Survival outcomes were significantly higher for CC0 in each subgroup of patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite being a complex procedure, cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy should be considered a safe treatment with acceptable postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, if performed in high-volume centers. Good survival outcomes have been increasingly obtained in selected patients with peritoneal metastasis of non-primary origin.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal malignancy: initial experience of the first program in the Baltic countries

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal malignancies include primary and metastatic cancer of the peritoneal cavity. The most common origin for peritoneal metastasis is ovarian, gastric, and colorectal cancers. Irrespective of the origin, peritoneal metastases represent the advanced disease and are associated with poor long-term outcomes. The minimally invasive approach of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) allows repeated applications and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing histological samples. This study aimed to investigate the initial experience with PIPAC in the Baltic region.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PIPAC at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos between 2015 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS) in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by PIPAC. The secondary outcomes included postoperative morbidity; peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) and ascites reduction after treatment by PIPAC.

RESULTS

In total, 15 patients underwent 34 PIPAC procedures. PIPAC-related intraoperative and postoperative morbidity occurred in 3 (8.8%) of 34 procedures. Following PIPAC, the median PCI decreased from 8 (4; 15) to 5 (1; 16) in GC patients, although, the difference failed for significance, p = 0.581. In OC patients, PCI after PIPAC remained stable. Median overall survival after PIPAC procedure was 25 (95% CI 5-44) months. Ovarian cancer patients (22; 95% CI 12-44 months) had significantly higher OS, compared to gastric cancer patients (8; 95% CI 4-16 months), p = 0.018.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC is safe and feasible for patients with gastric and ovarian cancers peritoneal metastases.

Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy vs. cytoreductive surgery alone for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with peritoneal metastases: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has survival benefits in patients with intraperitoneal malignant lesions, but there is no study specific to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

PURPOSE

To compare the prognosis of patients with advanced ICC undergoing CRS + HIPEC compared with CRS alone.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced ICC treated at the Shanghai Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital between 01/2014 and 12/2018. The patients were divided into either CRS + HIPEC or CRS group based on the treatment they received. Overall survival (OS), complications, hospital stay, biochemical indicators, tumor markers, and number of HIPEC were examined.

RESULTS

There were 51 and 61 patients in the CRS + HIPEC and CRS groups, respectively. There were no differences between the groups regarding preoperative CA19-9 levels (421 ± 381 vs. 523 ± 543 U/mL, P = 0.208). The hospital stay was longer in the CRS + HIPEC group (22.2 ± 10.0 vs. 18.6 ± 7.6 days, P = 0.033). The occurrence of overall complications was similar in the two groups (37.2% vs. 34.4%, P = 0.756). The postoperative CA19-9 levels were lower in the CRS + HIPEC group compared with the CRS group (196 ± 320 vs. 337 ± 396 U/mL, P = 0.044). The median OS was longer in the CRS + HIPEC group than in the CRS group (25.53 vs. 11.17 months, P < 0.001). Compared with the CRS group, the CRS + HIPEC group showed a higher occurrence of leukopenia (7.8% vs. 0, P = 0.040) but a lower occurrence of total bilirubin elevation (15.7% vs. 37.7%, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

CRS + HIPEC could be a treatment option for patients with advanced ICC, with improved OS and similar complications and adverse events compared with CRS alone.

The role of Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in the management of gastric cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently described surgical technique which is being evaluated at many centers for the management of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The present study is a systematic review to evaluate the current role of PIPAC in the management of gastric cancer associated PM.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed and EMBASE database using relevant keywords and confirming to the PRISMA guidelines to identify the articles describing the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. All the studies which were published prior to July 1, 2018 in English literature and reported the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

The search yielded 79 articles; there were ten published studies which have reported the use of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. A total of 129 patients with gastric cancer associated PM were treated in the studies. Only two studies had an exclusive cohort of gastric cancer patients while eight other studies had a heterogeneous population with a small proportion of gastric cancer patients. There was only one study highlighting the role of PIPAC in neoadjuvant setting to downgrade the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. All the studies revealed that PIPAC is feasible and has minimal perioperative morbidity, even after repeated applications.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of English literature related to the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated procedure which has the potential to contain spreading PM. Further studies are warranted to better define the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM.