Dense hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cisplatin in patients with stage III serous epithelial ovarian cancer: a retrospective study

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.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): New Approaches and Controversies on the Treatment of Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after cytoreductive surgery has been extensively studied in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, and it holds promise as a therapeutic strategy, but its role remains elusive. The aim of this study was to assess the existing evidence for the use or not of HIPEC in primary debulking surgery (PDS), interval debulking surgery (IDS), and recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), evaluated in terms of survival rates and post-surgical morbidity.

METHODS

Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, and Medscape were systematically searched for any article comparing the use of HIPEC treatment with any other therapy in patients with ovarian cancer in PDS, IDS, and ROC. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. We only considered English-language published studies.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies, including two RCTs with a total of 1813 women, published between 2003 and 2023 with a recruitment period between 1998 and 2020. In PDS, there were no differences in progression-free survival (PFS) between HIPEC and controls [MD -5.53 months [95% CI -19.91 to 8.84 months]; I2 = 96%]. Conversely, in patients treated with NACT, pooled results showed a significant survival advantage in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the combined HIPEC plus IDS group rather than surgery alone [PFS: MD 4.68 months (95% CI 3.49 to 5.86 months, I2 = 95%); OS: MD 11.81 months (95% CI 9.34 to 14.27 months); I2 = 97%]. Concerning ROC patients, pooled MD did not show either a significant PFS difference between intervention and controls [MD 2.68 months (95% CI 433 to 9.70 months); I2 = 95%], and OS significant difference (MD 6.69 months [95% CI -9.09 to 22.47 months]; I2 = 98%). Severe post-operative complications (≥grade 3) were available in 10 studies, accounting for 1108 women. Overall, there was a slightly but significantly increased risk with the combined approach compared to controls [RR 1.26 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.55); I2 = 0%].

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery prolongs OS and PFS in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after NACT with acceptable morbidity. However, additional trials are still needed to determine the effectiveness of HIPEC in primary and recurrence settings. In the era of personalized medicine, the correlation between the efficacy of HIPEC and biological and molecular findings represents a challenge for the future of ovarian cancer.

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.

Comparative Survival Outcomes of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy, Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Intravenous Chemotherapy for Primary Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP)and intravenous chemotherapy (IP)for primary advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched using multiple terms for primary advanced ovarian cancer, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies in both Chinese and English (up to date 15 August 2022). Outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events. The data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales were used to assess the risk of bias in the included comparative study. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used for randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

In total, 32 studies, including 6347 patients and 8 different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis results showed that HIPEC2 (carboplatin with area under the curve 10) exhibited a statistically significant OS benefit compared to IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1 (cisplatin with 75/100 mg/m²). Intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significantly better likelihood of overall survival compared to IV. For progression-free survival, our statistical results only suggest a better progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC1 compared with weekly dose-dense chemotherapy. No evidence of difference was observed between the other comparison groups. Compared with the non-HIPEC group, HIPEC may had a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3).

CONCLUSION

Our statistical analysis suggests that the groups receiving HIPEC2 had a better OS than the groups receiving IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1. For PFS, our analysis only showed HIPEC1 is better than IV. Moreover, HIPEC may lead to a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3). HIPEC therapy for advanced ovarian cancer is currently controversial.

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.