HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis: does an associated urologic procedure increase morbidity?

Safety of Nephrectomy Performed During CRS/HIPEC: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Surgeons may hesitate to perform nephrectomy (NE) during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) due to a potential increase in morbidity. However, no data are available regarding the impact of NE on outcomes, so the authors decided to assess its safety during CRS/HIPEC.

METHODS

A single-center propensity score-matched study was conducted using a prospective database (1994-2021). The study included patients who underwent NE during CRS/HIPEC with completeness of cytoreduction (CC) of 0, 1, or 2. Control subjects (no-NE) were selected in a 1:3 ratio using propensity score-matching weighted by age, histology, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), CC-0 or CC-1 rate, and length of surgery.

RESULTS

Among 828 patients, 13 NE and 39 no-NE control subjects were identified. The indications for NE included tumor involvement of the ureter, hilum, and/or kidney with preserved (n = 8), decreased (n = 2), or absent (n = 3) function. NE patients received more intraoperative intravenous (IV) fluids (16,000 vs 11,500 mL; p = 0.045) and had a greater urine output (3200 vs 1913 mL; p = 0.008). NE patients received mitomycin C (40 mg for 90 min) or melphalan (50 mg/m² for 90 min) without reduction of dose or time. Major morbidity (p = 0.435) and mortality (p = 1.000) were comparable between the two groups. No postoperative acute kidney injury was seen in either group. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 46.2% of the NE and 35.9% of the no-NE patients (p = 0.553), with similar starting times (p = 0.903) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrectomy performed during CRS/HIPEC does not seem to increase postoperative morbidity or to delay adjuvant chemotherapy, and NE can be performed if required for complete cytoreduction. The NE patients in our cohort did not have a reduction of mitomycin C or melphalan dose or perfusion time.

Perioperative nutritional assessment and interventions in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is a catabolic state and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is a high morbidity operation. Optimising perioperative nutrition is crucial to improve outcomes. This systematic review sought to examine literature describing clinical outcomes related to preoperative nutrition status and nutrition interventions in patients undergoing CRS with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

METHODS

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (300326). A search of eight electronic databases was undertaken on 8th May 2022 and reported according to the PRISMA statement. Studies reporting nutrition status through use of screening and assessment tools, nutrition interventions or nutrition-related clinical outcomes for patients undergoing CRS with HIPEC were included.

RESULTS

Of 276 screened studies, 25 studies were included for review. Commonly used nutrition assessment tools for CRS-HIPEC patients included Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), sarcopenia assessment with computed tomography, preoperative albumin, and body mass index (BMI). Three retrospective studies compared SGA with postoperative outcomes. Malnourished patients were more likely to have postoperative infectious complications (p = 0.042 SGA-B, p = 0.025 SGA-C). Malnutrition was significantly associated with increased hospital length of stay (LOS) in two studies (p = 0.006, p = 0.02), and with overall survival in another study (p = 0.006). Eight studies analysing preoperative albumin levels reported conflicting associations with postoperative outcomes. BMI in five studies was not associated with morbidity. One study did not support routine nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative nutritional assessment tools, including SGA and objective sarcopaenia measures, have a role in predicting nutritional status for CRS-HIPEC patients. Optimisation of nutrition is important for preventing complications.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with concomitant ureteric reimplantation

OBJECTIVES

There are currently scarce data exploring ureteric reimplantation (UR) during cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing CRS for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) of any origin at a single high-volume unit. UR was defined as ureteroureterostomy, transureterouretostomy, ureteroneocystostomy, ureterosigmoidostomy or ileal conduit performed during CRS. Peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and risk factors for requiring UR were analysed.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-seven CRSs were identified. Twenty-three (3.0%) procedures involved UR. Bladder resection and colorectal cancer (CRC) were associated with increased risk of UR (bladder resection: OR 12.90, 95% CI 4.91-33.90, p<0.001; CRC: OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.05-6.01, p=0.038). UR did not increase the risk of Grade III-IV morbidity or mortality. The rate of ureteric leak was 3/23 (13.0%) in the UR group. Mean survival was equivocal in patients with CRC (58.14 vs. 34.25 months, p=0.441) but significantly lower in those with high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN) undergoing UR (73.98 vs. 30.90 months, p=0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

UR during CRS does not increase major morbidity or mortality for carefully selected patients, and is associated with low rates of urologic complications. Whilst decreased survival was apparent in patients with HAMN undergoing UR, it is unclear whether this relationship is causal.

The many faces of intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy may offer chance for cure for patients with peritoneal metastasis. Many variations emerged, causing uncertainty when choosing the most suitable variant. By reviewing variability encountered in the management of peritoneal metastasis, we aim to raise awareness about this issue and hopefully initiate efforts to solve it. We review variance encountered in all aspects of this complex field of surgical oncology, indications, patient selection criteria, definition and extent of cytoreductive surgery and the numerous variables of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Best benefit was achieved with pseudomyxoma peritonei, and to lesser extent in colorectal, ovarian and gastric cancer, but Indications keep expanding to include other tumors pathologies. Selection of patients depends on numerous prognostic indicators and criteria, according to tumor extent and pathology. The standard definition of cytoreductive surgery remains the same, but the boundaries of resection expand. Numerous chemotherapy regimens and administration methods are used, in search for best possible benefit. This variance must be reduced, to make the best use of, and further spread this treatment combination. Practical simple guidelines are needed for surgical oncologists willing to utilize this treatment for their patients, to be considered a true standard of care.

Clinical features and surgical outcomes of major urological interventions during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotheraphy

Background:

Urinary system resections and reconstructions are needed in peritoneal carcinomatosis due to abdominal malignancies. The effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on these urological procedures after reconstruction remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to evaluate major urological interventions during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in complex abdominal malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Methods:

Forty-four cases underwent surgical intervention related to the urinary system among 208 cases who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy because of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Urinary system procedures performed in these patients (radical-partial cystectomy, partial ureter resection ureteroneocystostomy, ureteroureterostomy, nephrectomy) were evaluated in terms of postoperative morbidity–mortality and survival.

Results:

Urinary system resections were performed during cytoreductive surgery in a total of 44 cases. The mean age was 54 years (20–73). Patients were diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis due to colorectal cancer in 21 (47.8%), ovarian cancer in nine (20.4%), sarcomatosis in five (11.4%), cervical cancer in four (9%) and other cancers (mesothelioma, uterus, breast, gastric) in five (11.4%) cases. Total nephrectomy was performed in three cases and partial nephrectomy in one case. Cystectomy was performed in 21 cases; 16 of these were partial and five were total cystectomies. Ureteroureterocystostomy with double J was performed in four cases and ureteroneocystostomy in 12 cases. While Clavian–Dindo grade 3–4 complications were seen in nine cases (20.4%), three cases (6.8%) became exitus during the first 30-day follow-up.

Conclusions:

Although urinary system involvements have been regarded as inoperable in the past, we think that with adequate experience radical urinary interventions performed in suitable patients can be carried out with acceptable morbidity and mortality as seen in our series.

Total Pelvic Exenteration, Cytoreductive Surgery, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Rectal Cancer with Associate Peritoneal Metastases: Surgical Strategies to Optimize Safety

Simple Summary

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a curative treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Pelvic exenteration is an established treatment option for locally advanced pelvic malignancy. Based on the argument that high-risk complications arise from each procedure, the majority of researchers do not recommend performing a CRS/HIPEC with pelvis exenteration. Herein, we critically analyzed the data from 16 patients treated by these two procedures for 15 rectal and one appendiceal adenocarcinomas. Clear resection (R0) margins were achieved in 81.2% of cases. The median hospital stay was 46 days (26–129), and nine patients (56.2%) experienced severe complications that led to death in two cases (12.5%). Survival rates were not clarified, since the follow-up is ongoing. Pelvis exenteration associated with CRS/HIPEC may be a reasonable procedure in selected patients at expert centers. Pelvic involvement should not be considered a definitive contraindication for CRS/HIPEC if a R0 resection could be achieved. However, the morbidity and the mortality are high with this combination of treatment, and further research is needed to assess the oncologic benefit and quality of life before such a radical approach can be recommended.

Abstract

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a curative treatment option for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is an established treatment option for locally advanced pelvic malignancy. These two procedures have high mortality and morbidity, and therefore, their combination is not currently recommended. Herein, we reported our experience on TPE associated with CRS/HIPEC with a critical analysis for rectal cancer with associate peritoneal metastases. Methods: From March 2006 to August 2020, 319 patients underwent a CRS/HIPEC in our hospital. Among them, 16 (12 men and four women) underwent an associated TPE. The primary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results: There was locally recurrent rectal cancer in nine cases, six locally advanced primary rectal cancer, and a recurrent appendiceal adenocarcinoma. The median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 8. (4–16). Mean duration of the surgical procedure was 596 min (420–840). Complete cytoreduction (CC0) was achieved in all patients, while clear resection (R0) margins on the resected pelvic organs were achieved in 81.2% of cases. The median hospital stay was 46 days (26–129), and nine patients (56.2%) experienced severe complications (grade III to V) that led to death in two cases (12.5%). The total reoperation rate for patients was 6/16 (37.5%) and 3/16 (18.75%) with percutaneous radiological-guided drainage. Conclusions: In summary, TPE/extended TPE (ETPE) associated with CRS/HIPEC may be a reasonable procedure in selected patients at expert centers. Pelvic involvement should not be considered a definitive contraindication for CRS/HIPEC in patients with resectable peritoneal surface diseases if a R0 resection could be achieved on all sites. However, the morbidity and the mortality are high with this combination of treatment, and further research is needed to assess the oncologic benefit and quality of life before such a radical approach can be recommended.

Peritoneal Cancers and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Cytoreductive surgery followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is an aggressive, potentially curative approach used to treat locoregional disease associated with primary and secondary malignancies of the peritoneum. It involves resection of all macroscopic disease larger than 2.5 mm, followed by instillation of hyperthermic chemotherapy directly into the peritoneum for higher drug exposure to microscopic disease. In select patients with primary peritoneal mesothelioma, pseudomyxoma peritonei, colorectal adenocarcinoma, appendiceal adenocarcinoma, or ovarian cancer, with no extra-abdominal metastasis and limited involvement of the peritoneum, the procedure can be performed to increase overall survival.

Appendiceal tumours and pseudomyxoma peritonei: Literature review with PSOGI/EURACAN clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment

Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP) is a rare peritoneal malignancy, most commonly originating from a perforated epithelial tumour of the appendix. Given its rarity, randomized controlled trials on treatment strategies are lacking, nor likely to be performed in the foreseeable future. However, many questions regarding the management of appendiceal tumours, especially when accompanied by PMP, remain unanswered. This consensus statement was initiated by members of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) Executive Committee as part of a global advisory role in the management of uncommon peritoneal malignancies. The manuscript concerns an overview and analysis of the literature on mucinous appendiceal tumours with, or without, PMP. Recommendations are provided based on three Delphi voting rounds with GRADE-based questions amongst a panel of 80 worldwide PMP experts.

The outcomes of isolated ureteral resection and reconstruction in non-urologic cancer patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery (CRC) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

BACKGROUND

Urinary system resections are performed during the cytoreductive surgery with hypertermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). However, isolated ureter resection and reconstruction results are uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of isolated ureteral resection and reconstructions in patients who underwent CRC and HIPEC procedure.

METHODS

A total of 257 patients that underwent CRC and HIPEC between 2015 and 2017 in the Department of Surgical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty patients that had undergone isolated ureteral resection and reconstruction were included in the study. Predisposing factors were investigated in patients who developed postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 55.1 years. The mean follow-up time of all the patients was 11.6 months. Postoperative mortality occurred in two patients. The mean PCI score was 13.9. Postoperative urologic complications were observed in eight patients after ureter reconstruction. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of reconstruction techniques and postoperative complications (P = 302). There was no correlation between age (P = 0.571) and gender (P = 0.161) with complications. CRS-HIPEC was performed mostly due to gynecologic malignancy. However, there was no correlation between the primary cancer diagnosis and the development of complications (P = 0.514). The hospital stay duration was higher in the group with complications (16.3 vs 8.8 days, P = 0.208).

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteral resections and reconstructions can be performed for R0/1 resections in CRS-HIPEC operations. It leads to an increase in hospital stay. But there is no significant difference in the development of complications. In the management of complications, conservative approach was sufficient.

Urological approach for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a clinical care center

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) is associated with significant manipulation of the urinary tract (UT). We aim to describe the urological events and their management in patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC.

METHODS

Clinical records of patients who underwent treatment between 2007 and 2015 were reviewed. Urological events and their multidisciplinary management were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients were included. Mean age was 51 years (SD ± 11.8). Mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 20.4 (SD ± 10.1). Primary tumors included appendicular (64%), gynecological (16%), colorectal (10%), and peritoneal mesotheliomas (9%). Ninety-three percent of patients had bilateral ureteral catheters inserted prior to surgery, without complications. Intraoperative UT injuries occurred in 7% of patients. In 5% of patients, tumor invasion of the bladder was evident at surgery and partial resection and primary repair of the bladder wall was performed. Urological complications included urinary tract infection (UTI) (21%) acute post-renal failure (4%), urinary fistulae (4%), and acute urinary retention (AUR) (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, intraoperative UT events and postoperative complications, although not neglectable, were infrequent. Due to the high complexity of these cases, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. However, randomized clinical trials are necessary to clarify current data on the need and efficacy of prophylactic ureteral catheterization in patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC.

Impact of Concomitant Urologic Intervention on Clinical Outcomes After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The impact of concomitant urologic procedures (UPs) on perioperative and long-term outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is uncertain.

METHODS

In total, 935 consecutive CRS/HIPEC procedures were performed between 1996 and 2016 in Sydney, Australia. Among these, 73 (7.8%) involved concomitant UP. The association of concomitant UP with 21 perioperative outcomes and overall survival was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 1.8%. Patients requiring UP were more likely to require transfusion of ≥5 units of red blood cells (P=0.031) and have a complete cytoreduction (79% vs. 60%, P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, UP was not associated with in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.407) or grade III/IV morbidity (52% vs. 41%, P=0.376). The incidence of ureteric fistula (4% vs. 1%, P=0.004), return to theater (26% vs. 14%, P=0.005) and digestive fistula (22% vs. 11%, P=0.005) was higher in the UP group. The addition of a UP did not significantly impact overall survival for appendiceal cancer (P=0.162), colorectal cancer (P=0.315), or pseudomyxoma peritonei (P=0.120).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a UP was not associated with an increased risk of grade III/IV morbidity or poorer long-term survival after CRS/HIPEC.

The impact of urological resection and reconstruction on patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Objective

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are increasingly being used to treat peritoneal malignancies. Urological resections and reconstruction (URR) are occasionally performed during the surgery. We aim to evaluate the impact of these procedures on peri-operative outcomes of CRS and HIPEC patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC from April 2001 to February 2016 was performed. Outcomes between patients who had surgery involving, and not involving URR were compared. Primary outcomes were the rate of major complications and the duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital. Secondary outcomes were that of overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors that would indicate a need for URR.

Results

A total of 214 CRS-HIPEC were performed, 21 of which involved a URR. Baseline clinical characteristics did not vary between the groups (URR vs. No URR). Urological resections comprised of 52% bladder resections, 24% ureteric resections, and 24% involving both bladder and ureteric resections. All bladder defects were closed primarily while ureteric reconstructions consisted of two end-to-end anastomoses, one ureto-uretostomy, five direct implantations into the bladder and three boari flaps. URR were more frequently required in patients with colorectal peritoneal disease (p = 0.029), but was not associated with previous pelvic surgery (76% vs. 54%, p = 0.065). Patients with URR did not suffer more serious complications (14% vs. 24%, p = 0.42). ICU (2.2 days vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.51) and hospital stays (18 days vs. 25 days, p = 0.094) were not significantly affected. Undergoing a URR did not affect OS (p = 0.99), but was associated with increased operation time (570 min vs. 490 min, p = 0.046).

Conclusion

While concomitant URR were associated with an increase in operation time, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications or OS. Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases are more likely to require a URR compared to other primary tumours, and needs to be considered during pre-operative planning.

Reconstruction after ureteral resection during HIPEC surgery: Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy seems safer than end-to-end anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Resection of the pelvic ureter may be necessary in cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal carcinomatosis in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). As the morbidity for cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC has decreased, expert teams have begun to perform increasingly complex surgical procedures associated with HIPEC, including pelvic reconstructions. After ureteral resection, two types of reconstruction are possible: uretero-ureteral end-to-end anastomosis and uretero-vesical re-implantation or uretero-neocystostomy (the so-called psoas hitch technique). By compiling the experience of three surgical teams that perform HIPEC surgeries, we have tried to compare the effectiveness of these two techniques.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective comparative case-matched multicenter study was conducted for patients undergoing operation between 2005 and 2014. Patients included had undergone resection of the pelvic ureter during cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatomosis; ureteral reconstruction was by either end-to-end anastomosis (EEA group) or re-implantation uretero-neocystostomy (RUC group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of urinary fistula in postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 14 patients in the EEA group and 14 in the RUC group. The groups were comparable for age, extent of carcinomatosis (PCI index) and operative duration. Four urinary fistulas occurred in the EEA group (28.5%) versus zero fistulas in the RUC group (0%) (P=0.0308).

CONCLUSION

Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy during cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC is the preferred technique for reconstruction after ureteral resection in case of renal conservation.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a review of factors contributing to morbidity and mortality

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with prolonged survival for appropriately selected patients with peritoneal dissemination of abdominal malignancies. CRS and HIPEC has been criticized for perceived high rates of morbidity and mortality. Morbidity and mortality rates of CRS and HIPEC, however, do not appear dissimilar to those of other large abdominal surgeries, particularly when relevant patient and operative factors are accounted for. The risk of morbidity and mortality following this surgery for a given individual can be predicted in part by a variety of patient and operative factors. While strong data are lacking, the limited data that exists on the matter suggests that the independent contribution of the heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy to CRS and HIPEC morbidity is relatively small. A more thorough understanding of the patient and operative factors associated with CRS and HIPEC morbidity and mortality, as well as the specific complications related to the intraperitoneal chemotherapy, can better inform clinicians in multidisciplinary teams and patients alike in the decision-making for this surgery.

Cytoreductive Surgery and Peritonectomy Procedures

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become widely accepted as an effective method of treating peritoneal metastases (PM) from various cancers. CRS performed with the goal of removing all the macroscopic disease and comprises of peritonectomy procedures and visceral resections. CRS is a technically challenging surgery that requires a considerable amount of skill and appropriate patient selection. This article is a review of the techniques and current recommendations for performing CRS.

Effect of a concomitant urologic procedure on outcomes following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether urologic procedures during cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) are associated with adverse postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC at our institution from 2001 to 2012 and compared outcomes between operations that did and did not include a urologic procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 938 CRS-HIPEC procedures were performed, 71 of which included a urologic intervention. Urologic interventions were associated with longer operative times (547 vs. 459 min, P < 0.001) and greater length of stay (15 vs. 12 days, P = 0.003). Major complications (Clavien III and IV) were more common in the urologic group (31% vs. 20%, P = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, urologic procedures were associated with a low anterior resection (OR: 2.25, 95%CI 1.07-4.74, P = 0.033) and a greater number of enteric anastomoses (OR: 1.83, 95%CI 1.31-2.56, P < 0.001). At a median follow up of 17 months (IQR 5.6-35 months), addition of a urologic procedure did not significantly impact overall survival for appendiceal or colorectal cancers.

CONCLUSION

Urologic surgery at the time of CRS-HIPEC is associated with longer operative times, length of stay and increased risk of major complications, but not with decreased overall survival. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:218-222. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Genitourinary resection at the time of cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis is not associated with increased morbidity or worsened oncologic outcomes: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has gained acceptance in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with reported morbidity and mortality rates of 27-56 and 0-11 %, respectively. The safety and oncologic outcome of genitourinary repair at the time of CRS and HIPEC remains unclear.

METHODS

We identified 170 patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC at our institution between July 2007 and August 2011 with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Thirty-four (20 %) underwent concomitant urologic reconstruction at the time of CRS-HIPEC and were matched by disease burden (intraoperative peritoneal cancer index [PCI]) and extent of surgery (ΔPCI) with a cohort of 38 (22.3 %) subjects without genitourinary involvement. The primary end points considered for this analysis included the development of major surgical (Clavien-Dindo Class III-V) complications and overall survival.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 9.4 months. The most commonly performed urologic interventions included partial cystectomy with primary repair in 23 (65.7 %) and segmental ureteral resection and repair in 11 (31.4 %). Patients with genitourinary reconstruction had more total organ involvement (6.5 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001) and more commonly underwent enteric anastomoses (82.4 vs. 57.9 %, p = 0.025). No significant differences were observed with regard to major morbidity, need for transfusion, operative time, intensive care unit admission, or length of stay. Among patients with appendiceal or colonic tumors (n = 46), overall survival was similar between genitourinary reconstruction and matched cohorts: 22.5 versus 15.1 months, respectively (p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Genitourinary reconstruction at the time of CRS-HIPEC occurs more commonly in patients with extensive disease burden undergoing radical debulking, yet does not adversely influence surgical morbidity or survival.

Significance of urinary tract involvement in patients treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

BACKGROUND

Urinary tract involvement in patients with peritoneal surface disease treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) often requires complex urologic resections and reconstruction to achieve optimal cytoreduction. The impact of these combined procedures on surgical outcomes is not well defined.

METHODS

A prospective database of CRS/HIPEC procedures was analyzed retrospectively. Type of malignancy, performance status, resection status, hospital and intensive care unit stay, morbidity, mortality, and overall survival were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 864 patients underwent 933 CRS/HIPEC procedures, while 64 % (550) had preoperative ureteral stent placement. A total of 7.3 % had an additional urologic procedure without an increase in 30-day (p = 0.4) or 90-day (p = 1.0) mortality. Urologic procedures correlated with increased length of operating time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p < 0.001), and length of hospitalization (p = 0.003), yet were not associated with increased overall 30-day major morbidity (grade III/IV, p = 0.14). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of additional urologic procedures were prior surgical score (p < 0.001), number of resected organs (p = 0.001), and low anterior resection (p = 0.03). Long-term survival was not statistically different between patients with and without urologic resection for low-grade appendiceal primary lesions (p = 0.23), high-grade appendiceal primary lesions (p = 0.40), or colorectal primary lesions (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Urinary tract involvement in patients with peritoneal surface disease does not increase overall surgical morbidity. Patients with urologic procedures demonstrate survival patterns with meaningful prolongation of life. Urologic involvement should not be considered a contraindication for CRS/HIPEC in patients with resectable peritoneal surface disease.