Chicago Consensus Working Group. The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Colorectal Metastases

Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment in Characterizing Recurrence Sites after Optimal Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, its role in characterizing recurrence sites after mCRC resection remains poorly understood. This single-institution study investigated the timing of ctDNA detection and its levels in the context of recurrence at different sites after mCRC resection.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent optimal resection of CRC metastases involving the peritoneum, distant lymph nodes, or liver, with serial postoperative tumor-informed ctDNA assessments (Signatera) were included. Recurrence sites, as defined by surveillance imaging or laparoscopy, were categorized as peritoneal-only and other distant sites (liver, lung, lymph nodes, or body wall).

RESULTS

Among the 31 included patients, ctDNA was detected in all 26 (83.4%) patients with postoperative recurrence and was persistently undetectable in 5 patients who did not experience recurrence. At 3 months postsurgery, ctDNA was detected in 2 (25%) of 8 patients with peritoneal-only recurrence and 17 (94.4%) of 18 patients with distant recurrence (p < 0.001). Beyond 3 months, ctDNA was detected in the remaining 6 patients with peritoneal-only disease and 1 patient with distant disease. ctDNA detection preceded the clinical diagnosis of recurrence by a median of 9 weeks in both groups. At recurrence, peritoneal-only recurrent cases exhibited lower ctDNA levels (median 0.4 mean tumor molecules/mL, interquartile range 0.1 to 0.8) compared with distant recurrence (median 5.5 mean tumor molecules/mL, interquartile range 0.8 to 33.3, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal-only recurrence was associated with delayed ctDNA detection and low levels of ctDNA after optimal resection for mCRC. ctDNA testing may effectively characterize recurrence sites and may help guide subsequent treatments specific to the disease sites involved.

CILP2 is a potential biomarker for the prediction and therapeutic target of peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer

Peritoneal metastases (PM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with a dismal prognosis. Identifying and exploiting new biomarkers, signatures, and molecular targets for personalised interventions in the treatment of PM in CRC is imperative. We conducted transcriptomic profiling using RNA-seq data generated from the primary tissues of 19 CRC patients with PM. Using our dataset established in a previous study, we identified 1422 differentially expressed genes compared to non-metastatic CRC. The profiling demonstrated no differential expression in liver and lung metastatic CRC. We selected 12 genes based on stringent criteria and evaluated their expression patterns in a validation cohort of 32 PM patients and 84 without PM using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. We selected cartilage intermediate layer protein 2 (CILP2) because of high mRNA expression in PM patients in our validation cohort and its association with a poor prognosis in The Cancer Genome Atlas. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in our validation cohort demonstrated that CRC patients with high CILP2 expression had significantly poor survival outcomes. Knockdown of CILP2 significantly reduced the proliferation, colony-forming ability, invasiveness, and migratory capacity and downregulated the expression of molecules related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition in HCT116 cells. In an in vivo peritoneal dissemination mouse knockdown of CILP2 also inhibited CRC growth. Therefore, CILP2 is a promising biomarker for the prediction and treatment of PM in CRC.

Preoperative CA 19-9 Predicts Disease Progression in Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: An Analysis from the US HIPEC Collaborative

INTRODUCTION

Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM) are increasingly treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). Unfortunately, data identifying preoperative risk factors for poor oncologic outcomes after this procedure are limited. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of preoperative CEA, CA 125, and CA 19-9 on disease progression after CRS/HIPEC.

METHODS

Patients with CRPM treated with curative intent CRS/HIPEC from 12 participating sites in the United States from 2000 to 2017 were identified. Progression-free survival (PFS), defined as disease progression or recurrence, was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

In 279 patients who met inclusion criteria, the rate of disease progression was 63.8%, with a median PFS of 11 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5-20). Elevated CA 19-9 was associated with dismal PFS at 2 years (8.9% elevated vs. 30% not elevated, p < 0.01). In 113 patients who underwent upfront CRS/HIPEC, CA 19-9 emerged as the sole tumor marker independently predictive of worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.88, p = 0.048). In the subgroup of patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), no variable was independently predictive of PFS. CA 19-9 levels over 37 U/ml were highly specific for accelerated disease progression after CRS/HIPEC. Lastly, there was no association between PFS and elevated CEA or CA 125.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated CA 19-9 is associated with decreased PFS in patients with CRPM. While traditionally CEA is the main tumor marker assessed in colon cancer, we found that CA 19-9 may better inform preoperative risk stratification for poor oncologic outcomes in patients with CRPM. However, prospective studies are required to confirm this association.

International Expert Consensus on Defining Textbook Oncologic Outcomes in Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastasis

BACKGROUND

Textbook oncologic outcome (TOO) is a composite metric shown to correlate with improved survival after curative intent oncologic procedures. Despite increasing use among disciplines in surgical oncology, no consensus exists for its definition in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

STUDY DESIGN

An international consensus-based study employed a Delphi methodology to achieve agreement. Fifty-four senior surgeons from the peritoneal surface malignancies field received a questionnaire comprising TOO parameters divided into 3 surgical domains: operative, short-term, and long-term postoperative outcomes. Two online meetings with participants defined the new criteria. Consensus was achieved when 75% of agreement rate was reached. Clinical data of patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastasis between 2010 and 2022 from 1 designated center (Sheba Medical Center) were collected, the consensus definition applied and outcomes analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight surgeons (70%) participated. Expert consensus TOO parameters for colorectal peritoneal metastasis CRS and HIPEC included the absence of unplanned reoperations during 30 days postoperation, absence of severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), absence of unplanned readmissions during 30 days postoperation, 90-day postoperative mortality, and absence of contraindications for chemotherapy within 12 weeks from operation, and included the achievement of complete cytoreduction (CC0). The study cohort consisted of 251 patients, and 151 (60%) met TOO criteria. Patients who achieved TOO had significantly better overall survival (median 67.5 months, 95% CI) vs patients who did not achieve TOO (median 44.6 months, 95% CI, p < 0.001) and significantly improved disease-free survival (median, 12 months, 95% CI, vs 9 months, 95% CI, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Achievement of TOO as defined by consensus statement is associated with improved survival.

Actual 5-Year Survival After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Colorectal Origin

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) improves survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of colorectal (CRC) origin, however, long-term survival data are lacking. We report the actual survival of patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC for PC of CRC origin with a minimum potential 5-year follow-up period to identify factors that preclude long-term survival.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database, analyzing patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for PC of CRC origin from 2007 to 2017. Patients with aborted CRS/HIPEC, postoperative follow-up <90 days, or non-CRC histology were excluded. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured from date of surgery. Surviving patients with <60 months of follow-up were censored at date of last follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. CC score 0-1 was achieved in 89.3% of patients, and median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 9 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-17). Ninety-day mortality was 2.9%. The median follow-up of survivors was 88 months. Five-year OS was 36%, and median OS was 42.5 months. Factors independently associated with poor survival included high PCI (PCI = 14-20, hazard ratio [HR] 3.1, p = 0.007, and PCI > 20, HR 5.3, p ≤ 0.001) and incomplete CRS (CC score-2, HR 2.96, p = 0.02). Patients with low PCI (0-6) had 5-year OS 60.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Actual 5-year OS was 36% and median OS was 42.5 months. Our study demonstrates that patients with PC from CRC origin with low PCI who undergo complete surgical resection can achieve favorable long-term survival.

Does Hospital Operative Volume Influence the Outcomes of Patients After Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis?

BACKGROUND

For some cancer operations, center volume is associated with improved patient outcomes. Whether this association is true for cytoreductive surgery/heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is unclear. Given the rapidly expanding use of CRS/HIPEC, the aim of this analysis was to determine whether a volume-outcome relationship exists for this strategy.

METHODS

The Vizient Clinical Database® was queried for CRS/HIPEC cases from January 2020 through December 2022. Low-, medium-, and high-volume designations were made by sorting hospitals by case volume and creating equal tertiles based on total number of cases. Analysis was performed via one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test, as indicated.

RESULTS

In the 36-month study period, 5165 cases were identified across 149 hospitals. Low- (n = 113), medium- (n = 25), and high-volume (n = 11) centers performed a median of 4, 21, and 47 cases per annum, respectively. Most cases were performed for appendiceal (39.3%) followed by gynecologic neoplasms (20.4%). Groups were similar with respect to age, gender, race, comorbidities, and histology. Low-volume centers were more likely to utilize the ICU post-operatively (59.6% vs. 40.5% vs. 36.3%; p = 0.02). No differences were observed in morbidity (9.4% vs. 7.1% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.71), mortality (0.9% vs. 0.6% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.93), length of stay (9.3 vs. 9.4 vs. 10 days, p = 0.83), 30-day readmissions (5.6% vs. 5.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 1.0), or total cost among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No association was found between CRS/HIPEC hospital volume and post-operative outcomes. These data suggest that in academic medical centers with HIPEC programs, outcomes for commonly treated cancers are not associated with hospital volume.

Is Systemic Chemotherapy Useful in Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases? A Propensity-Score Analysis

PURPOSE

Multimodal treatment of colorectal (CRC) peritoneal metastases (PM) includes systemic chemotherapy (SC) and surgical cytoreduction (CRS), eventually with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), in select patients. Considering lack of clear guidelines, this study was designed to analyze the role of chemotherapy and its timing in patients treated with CRS-HIPEC.

METHODS

Data from 13 Italian centers with PM expertise were collected by a collaborative group of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO). Clinicopathological variables, SC use, and timing of administration were correlated with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local (peritoneal) DFS (LDFS) after propensity-score (PS) weighting to reduce confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 367 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC were included in the propensity-score weighting. Of the total patients, 19.9% did not receive chemotherapy within 6 months of surgery, 32.4% received chemotherapy before surgery (pregroup), 28.9% after (post), and 18.8% received both pre- and post-CRS-HIPEC treatment (peri). SC was preferentially administered to younger (p = 0.02) and node-positive (p = 0.010) patients. Preoperative SC is associated with increased rate of major complications (26.9 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.0009). After PS weighting, there were no differences in OS, DFS, or LDFS (p = 0.56, 0.50, and 0.17) between chemotherapy-treated and untreated patients. Considering SC timing, the post CRS-HIPEC group had a longer DFS and LDFS than the pre-group (median DFS 15.4 vs. 9.8 m, p = 0.003; median LDFS 26.3 vs. 15.8 m, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CRC-PM treated with CRS-HIPEC, systemic chemotherapy was not associated with overall survival benefit. The adjuvant schedule was related to prolonged disease-free intervals. Additional, randomized studies are required to clarify the role and timing of systemic chemotherapy in this patient subset.

Consensus statement and clinical pathway for the management of colon cancer with peritoneal metastases in the state of Delaware

BACKGROUND

Increasing data suggests that the combination of modern systemic therapies and Cytoreductive surgery with or without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) may improve the outcome of patients with colon cancer with peritoneal metastases. Patient selection and sequence of treatments remains ill-defined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A working group, the State of Delaware Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Task Force (DE-PSM-TF), was created including representatives from medical and surgical oncology from the acute care hospitals in Delaware. An extensive review of all available literature was carried out. Virtual meetings were held, and interpretation and discussion of the data was conducted.

RESULTS

A clinical pathway that includes a multidisciplinary evaluation at the time of diagnosis of colon cancer with peritoneal metastases and reflects a consensus from the Task Force on 7 key points that suggest the management of these patients based on the severity of their peritoneal metastases and incorporates all currently available therapies was created. The sequence of therapies of this multimodality treatment was determined by the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score (PSDSS) (Fig. 1).

CONCLUSION

The current pathway represents a comprehensive, team effort that should improve the outcome of patients with Colon Cancer with peritoneal metastases in the state of Delaware by having multidisciplinary discussions at the time of diagnosis, selecting the best order of sequence of currently available therapies in order to maximize benefits and minimize morbidity.

Oncologic Outcomes of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Highly Selected Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases (PM) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are currently treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy alone, with unsatisfactory results. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may provide an oncologic benefit for highly selected patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with PDAC and isolated PM who completed ≥ 6 months of systemic chemotherapy with objective response between 2017 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria as per our previously published PDAC CRS/HIPEC protocol. Patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC were compared with matched patients who underwent systemic therapy alone. Overall survival (OS) from diagnosis of PM and progression-free survival (PFS) from CRS/HIPEC was evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 61 patients met the inclusion criteria: 38 underwent systemic therapy alone and 23 CRS/HIPEC. There were no differences in baseline prognostic factors, including age, sex, tumor size, tumor location, anatomic resectability, or serum cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 (p > 0.05). Median OS from PM diagnosis in patients who underwent systemic therapy alone was 19 months with 1, 2, and 3 year OS of 81%, 31%, and 8%, respectively. In contrast, median OS from PM diagnosis in patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC was 41 months with improved 1, 2, and 3 year OS of 91%, 66%, and 59%, respectively (p = 0.002). In the 21 patients who achieved complete cytoreduction (CC-0), no adjuvant therapy was administered and the median PFS was 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

CRS/HIPEC in highly selected patients with PDAC and PM results in promising oncologic outcomes that are unlikely to be achieved with systemic chemotherapy alone. Further investigation is warranted and ongoing (NCT04858009).

Peritoneal metastases from primary appendiceal and colorectal carcinomas demonstrate distinct molecular identities on comprehensive tumor analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Published data comparing peritoneal metastases from appendiceal cancers (pAC) and colorectal cancers (pCRC) remain sparse. We compared pAC and pCRC using comprehensive tumor profiling (CTP).

METHODS

CTP was performed, including next-generation sequencing and analysis of copy number variation (CNV), microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six pAC and 348 pCRC samples underwent CTP. The cohorts' age and gender were similar. pCRC demonstrated increased pathogenic variants (PATHs) in APC (48% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), ARID1A (12% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), BRAF (12% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), FBXW7 (7% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), KRAS (52% vs. 41%, p < 0.05), PIK3CA (15% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), and TP53 (53% vs. 23%, p < 0.01), and decreased PATHs in GNAS (8% vs. 31%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in CNV, fusion rate, or MSI. Median TMB was higher in pCRC (5.8 vs. 5.0 mutations per megabase, p = 0.0007). Rates of TMB-high tumors were similar (pAC 2.1% vs. pCRC 9.0%, p = 0.1957). pCRC had significantly more TMB-high tumors at lower thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a reduced overall TMB, pAC demonstrated mutations distinct from those seen in pCRC. These may serve as discrete biomarkers for future study.

Survival Outcomes of Optimally Treated Colorectal Metastases: The Importance of R0 Status in Surgical Treatment of Hepatic and Peritoneal Surface Disease

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal hepatic metastases (HM) and peritoneal surface disease (PSD) are distinct biologic diseases, they may have similar long-term survival when optimally treated with surgery.

METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed prospectively managed databases. Patients undergoing R0 or R1 resections were analyzed with descriptive statistics, the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox regression. Survival was compared over time for the following periods: 1993-2006, 2007-2012, and 2013-2020.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 783 HM patients undergoing liver resection and 204 PSD patients undergoing cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Compared with PSD patients, HM patients more often had R0 resections (90.3% vs. 32.4%), less often had pre-procedure chemotherapy (52.4% vs. 92.1%), and less often were functionally independent (79.7% vs. 95.6%). The 5-year overall survival for HM was 40.9%, with a median survival period of 45.8 months versus 25.8% and 33.4 months, respectively, for PSD (p < 0.05). When stratified by resection status, R0 HM and R0 PSD did not differ significantly in median survival (49.0 vs. 45.4 months; p = 0.83). The median survival after R1 resection also was similar between HM and PSD (32.6 vs. 26.9 months; p = 0.59). Survival between the two groups again was similar over time when stratified by resection status. The predictors of survival for HM patients were R0 resection, number of lesions, intraoperative transfusion, age, and adjuvant chemotherapy. For the PSD patients, the predictors were peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score, estimated blood loss (EBL), and female gender.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that R0 resections are associated with improved outcomes and that median survival is similar between HM and PSD patients when it is achieved. Surveillance and treatment strategies that facilitate R0 resections are needed to improve results, particularly for PSD.

The contemporary management of peritoneal metastasis: A journey from the cold past of treatment futility to a warm present and a bright future

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is often regarded as a less frequent pattern of spread; however, collectively across all spectra of primary tumors, the consequences of PM impact a large population of patients annually. Unlike other modes of metastasis, symptoms at presentation or during the treatment course are common, representing an additional challenge in the management of PM. Early efforts with chemotherapy and incomplete surgical interventions transiently improved symptoms, but durable symptom control and survival extension were rare, which established a perspective of treatment futility for PM through most of the 20th century. Notably, the continued development of better systemic therapy combinations, optimization of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), and rigorous investigation of combining regional therapy-specifically hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy-with CRS, have resulted in more effective multimodal treatment options for patients with PM. In this article, the authors provide a comprehensive review of the data establishing the contemporary approach for tumors with a high frequency of PM, including appendix, colorectal, mesothelioma, and gastric cancers. The authors also explore the emerging role of adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy to the well established paradigm of CRS and systemic therapy for advanced ovarian cancer, as well as the recent clinical trials identifying the efficacy of poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase maintenance therapy. Finally, recent data are included that explore the role of precision medicine technology in PM management that, in the future, may help further improve patient selection, identify the best systemic therapy regimens, detect actionable mutations, and identify new targets for drug development.

Switching Perfusion Agents for Repeat Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: Surgical Dogma or Evidence-Based Practice?

BACKGROUND

A common practice is to switch chemotherapy perfusion agents for repeat cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). However, there is a paucity of objective benefit with this practice.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our institutional registry involving repeat CRS-HIPEC cases was conducted, comparing cases that underwent a perfusion agent switch versus those cases with no switch. The primary outcome of this study was survival, measured by overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). A subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of primary etiology.

RESULTS

A total of 101 cases met selection criteria. Mitomycin C was used as the index perfusion agent in 84% of cases, while oxaliplatin was utilized in the remaining 16% of cases. In total, 66 cases underwent a perfusion switch, with 35 cases using the same agent. Analysis revealed no survival benefit with HIPEC perfusion switch. For OS, there were similar mean survival times of 5.2 (± 4.1) years and 5.1 (± 3.6) years for cases with perfusion switch and no perfusion switch, respectively (P = 0.985). The 5-year OS rates were also similar at 61.4% and 53.3% for switch and non-switch cases, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-3.56, P = 0.49]. Mean DFS was 4.0 (± 4.2) years and 3.6 (± 3.8) years for switch and non-switch cases, respectively (P = 0.74). The 5-year DFS rates had a greater difference with statistical trend, with rates of 53% versus 28% for switch and non-switch cases, respectively (OR 2.91, 95% CI 0.86-9.86, P = 0.081). Subgroup analysis had a similar trend to the main results.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings revealed no survival benefit with switching perfusion agents. Analysis suggests that the practice of perfusion switch is ineffective.

Clinical outcomes of curative surgical resection of peritoneal metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer: A long-term follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis (PM) has been considered a non-curative disease. PM is associated with reduced overall survival (OS) and worse prognosis compared with metastasis at other sites. We aimed to investigate the treatment outcome and recurrence after curative resection of colorectal PM during a long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with colorectal PM and underwent surgery between December 2001 and December 2019 were included (n = 309). Curative resection was defined as PM resection without residual disease after surgery (complete macroscopic resection).

RESULTS

Of 309 patients, 208 (67.8%) had PM as an initially metastatic disease. Curative (R0/1) resection was achieved in 155 (50.2%) patients, while non-curative operation (R2 resection or palliative operation including colostomy) was performed in 154 (49.8%) patients. Compared with patients who underwent non-curative operation, those with curative resection more often had a single PM on preoperative imaging (34.2% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.011) and postoperative results (59.4% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001) and less often had concurrent metastasis (distant lymph node, liver, or lung) at the time of surgery (p < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 90.4 months, 80.6% (125/155) patients had recurrence in the curative resection group; the peritoneum was the most common site (56.0%). The median OS was 47.7 months (95% CI, 39.2-56.2) in the curative resection group and 24.8 months (95% CI, 20.8-28.9) in the non-curative resection group, respectively (p < 0.001). In particular, twenty-six patients without recurrence showed long-term survival after curative resection (median OS, 87.1 months; range, 40.1-127.5).

CONCLUSION

Surgical resection can be considered for selected patients with colorectal PM because a significant number of them could seize the cure changes during their treatment continuum.

Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials

The peritoneal cavity is a common site of metastatic spread from colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) often have aggressive underlying tumor biology and poor survival. While only a minority of patients with CRC have potentially resectable disease, the high overall incidence of CRC makes management of PM a common clinical problem. In this population, cytoreductive surgery (CRS)-hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is the only effective therapy for appropriately selected patients. In this narrative review, we summarize the existing literature on CRS-HIPEC in colorectal PM. Recent prospective clinical trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of HIPEC perfusion in addition to CRS. Current strategies to prevent PM in those at high-risk have been shown to be ineffective. Herein we will provide a framework for clinicians to understand and apply these data to treat this complex disease presentation.

Microsatellite and RAS/RAF Mutational Status as Prognostic Factors in Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) leads to prolonged survival for selected patients with colorectal (CRC) peritoneal metastases (PM). This study aimed to analyze the prognostic role of micro-satellite (MS) status and RAS/RAF mutations for patients treated with CRS.

METHODS

Data were collected from 13 Italian centers with PM expertise within a collaborative group of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Clinical and pathologic variables and KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutational and MS status were correlated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 437 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC. The median OS was 42.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 33.4-51.2 months], and the median DFS was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-14.9 months). The local (peritoneal) DFS was 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.4-24.6 months). In addition to the known clinical factors, KRAS mutations (p = 0.005), BRAF mutations (p = 0.01), and MS status (p = 0.04) were related to survival. The KRAS- and BRAF-mutated patients had a shorter survival than the wild-type (WT) patients (5-year OS, 29.4% and 26.8% vs 51.5%, respectively). The patients with micro-satellite instability (MSI) had a longer survival than the patients with micro-satellite stability (MSS) (5-year OS, 58.3% vs 36.7%). The MSI/WT patients had the best prognosis. The MSS/WT and MSI/mutated patients had similar survivals, whereas the MSS/mutated patients showed the worst prognosis (5-year OS, 70.6%, 48.1%, 23.4%; p = 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, OS was related to the Peritoneal Cancer Index [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05 per point], completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score (HR, 2.8), N status (HR, 1.6), signet-ring (HR, 2.4), MSI/WT (HR, 0.5), and MSS/WT-MSI/mutation (HR, 0.4). Similar results were obtained for DFS.

CONCLUSION

For patients affected by CRC-PM who are eligible for CRS, clinical and pathologic criteria need to be integrated with molecular features (KRAS/BRAF mutation). Micro-satellite status should be strongly considered because MSI confers a survival advantage over MSS, even for mutated patients.

Pelvic exenteration, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy: experience and outcomes from an exenterative and peritonectomy unit

PURPOSE

Pelvic exenteration (PE) for locally advanced pelvic malignancy is well established, though high rates of morbidity and mortality exist. Such a complication profile has often deterred the surgical community from offering exenteration in combination with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). We aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes following pelvic exenteration when combined with CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) in a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively maintained PSM database from June 2015 to December 2020 at a tertiary referral institution was performed. Patients who underwent CRS, PE, and HIPEC were matched with patients who underwent PE alone. Primary endpoints were perioperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

From June 2015 to December 2020, 20 patients required PE as part of their CRS and HIPEC for PSM. The majority of patients were female (n = 16, 80%) with a median age of 52 (range 21-70). Colorectal cancer was the predominant pathology (n = 12, 60%). Median PCI was 11.5 (range 3-39). CC0 and R0 resections were achieved in all patients. CRS, PE, and HIPEC and PE-alone groups were well matched for clinicopathological variables. There was no difference in perioperative major morbidity (HIPEC: 30% vs PE: 15% p = 0.256) and mortality (HIPEC: 0 vs PE: 5% p = 0.311) between groups. Median follow-up was 17.5 months (range 7-68). Eight patients (40%) died from disease-related issues during the study period.

CONCLUSION

An aggressive surgical strategy with complete resection is feasible and safe in select patients with complex PSM involving the pelvis.

Synchronous Liver Resection, Cytoreductive Surgery, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver and Peritoneal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Synchronous liver resection, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal liver and peritoneal metastases have traditionally been contraindicated. More recent clinical practice has begun to promote this aggressive treatment in select patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, with and without liver resection, in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to July 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Cohort studies comparing outcomes following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with and without liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer were reviewed. No randomized controlled trials were available.

INTERVENTION

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with or without synchronous liver resection were compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were perioperative mortality and major morbidity. Secondary outcomes included 3- and 5-year overall survival and 1- and 3-year disease-free survival.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies fitted the inclusion criteria, with 8 studies included in the meta-analysis. On pooled analysis, there was no significant difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality between the two groups. Patients that underwent concomitant liver resection had worse 1- and 3-year disease-free survival and 3- and 5-year overall survival.

LIMITATIONS

Only a limited number of studies were available, with a moderate degree of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of synchronous liver resection to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the treatment of resectable metastatic colorectal cancer was not associated with increased perioperative major morbidity and mortality in comparison with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy alone. However, the presence of liver metastases was associated with inferior disease-free and overall survival. These data support the continued practice of liver resection, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of select patients with such stage IV disease.

Perioperative Systemic Therapy vs Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Alone for Resectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

To date, no randomized clinical trials have investigated perioperative systemic therapy relative to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) alone for resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM).

Objective

To assess the feasibility and safety of perioperative systemic therapy in patients with resectable CPM and the response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An open-label, parallel-group phase 2 randomized clinical trial in all 9 Dutch tertiary centers for the surgical treatment of CPM enrolled participants between June 15, 2017, and January 9, 2019. Participants were patients with pathologically proven isolated resectable CPM who did not receive systemic therapy within 6 months before enrollment.

Interventions

Randomization to perioperative systemic therapy or CRS-HIPEC alone. Perioperative systemic therapy comprised either four 3-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), six 2-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), or six 2-week neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) and either four 3-week adjuvant cycles of capecitabine or six 2-week adjuvant cycles of fluorouracil with leucovorin. Bevacizumab was added to the first 3 (CAPOX) or 4 (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity. Key secondary outcomes were centrally assessed rates of objective radiologic and major pathologic response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Analyses were done modified intention-to-treat in patients starting neoadjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or undergoing upfront surgery (control arm).

Results

In 79 patients included in the analysis (43 [54%] men; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years), experimental (n = 37) and control (n = 42) arms did not differ significantly regarding the proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC (33 of 37 [89%] vs 36 of 42 [86%] patients; risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.23; P = .74) and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity (8 of 37 [22%] vs 14 of 42 [33%] patients; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.31-1.37; P = .25). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Objective radiologic and major pathologic response rates of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment were 28% (9 of 32 evaluable patients) and 38% (13 of 34 evaluable patients), respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized phase 2 trial in patients diagnosed with resectable CPM, perioperative systemic therapy seemed feasible, safe, and able to induce response of CPM, justifying a phase 3 trial.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02758951.

The Landmark Series: Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases (PM) are a form of metastatic spread affecting approximately 5-15% of colon cancer patients. The attitude towards management of peritoneal metastases has evolved from therapeutic nihilism towards a more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach, in large part due to the development of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), usually coupled with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), along with the constant improvement of systemic chemotherapy of colorectal cancer. Several landmark studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials have marked the development and refinement of surgical approaches to treating colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases.

METHODS

This review article focuses on these landmark studies and their influence in 4 key areas: the evidence supporting surgical resection of peritoneal metastases, the identification and standardization of important prognostic variables influencing patient selection, the role of surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy in prevention of colorectal PM and the role of intraperitoneal chemotherapy as an adjuvant to surgical resection.

RESULTS

These landmark studies indicate that surgical resection of colorectal PM should be considered as a therapeutic option in appropriately selected patients and when adequate surgical expertise is available. Standardized prognostic variables including the Peritoneal Cancer Index and the Completeness of Cytoreduction Score should be used for evaluating both indications and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not support the use of second look surgery with oxaliplatin HIPEC or prophylactic oxaliplatin HIPEC in patients with high risk colon cancer nor the use of oxaliplatin HIPEC with CRS of colorectal PM.

Outcomes following synchronous liver resection, cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal liver and peritoneal metastases: A bi-institutional study

PURPOSE

Synchronous liver resection, cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal liver (CRLM) and peritoneal metastases (CRPM) has traditionally been contraindicated. However, latest practice promotes specialist, multidisciplinary-led consideration for select patients. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of synchronous resection in the management of CRLM and CRPM from two tertiary referral centres.

METHOD

This bi-institutional, retrospective, cohort study included patients undergoing simultaneous liver resection, CRS and HIPEC for metastatic colorectal cancer from 2013 to 2020. Patients treated with ablative liver techniques, staged operative approaches and extra abdominal disease were excluded. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified variables associated with survival and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV).

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were included. The median peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 9 (range 0-22). There were two major liver resections and 21 minor resections. CC-0 resections were achieved in all patients. Major morbidity occurred in 7 patients. There were no deaths at 90 days. PCI was independently associated with morbidity (p = 0.04). PCI >10 (p = 0.069), major morbidity (p = 0.083) and presence of KRAS mutation (p = 0.052) approached significance for poor OS. Median follow up was 21 months (4-54 months). Median OS was 37 months, 3-year survival 54%, and median DFS 18 months.

CONCLUSION

Synchronous liver resection, cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC is feasible in selected patients with low-volume CRPM and CRLM. Increasing PCI is associated with postoperative major morbidity, and should be considered during operative planning.

Canadian guidelines on the management of colorectal peritoneal metastases

Modern management of colorectal cancer (crc) with peritoneal metastasis (pm) is based on a combination of cytoreductive surgery (crs), systemic chemotherapy, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec). Although the role of hipec has recently been questioned with respect to results from the prodige 7 trial, the role and benefit of a complete crs were confirmed, as observed with a 41-month gain in median survival in that study, and 15% of patients remaining disease-free at 5 years. Still, crc with pm is associated with a poor prognosis, and good patient selection is essential. Many questions about the optimal management approach for such patients remain, but all patients with pm from crc should be referred to, or discussed with, a pm surgical oncologist, because cure is possible. The objective of the present guideline is to offer a practical approach to the management of pm from crc and to reflect on the new practice standards set by recent publications on the topic.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancers with Mismatch Repair Deficiency Result in Worse Survival Regardless of Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Mismatch-repair deficiency (dMMR) predicts worse chemoresponsiveness but better survival in early-stage colorectal adenocarcinoma. This study examined metastatic colorectal and appendix cancers with and without peritoneal metastasis (PM) in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), hypothesizing that dMMR tumors show better survival.

METHODS

Stage 4 colon, rectum, and appendix cancers (2010-2016) were identified in the NCDB (including goblet cell carcinoids, excluding neuroendocrine tumors). Stage 4 disease without liver, bone, brain, lung, or distant nodal metastases defined PM. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare proportions, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate survival.

RESULTS

Of 130,125 stage 4 colon, rectum, and appendix cancers, 27,848 (21.4%) had PM. Appendix primary tumors had PM more commonly than colon or rectum cancer (83.6% vs. 20.6% and 12.1% of stage 4 cases; p < 0.0001). More PM patients had MMR testing than patients with other metastasis (OM) (21.4% vs. 16.1%), and testing increased from 9.6% in 2010 to 26.3% in 2016 (both p < 0.0001). Among the PM patients, MMR testing was least common for appendix cancers (9.0%). When tested, PM patients more often had dMMR (22.9% [1122/4900] vs. 15.4% [2532/16,495] of OM patients; p < 0.0001). Colon primary tumor had dMMR most frequently (25.0% vs. 14.6% and 14.5% for rectal and appendix tumor; p < 0.0001). Most PM patients received chemotherapy (66.2%). Immunotherapy use increased over time (1.1% of PM diagnoses in 2010 vs. 20.8% in 2016). For MMR-tested stage 4 patients, dMMR correlated with worse survival (median OM, 19.7 vs. 23.9 months, p < 0.0001; median PM, 19.9 vs. 24.6 months, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The NCDB showed dMMR predicting worse survival for stage 4 colorectal cancers with and without PM and dMMR existing in 14.5-25% of tested patients, suggesting that increased attention to MMR testing in stage 4 colorectal and appendix cancers can identify many patients who could potentially benefit from immunotherapy.

Clinical and Radiologic Predictors of a Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: Results of a Prospective Multi-center Study

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for colorectal peritoneal metastases who have a pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy experience a significantly longer survival than those with residual disease. This response is known only after surgery. This study aimed to examine clinical and radiologic predictors of a pCR.

METHODS

From July 2018 to December 2019, the study prospectively enrolled 120 patients. The clinical and radiologic findings were compared between patients with and without a pCR. A protocol for pathologic evaluation was followed.

RESULTS

A pCR was observed in 34 patients (28.3%). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed that patients with a surgical Peritoneal Cancer Index (sPCI) of 3 or lower had an 80% probability of experiencing a pCR, and that patients with a radiologic PCI (rPCI) of 2 or lower had a 70% probability of experiencing a pCR. A pCR was correctly predicted for 47% of the patients by imaging and for 44.4% of the patients by surgical evaluation. The site of primary tumor, the timing of peritoneal metastasis (PM), histology, tumor marker positivity, and mutations in known poor prognostic genes (KRAS) did not differ between the patients with and those without pCR. The primary tumor showed residual disease in 23.5% and regional nodes in 26.4% of the patients with pCR.

CONCLUSIONS

The rPCI and sPCI concurred with a pCR in less than 50% of the patients. The patients with a lower PCI had greater concordance. An sPCI of 3 or lower was predictive of a pCR in 80% of the patients. The impact of KRAS mutations on pCR should be evaluated in a larger series. The predictors of pCR and response to systemic chemotherapy should be incorporated in prognostic scores used to select patients for surgery.

Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for colorectal peritoneal metastases. A consensus of the peritoneal surface malignancies onco-team of the Italian society of surgical oncology

AIM

the surgical workup for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRCPM) is complex and should be managed in specialized centers. Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms (DTA) have been proposed to balance optimal patients management and correct use of resources. Aim of this study was to establish a consensus on DTA for CRCPM patients in Italy.

METHOD

a panel of 18 delegated members of centers afferent to Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Onco-team of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology was established. A list of statements regarding the DTA of patients with CRCPM was prepared according to different activities and decision-making nodes with a defined entry and exit point. Consensus was obtained through RAND UCLA methodology.

RESULTS

two different DTA were defined and approved according to the modality of presentation of CRCPM (synchronous and metachronous). A consensus was also obtained on 17 of the 19 statements related to DTA.

CONCLUSION

a shared model of DTA is now available for healthcare providers to monitor appropriateness in diagnosis and treatment of patients with isolated peritoneal metastases from CRC.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor, Breast, and Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of desmoplastic small round cell tumor, breast, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor specifically related to peritoneal surface malignancy. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness in the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Peritoneal Mesothelioma

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of peritoneal mesothelioma. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness of the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Neuroendocrine Tumors

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of neuroendocrine tumors specifically related to the management of peritoneal surface malignancy. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness in the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Palliative Care Considerations

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for palliative care specifically related to peritoneal surface malignancies. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness in the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Ovarian Neoplasms

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of ovarian neoplasms specifically related to the management of peritoneal surface malignancy. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness in the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Gastric Metastases

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of gastric cancer specifically as it relates to the management of peritoneal surface malignancy. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness of the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.

The Chicago Consensus on Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: Management of Appendiceal Neoplasms

The Chicago Consensus Working Group provides multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of appendiceal neoplasms specifically related to the management of peritoneal surface malignancies. These guidelines are developed with input from leading experts including surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and pharmacists. These guidelines recognize and address the emerging need for increased awareness in the appropriate management of peritoneal surface disease. They are not intended to replace the quest for higher levels of evidence.