1
|
Mishra N, Kumar M, Singh S, Rani K. Re-do cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Risk factors and complications. J Cancer Res Ther 2023; 19:S921-S924. [PMID: 38384080 DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_354_22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2022] [Accepted: 06/20/2022] [Indexed: 02/23/2024]
Abstract
ABSTRACT An effective multi-modal treatment option for patients with peritoneal surface metastatic malignancies has progressed and developed over the decades as cytoreductive surgery (CRS), and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) delivers highly concentrated, heated chemotherapy drugs directly to the abdomen during surgery. Peritoneal metastasis and high staging abdominal malignancies were considered incurable and end up with the palliation only; the CRS+HIPEC combination approach increases the median survival rate and gives a better quality of life to these patients. It is a complicated surgery which poses a high rate of complications and challenges which are difficult to manage and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. The aim of this study is to elaborate the perioperative possible physiological changes, risk factors, and related complications after re-do HIPEC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Namita Mishra
- Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
| | - Madhav Kumar
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
| | - Soumya Singh
- Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
| | - Khushbu Rani
- Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Recurrent Endometrial Cancer: Which Is the Best Treatment? Systematic Review of the Literature. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14174176. [PMID: 36077713 PMCID: PMC9454638 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Revised: 08/16/2022] [Accepted: 08/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological tumour in developed countries. The aim of this systematic review is to compare different therapeutic strategies in the treatment of endometrial cancer recurrence to evaluate their prognostic and curative effects. The treatment of choice should be assessed according to the relapse location and to the presence of single or multiple lesions. A crucial role is also played by the type of adjuvant treatment received at the time of the first diagnosis. The molecular pattern will also be investigated in future studies. This will make it possible to personalise treatments. Abstract Background: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological tumour in developed countries. The overall rate of relapse has remained unchanged in recent decades. Recurrences occur in approximately 20% of endometrioid and 50% of non-endometrioid cases. The aim of this systematic review is to compare different therapeutic strategies in the treatment of endometrial cancer recurrence to evaluate their prognostic and curative effects based on site and type of recurrence. Methods: This systematic review of literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020154042). PubMed, Embase, Chocrane and Cinahl databases were searched from January 1995 to September 2021. Five retrospective studies were selected. Results: A total of 3571 studies were included in the initial search. Applying the screening criteria, 299 articles were considered eligible for full-text reading, of which, after applying the exclusion criteria, 4 studies were selected for the final analysis and included in the systematic review. No studies were included for a quantitative analysis. We divided the results according to the location of the recurrence: locoregional recurrence, abdominal recurrence and extra abdominal recurrence. Conclusion: the treatment of choice should be assessed according to the relapse location and to the presence of single or multiple lesions. A crucial role in the decision-making algorithm is also the type of adjuvant treatment received at the time of the first diagnosis.
Collapse
|
3
|
O'Connor N, Sugrue M, Melly C, McGeehan G, Bucholc M, Crawford A, O'Connor P, Abu-Zidan F, Wani I, Balogh ZJ, Shelat VG, Tebala GD, De Simone B, Eid HO, Chirica M, Fraga GP, Di Saverio S, Picetti E, Bonavina L, Ceresoli M, Fette A, Sakakushe B, Pikoulis E, Coimbra R, Ten Broek R, Hecker A, Leppäniemi A, Litvin A, Stahel P, Tan E, Koike K, Catena F, Pisano M, Coccolini F, Johnston A. It's time for a minimum synoptic operation template in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review. World J Emerg Surg 2022; 17:15. [PMID: 35296354 PMCID: PMC8928637 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-022-00411-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2021] [Accepted: 01/07/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the call to enhance accuracy and value of operation records few international recommended minimal standards for operative notes documentation have been described. This study undertook a systematic review of existing operative reporting systems for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to fashion a comprehensive, synoptic operative reporting template for the future. METHODS A search for all relevant articles was conducted using PubMed version of Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases in June 2021, for publications from January 1st 2011 to October 25th 2021, using the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND operation notes OR operative notes OR proforma OR documentation OR report OR narrative OR audio-visual OR synoptic OR digital. Two reviewers (NOC, GMC) independently assessed each published study using a MINORS score of ≥ 16 for comparative and ≥ 10 for non-comparative for inclusion. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. Synoptic operative templates from published data were assimilated into one "ideal" laparoscopic operative report template following international input from the World Society of Emergency Surgery board. RESULTS A total of 3567 articles were reviewed. Following MINORS grading 25 studies were selected spanning 14 countries and 4 continents. Twenty-two studies were prospective. A holistic overview of the operative procedure documentation was reported in 6/25 studies and a further 19 papers dealt with selective surgical aspects of LC. A unique synoptic LC operative reporting template was developed and translated into Chinese/Mandarin, French and Arabic. CONCLUSION This systematic review identified a paucity of publications dealing with operative reporting of LC. The proposed new template may be integrated digitally with hospitals' medical systems and include additional narrative text and audio-visual data. The template may help define new OR (operating room) recording standards and impact on care for patients undergoing LC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niall O'Connor
- Department of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland
| | - Michael Sugrue
- Department of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland.
| | - Conor Melly
- Department of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland
| | - Gearoid McGeehan
- Department of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland
| | - Magda Bucholc
- EU INTERREG Centre for Personalized Medicine, Intelligent Systems Research Centre, School of Computing, Engineering and Intelligent Systems, Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry-Londonderry, Northern Ireland
| | - Aileen Crawford
- Department of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland
| | - Paul O'Connor
- Department of Anaesthesia, Letterkenny University Hospital, Donegal, Ireland
| | - Fikri Abu-Zidan
- Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
| | | | - Zsolt J Balogh
- John Hunter Hospital and University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Giovanni D Tebala
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital. Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
| | - Belinda De Simone
- Poissy/Saint Germain en Laye Hospitals, Poissy-Ile de France, France
| | - Hani O Eid
- Abu Dhabi Police Aviation, HEMS, Abu Dhabi, UAE
| | - Mircea Chirica
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | - Gustavo P Fraga
- Division of Trauma Surgery, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil
| | | | - Edoardo Picetti
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy
| | - Luigi Bonavina
- Division of General and Foregut Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Ceresoli
- General and Emergency Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of MIlano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
| | | | - Boris Sakakushe
- RIMU/Research Institute at Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
| | - Emmanouil Pikoulis
- Department of Surgery, Attikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Raul Coimbra
- Riverside University Health System Medical CA and Loma Linda University School of Medicine CA, Riverside, USA
| | - Richard Ten Broek
- Department of Surgery. Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Andreas Hecker
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen, Giessen, Germany
| | - Ari Leppäniemi
- Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Andrey Litvin
- Department of Surgical Disciplines, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Regional Clinical Hospital, Kaliningrad, Russia
| | - Philip Stahel
- Department of Specialty Medicine, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, Parker, CO, 80134, USA
| | - Edward Tan
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Federico Coccolini
- General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Alison Johnston
- Department of Surgery, Letterkenny University Hospital and Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gomes David M, Bakrin N, Salleron J, Kaminsky MC, Bereder JM, Tuech JJ, Lehmann K, Mehta S, Glehen O, Marchal F. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) vs CRS alone for treatment of endometrial cancer with peritoneal metastases: a multi-institutional study from PSOGI and BIG RENAPE groups. BMC Surg 2022; 22:1. [PMID: 34996419 PMCID: PMC8742414 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01449-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective To investigate the benefit of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of endometrial peritoneal carcinomatosis compared to CRS alone. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicentre study of patients from experienced centres in treating peritoneal malignancies from 2002 to 2015. Patients who underwent surgery for peritoneal evolution of endometrial cancer (EC) were included. Two groups of 30 women were matched and compared: “CRS + HIPEC” which used HIPEC after CRS, and “CRS only” which did not use HIPEC. We analysed clinical, pathologic and treatment data for patients with peritoneal metastases from EC. The outcome measures were morbidity, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results In “CRS plus HIPEC” group, 96.7% of women were treated for recurrence, while in “CRS only” 83.3 were treated for primary disease. There was no significant difference between Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index at laparotomy or Completeness of Cytoreduction score. Grade III and IV complications rates did not significantly differ between “CRS plus HIPEC” group and “CRS only” group (20.7% vs 20.7%, p = 0.739). Survival analysis showed no statistical difference between both groups. Median OS time was 19.2 months in “CRS plus HIPEC” group and 29.7 months in “CRS only” group (p = 0.606). Median PFS survival time was 10.7 months in “CRS plus HIPEC” group and 13.1 months in “CRS only” group (p = 0.511). Conclusion The use of HIPEC combined to CRS did not have any significance as regard the DFS and OS over CRS alone in patients with primary or recurrent peritoneal metastasis of endometrial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuel Gomes David
- Département de Chirurgie Oncologique, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, 6 Avenue de Bourgogne, 54519, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
| | - Naoual Bakrin
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Endocrinienne, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Julia Salleron
- Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Cellule Data Biostatistiques, Université de Lorraine, 54519, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
| | - Marie Christine Kaminsky
- Département d'oncologie, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, 54519, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
| | | | | | | | | | - Olivier Glehen
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive et Endocrinienne, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Frédéric Marchal
- Département de Chirurgie Oncologique, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, 6 Avenue de Bourgogne, 54519, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.,CRAN, UMR 7039, CNRS, Université de Lorraine, Boulevard des Aiguillettes, 54506, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France
| |
Collapse
|