2022 Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: Colorectal Cancer

Colon and rectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: are we mixing apples with oranges? A propensity score-matched analysis

Rectal cancer is universally considered a different disease entity as compared to colon cancer, except when dealing with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), in which the two cancers are deemed as the same one. The present study aims to investigate the influence of primary tumor location (colon vs. rectum) on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Data from three referral centers undergoing CRS plus HIPEC for PC of colorectal origin were prospectively collected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to primary tumor location (colic vs. rectal). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model first on the total number of patients. Then, a propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbour method with a 1:1 ratio was performed. The study included 167 patients: 126 colic and 41 rectal PC. After propensity score matching, rectal primary tumor location was independently predictive of a lower DFS (HR 1.91; 95%CI 1.06-3.45; p = 0.031) but not of a lower OS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.73). Post-matching 3-year DFS rates were 49.2% (95%CI 34,3-70,5%) and 19.4% (95%CI 9,4-40,2%) for colic and rectal PC, respectively. The present study shows a significantly worse DFS for rectal cancer PC undergoing CRS and HIPEC compared to colon cancer PC, suggesting a possible need for dedicated pathways for rectal PC patients and posing a question for rectal PC to be considered as a unique disease entity.

INDEPSO-ISPSM Consensus on Peritoneal Malignancies: Management of Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases

PURPOSE

This manuscript reports the results of the Indian Network for Development of Peritoneal Surface Oncology and Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (INDEPSO-ISPSM) consensus that aimed to provide recommendations for some important aspects management of patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) and address some issues unique to India.

METHODS

The modified Delphi technique was used with two rounds of voting. There were 29 questions on nine main topics-the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), patient selection for CRS, preoperative workup, role of systemic chemotherapy (SC), CPM with other visceral metastases, molecular profile, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and other modalities of intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC), prophylactic/preventive strategies, and surveillances after CRS. A consensus was achieved if anyone option received >70 votes (strong consensus >90%).

RESULTS

Forty-eight surgical (n = 41) and gastrointestinal (n = 7) oncologists were invited; 44 agreed to participate. The response rate was 95.4% (42/44) in round 1 and 93.1% (41/44) in round 2. Overall, a consensus was achieved on 23/29 (79.3%) questions (strong consensus on 6/29 [20.6%]). The panel strongly recommended considering surgery for limited CPM with limited liver metastases (92.5%), not altering the surgical approach in patients with KRAS mutations (91.67%), and limiting the use of IPC for unresectable CPM outside clinical trials (95%). Adjuvant SC was recommended for all patients undergoing CRS (89.47%). CRS is a therapeutic option for selected patients with CPM including those with metachronous CPM (79.49) and signet ring cell cancers (76.92%). HIPEC was recommended outside clinical trials only for patients with peritoneal cancer index 11-15(80%).

CONCLUSION

The panel recommended CRS for most indications but was very selective in recommending HIPEC and IPC outside clinical trials. These recommendations should be a useful resource in clinical decision making for clinicians treating CPM in India and regions with a similar sociodemographic background.

Assessment of Intraoperative Scoring Systems for Predicting Cytoreduction Outcome in Peritoneal Metastatic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is a widely acknowledged treatment approach for peritoneal metastasis, showing favorable prognosis and long-term survival. Intraoperative scoring systems quantify tumoral burden before CRS and may predict complete cytoreduction (CC). This study reviews the intraoperative scoring systems for predicting CC and optimal cytoreduction (OC) and evaluates the predictive performance of the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) and Predictive Index Value (PIV).

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses of extracted data were performed to compare the absolute predictive performances of PCI and PIV.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (5834 patients) focusing on gynecological (n = 34; 89.5%), gastrointestinal (n = 2; 5.3%) malignancies, and on tumors of various origins (n = 2; 5.3%) were identified. Seventy-seven models assessing the predictive performance of scoring systems (54 for CC and 23 for OC) were identified with PCI (n = 39/77) and PIV (n = 16/77) being the most common. Twenty models (26.0%) reinterpreted previous scoring systems of which ten (13%) used a modified version of PIV (reclassification). Meta-analyses of models predicting CC based on PCI (n = 21) and PIV (n = 8) provided an AUC estimate of 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.86; Q = 119.6, p = 0.0001; I2 = 74.1%) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.81; Q = 7.2, p = 0.41; I2 = 11.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal Cancer Index models demonstrate an excellent estimate of CC, while PIV shows an acceptable performance. There is a need for high-quality studies to address management differences, establish standardized cutoff values, and focus on non-gynecological malignancies.

Tata Memorial Centre Evidence Based Management of Colorectal cancer

ABSTRACT

This review article examines the evidence-based management of colorectal cancers, focusing on topics characterized by ongoing debates and evolving evidence. To contribute to the scientific discourse, we intentionally exclude subjects with established guidelines, concentrating instead on areas where the current understanding is dynamic. Our analysis encompasses a thorough exploration of critical themes, including the evidence surrounding complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy in colon cancers. Additionally, we delve into the evolving landscape of perioperative chemotherapy in both colon and rectal cancers, considering its nuanced role in the context of contemporary treatment strategies. Advancements in surgical techniques are a pivotal aspect of our discussion, with an emphasis on the utilization of minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery in both colon and rectal cancers, including advanced rectal cases. Moving beyond conventional radical procedures, we scrutinize the feasibility and implications of endoscopic resections for small tumors, explore the paradigm of organ preservation in locally advanced rectal cancers, and assess the utility of total neoadjuvant therapy in the current treatment landscape. Our final segment reviews pivotal trials that have significantly influenced the management of colorectal liver and peritoneal metastasis.