Randomized controlled trials evaluating cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in prevention and therapy of peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review

Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for people with peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Results

The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons.

Limitations

We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges.

Conclusions

In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation).

Future work

More randomised controlled trials are necessary.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Localized chemotherapy approaches and advanced drug delivery strategies: a step forward in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a common outcome of epithelial ovarian carcinoma and is the leading cause of death for these patients. Tumor location, extent, peculiarities of the microenvironment, and the development of drug resistance are the main challenges that need to be addressed to improve therapeutic outcome. The development of new procedures such as HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy) and PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) have enabled locoregional delivery of chemotherapeutics, while the increasingly efficient design and development of advanced drug delivery micro and nanosystems are helping to promote tumor targeting and penetration and to reduce the side effects associated with systemic chemotherapy administration. The possibility of combining drug-loaded carriers with delivery via HIPEC and PIPAC represents a powerful tool to improve treatment efficacy, and this possibility has recently begun to be explored. This review will discuss the latest advances in the treatment of PC derived from ovarian cancer, with a focus on the potential of PIPAC and nanoparticles in terms of their application to develop new therapeutic strategies and future prospects.

Update of randomized controlled trials evaluating cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in prevention and therapy of peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review

Background

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with favorable short- and long-term oncological outcomes in highly selected patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The aim of our review was to review published, recruiting or ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CRS and HIPEC vs. other strategies (systemic chemotherapy or CRS alone) and to update the studies recently described in 2016.

Content

Systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Searches for published and ongoing trials were based, respectively, on PubMed and international clinical databases since 2016.

Summary

46 trials randomized 9,063 patients: 13 in colorectal cancer (3 in therapeutic strategy and 10 in prophylactic strategy), 16 in gastric cancer (4 in therapeutic strategy and 12 in prophylactic strategy) and 17 in ovarian cancer (12 in front-line therapy and 5 in recurrence settings).

Outlook

In contrast to many recruiting studies, few published studies analyzed the potential advantage of CRS and HIPEC in therapeutic and prophylactic treatment of PM. The potential effect of this combined treatment has been proven in ovarian cancer in interval surgery, but remains still debated in other situations. Promising trials are currently recruiting to provide further evidence of the effectiveness of CRS and HIPEC.

HIPEC in Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Origin: A Systematic Review of Regimens and Techniques

(1) Background: Peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Complete cytoreductive surgery including gastrectomy and complete removal of all peritoneal lesions followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) achieves promising results. There exists an immersive variety of approaches for HIPEC that makes it difficult to weigh different results obtained in the literature. In order to enable standardization and development of HIPEC, we here present a systematic review of different drug regimens and technical approaches. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched on 26 May 2021 using the mesh terms “intraperitoneal chemotherapy AND gastric cancer”. Under consideration of systematic review guidelines, articles reporting on HIPEC in combination with CRS were selected. Data on duration, drugs, dosage, and other application parameters as well as morbidity and long term survival data were extracted for subsequent statistical analysis, tabulation, and descriptive synthesis. We assessed the risk of bias due to inhomogeneity of the patient cohort and incompleteness of report of HIPEC parameters. (3) Results: Out of 1421 screened publications, 42 publications presenting data from 1325 patients met the criteria. Most of the publications were single institutional retrospective cohort studies. The most common HIPEC regimen is performed after gastrointestinal anastomosis and consists of 50–200 mg/m² cisplatinum and 30–40 mg/m² mytomycin C at 42–43 °C for 60–90 min in a closed abdomen HIPEC system with three tubes. Almost every study reported incompletely on HIPEC parameters. Lower rates of anastomotic leakage were reported in studies that performed HIPEC after gastrointestinal anastomosis. Studies that performed open HIPEC and integrated a two-drug regimen indicated better overall survival rates. (4) Discussion: This is an exhaustive overview of the use of drug regimens and techniques for HIPEC after CRS for gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis. Other indications and application modes of intraperitoneal chemotherapy such as prophylactic or palliative HIPEC apart from CRS were not addressed. (5) Conclusion: Complete report of HIPEC parameters should be included in every publication. A consensus for dose expression either per BSA or as flat dose is desirable for comparison of the drug regimens. Despite numerous variations, we identified the most common regimens and techniques and their advantages and disadvantages according to the data in the literature. More phase I/II studies are needed to identify the best approach for HIPEC. (6) Other: This review was not supported by third parties.

What Drives High Costs of Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC: Patient, Provider or Tumor?

INTRODUCTION

Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is utilized for peritoneal malignancies and is associated with significant resource use. To address potentially modifiable factors contributing to excessive cost, we sought to determine predictors of high cost of care for patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC.

METHODS

An institutional CRS/HIPEC database was queried for adult patients from 2014 to 2018. Cost was defined as cost for the index hospitalization, and high-cost cases were defined as > 75th percentile for cost. Bivariate analyses for cost were performed, and all significant tumor, patient, and surgeon-specific variables were entered in a linear regression for cost. A separate linear regression was performed for length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

In total, 59 patients underwent 61 CRS/HIPEC procedures. The median direct variable cost was $20,509 (16,395-25,240). Median length of stay (LOS) was 8 (7-11.5) days and ICU stay was 1 (1-1.5) day. LOS, length of ICU stay and operative time were predictive of cost. Factors associated with increased LOS were Clavien-Dindo grade II complications and ostomy creation. Patient-related factors, including age and BMI, tumor-related factors, such as PCI and CCR, and surgeon were not predictive of cost nor LOS.

DISCUSSION

Our results, the first to identify predictors of high cost of CRS/HIPEC-related care in the US, reveal cost was largely related to length and intensity of care. In turn, these drivers were influenced by complications and operative factors. Future work will focus on identifying an appropriate ERAS protocol following CRS/HIPEC and selection of those patients that may avoid routine ICU admission.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019130504.

Overcoming Drug Resistance by Taking Advantage of Physical Principles: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Theoretical considerations as well as comprehensive preclinical and clinical data suggest that optimizing physical parameters of intraperitoneal drug delivery might help to circumvent initial or acquired resistance of peritoneal metastasis (PM) to chemotherapy. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel minimally invasive drug delivery system systematically addressing the current limitations of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The rationale behind PIPAC is: (1) optimizing homogeneity of drug distribution by applying an aerosol rather than a liquid solution; (2) applying increased intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure to counteract elevated intratumoral interstitial fluid pressure; (3) limiting blood outflow during drug application; (4) steering environmental parameters (temperature, pH, electrostatic charge etc.) in the peritoneal cavity for best tissue target effect. In addition, PIPAC allows repeated application and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing biopsies between chemotherapy cycles. Although incompletely understood, the reasons that allow PIPAC to overcome established chemoresistance are probably linked to local dose intensification. All pharmacological data published so far show a superior therapeutic ratio (tissue concentration/dose applied) of PIPAC vs. systemic administration, of PIPAC vs. intraperitoneal liquid chemotherapy, of PIPAC vs. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) or PIPAC vs. laparoscopic HIPEC. In the initial introduction phase, PIPAC has been used in patients who were quite ill and had already failed multiple treatment regimes, but it may not be limited to that group of patients in the future. Rapid diffusion of PIPAC in clinical practice worldwide supports its potential to become a game changer in the treatment of chemoresistant isolated PM of various origins.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cisplatin and mitomycin C for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The randomized trial PRODIGE 7 failed to show the benefit of oxaliplatin hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal peritoneal metastasis treatment (CR PM). This systematic review focuses on the association of cisplatin (CDDP) with mitomycin C (MMC) in HIPEC in CR PM.

CONTENT

Experimental studies demonstrated that hyperthermia, in addition to CDDP ± MMC treatment, gradually improved the cytotoxic effect by increasing early apoptosis, eATP interaction, intracellular CDDP concentration (by 20%) and p73 expression. Recent studies with highly selected patients reported unusual prolonged survival with a median overall survival (OS) of approximately 60 months, with a HIPEC combination of CDDP (25 mg/m2/L) plus MMC (3.3 mg/m2/L) at a temperature of 41.5-42.5 °C for 60-90 min. Major complications occurred in less than 30% of patients with limited hematological toxicity (less than 15%). In addition, in a phase 2 trial, an adjuvant HIPEC benefit was demonstrated in colorectal cancer patients with high risk for peritoneal failure (5-year OS: 81.3% vs. 70% for the HIPEC group vs. the control group, respectively, p=0.047). After a recurrence, an iterative procedure permitted similar recurrence-free disease (13 vs. 13.7 months) with an acceptable morbidity (18.7% of severe complications).

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

The combination of CDDP and MMC seems to be an interesting protocol as an alternative to high-dose and short-term oxaliplatin.

Chemosensitivity of various peritoneal cancer cell lines to HIPEC and PIPAC: comparison of an experimental duplex drug to standard drug regimens in vitro

We performed an in-vitro study testing the chemosensitivity of peritoneal cancer cell lines (SW620, HCT116, MKN45, 23,132/87, OAW42) to various cytostatic drug regimens. A duplex drug, characterized by reversible linking of the antimetabolites 2'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5-FdU) and 3'-C-ethynylcytidine (ECyd), was compared to oxaliplatin or to cisplatin plus doxorubicin. The experiments were designed to reflect the conditions of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. CASY® (Cell Analysis System) technology was used to compare the impact of incubation temperature/duration and drug concentration on the viability of the cancer cell lines versus normal human dermal fibroblasts. Two incubation scenarios were explored: (i) hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with 1 h of incubation at 42 °C, and (ii) pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with several successive incubations at 37 °C. Under HIPEC conditions, oxaliplatin induced a potent temperature-dependent growth inhibition of colon cancer cells not seen with the duplex drug. Under PIPAC conditions, the duplex drug achieved the same growth inhibition at a fraction of the dose level required with oxaliplatin. Gastric and ovarian cancer cells were more sensitive to cisplatin plus doxorubicin than to the duplex drug under PIPAC conditions. The duplex drug suggests itself, notably in cases of platinum resistance, as an alternative or addition to intraperitoneal chemotherapies when platinum-based PIPAC technology is used. Using it with HIPEC technology is not recommended. Higher doses of the duplex drug will enhance growth inhibition, albeit at the cost of a severely reduced difference in chemosensitivity between tumor and normal cells. Our findings provide orientation for PIPAC-based personalized intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Nanoparticle as a novel tool in hyperthermic intraperitoneal and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotheprapy to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis

The treatment of peritoneal surface malignances has changed considerably over the last thirty years. Unfortunately, the palliative is the only current treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Two primary intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic methods are used. The first is combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC), which has become the gold standard for many cases of PC. The second is Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotheprapy (PIPAC), which is promising direction to minimally invasive as safedrug delivery. These methods were improved through multicenter studies and clinical trials that yield important insights and solutions. Major method development has been made through nanomedicine, specifically nanoparticles. Here, we are presenting the latest advances of nanoparticles and their application to precision diagnostics and improved treatment strategies for PC. These advances will likely develop both HIPEC and PIPAC methods that used for in vitro and in vivo studies. Several benefits of using nanoparticles will be discussed including: 1) Nanoparticles as drug delivery systems; 2) Nanoparticles and Near Infrred (NIR) Irradiation; 3) use of nanoparticles in perioperative diagnostic and individualized treatment planning; 4) use of nanoparticles as anticancer dressing's, hydrogels and as active beeds for optimal reccurence prevention; and 5) finally the curent in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical trials of nanoparticles. The current review highlighted use of nanoparticles as novel tools in improving drug delivery to be effective for treatment patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Pharmacological principles of intraperitoneal and bidirectional chemotherapy

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is associated with a significant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic benefit and can, alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy (bidirectional chemotherapy), be used for treating primary and secondary peritoneal surface malignancies. Due to the peritoneal-plasma barrier, high intraperitoneal drug concentration can be achieved by intraperitoneal chemotherapy, whereas systemic concentration remains low. Bidirectional chemotherapy may provide in addition adequate drug concentrations from the side of the subperitoneal space to the peritoneal tumour nodules. Major pharmacological problems of intraperitoneal chemotherapy are limited tissue penetration and poor homogeneity of drug distribution to the entire seroperitoneal surface. Significant pharmacological determinants of intraperitoneal chemotherapy are choice of drug, drug dosage, solution volume, carrier solution, intra-abdominal pressure, temperature, duration, mode of administration, extent of peritonectomy and interindividual variability. Drugs most commonly applied for intraperitoneal chemotherapy include mitomycin C, cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5-fluoruracil, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, doxorubicin, premetrexed and melphalan. The drugs and their doses that are used vary widely among centres. While the adequate drug choice for intraperitoneal and bidirectional chemotherapy is essential, randomized clinical trials to determine the most optimal drug or drug combination are lacking, and only eight retrospective comparative clinical studies are available. Further clinical pharmacological studies are required to determine the most effective drug regimen for intraperitoneal and bidirectional chemotherapy in various indications. In the future, reliable drug sensitivity testing and genetic profiling of peritoneal metastases will be needed for enabling patient-specific therapy.

Overview of the optimal perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy regimens used in current clinical practice

Peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) is a common manifestation of digestive and gynecologic malignancies alike. At present, patients with isolated PSM are treated with a combination therapy of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The combination of CRS and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy should now be considered standard of care for PSM from appendiceal epithelial cancers, colorectal cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma. Although there is a near universal standardization regarding the CRS, we are still lacking a much-needed standardization among the various IP chemotherapy treatment modalities used today in clinical practice. Pharmacologic evidence should be generated to answer important questions raised by the myriad of variables associated with IP chemotherapy.