Successful intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion for the prevention of postoperative peritoneal recurrence in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma

Prophylactic surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC CO2) versus standard surgery for gastric carcinoma at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis: short and long-term outcomes (GOETH STUDY)-a collaborative randomized controlled trial by ACOI, FONDAZIONE AIOM, SIC, SICE, and SICO

INTRODUCTION

At the time of diagnosis, 15-20% of gastric carcinomas are in stage T4 or T4b. Furthermore, 5-20% of patients undergoing potentially curative surgery suffer from synchronous or metachronous peritoneal metastases. To date, neither surgery nor systemic chemotherapy successfully controls peritoneal dissemination, offering a limited impact on survival. Peritoneal metastases are in fact responsible for death in around 60% of gastric cancer patients. Several Eastern studies in the past have focused on hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as a prophylactic measure in patients with serosal extension, nodal involvement, and positive peritoneal fluid cytology. Therefore, a new multimodal therapeutic strategy based on aggressive surgery plus new locoregional treatment may prolong survival in this particular clinical scenario.

METHODS

This study compares the efficacy of prophylactic surgery (radical gastric resection, appendectomy, resection of the round ligament of the liver, and bilateral adnexectomy) plus hybrid CO2 HIPEC system versus standard surgery in patients with T3-T4 N0-N + gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients will be randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to the experimental arm or standard surgery. The primary endpoint is to establish the difference in disease-free survival between the groups. The secondary objective is to compare the safety and tolerability of prophylactic surgery plus HIPEC CO₂ versus standard surgery.

DISCUSSION

Considering the poor prognosis of patients with peritoneal dissemination from gastric cancer, a prophylactic strategy to prevent peritoneal metastases may be beneficial. In patients with gastric cancer at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis, we propose aggressive surgical treatment with radical gastrectomy, removal of organs at risk of harbouring tumour cells, and HIPEC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03917173. Registered on 16 April 2019.

PROTOCOL VERSION

v1, March 27, 2019. Protocol number: IRFMN-GCC-7813. EudraCT number: 2019-001478-27.

Extent of lymphadenectomy and perioperative therapies: Two open issues in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of death for cancer worldwide, although geographical variations in incidence exist. Over the last decades, its incidence and mortality have gradually decreased in Western countries, while these have increased, or remained stable, in the other world regions. Gastric cancer is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, with the only notable exception of Japan, where nationwide screening programs are enforced, due to local high incidence. Curative- intent surgery (i.e., gastrectomy, total or partial, and lymphadenectomy) remains the cornerstone of treatment of gastric cancer. Much has been debated about the extent of lymph node dissection and, although it is a valuable contribution to staging and cure, operative treatment only represents one aspect of overall effective management, as the risk of both locoregional and distant recurrences are high, and bear a poor prognosis. As a matter of fact, surgery, as a single modality treatment, has probably achieved its maximum efficacy for local control and survival, while other accompanying nonsurgical treatment modalities have to be taken into account, although their role is still the subject of considerable debate. The authors in this review present an update on the outcome of treatment of gastric cancer in relation to the extent of lymphadenectomy and of various nonsurgical preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative strategies.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis

Several gastrointestinal and gynecological malignancies have the potential to disseminate and grow in the peritoneal cavity. The occurrence of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) has been shown to significantly decrease overall survival in patients with liver and/or extraperitoneal metastases from gastrointestinal cancer. During the last three decades, the understanding of the biology and pathways of dissemination of tumors with intraperitoneal spread, and the understanding of the protective function of the peritoneal barrier against tumoral seeding, has prompted the concept that PC is a loco-regional disease: in absence of other systemic metastases, multimodal approaches combining aggressive cytoreductive surgery, intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy and systemic chemotherapy have been proposed and are actually considered promising methods to improve loco-regional control of the disease, and ultimately to increase survival. The aim of this review article is to present the evidence on treatment of PC in different tumors, in order to provide patients with a proper surgical and multidisciplinary treatment focused on optimal control of their locoregional disease.

Peritoneal lavage cytology and carcinoembryonic antigen determination in predicting peritoneal metastasis and prognosis of gastric cancer

AIM

To evaluate the role of peritoneal lavage cytology (PLC) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) determination of peritoneal washes (pCEA) in predicting the peritoneal metastasis and prognosis after curative resection of gastric cancer.

METHODS

PLC and radioimmunoassay of CEA were performed in peritoneal washes from 64 patients with gastric cancer and 8 patients with benign diseases.

RESULTS

The positive rate of pCEA (40.6%) was significantly higher than that of PLC (23.4%) (P<0.05). The positive rates of PLC and pCEA correlated with the depth of tumor invasion and lymph node metastasis (P<0.05). pCEA was found to have a higher sensitivity and a lower false-positive rate in predicting peritoneal metastasis after curative resection of gastric cancer as compared to PLC. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of patients with positive cytologic findings or positive pCEA results were significantly lower than those of patients with negative cytologic findings or negative pCEA results (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that pCEA was an independent prognostic factor for the survival of patients with gastric cancer.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative pCEA is a more sensitive and reliable predictor of peritoneal metastasis as well as prognosis in patients with gastric cancer as compared to PLC method.

Meta-analysis of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients undergoing curative resection for gastric cancer through literature review.

METHODS: Medline (PubMed) (1980-2003/1), Embase (1980-2003/1), Cancerlit Database (1983-2003/1) and Chinese Biomedicine Database (1990-2003/1) were searched. Language was restricted to Chinese and English. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan4.2 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The results were expressed with odds ratio for the categorical variables.

RESULTS: Eleven trials involving 1161 cases were included. The pooled odds ratio was 0.51, with a 95% confidence interval (0.40-0.65). Intraperitoneal chemotherapy may benefit the patients after curative resection for locally advanced gastric cancer, and the combination of intraperitoneal chemotherapy with hyperthermia or activated carbon particles may provide more benefits to patients due to the enhanced antitumor activity of drugs. Sensitivity analysis and fail-safe number suggested that the result was comparatively reliable. However, of 11 trials, only 3 studies were of high quality.

CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy after curative resection for locally advanced gastric cancer may be beneficial to patients. Continuous multicenter, randomized, double blind, rigorously designed trials should be conducted to draw definitive conclusions.

Intravenous chemotherapy for resected gastric cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM: To assess the safety and efficacy of different intravenous chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with gastric carcinomas who had undergone gastrectomy.

METHODS: A meta-analysis of all the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Language was restricted to Chinese and English. RCTs were identified from Medline and Embase (1980-2001/4), and Chinese Bio-medicine Database (1990-2001/1). Literature references were checked at the same time. We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing the efficacy of intravenous chemotherapy after gastrectomy with that of surgery alone in patients with confirmed gastric carcinomas who had undergone gastrectomy. Selection criteria were: randomized or quasi-randomized trials with following-up results; Trials could be double-blind, single-blind or not blind; Chemotherapy groups were given intravenous chemotherapy after gastrectomy without neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion, radiotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy; Controlled group included those receiving gastrectomy alone. The following data were extracted: the number of survival and death by the end of the follow-up; the different agents and doses of the intravenous chemotherapy; the baseline of the chemotherapy group and the controlled arm; the serious adverse events; the statistical consideration; cost-effectiveness analysis. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan4.1 software which was provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Meta-analysis was done with random effects model. Heterogeneity was checked by chi-square test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding the trials in which Jadad-scale was only 1 score. The result was expressed with odds ratio (OR) for the categorical variable.

RESULTS: Fourteen trials involving 4543 patients were included. Meta-analysis was done with random effects model Heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were performed also. The effect of intravenous chemotherapy after gastrectomy was better than surgery alone (odds ratio 0.56, 95%CI 0.40-0.79). There was a significant difference between the two groups by u-test (P = 0.0008). Sensitivity analysis revealed the same difference (odds ratio 0.81, 95%CI 0.70-0.94). Of fourteen trials, only three studies were of high quality according to the Jadad-scale (with three score). There was one meta-analysis trial and the others, about ten trials, were of low quality. There was no trial which mentioned sample-size calculation, allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis. Most of the trials didn’t describe the blind-procedure. There were five trials which detailed the side-effects according to the toxicity grade by WHO standard. The side-effects halting treatment were haematologic and biochemical toxicity, debilitating nausea and vomiting. There were two patients died of chemotherapy toxicity.

CONCLUSION: Based on the review, intravenous chemotherapy after gastrectomy may have positive treatment effect on gastric cancer. However, the evidence is not strong because of the general low methodologic quality of the RCTs. Therefore, we can’t make the conclusion that intravenous chemotherapy after gastrectomy may have better treatment effect on gastric cancer than that of surgery alone. Rigorously designed, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are required.