Autopsy of an expert consensus: End of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal carcinomatosis

Controversies around the treatment of peritoneal metastases of colorectal cancer

In this editorial we examine the article by Wu et al published in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. Surgical resection for peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) has been gradually accepted in the medical oncology community. A randomized trial (PRODIGE 7) on cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) failed to prove any benefit of oxaliplatin in the overall survival of patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal origin. Nevertheless, isolated systemic chemotherapy for CRC stage IV has demonstrated a reduced response in peritoneal metastases than that obtained in other metastatic sites such as the liver. Another tool is required in those patients to achieve more local control of the disease. Surgical groups in peritoneal surgery continue to use HIPEC in their procedures, using other agents than oxaliplatin for peritoneal cavity infusion, such as mitomycin C. These patients present with complex surgical issues to manage, and consequently a large burden of complications has to be anticipated. Therefore, identifying patients who will benefit from CRS with or without HIPEC would be of great interest.

Is Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Appropriate for Colon Cancer?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) with peritoneal metastases is a complex disease and its management presents significant clinical challenges. In well-selected patients at experienced centers, CRS/hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be performed with acceptable morbidity and is associated with prolonged survival. Based on the results of recent randomized controlled trials, HIPEC using oxaliplatin after CRS with shortened perfusion periods (30 minutes) is no longer recommended. There is a movement toward utilizing mitomycin C as a first-line intraperitoneal agent with extended perfusion times (90-120 minutes); however, there is currently little prospective evidence to support its widespread use.

Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus R0 resection for resectable colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases and low peritoneal cancer index scores: a collaborative observational study from Korea and Japan

BACKGROUND

The benefits of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis (CPM) remain controversial. R0 resection without peritoneal stripping might be as effective as CRS plus HIPEC. The authors aimed to compare the long-term oncological outcomes of patients with CPM and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores less than or equal to 6 who underwent R0 resection in Japan with those who underwent CRS plus HIPEC in Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This international, retrospective cohort study was conducted in Korea and Japan using a prospectively collected clinical database. Patients who underwent surgery from July 2014 to December 2021 for CPM with a PCI score of less than or equal to 6 and completeness of the cytoreduction score-0 were included. The primary outcome was relapse-free survival (RFS), and the secondary outcomes were overall survival, peritoneal RFS (PRFS), and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The 3-year RFS was significantly longer in the CRS+HIPEC group than in the R0 resection group: 35.9% versus 6.9% ( P <0.001); 31.0% versus 6.7% ( P =0.040) after propensity score matching. The median PRFS was significantly longer in the CRS+HIPEC group than in the R0 resection group: 24.5 months versus 17.2 months ( P =0.017). The 3-year overall survival and postoperative complications did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RFS and PRFS rates were significantly prolonged after CRS plus HIPEC, whereas postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were not increased. Therefore, curative CRS plus HIPEC may be considered a treatment strategy for selected patients with resectable CPM and low PCI scores.

European e-Delphi process to define expert consensus on electrochemotherapy treatment indications, procedural aspects, and quality indicators in melanoma

BACKGROUND

Skin metastases are an important co-morbidity in melanoma. Despite broad adoption, electrochemotherapy implementation is hindered by a lack of treatment indications, uncertainty regarding procedural aspects, and the absence of quality indicators. An expert consensus may harmonize the approach among centres and facilitate comparison with other therapies.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary panel was recruited for a three-round e-Delphi survey. A literature-based 113-item questionnaire was proposed to 160 professionals from 53 European centres. Participants rated each item for relevance and degree of agreement on a five-point Likert scale, and received anonymous controlled feedback to allow revision. The items that reached concordant agreement in two successive iterations were included in the final consensus list. In the third round, quality indicator benchmarks were defined using a real-time Delphi method.

RESULTS

The initial working group included 122 respondents, of whom 100 (82 per cent) completed the first round, thus qualifying for inclusion in the expert panel (49 surgeons, 29 dermatologists, 15 medical oncologists, three radiotherapists, two nurse specialists, two clinician scientists). The completion rate was 97 per cent (97 of 100) and 93 per cent (90 of 97) in the second and third rounds respectively. The final consensus list included 54 statements with benchmarks (treatment indications, (37); procedural aspects, (1); quality indicators, (16)).

CONCLUSION

An expert panel achieved consensus on the use of electrochemotherapy in melanoma, with a core set of statements providing general direction to electrochemotherapy users to refine indications, align clinical practices, and promote quality assurance programmes and local audits. The residual controversial topics set future research priorities to improve patient care.

Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: The Impact of the Results of PROPHYLOCHIP, COLOPEC, and PRODIGE 7 Trials on Peritoneal Disease Management

HIPEC is a potentially useful locoregional treatment combined with cytoreduction in patients with peritoneal colorectal metastases. Despite being widely used in several cancer centers around the world, its role had never been investigated before the results of three important RCTs appeared on this topic. The PRODIGE 7 trial clarified the role of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in patients treated with radical surgery. Conversely, the PROPHYLOCHIP and the COLOPEC were designed to chair the role of HIPEC in patients at high risk of developing peritoneal metastases. Although all three trials demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of HIPEC for treating or preventing peritoneal metastases, these results are not sufficient to abandon this technique. In addition to some criticisms relating to the design of the trials and their statistical value, the oxaliplatin-based HIPEC was found to be ineffective in preventing or treating peritoneal colorectal metastases, especially in patients already treated with systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Several studies are ongoing investigating further HIPEC drugs and regimens. The review deeply discussed all the aspects and relapses of this new evidence.

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 impact of PRODIGE 7 on the current worldwide practice of CRS-HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases: A web-based survey and 2021 statement by Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI)

INTRODUCTION

The PRODIGE 7-trial investigated the additional value of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The results of PRODIGE 7 were presented at the 2018 ASCO meeting showing that 30 min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC did not improve overall survival. The current study investigated the impact of PRODIGE 7 on the worldwide practice of CRS and HIPEC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CRS-HIPEC experts from 19 countries were invited through the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) to complete an online survey concerning the current CRS-HIPEC practice in their hospital and country, and were asked to appraise the effect of PRODIGE 7.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 18/19 experts. Although their personal opinions of CRS-HIPEC were barely influenced by PRODIGE 7, they reported a substantial impact on daily practice. This included a switch towards Mitomycin-C based HIPEC-regimens and prolongation of HIPEC perfusion time, a reduction in the number of referrals from non-HIPEC centers, a reduction in national consensus, the removal of HIPEC from national guidelines, and a reduced reimbursement rate.

CONCLUSION

The PRODIGE 7 has had a major impact on the practice of CRS-HIPEC for CPM worldwide. HIPEC remains an attractive option with potential for control and eradication of disease and further studies into the optimal HIPEC-regimen are urgently needed. Meanwhile, given the complexity of the treatment of patients with CPM, and the proven benefits of optimal CRS, referral of patients with potentially resectable CPM to expert centers is recommended whilst the precise role of HIPEC is further evaluated.

Results of systematic second-look surgery plus hipec in perforated or pt4 colon cancer. Case series

Background

Perforated or pT4 colonic tumors have a bad prognosis with a high rate of relapse, including peritoneal relapse (20–30%). Our aim is to analyze the effectiveness of Second Look surgery (SLS) + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in these patients for early treatment of peritoneal relapse (PR) or for preventing it.

Patients and methods

Patients previously operated for colon cancer, either pT4 or perforated (M0), with no evidence of disease at any level after adjuvant chemotherapy, who undergo systematic SLS + HIPEC (Oxaliplatin 30 min) one year after the initial surgery.

Results

Since February 2014 to July 2018, we performed SLS + HIPEC in 42 patients with M0, either pT4 (n = 33) or perforated (n = 9) colon cancer. Although during SLS there were suspicious lesions in 15 cases (37.5%), they were histologically confirmed in only 4 (9.5%). Histologically confirmed peritoneal relapse (PR) rate at SLS was 6% in pT4 (2/33) and 22.2% in perforated tumors (2/9). Prophylactic HIPEC was performed in all the cases. There was no postoperative mortality. Grade III-IV morbidity occurred in 19% (8/42). With a median follow-up of 33.8 months after primary tumor surgery, 6/42 patients (14.3%) presented peritoneal relapse (PR). 3-year peritoneal disease free survival was 86%, with 3-year disease free survival of 78.6% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 97.4%.

Conclusion

Peritoneal relapse and survival rates are remarkable in these groups of, a priori, very bad prognosis, which could suggest a beneficial effect of HIPEC.

•

Prospective study trying to decrease peritoneal relapse in perforated or pT4 CRC.

•

20–30% of perforated or pT4 CRC develop peritoneal metastases in the follow-up.

•

We find peritoneal disease at Second Look surgery before seen in the image tests.

•

Second-Look Surgery + HIPEC decreases peritoneal relapse and gets better survival.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer Patients at High Risk of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an effective measure for improving the prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). However, the role of HIPEC in CRC patients at high risk of PC remains controversial. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of HIPEC in CRC patients at high risk of PC. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other online databases up to July 30, 2020. The clinical data, including overall survival, disease free survival, peritoneal metastasis rate, and postoperative adverse reaction were screened and analyzed after data extraction. Risk ratios (RRs) were applied to analyze these dichotomous outcomes with a random effects model. Results: A total of 6 available clinical studies involving 603 patients were finally included. CRC patients at high risk of PC who proactively underwent HIPEC treatment showed a significantly reduced peritoneal metastasis rate (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21-0.83, P = 0.01; I ² = 58%) compared to the similarly high-risk in CRC patients who did not receive HIPEC treatment. However, in terms of overall survival (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.97-1.33, P = 0.12; I ² = 77%), disease-free survival (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.75-1.59, P = 0.63; I ² = 53%), progression free survival (RR: 1.85, 95% CI: 0.48-7.14, P = 0.37; I ² = 93%), and postoperative adverse reactions (RR: 0.1.07, 95% CI: 0.36-3.15, P = 0.90; I ² = 78%), there was no significant difference between the HIPEC treatment and control groups. Conclusions: Proactive HIPEC treatment did not show the expected clinical efficacy in prolonging the overall survival time, disease-free survival time, and progression-free survival time of CRC patients at high risk of PC. However, the preemptive administration of HIPEC was associated with a reduced peritoneal metastasis rate and did not cause adverse additional postoperative effects.

Prognostic factors influencing survival in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer confer the worst survival among all metastatic sites. The adoption of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can offer selected patients with isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM) a favourable long-term survival. There are numerous factors postulated to influence survival in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC. The aim of this study was to identify the key perioperative prognostic factors that influence survival in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC for isolated CRPM.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate prognostic factors influencing survival in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC for isolated CRPM.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies fitted the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, with 25 studies included in the meta-analysis. On pooled analysis, incomplete cytoreduction, increasing peritoneal carcinoma index (PCI) and lymph node involvement were significantly associated with a worse survival. Additionally, a rectal primary [hazard ratio (HR) 1.93, 95% CI 1.10-3.37], adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.93) and perioperative grade III/IV morbidity (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17-2.16) were also found to significantly influence survival. Notably, tumour differentiation and signet ring cell histology did not influence survival on pooled analysis.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC for isolated CRPM, incomplete cytoreduction, high PCI and lymph node involvement have a negative influence on survival. In addition, a rectal primary, adjuvant chemotherapy use and grade III/IV morbidity are important factors that also significantly influence survival.