Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with paclitaxel or cisplatin in patients with stage III-C/IV ovarian cancer. Is there any difference?

[State of results of HIPEC for epithelial ovarian cancer in the primary treatment or for relapse]

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is an unavoidable development of ovarian cancer, from the first treatment to relapses, and is the main cause of patients death. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), is a hope for cure for patients with ovarian cancer. HIPEC is based on direct application of chemotherapy on the perioneum with high concentration of chemotherapy enhanced with specific effects of hyperthermia. Theoretically, HIPEC could be proposed at different steps of ovarian cancer development. But the hypothesis of efficiency of a new treatment must be assessed before being routinely applied. Numerous clinical series are already published about HIPEC used in primary treatment of ovarian cancer or for relapses. These series are mostly retrospectives and based on heterogeneous parameters as inclusion criteria of patients, intra peritoneal chemotherapy, concentration, temperature, duration of HIPEC. Taking into account this heterogeneity it is not possible to draw strong scientific conclusions about HIPEC efficiency to treat ovarian cancer patients. We proposed a review allowing a better understanding of current recommendations of the use of HIPEC in ovarian cancer patients.

Paclitaxel as HIPEC-Drug after Surgical Cytoreduction for Ovarian Peritoneal Metastases: A Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial (HIPECOVA)

Multidisciplinary strategies have transformed the management of advanced ovarian cancer. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of paclitaxel in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) following surgical cytoreduction for ovarian peritoneal metastases in a randomized phase III trial conducted between August 2012 and December 2019. Seventy-six patients were randomized to either the HIPEC or no HIPEC group. Although median values for the primary endpoints (recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS)) revealed superior outcomes for the HIPEC (RFS: 23 months, OS: 48 months) over the control group (RFS: 19 months, OS: 46 months), these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.22 and p = 0.579). Notably, the HIPEC group demonstrated significantly higher 5-year OS and 3-year RFS rates (47.2% and 47.5%) compared to patients without HIPEC (34.5% and 21.3%). Stratification according to Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score (PSDSS) showed improved OS and RFS for patients with lower PSDSS (I-II) in the HIPEC-treated group (p = 0.033 and p = 0.042, respectively). The Clavien-Dindo classification of adverse event grades revealed no significant differences between HIPEC and controls (p = 0.482). While overall results were not statistically significant, our long-term follow-up emphasized the potential benefit of HIPEC-associated cytoreduction with paclitaxel, particularly in selected ovarian cancer patients with lower PSDSS indices.

Prognostic role of the peritoneal cancer index in ovarian cancer patients who undergo cytoreductive surgery: a meta-analysis

Advanced-stage ovarian cancer is usually associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis. This study evaluates the prognostic role of the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) in predicting the survival of patients with ovarian cancer. A literature search was conducted in electronic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, Ovid, and Science Direct) and study selection was based on precise eligibility criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate survival with low and high PCI scores and to pool hazard ratios (HR) of survival between lower and higher PCI scores. A total of 20 studies (2588 patients) were included. Median follow-up was 39 months [95%CI: 25, 54]. Complete cytoreduction rate was 80% [95% CI: 73, 87]. The median PCI score was 11.3 [95% CI: 9.9, 12.7]. Median survival was 56.7 months [95% CI: 45.2, 68.2] with below and 28.8 months [95% CI: 23.0, 34.6] with above any PCI cutoff. Most studies used PCI cutoffs between 10 and 20. The median progression-free survival was 23.7 months [95% CI: 16.5, 30.8] with below and 11.9 months [95% CI: 5.9, 17.9] with above any PCI cutoff. 5-year survival rates were 61.3% [95% CI: 49.9, 72.8] with PCI<10 cutoffs, 21.7% [95% CI: 11.6, 31.8] with PCI>10 cutoffs, 50.1% [95% CI: 39.0, 61.2] with PCI<20 cutoffs, and 21.7% [95% CI: 16.2, 27.1] with PCI>20 cutoffs. Pooled analysis of HRs showed that a higher PCI score was associated with worse survival in both univariate (HR 2.14 [95%CI: 1.63, 2.66]) and multivariate (HR 1.10 [95% CI: 1.02, 1.18]) analyses. In a set of studies that used varying PCI cutoffs, the PCI has been found to have a significant inverse association with the survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery.

Nanotechnology-integrated ovarian cancer metastasis therapy: Insights from the metastatic mechanisms into administration routes and therapy strategies

Ovarian cancer is a kind of malignant tumour which locates in the pelvic cavity without typical clinical symptoms in the early stages. Most patients are diagnosed in the late stage while about 60 % of them have suffered from the cancer cells spreading in the abdominal cavity. The high recurrence rate and mortality seriously damage the reproductive needs and health of women. Although recent advances in therapeutic regimes and other adjuvant therapies improved the overall survival of ovarian cancer, overcoming metastasis has still been a challenge and is necessary for achieving cure of ovarian cancer. To present potential targets and new strategies for curbing the occurrence of ovarian metastasis and the treatment of ovarian cancer after metastasis, the first section of this paper explained the metastatic mechanisms of ovarian cancer comprehensively. Nanomedicine, not limited to drug delivery, offers opportunities for metastatic ovarian cancer therapy. The second section of this paper emphasized the advantages of various administration routes of nanodrugs in metastatic ovarian cancer therapy. Furthermore, the third section of this paper focused on advances in nanotechnology-integrated strategies for targeting metastatic ovarian cancer based on the metastatic mechanisms of ovarian cancer. Finally, the challenges and prospects of nanotherapeutics for ovarian cancer metastasis therapy were evaluated. In general, the greatest emphasis on using nanotechnology-based strategies provides avenues for improving metastatic ovarian cancer outcomes in the future.

Comparative Survival Outcomes of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy, Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Intravenous Chemotherapy for Primary Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP)and intravenous chemotherapy (IP)for primary advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched using multiple terms for primary advanced ovarian cancer, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies in both Chinese and English (up to date 15 August 2022). Outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events. The data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales were used to assess the risk of bias in the included comparative study. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used for randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

In total, 32 studies, including 6347 patients and 8 different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis results showed that HIPEC2 (carboplatin with area under the curve 10) exhibited a statistically significant OS benefit compared to IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1 (cisplatin with 75/100 mg/m²). Intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significantly better likelihood of overall survival compared to IV. For progression-free survival, our statistical results only suggest a better progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC1 compared with weekly dose-dense chemotherapy. No evidence of difference was observed between the other comparison groups. Compared with the non-HIPEC group, HIPEC may had a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3).

CONCLUSION

Our statistical analysis suggests that the groups receiving HIPEC2 had a better OS than the groups receiving IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1. For PFS, our analysis only showed HIPEC1 is better than IV. Moreover, HIPEC may lead to a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3). HIPEC therapy for advanced ovarian cancer is currently controversial.

Acute renal disease in patients with ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with cytoreduction and HIPEC: the influence of surgery and the cytostatic agent used

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between cisplatin and paclitaxel in the development of postoperative renal toxicity, using as a reference the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Insufficiency, Loss, and End-stage renal function) and AKIN (Acute Kidney Injury Network) criteria in patients with primary or recurrent ovarian cancer with peritoneal dissemination treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

METHODS

One hundred fifty-two patients who were treated between December 2007 and June 2017 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients who received previous platinum-based chemotherapy had higher baseline creatinine levels than those who had not (p = 0.05). A total of 11 (7.2%) and 4 (2.6%) patients developed an acute renal dysfunction (ARD) during the postoperative period of cytoreduction and HIPEC according to the RIFLE and AKI criteria respectively. RIFLE detects a higher rate of ARD due to different parameters such as GFR (7.2% versus 2.6%, p = 0.016). Performing ostomy (p = 0.007; OR: 39.320; 95% CI = 2.74-56.13) and using of cisplatin during HIPEC treatment (p = 0.017; OR = 13.619; 95% IC = 1.600-25.95) were factors independently related to a higher rate of ARD.

CONCLUSION

ARD has a multifactorial origin. Cisplatin was associated with the development of a higher rate of ARD than paclitaxel. Diagnosis of ARD did not correlate with worse survival figures.

Cytoreductive Surgery plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Improves Survival with Acceptable Safety for Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Clinical Study of 100 Patients

Background

The mainstay of treatment for advanced ovarian cancer is debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy that includes carboplatin and paclitaxel, but the prognosis is poor. This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS+HIPEC) as first-line surgical treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC).

Methods

FIGO stage III/IV AOC patients underwent CRS+HIPEC as first-line surgical treatment at our center from December 2007 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was survival, and the secondary endpoint was safety.

Results

Among 100 patients, the median Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score was 80 (50-100), median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 19 (1-39), median completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score was 1 (0-3), number of organ regions removed was 4 (3-9), number of peritoneal regions removed was 4 (1-9), and number of anastomoses was 1 (0-4). The median follow-up was 36.8 months; 75 (75.0%) patients were still alive, and 25 (25.0%) had died. The median overall survival (mOS) was 87.6 (95% CI: 72.1-103.0) months, and the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival rates were 94.1%, 77.2%, 68.2%, 64.2%, and 64.2%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that better mOS correlated with an age ≤, KPS ≥ 80, ascites ≤ 1000 ml, PCI < 19, and CC score 0-1. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that CC was an independent factor for OS; patients who underwent CRS with a CC score 0-1 had a mPFS of 67.8 (95% CI: 48.3-87.4) months. The perioperative serious adverse event and morbidity rates were 4.0% and 2.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

CRS+HIPEC improves survival for AOC patients with acceptable safety at experienced high-volume centers. Stringent patient selection and complete CRS are key factors for better survival.

HIPEC Methodology and Regimens: The Need for an Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is performed with a wide variation in methodology, drugs, and other elements vital to the procedure. Adoption of a limited number of regimens could increase the collective experience of peritoneal oncologists, make comparison between studies more meaningful, and lead to a greater acceptance of results from randomized trials. This study aimed to determine the possibility of standardizing HIPEC methodology and regimens and to identify the best method of performing such a standardization.

METHODS

A critical review of preclinical and clinical studies evaluating the pharmacokinetic aspects of different HIPEC drugs and drug regimens, the impact of hyperthermia, and the efficacy of various HIPEC regimens as well as studies comparing different regimens was performed.

RESULTS

The preclinical and clinical data were limited, and studies comparing different regimens were scarce. Many of the regimens were neither supported by preclinical rationale or data nor validated by a dose-escalating formal phase 1 trial. All the regimens were based on pharmacokinetic data and did not take chemosensitivity of peritoneal metastases into account. Personalized medicine approaches such as patient-derived tumor organoids could offer a solution to this problem, although clinical validation is likely to be challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from randomized trials, more translational research and phases 1 and 2 studies are needed. While waiting for better preclinical and clinical evidence, the best way to minimize heterogeneity is by an expert consensus that aims to identify and define a limited number of regimens for each indication and primary site. The choice of regimen then can be tailored to the patient profile and its expected toxicity and the methodology according regional factors.

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer with peritoneal metastases, systematic review of the literature and focused personal experience

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) causes 60% of ovarian cancer cases and is the fourth most common cause of death from cancer in women. The standard of care for EOC includes a combination of surgery followed by intravenous chemotherapy. Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy (CT) has been introduced into the therapeutic algorithm of EOC with positive results. To explore existing results regarding intraperitoneal chemotherapy a systematic review of the literature and an analysis of our own institutional prospective database of patients treated with cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for EOC at different stages were conducted. The focused report concerning our personal experience with advanced EOC treated with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC produced the following results: In 57 patients cisplatin + paclitaxel as HIPEC was the only significant factor improving overall survival (OS) at multivariate analysis (OR 6.54, 95% CI: 1.24-34.47, P=0.027). Patients treated with HIPEC cisplatin + paclitaxel showed a median OS of 46 months (SD 6.4, 95% CI: 33.4-58.6), while patients treated with other HIPEC regimens showed a median OS of 12 months (SD 3.1, 95% CI: 6.0-18.0). The 2y-OS was 72% and 3y-OS was 68% for cisplatin + paclitaxel as HIPEC, while the 2y- and 3y-OS was 0% for other HIPEC regimens. Patients treated with HIPEC cisplatin + paclitaxel showed a median disease-free survival (DFS) of 13 months (SD 1.6, 95% CI: 9.9-16.1), while patients treated with other HIPEC regimens showed a median DFS of 8 months (SD 3.1, 95% CI: 1.9-14.1). In conclusion, HIPEC cisplatin + paclitaxel in ovarian cancer showed positive results that may be considered semi-definitive according to the level of evidence and should be considered a starting point for further investigations. At present HIPEC cisplatin + paclitaxel should be proposed to patients with advanced ovarian cancer as standard treatment at almost all stages of disease. Platinum + taxane-based intraperitoneal regimens demonstrated superior results compared to other regimens.

Narrative review of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a critical reappraisal of the current evidence

The implementation of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the management of advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) as a standard practice remains debatable despite the emerging data supporting its beneficial effect when used to supplement cytoreductive procedures. The aim of the present review was an attempt to accumulate the currently available evidence on the use of HIPEC for patients with primary and recurrent EOC and to address directives of future research. Based on the currently available literature, the progress in cytoreductive surgical procedures and chemotherapy has brought significant improvement in the management and survival outcomes of selected patients with advanced EOC. The addition of HIPEC seems encouraging based on the outcomes of high-quality clinical trials. There are significant parameters on the use of CRS and HIPEC such as patient selection, the sequencing of procedures, the type of chemotherapy agent and time and the temperature of hyperthermic procedures which require additional investigation. Multidisciplinary team management by surgeons, gynaecologists, oncologists, pathologists and radiologists is of critical importance. Also, additional large prospective well-designed randomised studies are needed in order to update our current knowledge and provide guidelines to improve the management of patients with EOC.

How do we perform hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer? -a narrative review

Ovarian malignancy is a leading cause of death caused by gynecologic cancer worldwide because it is mainly found in the advanced stage and recurs in most patients even after cytoreductive surgery and intravenous (IV) chemotherapy. Prevention of recurrence of primary disease and treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer are still remained as major interest and lots of researchers investigate novel treatment to find optimal method. Even though intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy turns out to increase the overall survival, it is not widely used because of adverse event. As an alternative treatment for IP chemotherapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is emerging a new way. Thanks to much research and use in other cancer species, such as the colorectal cancer cytoreductive surgery followed by HIPEC is becoming a promising treatment. However, randomized controlled trials and unbiased data in ovarian cancer patients are still needed for the establishment of therapy. Moreover, among the current situation in which treatments such as bevacizumab or PARP inhibitor have been found to be effective and have been widely used, it may be necessary to establish the role in the combination of HIPEC. This article is a comprehensive review of the HIPEC in ovarian cancer to introduce techniques, treatment results, and clinical trials of HIPEC.

Evaluation of Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Stage III Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Interval cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) showed promising oncologic outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer, but a large-scale, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy of HIPEC combined with primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) has yet to be conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival outcomes between PCS with HIPEC vs PCS alone for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted from January 2010 to May 2017 at 5 high-volume institutions in China. A total of 584 patients with stage III primary epithelial ovarian cancer were treated with either PCS alone or PCS with HIPEC. The median (interquartile range) follow-up period was 42.2 (33.3-51.0) months. Data analysis was conducted from August to December 2019.

EXPOSURES

PCS with HIPEC vs PCS alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were median survival time and 3-year overall survival. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, based on propensity score, was used to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

From a total of 789 patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, 584 patients (74.0%; mean [SD] age, 55.0 [10.5] years) were ultimately included for IPTW in this study. Of the 584 patients, 425 (72.8%) underwent PCS with HIPEC and 159 (27.2%) underwent PCS alone. After IPTW adjustment, the median survival time was 49.8 (95% CI, 45.2-60.2) months for patients undergoing PCS with HIPEC and 34.0 (95% CI, 28.9-41.5) months for patients undergoing PCS alone, and the 3-year overall survival rate was 60.3% (95% CI, 55.3%-65.0%) for patients undergoing PCS with HIPEC and 49.5% (95% CI, 41.0%-57.4%) for patients undergoing PCS alone (weighted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001). Further stratified into complete and incomplete surgery subgroups, patients in the PCS with HIPEC group had significantly better survival than those in the PCS group, except for the 3-year overall survival rate in the incomplete subgroup. Among those who underwent complete surgical procedures and comparing those who received PCS with HIPEC vs those who received PCS alone, the median survival time was 53.9 (95% CI, 46.6-63.7) months vs 42.3 (95% CI, 31.1-59.3) months (P = .02), and the 3-year overall survival rate was 65.9% (95% CI, 60.1%-71.2%) vs 55.4% (95% CI, 44.7%-64.8%) (P = .04); meanwhile, among patients who underwent incomplete surgical procedures and comparing those who received PCS with HIPEC vs those who received PCS alone, the median survival time was 29.2 (95% CI, 22.3-45.5) months vs 19.9 (95% CI, 11.6-39.1) months (P = .03), and the 3-year OS rate was 44.3% (95% CI, 34.6%-53.4%) vs 36.7% (95% CI, 23.4%-50.1%) (P = .19). The treatment was well tolerated in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the PCS with HIPEC treatment approach was associated with better long-term survival. When complete PCS is possible, this approach could be a valuable therapy for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Oncologic outcomes and morbidity following heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy at cytoreductive surgery for primary epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has not been universally adopted at the time of interval cytoreductive surgery for primary epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) despite evidence of a 12-month overall survival (OS) benefit in a recent landmark randomized trial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess oncologic outcomes and perioperative morbidity following HIPEC among primary EOC patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to August 2019, for observational and randomized studies of primary EOC patients undergoing HIPEC. We assessed risk of bias using the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal Checklist for single-arm cohort studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for comparative cohort studies, and Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for randomized trials. We qualitatively summarized survival outcomes and calculated the pooled proportion of 30-day grade III-IV morbidity and postoperative death.

RESULTS

We identified 35 articles including 2252 primary EOC patients; one study was a randomized trial, and only six studies included a comparator group of surgery alone. The timing, temperature, and chemotherapeutic agents used for HIPEC differed across studies. Reported OS was highly variable (3-year OS range: 46-77%); three comparative cohort studies and the sole randomized trial reported statistically significant survival benefits for HIPEC over surgery alone, while two comparative cohort studies did not. The pooled proportions for grade III-IV morbidity and postoperative death at 30 days were 34% (95% CI 20-52) and 0% (95% CI 0-5) respectively.

CONCLUSION

One randomized trial suggests that HIPEC at time of interval cytoreductive surgery should be considered in patients with primary EOC. However, there is significant heterogeneity in literature with respect to an appropriate HIPEC regimen, short- and long-term outcomes. High-quality prospective randomized trials are urgently needed to clarify the role of HIPEC in the first-line treatment of primary EOC.

Intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy after cytoreduction in patients with peritoneal metastases from endometrial cancer. The next frontier?

BACKGROUND

Endometrial cancer is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract. For cancers detected at an advanced stage or intraperitoneal relapse, the prognosis is poor. Optimal cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is the most accepted treatment; however, patients with advanced intraperitoneal disease might benefit from hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The aim of this study was to analyze recurrence-free survival (RFS) after CRS and HIPEC in a large series of patients with peritoneal metastases from endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer with primary or recurrent peritoneal dissemination were included. All patients underwent CRS plus HIPEC. Data were prospectively collected in the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncological Surgery (GECOP) database.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients with endometrial cancer and peritoneal metastasis were included. Fifteen patients (35%) were diagnosed with G3 endometrioid carcinomas and 28 (65%) with other non-endometroid histologies. A completeness of cytoreduction score of CC-0 was achieved in 41 patients (95%). RFS at 5 years was 23%, being factors related to worse RFS: treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (p = 0.027), resection of more than three peritoneal areas (p = 0.010), cytoreduction of the upper abdominal space (p = 0.023), HIPEC treatment with paclitaxel (p = 0.013), and the presence of metastatic lymph nodes (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Better RFS rates after CRS and HIPEC were observed for patients with the following characteristics: cytoreductive surgery without preoperative chemotherapy, complete surgery performed with limited surgical maneuvers, treated with cisplatin, and no lymph node metastases.

SYNOPSIS

Endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis when diagnosed at advance stage. Patients with intraperitoneal metastases from endometrial cancer may benefit from CRS plus HIPEC with improvement in the recurrence-free survival results.

Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score (PSDSS), AGO-score and TIAN model in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer treated by cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC

In patients with platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer selected for a secondary cytoreduction, the use of prognostic scores allows predicting the possibilities of a new complete cytoreduction. The aim of this work is to evaluate the usefulness of PSDSSov, the AGO-score and the TIAN-model as prognostic tools in these patients. Sixty four patients with recurrent platinum sensitive ovarian cancer treated by cytoreduction and HIPEC were analyzed between January 2008 and December 2016. Since 2012, the data needed to calculate the PSDSS, AGO-score and TIAN model were collected prospectively. Fifty patients (78%) received systemic chemotherapy before cytoreduction and HIPEC. In 57 patients (89%) a CC-0 was achieved. Patients with PSDSSov I-II and TIAN model of "low risk" had a DFS at 1 and 5 years of 71% and 57%, respectively, without reaching the median of DFS. PSDSSov is a useful prognostic tool and can be used in decision making in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis due to recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Its combination with the Tian model makes it possible to identify patients with an especially favorable prognosis.

The use of cisplatin plus doxorubicin or paclitaxel in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a comparative study

PURPOSE

Our main aim is to analyze the survival results in women operated on for advanced ovarian cancer with two different HIPEC regimens (cisplatin plus doxorubicin versus paclitaxel).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian cancer operated on with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, from October-2008 to February-2016, was retrospectively analyzed. The two drugs used, cisplatin/doxorubicin (Group A) and paclitaxel (Group B), were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were treated with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC; 19 patients (46%) were in Group A and 22 (54%) were in Group B. The extent of peritoneal disease was comparable between groups (Peritoneal Cancer Index of 10 in Group A versus PCI of 12.5 in Group B). There were no differences in morbidity between groups, with a severe morbidity (Dindo-Clavien III or IV) of 36.8% versus 27.3%, respectively. There was no postoperative mortality. Median follow-up was 39 months. Median overall survival was 79 months. Overall survival at 3 years in Group A was 66% versus 82.9% in Group B (p = 0.248). Incomplete cytoreduction (macroscopic residual tumour after surgery) was identified as the only independent factor that influenced overall survival (HR 12.30, 95% CI 1.28-118.33, p = 0.03). The cytostatic used in HIPEC had no influence in overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The cytostatic used in HIPEC did not have a negative effect in the prognosis of patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

[Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer: Role of intra peritoneal chemotherapy and hyperthermic intra peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Article drafted from the French Guidelines in oncology entitled "Initial management of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer" developed by FRANCOGYN, CNGOF, SFOG, GINECO-ARCAGY under the aegis of CNGOF and endorsed by INCa]

Intraperitoneal drug delivery in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer have been widely studied. After a complete primary surgery or with residual disease<1cm, intraperitoneal chemotherapy significantly improves disease-free and overall survival (NP1), but with more local and systemic toxicities. Whenever this therapeutic option is under consideration, the ratio efficacy/toxicity must be carefully discussed. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy has to be considered after complete or optimal primary surgery in ovarian, tubal or primitive peritoneal carcinomatosis FIGO IIIC. This treatment must be performed by trained teams and after an assessment of the ratio efficacy/toxicity. In one randomized study, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) using cisplatinum at interval surgery demonstrated an improvement in recurrence free and overall survival compared to surgery alone, in patients initially not resectable and with residual tumor less than 1cm (complete or optimal surgery) (NP1). HIPEC has to be considered after a complete or optimal interval surgery (residu<10mm) in patients with ovarian, tubal or primitive carcinomatosis FIGO IIIC, initially not resectable (Grade B).

HIPEC in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer: Is there a role? A systematic review of short- and long-term outcomes

A systematic review of the studies where HIPEC combined with cytoreductive surgery was used in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer was performed to understand is there a role for this treatment modality not only in recurrent but in primary advanced ovarian cancer. The results are controversial but there is a strong trend for improvement of the long-term outcomes of patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer after HIPEC.

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.