Significance of urinary tract involvement in patients treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Safety of Nephrectomy Performed During CRS/HIPEC: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Surgeons may hesitate to perform nephrectomy (NE) during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) due to a potential increase in morbidity. However, no data are available regarding the impact of NE on outcomes, so the authors decided to assess its safety during CRS/HIPEC.

METHODS

A single-center propensity score-matched study was conducted using a prospective database (1994-2021). The study included patients who underwent NE during CRS/HIPEC with completeness of cytoreduction (CC) of 0, 1, or 2. Control subjects (no-NE) were selected in a 1:3 ratio using propensity score-matching weighted by age, histology, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), CC-0 or CC-1 rate, and length of surgery.

RESULTS

Among 828 patients, 13 NE and 39 no-NE control subjects were identified. The indications for NE included tumor involvement of the ureter, hilum, and/or kidney with preserved (n = 8), decreased (n = 2), or absent (n = 3) function. NE patients received more intraoperative intravenous (IV) fluids (16,000 vs 11,500 mL; p = 0.045) and had a greater urine output (3200 vs 1913 mL; p = 0.008). NE patients received mitomycin C (40 mg for 90 min) or melphalan (50 mg/m² for 90 min) without reduction of dose or time. Major morbidity (p = 0.435) and mortality (p = 1.000) were comparable between the two groups. No postoperative acute kidney injury was seen in either group. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 46.2% of the NE and 35.9% of the no-NE patients (p = 0.553), with similar starting times (p = 0.903) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrectomy performed during CRS/HIPEC does not seem to increase postoperative morbidity or to delay adjuvant chemotherapy, and NE can be performed if required for complete cytoreduction. The NE patients in our cohort did not have a reduction of mitomycin C or melphalan dose or perfusion time.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with concomitant ureteric reimplantation

OBJECTIVES

There are currently scarce data exploring ureteric reimplantation (UR) during cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing CRS for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) of any origin at a single high-volume unit. UR was defined as ureteroureterostomy, transureterouretostomy, ureteroneocystostomy, ureterosigmoidostomy or ileal conduit performed during CRS. Peri-operative outcomes, long-term survival and risk factors for requiring UR were analysed.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-seven CRSs were identified. Twenty-three (3.0%) procedures involved UR. Bladder resection and colorectal cancer (CRC) were associated with increased risk of UR (bladder resection: OR 12.90, 95% CI 4.91-33.90, p<0.001; CRC: OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.05-6.01, p=0.038). UR did not increase the risk of Grade III-IV morbidity or mortality. The rate of ureteric leak was 3/23 (13.0%) in the UR group. Mean survival was equivocal in patients with CRC (58.14 vs. 34.25 months, p=0.441) but significantly lower in those with high-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (HAMN) undergoing UR (73.98 vs. 30.90 months, p=0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

UR during CRS does not increase major morbidity or mortality for carefully selected patients, and is associated with low rates of urologic complications. Whilst decreased survival was apparent in patients with HAMN undergoing UR, it is unclear whether this relationship is causal.

Clinical features and surgical outcomes of major urological interventions during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotheraphy

Background:

Urinary system resections and reconstructions are needed in peritoneal carcinomatosis due to abdominal malignancies. The effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on these urological procedures after reconstruction remains uncertain. The aim of the study is to evaluate major urological interventions during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in complex abdominal malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Methods:

Forty-four cases underwent surgical intervention related to the urinary system among 208 cases who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy because of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Urinary system procedures performed in these patients (radical-partial cystectomy, partial ureter resection ureteroneocystostomy, ureteroureterostomy, nephrectomy) were evaluated in terms of postoperative morbidity–mortality and survival.

Results:

Urinary system resections were performed during cytoreductive surgery in a total of 44 cases. The mean age was 54 years (20–73). Patients were diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis due to colorectal cancer in 21 (47.8%), ovarian cancer in nine (20.4%), sarcomatosis in five (11.4%), cervical cancer in four (9%) and other cancers (mesothelioma, uterus, breast, gastric) in five (11.4%) cases. Total nephrectomy was performed in three cases and partial nephrectomy in one case. Cystectomy was performed in 21 cases; 16 of these were partial and five were total cystectomies. Ureteroureterocystostomy with double J was performed in four cases and ureteroneocystostomy in 12 cases. While Clavian–Dindo grade 3–4 complications were seen in nine cases (20.4%), three cases (6.8%) became exitus during the first 30-day follow-up.

Conclusions:

Although urinary system involvements have been regarded as inoperable in the past, we think that with adequate experience radical urinary interventions performed in suitable patients can be carried out with acceptable morbidity and mortality as seen in our series.

CRS/HIPEC with Major Organ Resection in Peritoneal Mesothelioma Does not Impact Major Complications or Overall Survival: A Retrospective Cohort Study of the US HIPEC Collaborative

INTRODUCTION

CRS/HIPEC is thought to confer a survival advantage for patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM). However, the impact of nonperitoneal organ resection is not clearly defined. We evaluated the impact of major organ resection (MOR) on postoperative outcomes and overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The US HIPEC collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for MPM patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC. MOR was defined as total or partial resection of diaphragm, stomach, spleen, pancreas, small bowel, colon, rectum, kidney, ureter, bladder, and/or uterus. MOR was categorized as 0, 1, or 2+ organs.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients were identified. Median PCI was 16 (3-39). The distribution of patients with MOR-0, MOR-1, and MOR-2+ was 94, 45, and 35 patients, respectively. MOR-1 and MOR-2+ groups had a higher frequency of any complication compared with MOR-0 (57.8%, 74.3%, and 48.9%, respectively, p = 0.035), but Clavien 3/4 complications were similar. Median length of stay was slightly higher in the MOR-1 and MOR-2+ groups (10 and 11 days) compared with the MOR-0 cohort (9 days, p = 0.005). Incomplete cytoreduction, ASA class 4, and male gender were associated with increased mortality on unadjusted analysis; however, their impact on OS was attenuated on multivariable analysis. MOR was not associated with OS based on these data (MOR-1: HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.59-4.74; MOR-2+ : HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.22-2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

MOR was not associated with an increase in major complications or worse OS in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for MPM and should be considered, if necessary, to achieve complete cytoreduction for MPM patients.

Appendiceal tumours and pseudomyxoma peritonei: Literature review with PSOGI/EURACAN clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment

Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP) is a rare peritoneal malignancy, most commonly originating from a perforated epithelial tumour of the appendix. Given its rarity, randomized controlled trials on treatment strategies are lacking, nor likely to be performed in the foreseeable future. However, many questions regarding the management of appendiceal tumours, especially when accompanied by PMP, remain unanswered. This consensus statement was initiated by members of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) Executive Committee as part of a global advisory role in the management of uncommon peritoneal malignancies. The manuscript concerns an overview and analysis of the literature on mucinous appendiceal tumours with, or without, PMP. Recommendations are provided based on three Delphi voting rounds with GRADE-based questions amongst a panel of 80 worldwide PMP experts.

Routine prophylactic ureteral stenting before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Safety and usefulness from a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

There are very few evidences about safety and usefulness of routine prophylactic ureteral stenting (PUS) before cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of prospectively collected data about patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC for different sites of primary disease was carried out focusing on ureteral complications.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between December 2010 and June 2017 were considered. All patients underwent PUS before CRS and HIPEC. Of them, 91 (66.4%) patients received pelvic peritonectomy, 49 (35.8%) pelvic lymphadenectomy, 31 (22.6%) left hemicolectomy, 44 (32.4%) right hemicolectomy, 46 (33.6%) rectal resection, 56 (40.9%) hysteroannessiectomy, and 39 (28.5%) appendectomy. There was one (0.7%) postoperative ureteral fistula. The cumulative risk of ureteral stent-related major complications was 4.3% (two patients (1.4%) had protracted gross hematuria, two patients (1.4%) had urinary sepsis, and three patients (2.9%) developed hydronephrosis after a period from removing ureteral stents and required restenting. Morbidity due to ureteral stenting was associated with a longer length of stay (LOS) (p=0.053). A total of 52 patients (44.1%) developed renal dysfunction according to the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney-disease) criteria: 19.5% were in risk class, 10.2% in acute renal injury class, and 14.4% in acute renal failure class.

CONCLUSION

PUS could be a useful tool for reducing iatrogenic ureteral injury, but it is associated with a non-negligible morbidity, which implies longer LOS. A more accurate patient selection for PUS is necessary.

Urological approach for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a clinical care center

BACKGROUND

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) is associated with significant manipulation of the urinary tract (UT). We aim to describe the urological events and their management in patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC.

METHODS

Clinical records of patients who underwent treatment between 2007 and 2015 were reviewed. Urological events and their multidisciplinary management were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients were included. Mean age was 51 years (SD ± 11.8). Mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 20.4 (SD ± 10.1). Primary tumors included appendicular (64%), gynecological (16%), colorectal (10%), and peritoneal mesotheliomas (9%). Ninety-three percent of patients had bilateral ureteral catheters inserted prior to surgery, without complications. Intraoperative UT injuries occurred in 7% of patients. In 5% of patients, tumor invasion of the bladder was evident at surgery and partial resection and primary repair of the bladder wall was performed. Urological complications included urinary tract infection (UTI) (21%) acute post-renal failure (4%), urinary fistulae (4%), and acute urinary retention (AUR) (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, intraoperative UT events and postoperative complications, although not neglectable, were infrequent. Due to the high complexity of these cases, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. However, randomized clinical trials are necessary to clarify current data on the need and efficacy of prophylactic ureteral catheterization in patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC.

Impact of Concomitant Urologic Intervention on Clinical Outcomes After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The impact of concomitant urologic procedures (UPs) on perioperative and long-term outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is uncertain.

METHODS

In total, 935 consecutive CRS/HIPEC procedures were performed between 1996 and 2016 in Sydney, Australia. Among these, 73 (7.8%) involved concomitant UP. The association of concomitant UP with 21 perioperative outcomes and overall survival was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 1.8%. Patients requiring UP were more likely to require transfusion of ≥5 units of red blood cells (P=0.031) and have a complete cytoreduction (79% vs. 60%, P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, UP was not associated with in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.407) or grade III/IV morbidity (52% vs. 41%, P=0.376). The incidence of ureteric fistula (4% vs. 1%, P=0.004), return to theater (26% vs. 14%, P=0.005) and digestive fistula (22% vs. 11%, P=0.005) was higher in the UP group. The addition of a UP did not significantly impact overall survival for appendiceal cancer (P=0.162), colorectal cancer (P=0.315), or pseudomyxoma peritonei (P=0.120).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a UP was not associated with an increased risk of grade III/IV morbidity or poorer long-term survival after CRS/HIPEC.

The impact of urological resection and reconstruction on patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Objective

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are increasingly being used to treat peritoneal malignancies. Urological resections and reconstruction (URR) are occasionally performed during the surgery. We aim to evaluate the impact of these procedures on peri-operative outcomes of CRS and HIPEC patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC from April 2001 to February 2016 was performed. Outcomes between patients who had surgery involving, and not involving URR were compared. Primary outcomes were the rate of major complications and the duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital. Secondary outcomes were that of overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors that would indicate a need for URR.

Results

A total of 214 CRS-HIPEC were performed, 21 of which involved a URR. Baseline clinical characteristics did not vary between the groups (URR vs. No URR). Urological resections comprised of 52% bladder resections, 24% ureteric resections, and 24% involving both bladder and ureteric resections. All bladder defects were closed primarily while ureteric reconstructions consisted of two end-to-end anastomoses, one ureto-uretostomy, five direct implantations into the bladder and three boari flaps. URR were more frequently required in patients with colorectal peritoneal disease (p = 0.029), but was not associated with previous pelvic surgery (76% vs. 54%, p = 0.065). Patients with URR did not suffer more serious complications (14% vs. 24%, p = 0.42). ICU (2.2 days vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.51) and hospital stays (18 days vs. 25 days, p = 0.094) were not significantly affected. Undergoing a URR did not affect OS (p = 0.99), but was associated with increased operation time (570 min vs. 490 min, p = 0.046).

Conclusion

While concomitant URR were associated with an increase in operation time, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications or OS. Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases are more likely to require a URR compared to other primary tumours, and needs to be considered during pre-operative planning.

Reconstruction after ureteral resection during HIPEC surgery: Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy seems safer than end-to-end anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Resection of the pelvic ureter may be necessary in cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal carcinomatosis in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). As the morbidity for cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC has decreased, expert teams have begun to perform increasingly complex surgical procedures associated with HIPEC, including pelvic reconstructions. After ureteral resection, two types of reconstruction are possible: uretero-ureteral end-to-end anastomosis and uretero-vesical re-implantation or uretero-neocystostomy (the so-called psoas hitch technique). By compiling the experience of three surgical teams that perform HIPEC surgeries, we have tried to compare the effectiveness of these two techniques.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective comparative case-matched multicenter study was conducted for patients undergoing operation between 2005 and 2014. Patients included had undergone resection of the pelvic ureter during cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatomosis; ureteral reconstruction was by either end-to-end anastomosis (EEA group) or re-implantation uretero-neocystostomy (RUC group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of urinary fistula in postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 14 patients in the EEA group and 14 in the RUC group. The groups were comparable for age, extent of carcinomatosis (PCI index) and operative duration. Four urinary fistulas occurred in the EEA group (28.5%) versus zero fistulas in the RUC group (0%) (P=0.0308).

CONCLUSION

Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy during cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC is the preferred technique for reconstruction after ureteral resection in case of renal conservation.

Cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CS/HIPEC) in colorectal cancer: Evidence-based review of patient selection and treatment algorithms

Cytoreduction and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CS/HIPEC) is increasingly utilized as a treatment strategy for patients with peritoneal metastases from various primary tumor sites. For this heterogenous procedure, related to patient characteristics, patient selection, and the extent of surgical completeness of cytoreduction, high level evidence (ex: multiple randomized controlled trials) is not available to support efficacy. This review of the available literature supporting application of the procedure, focusing on colorectal cancer, provides a summary of current evidence for patient selection and treatment algorithms based on patient presentation.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a review of factors contributing to morbidity and mortality

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with prolonged survival for appropriately selected patients with peritoneal dissemination of abdominal malignancies. CRS and HIPEC has been criticized for perceived high rates of morbidity and mortality. Morbidity and mortality rates of CRS and HIPEC, however, do not appear dissimilar to those of other large abdominal surgeries, particularly when relevant patient and operative factors are accounted for. The risk of morbidity and mortality following this surgery for a given individual can be predicted in part by a variety of patient and operative factors. While strong data are lacking, the limited data that exists on the matter suggests that the independent contribution of the heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy to CRS and HIPEC morbidity is relatively small. A more thorough understanding of the patient and operative factors associated with CRS and HIPEC morbidity and mortality, as well as the specific complications related to the intraperitoneal chemotherapy, can better inform clinicians in multidisciplinary teams and patients alike in the decision-making for this surgery.

Effect of a concomitant urologic procedure on outcomes following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether urologic procedures during cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) are associated with adverse postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC at our institution from 2001 to 2012 and compared outcomes between operations that did and did not include a urologic procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 938 CRS-HIPEC procedures were performed, 71 of which included a urologic intervention. Urologic interventions were associated with longer operative times (547 vs. 459 min, P < 0.001) and greater length of stay (15 vs. 12 days, P = 0.003). Major complications (Clavien III and IV) were more common in the urologic group (31% vs. 20%, P = 0.028). On multivariable analysis, urologic procedures were associated with a low anterior resection (OR: 2.25, 95%CI 1.07-4.74, P = 0.033) and a greater number of enteric anastomoses (OR: 1.83, 95%CI 1.31-2.56, P < 0.001). At a median follow up of 17 months (IQR 5.6-35 months), addition of a urologic procedure did not significantly impact overall survival for appendiceal or colorectal cancers.

CONCLUSION

Urologic surgery at the time of CRS-HIPEC is associated with longer operative times, length of stay and increased risk of major complications, but not with decreased overall survival. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:218-222. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Multimodality treatment strategies have changed prognosis of peritoneal metastases

For a long time, treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM) was mostly palliative and thus, this status was link with “terminal status/despair”. The current multimodal treatment strategy, consisting of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), has been strenuously achieved over time, but seems to be the best treatment option for PM patients. As we reviewed the literature data, we could emphasize some milestones and also, controversies in the history of proposed multimodal treatment and thus, outline the philosophy of this approach, which seems to be an unusual one indeed. Initially marked by nihilism and fear, but benefiting from a remarkable joint effort of human and material resources (multi-center and -institutional research), over a period of 30 years, CRS and HIPEC found their place in the treatment of PM. The next 4 years were dedicated to the refinement of the multimodal treatment, by launching research pathways. In selected patients, with requires training, it demonstrated a significant survival results (similar to the Hepatic Metastases treatment), with acceptable risks and costs. The main debates regarding CRS and HIPEC treatment were based on the oncologists’ perspective and the small number of randomized clinical trials. It is important to statement the PM patient has the right to be informed of the existence of CRS and HIPEC, as a real treatment resource, the decision being made by multidisciplinary teams.