Prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the prevention and control of peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Effects of Deep Hyperthermia Combined with Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy on Liver-Kidney Function, Immune Function, and Long-Term Survival in Patients with Abdominal Metastases

Objectives

To analyze the effects of deep hyperthermia combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy on liver-kidney function, immune function, and long-term survival in patients with abdominal metastases.

Methods

A total of 88 patients with abdominal metastases confirmed in the hospital were enrolled as the research objects between August 2018 and August 2021. They were randomly divided into control group (n = 44) and observation group (n = 44). The control group was treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy, while observation group was additionally treated with deep hyperthermia. The general clinical data of patients were recorded. The short-term and long-term curative effects were evaluated. The occurrence of side effects in both groups was recorded. Before and after treatment, levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) were detected by full-automatic biochemical analyzer. The level of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) was detected by the urease electrode method. The level of serum creatinine (Scr) was detected by the picric acid method. The levels of CD3 +, CD4 +, CD8 +, and NK cells were detected by BD FACSCalibur flow cytometer.

Results

There was no significant difference in clinical data between the two groups (P > 0.05). In the observation group, ORR was significantly higher than that in the control group (54.55% vs 29.55%) (P < 0.05), OS was significantly longer than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and median survival time and mPFS were longer than those in the control group. After treatment, the levels of ALT, AST, BUN, and Scr were significantly increased in the control group (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in peripheral blood CD3 +, CD4 +, and CD4 +/CD8 + ratio or count of NK cells before and after treatment (P > 0.05). Before and after treatment, there was no significant difference in the levels of ALT, AST, BUN, and Scr in the observation group (P > 0.05). After treatment, peripheral blood CD3 +, CD4 +, and CD4 +/CD8 + ratio and count of NK cells were all increased in the observation group, significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of chemotherapy side effects in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The short-term and long-term curative effects of deep hyperthermia combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy are good on patients with intraperitoneal metastases, with less damage to liver-kidney function. It is beneficial to enhance immune function of patients, with mild side effects.

Survival and complications of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is an advanced stage of intra-abdominal malignancy with a very poor prognosis. In recent years, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has been utilized as an active treatment in the prevention and treatment of PM, with encouraging results. However, compared with CRS alone, the results of the CRS plus HIPEC strategy in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal malignancies are still controversial. This study sought to determine the impact of HIPEC + CRS on patient survival and adverse events (AEs) by reviewing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all types of intra-abdominal malignancies.

Methods: A PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov search extracted all RCTs until 12 October 2022, examining the CRS + HIPEC vs. CRS alone strategies in the treatment of various types of intra-abdominal malignancies. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and AEs. The dichotomous data were pooled and reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The survival outcome data were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results: A total of 12 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, including 873 patients in the CRS + HIPEC group and 878 patients in the CRS alone group. The studies included 3 (617 patients) on colorectal cancer, 4 (416 patients) on gastric cancer, and 5 (718 patients) on ovarian cancer. Our analysis showed no difference in OS between the CRS + HIPEC and CRS alone groups (HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.01). Subgroup analysis showed that CRS + HIPEC improved the OS of gastric cancer patients (HR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.32–0.76) compared with CRS alone. However, CRS + HIPEC did not significantly improve the OS of colorectal cancer (HR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.81–1.38) and ovarian cancer (HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.62–1.07) patients. In addition, there was no significant difference in DFS/RFS (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.57–1.07) or PFS (HR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.77–1.38) between the two groups. Compared with CRS alone, CRS with HIPEC had greater nephrotoxicity (OR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21–0.98), while other AEs did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that CRS + HIPEC may improve OS in gastric cancer patients compared with CRS alone, but we did not observe a benefit for DFS/RFS. For patients with ovarian and colorectal cancers, our results suggest that HIPEC + CRS does not appear to improve survival outcomes. In addition, CRS + HIPEC has higher nephrotoxicity than CRS alone. More evidence from RCTs is needed to evaluate whether the use of CRS + HIPEC is an appropriate option.

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.