Exploiting a subtype-specific mitochondrial vulnerability for successful treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases

Peritoneal metastases (PMs) from colorectal cancer (CRC) respond poorly to treatment and are associated with unfavorable prognosis. For example, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery in resectable patients shows limited benefit, and novel treatments are urgently needed. The majority of CRC-PMs represent the CMS4 molecular subtype of CRC, and here we queried the vulnerabilities of this subtype in pharmacogenomic databases to identify novel therapies. This reveals the copper ionophore elesclomol (ES) as highly effective against CRC-PMs. ES exhibits rapid cytotoxicity against CMS4 cells by targeting mitochondria. We find that a markedly reduced mitochondrial content in CMS4 cells explains their vulnerability to ES. ES demonstrates efficacy in preclinical models of PMs, including CRC-PMs and ovarian cancer organoids, mouse models, and a HIPEC rat model of PMs. The above proposes ES as a promising candidate for the local treatment of CRC-PMs, with broader implications for other PM-prone cancers.

Development of a prediction model for recurrence in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival outcomes for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM), but recurrence rates are high. The aim of this study was to develop a tool to predict recurrence in patients with colorectal PM that undergo CRS-HIPEC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, data of patients that underwent CRS-HIPEC for colorectal PM from four Dutch HIPEC centers were used. Exclusion criteria were perioperative systemic therapy and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) ≥20. Nine previously identified factors were considered as predictors: gender, age, primary tumor characteristics (location, nodal stage, differentiation, and mutation status), synchronous liver metastases, preoperative Carcino-Embryonal Antigen (CEA), and peritoneal cancer index (PCI). The prediction model was developed using multivariable Cox regression and validated internally using bootstrapping. The performance of the model was evaluated by discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

In total, 408 patients were included. During the follow-up, recurrence of disease occurred in 318 patients (78%). Significant predictors of recurrence were PCI (HR 1.075, 95% CI 1.044-1.108) and primary tumor location (left sided HR 0.719, 95% CI 0.550-0.939). The prediction model for recurrence showed fair discrimination with a C-index of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, 0.66) after internal validation. The model was well-calibrated with good agreement between the predicted and observed probabilities.

CONCLUSION

We developed a prediction tool that could aid in the prediction of recurrence in patients with colorectal PM who undergo CRS-HIPEC.

Intraperitoneal irinotecan with concomitant FOLFOX and bevacizumab for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of the multicentre, open-label, phase II, INTERACT-II trial

INTRODUCTION

The peritoneum is the second most affected organ for the dissemination of colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) face a poor prognosis, despite the majority of patients being treated with palliative systemic therapy. The efficacy of palliative systemic therapy is limited due to the plasma-peritoneum barrier. The poor prognosis of unresectable CPM patients has resulted in the development of new treatment strategies where systemic therapy is combined with local, intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In the recently published phase I study, the maximum tolerated dose and thus the recommended phase II dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was investigated and determined to be 75 mg. In the present study, the overall survival after treatment with 75 mg irinotecan with concomitant mFOLFOX4 and bevacizumab will be investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-arm phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 85 patients are enrolled. Eligibility criteria are an adequate performance status and organ function, histologically confirmed microsatellite stable and unresectable CPM, no previous palliative therapy for CRC, no systemic therapy<6 months for CRC prior to enrolment and no previous cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS and HIPEC). Patients will undergo a diagnostic laparoscopy as standard work-up for CPM and if the peritoneal disease is considered unresectable (eg, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI)>20, too extensive small bowel involvement), a peritoneal access port and a port-a-cath are placed for administration of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy, respectively. Patients may undergo up to 12 cycles of study treatment. Each cycle consists of intravenous mFOLFOX4 with bevacizumab and concomitant intraperitoneal irinotecan (75 mg), which is repeated every 2 weeks, with a maximum of 12 cycles. Modified FOLFOX-4 regimen consists of 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin plus 200 mg/m2 LV and 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by 1600 mg/m2 5-FU as a 46 hours infusion. Study treatment ends after the 12th cycle, or earlier in case of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome is overall survival and key secondary outcomes are progression-free survival, safety (measured by the amount of grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0)), patient-reported outcomes and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan. It is hypothesised that the trial treatment will lead to a 4 month increase in overall survival; from a median of 12.2 to 16.2 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Dutch Authority (CCMO, the Hague, the Netherlands), by a central medical ethics committee (MEC-U, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands) and by the institutional research boards of both research centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06003998.

Comparing patient reported abdominal pain between patients treated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) and primary colorectal cancer surgery

Oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases. Previously, our study group reported that patients experienced abdominal pain for several weeks after PIPAC-OX. However, it is unknown how this compares to abdominal pain after regular colorectal cancer surgery. To provide some perspective, this study compared the presence of abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX to the presence of abdominal pain after primary tumor surgery. Patient reported abdominal pain scores (EORTC QLQ-CR-29), from two prospective, Dutch cohorts were used in this study. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, a higher score represents more abdominal pain. Abdominal pain at baseline and at four weeks after treatment were compared between the two groups. Twenty patients who underwent PIPAC-OX and 322 patients who underwent primary tumor surgery were included in the analysis. At baseline, there were no differences in abdominal pain between both groups (mean 20 vs. 18, respectively; p = 0.688). Four weeks after treatment, abdominal pain was significantly worse in the PIPAC group (39 vs 15, respectively; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.99). The differential effect over time for abdominal pain differed significantly between both groups (mean difference: 19 vs - 3, respectively; p = 0.004; Cohen's d = 0.88). PIPAC-OX resulted in significantly worse postoperative abdominal pain than primary tumor surgery. These results can be used for patient counseling and stress the need for adequate analgesia during and after PIPAC-OX. Further research is required to prevent or reduce abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX.Trial registration CRC-PIPAC: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT03246321 (01-10-2017).

The impact of body weight on the development of peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer patients: results from a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a major global health problem and an important risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increased body weight. Obesity plays a role in the peritoneal dissemination of cancer; however, it is unclear whether this also applies for peritoneal dissemination of CRC. The purpose of this study was to provide insight in the role of obesity on the peritoneal dissemination of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Of all patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands in the first half of 2015, follow-up data was completed in 2019. Weight at time of primary diagnosis was categorized as underweight, normal weight, overweight, or obese. Logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between weight and the presence of synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM), and Cox regression modelling was used to assess the association between weight and metachronous CPM. Patient and tumor characteristics were taken into account. The analyses were adjusted for tumor stage, nodal stage, tumor location, and tumor histology.

RESULTS

In total, 6436 patients were included in this study. Two-hundred ninety-three (4.6%) patients presented with synchronous CPM at the time of primary diagnosis, while another 278 (5.1%) patients developed metachronous CPM after a median time of 16.5 months. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression modelling did not identify an effect of weight on the presence of synchronous CPM. Neither underweight (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.48-2.54), nor overweight (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71-1.29), or obesity (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56-1.26) was either positively or negatively associated with the presence of synchronous peritoneal metastases as compared to normal weight. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression modelling did not identify an effect of weight on the development of metachronous CPM. Neither underweight (HR 0.162, 95% CI 0.02-1.16), nor overweight (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82-1.39), or obesity (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73-1.16) was either positively or negatively associated with the presence of synchronous peritoneal metastases as compared to normal weight.

CONCLUSION

CRC patients who are overweight or obese are not more at risk for the presence of synchronous CPM nor development of metachronous CPM than their normal-weight counterparts.

Primary tumor resection or systemic treatment as palliative treatment for patients with isolated synchronous colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases in a nationwide cohort study

Limited data are available to guide the decision-making process for clinicians and their patients regarding palliative treatment options for patients with isolated synchronous colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRC-PM). Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze the outcome of the different palliative treatments for these patients. All patients diagnosed with isolated synchronous CRC-PM between 2009 and 2020 (Netherlands Cancer Registry) who underwent palliative treatment were included. Patients who underwent emergency surgery or curative intent treatment were excluded. Patients were categorized into upfront palliative primary tumor resection (with or without additional systemic treatment) or palliative systemic treatment only. Overall survival (OS) was compared between both groups and multivariable cox regression analysis was performed. Of 1031 included patients, 364 (35%) patients underwent primary tumor resection and 667 (65%) patients received systemic treatment only. Sixty-day mortality was 9% in the primary tumor resection group and 5% in the systemic treatment group (P = 0.007). OS was 13.8 months in the primary tumor resection group and 10.3 months in the systemic treatment group (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that primary tumor resection was associated with improved OS (HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.57-0.81; P < 0.001). Palliative primary tumor resection appeared to be associated with improved survival compared to palliative systemic treatment alone in patients with isolated synchronous CRC-PM despite a higher 60-day mortality. This finding must be interpreted with care as residual bias probably played a significant role. Nevertheless, this option may be considered in the decision-making process by clinicians and their patients.

Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Intra-Operative Radiotherapy for Patients with Locally Advanced or Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer and Peritoneal Metastases

Purpose: To assess the safety and long-term outcome of a multimodality treatment consisting of radical surgery, intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT), and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) or locally recurrent rectal carcinoma (LRRC) and peritoneal metastases (PM). Methods: The present study was a single-center cohort study, including all consecutive patients undergoing this treatment in a tertiary referral center for LARC, LRRC, and PM. Postoperative complications, intensive care stay (ICU stay), and re-admission rates were assessed as well as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 14 LARC and 16 LRRC patients with PM were included in the study. The median ICU stay was 1 day, and 57% of patients developed a severe postoperative complication. No 90-day mortality was observed. Median DFS was 10.0 months (Interquartile Range 7.1-38.7), and median OS was 31.0 months (Interquartile Range 15.9-144.3). Conclusions: As postoperative complications and survival were in line with treatments that are accepted for LARC or LRRC and PM as separate procedures, we conclude that combined treatment with IORT and CRS-HIPEC should be considered as a treatment option for selected patients with LARC or LRRC and peritoneal metastases in tertiary referral centers.

The Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) versus Conventional Surgery on Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Comparative Cohort Study between the CAIRO6 Trial and the PROCORE Study

Purpose-To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases to PROs of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing conventional surgery. Methods-Data were extracted from the CAIRO6 trial (CRS-HIPEC group) and the PROCORE study (conventional surgery group). Nine predefined PROs (derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire) were compared at baseline, in the early postoperative period and one year postoperatively, with correction for treatment with systemic therapy using linear mixed modeling. Results-In total, 331 patients were included: 71 in the CRS-HIPEC group and 260 in the conventional surgery group. All predefined PROs (fatigue, diarrhea, C30 summary score, Global Health Status, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning) did not differ significantly between the groups at all three timepoints, and differential effects over time for all PROs did not differ significantly between the groups. Significant worsening of fatigue, C30 summary score, physical and role functioning (both groups), and cognitive and social functioning (conventional surgery group only) was present in the early postoperative period. All scores returned to baseline at one year postoperatively, except for physical and cognitive functioning in the conventional surgery group. Emotional functioning improved postoperatively in both groups compared to baseline. Conclusion-Despite a more extensive procedure with greater risk of morbidity, CRS-HIPEC in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases did not have a greater negative impact on PROs than conventional surgery in patients with CRC. Further, systemic therapy did not affect these PROs. These findings may facilitate future patient counseling and shared decision making in clinical practice.

Preoperative misdiagnosis of pancreatic and periampullary cancer in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: A multicentre retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Whereas neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in pancreatic cancer, it is currently not recommended for other periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancers. This has important implications for the relevance of the preoperative diagnosis for pancreatoduodenectomy. This retrospective multicentre cohort study aimed to determine the frequency of clinically relevant misdiagnoses in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or other periampullary cancer.

METHODS

Data from all consecutive patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The preoperative diagnosis as concluded by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting was compared with the final postoperative diagnosis at pathology to determine the rate of clinically relevant misdiagnosis (defined as missed pancreatic cancer or incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer).

RESULTS

In total, 1244 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy of whom 203 (16%) had a clinically relevant misdiagnosis preoperatively. Of all patients with a final diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 13% (87/679) were preoperatively misdiagnosed as distal cholangiocarcinoma (n = 41, 6.0%), ampullary cancer (n = 27, 4.0%) duodenal cancer (n = 16, 2.4%), or other (n = 3, 0.4%). Of all patients with a final diagnosis of periampullary (non-pancreatic) cancer, 21% (116/565) were preoperatively incorrectly diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. Accuracy of preoperative diagnosis was 84% for pancreatic cancer, 71% for distal cholangiocarcinoma, 73% for ampullary cancer and 73% for duodenal cancer. A prediction model for the preoperative likelihood of pancreatic cancer (versus other periampullary cancer) prior to pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrated an AUC of 0.88.

DISCUSSION

This retrospective multicentre cohort study showed that 16% of patients have a clinically relevant misdiagnosis that could result in either missing the opportunity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer or inappropriate administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer. A preoperative prediction model is available on www.pancreascalculator.com.

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown.

METHODS

This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia.

RESULTS

A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.