| 1. |
- Cashin, Peter, 1984-, et al.
(författare)
-
Perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases : A global propensity score matched study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: eClinicalMedicine. - : Elsevier. - 2589-5370. ; 55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is a paucity of studies evaluating perioperative systemic chemotherapy in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRCPM). The aim was to evaluate neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapy in CRCPM.Methods: Patients with CRCPM from 39 treatment centres globally from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2018, who underwent CRS+HIPEC were identified and stratified according to neoadjuvant/adjuvant use. Crude data analysis, propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox-proportional hazard modelling was performed.Findings: Of 2093 patients, 1613 were included in neoadjuvant crude evaluation with 708 in the PSM cohort (354 patients/arm). In the adjuvant evaluation, 1176 patients were included in the crude cohort with 778 in the PSM cohort (389 patients/arm). The median overall survival (OS) in the PSM cohort receiving no neoadjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy was 37.0 months (95% CI: 32.6-42.7) vs 34.7 months (95% CI: 31.2-38.8, HR 1.08 95% CI: 0.88-1.32, p = 0.46). The median OS in the PSM cohort receiving no adjuvant therapy vs adjuvant therapy was 37.0 months (95% CI: 32.9-41.8) vs 45.7 months (95% CI: 38.8-56.2, HR 0.79 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, p = 0.022). Recurrence-free survival did not differ in the neoadjuvant evaluation but differed in the adjuvant evaluation - HR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.87-1.25, p = 0.66) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.98, p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard modelling in the crude cohorts showed hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI: 0.92-1.26, p = 0.37) for administering neoadjuvant therapy and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-1.03, p = 0.095) for administering adjuvant therapy.Interpretation: Neoadjuvant therapy did not confer a benefit to patients undergoing CRS+HIPEC for CRCPM, whereas adjuvant therapy was associated with a benefit in this retrospective setting.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fisher, Oliver M., et al.
(författare)
-
Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BJS Open. - : Oxford University Press. - 2474-9842. ; 8:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: This study evaluated the efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (pmCRC) in a large international data set of patients.Patients and Methods: Patients with pmCRC from 39 centres who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC between 1991 and 2018 were selected and compared for the HIPEC protocols received-oxaliplatin-HIPEC versus mitomycin-HIPEC. Following analysis of crude data, propensity-score matching (PSM) and Cox-proportional hazard modelling were performed. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the HIPEC dose-response effects (high versus low dose, dose intensification and double drug protocols) on OS, RFS and 90-day morbidity. Furthermore, the impact of the treatment time period was assessed.Results: Of 2760 patients, 2093 patients were included. Median OS was 43 months (95% c.i. 41 to 46 months) with a median RFS of 12 months (95% c.i. 12 to 13 months). The oxaliplatin-HIPEC group had an OS of 47 months (95% c.i. 42 to 53 months) versus 39 months (95% c.i. 36 to 43 months) in the mitomycin-HIPEC group (P = 0.002), aHR 0.77, 95% c.i. 0.67 to 0.90, P < 0.001. The OS benefit persisted after PSM of the oxaliplatin-HIPEC group and mitomycin-HIPEC group (48 months (95% c.i. 42 to 59 months) versus 40 months (95% c.i. 37 to 44 months)), P < 0.001, aHR 0.78 (95% c.i. 0.65 to 0.94), P = 0.009. Similarly, matched RFS was significantly higher for oxaliplatin-HIPEC versus others (13 months (95% c.i. 12 to 15 months) versus 11 months (95% c.i. 10 to 12 months, P = 0.02)). High-dose mitomycin-HIPEC protocols had similar OS compared to oxaliplatin-HIPEC. HIPEC dose intensification within each protocol resulted in improved survival. Oxaliplatin + irinotecan-HIPEC resulted in the most improved OS (61 months (95% c.i. 51 to 101 months)). Ninety-day mortality in both crude and PSM analysis was worse for mitomycin-HIPEC. There was no change in treatment effect depending on the analysed time period.Conclusions: Oxaliplatin-based HIPEC provided better outcomes compared to mitomycin-based HIPEC. High-dose mitomycin-HIPEC was similar to oxaliplatin-HIPEC. The 90-day mortality difference favours the oxaliplatin-HIPEC group. A trend for dose-response between low- and high-dose HIPEC was reported.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kozman, Mathew A., et al.
(författare)
-
External validation of prognostic scores and comparison of predictive accuracy for patients with colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases considered for cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0022-4790 .- 1096-9098. ; 128:7, s. 1150-1159
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and ObjectivesPrognostic scores are developed to facilitate the selection of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRPM) for treatment with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC). Three prominent prognostic scores are the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score (PSDSS), the Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Prognostic Surgical Score (COMPASS), and the modified COloREctal-Pc (mCOREP). We externally validate these scores and compare their predictive accuracy.MethodsData from consecutive CRPM patients who underwent CRS/IPC from 1996 to 2018 was used to externally validate COMPASS, PSDSS, and mCOREP. Analysis evaluated the efficacy of each score in predicting (1) open–close laparotomy—those found at laparotomy to not be eligible for curative intent CRS/IPC, (2) surgical futility—those who underwent open–close laparotomy, palliative debulking surgery, or had an overall survival of less than 12 months, and (3) overall and recurrence-free survival (OS, RFS).ResultsPrognostic scores were calculated for the 174-patient external validation cohort. COMPASS was most accurate in predicting open–close laparotomy, futile surgery, and survival (OS and RFS). Area under the curve (AUC) for open–close prediction was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68–0.87), representing useful discrimination. However, AUC for futility prediction was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52–0.71), and C-statistic for OS was 0.65 indicating only possibly helpful discrimination. C-statistic for RFS was 0.59 indicating poor discrimination.ConclusionWhile COMPASS showed the best statistical behavior, accuracy for several clinically relevant outcomes remains low, and thus applicability to clinical practice limited.
|
|
| 4. |
- Soucisse, Mikael L., et al.
(författare)
-
Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with or without early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for appendix neoplasms with peritoneal metastases : A propensity score analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 47:1, s. 157-163
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) can be used after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with resectable peritoneal metastases (PM). Whether EPIC adds any benefit is debatable.Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control analysis of patients with PM of appendiceal origin treated by CRS + HIPEC +/- EPIC at Uppsala University Hospital between 2004 and 2012. The 206 patients were divided into two groups depending on if they received EPIC or not. The two groups were propensity-matched with a 1:1 ratio. The patients in the EPIC group were mostly operated in the first three years of the unit's experience.Results: After matching, 76 patients were left in each group. The groups were similar, except for the proportion of histological subtypes (p = 0.021) and chemotherapy agents used for HIPEC (0.017). Survival outcomes were stratified by histology. The patients who received EPIC had a longer hospital and ICU length of stay (15.71 vs 14.28 days, p = 0.049), (1.45 vs 1.05 days, p = 0.002), respectively. Post-operative complications were similar in both groups. Overall Survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) did not differ for the patients with low-grade histology. The patients with high-grade tumors who received EPIC had a significantly worse OS (p = 0.0088) while having the same RFS as the patients who did not receive EPIC.Conclusion: Our results suggest there is no benefit of EPIC in patients with advanced appendiceal tumors while increasing hospital and ICU length of stays. A suboptimal group matching might influence our results. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.
|
|
