| 1. |
- van de Vlasakker, Vincent C. J., et al.
(författare)
-
The impact of PRODIGE 7 on the current worldwide practice of CRS-HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases : A web-based survey and 2021 statement by Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 47:11, s. 2888-2892
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionThe PRODIGE 7-trial investigated the additional value of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The results of PRODIGE 7 were presented at the 2018 ASCO meeting showing that 30 min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC did not improve overall survival. The current study investigated the impact of PRODIGE 7 on the worldwide practice of CRS and HIPEC.Materials and methodsCRS-HIPEC experts from 19 countries were invited through the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) to complete an online survey concerning the current CRS-HIPEC practice in their hospital and country, and were asked to appraise the effect of PRODIGE 7.ResultsThe survey was completed by 18/19 experts. Although their personal opinions of CRS-HIPEC were barely influenced by PRODIGE 7, they reported a substantial impact on daily practice. This included a switch towards Mitomycin-C based HIPEC-regimens and prolongation of HIPEC perfusion time, a reduction in the number of referrals from non-HIPEC centers, a reduction in national consensus, the removal of HIPEC from national guidelines, and a reduced reimbursement rate.ConclusionThe PRODIGE 7 has had a major impact on the practice of CRS-HIPEC for CPM worldwide. HIPEC remains an attractive option with potential for control and eradication of disease and further studies into the optimal HIPEC-regimen are urgently needed. Meanwhile, given the complexity of the treatment of patients with CPM, and the proven benefits of optimal CRS, referral of patients with potentially resectable CPM to expert centers is recommended whilst the precise role of HIPEC is further evaluated.
|
|
| 2. |
- Liu, Yang, et al.
(författare)
-
Cytoreductive Surgery Plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Metastases From a Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma : Multi-Institutional Experience
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : SPRINGER. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 25:5, s. 1184-1192
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The multi-institutional registry in this study evaluated the outcome after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). A multi-institutional data registry including 152 patients with PM from SBA was established. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) after CRS plus HIPEC. Between 1989 and 2016, 152 patients from 21 institutions received a treatment of CRS plus HIPEC. The median follow-up period was 20 months (range 1-100 months). Of the 152 patients, 70 (46.1%) were women with a median age of 54 years. The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 10 (mean 12; range 1-33). Completeness of cytoreduction (CCR) 0 or 1 was achieved for 134 patients (88.2%). After CRS and HIPEC, the median OS was 32 months (range 1-100 months), with survival rates of 83.2% at 1 year, 46.4% at 3 years, and 30.8% at 5 years. The median disease-free survival after CCR 0/1 was 14 months (range 1-100 months). The treatment-related mortality rate was 2%, and 29 patients (19.1%) experienced grades 3 or 4 operative complications. The period between detection of PM and CRS plus HIPEC was 6 months or less (P = 0.008), and multivariate analysis identified absence of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.037), well-differentiated tumor (P = 0.028), and PCI of 15 or lower (P = 0.003) as independently associated with improved OS. The combined treatment strategy of CRS plus HIPEC achieved prolonged survival for selected patients who had PM from SBA with acceptable morbidity and mortality.
|
|
| 3. |
- Verwaal, Victor J., et al.
(författare)
-
Registries on peritoneal surface malignancies throughout the world, their use and their options
- 2017
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Hyperthermia. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0265-6736 .- 1464-5157. ; 33:5, s. 528-533
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: The treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies ranges from palliative care to full cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, HIPEC. Ongoing monitoring of patient recruitment and volume is usually carried out through dedicated registries. With multiple registries available worldwide, we sought to investigate the nature, extent and value of existing worldwide CRS and HIPEC registries. Methods: A questionnaire was sent out to all known major treatment centres. The questionnaire covers: general purpose of the registry; inclusion criteria in the registry; the date the registry was first established; volume of patients in the registry and description of the data fields in the registries. Finally, the population size of the catchment area of the registry was collected. Results: Twenty-seven questionnaires where returned. National databases are established in northwest European countries. There are five international general databases. Most database collect data on patients who have undergone an attempt to CRS and HIPEC. Two registries collect data on all patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis regardless the treatment. Most registries are primarily used for tracking outcomes and complications. When correlating the number of cases of CRS and HIPEC that are performed to the catchment area of the various registry, a large variation in the number of performed procedures related to the overall population was noted, ranging from 1.3 to 57 patients/million year with an average of 15 patients/1 million year. Conclusions: CRS and HIPEC is a well-established treatment for peritoneal surface malignancies worldwide. However, the coverage as well as the registration of treatment procedures differs widely. The most striking difference is the proportion of HIPEC procedures per capita which ranges from 1.3 to 57 patients per million. This suggests either a difference in patient selection, lack of access to HIPEC centres or lack of appropriate data collection.
|
|
