| 1. |
- Cuk, Pedja, et al.
(författare)
-
Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in segmental resections for colon cancer : a retrospective cohort study of 328 patients
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery. - 1435-2451. ; 408, s. 1-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: The intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) technique possibly results in enhanced recovery and reduced morbidity rates compared to the extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) technique. This study compared the short-term morbidity rates of IA versus EA in segmental resections for colon cancer.METHOD: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients from 2015 to 2020 using the IA or EA technique at a single Danish colorectal center. Comparative outcomes of interest were surgical efficacy and short-term morbidity rates. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis of clinically relevant outcomes was conducted to explore potential baseline confounding.RESULTS: We included 328 patients, 129 in the EA and 199 in the IA groups. There was no significant difference in preoperative baseline characteristics between the two groups. The rate of overall surgical (16% in both groups, p = 1.000) and medical complications (EA: 25 (19%) vs. IA: 27 (14%), p = 0.167) was comparable for both groups. The IA technique did not cause a reduction in operative time (EA: 127.0 min [103.0-171.0] vs. IA: 134.0 min [110.0-164.0], p = 0.547). The IPTW analysis indicated that having an IA caused a reduction in the rate of major surgical complications (RRR adjusted = 0.45, 95%CI [0.29-0.69], p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Adopting IA for colon cancer resulted in similar overall morbidity rates without increasing the duration of the surgical procedure compared to EA. The IA technique had a probable protective effect against developing severe surgical complications. However, this must be interpreted cautiously, limited by the retrospective study design.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ghanipour, Lana, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal cancer : A phase I and III open label randomized controlled registry-based clinical trial protocol
- 2024
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 19:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Standard treatment for patient with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer is cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). In recent years, the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC has been challenged. An intensified HIPEC (oxaliplatin+irinotecan) in combination with early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) has shown increased recurrence-free survival in retrospective studies. The aim of this trial is to develop a new HIPEC/EPIC regimen and evaluate its effect on morbidity, oncological outcome, and quality-of-life (QoL). This study is designed as a combined phase I/III multicenter randomized trial (RCT) of patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer eligible for CRS-HIPEC. An initial phase I dose escalation study, designed as a 3+3 stepwise escalation, will determine the maximum tolerable dose of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) as 1-day EPIC, enrolling a total of 15–30 patients in 5 dose levels. In the phase III efficacy study, patients are randomly assigned intraoperatively to either the standard treatment with oxaliplatin HIPEC (control arm) or oxaliplatin/irinotecan-HIPEC in combination with single dose of 1-day 5-FU EPIC (experimental arm). 5-FU is administered intraoperatively after CRS-HIPEC and closure of the abdomen. The primary endpoint is 12-month recurrence-free survival. Secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, 5-year recurrence-free survival (registry based), postoperative complications, and QoL up to 3 years after study treatment. This phase I/III trial aims to identify a more effective treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases by combination of HIPEC and EPIC.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
