Search

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

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

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

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

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

Background and Objectives Prognostic 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. Methods Data 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). Results Prognostic 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. Conclusion While COMPASS showed the best statistical behavior, accuracy for several clinically relevant outcomes remains low, and thus applicability to clinical practice limited.

Background and Objectives Prognostic 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. Methods Data 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). Results Prognostic 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. Conclusion While COMPASS showed the best statistical behavior, accuracy for several clinically relevant outcomes remains low, and thus applicability to clinical practice limited.

Background and Objectives Prognostic 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. Methods Data 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). Results Prognostic 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. Conclusion While COMPASS showed the best statistical behavior, accuracy for several clinically relevant outcomes remains low, and thus applicability to clinical practice limited.

Background and Objectives Prognostic 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. Methods Data 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). Results Prognostic 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. Conclusion While COMPASS showed the best statistical behavior, accuracy for several clinically relevant outcomes remains low, and thus applicability to clinical practice limited.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background and Objectives Prognostic 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. Methods Data 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). Results Prognostic 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. Conclusion While COMPASS showed the best statistical behavior, accuracy for several clinically relevant outcomes remains low, and thus applicability to clinical practice limited.

Aims: This study aimed to (1) explore the perceptions of people living with cancer about exercise in general and exercise as an adjunct form of cancer care, (2) explore their perceptions regarding exercise counselling needs and preferences, and (3) investigate how these perceptions of exercise as an adjunct form of cancer care shape survivors exercise levels postcancer diagnosis. Methods: A cross-sectional design and online survey were used to recruit cancer survivors via cancer-related networks throughout Australia. Two factor analyses were conducted to examine the structure and reduce the number of variables pertaining to exercise during and after the cancer treatment. Extracted components were used in one-way analysis of variance to compare differences in physical activity levels postcancer diagnosis. Results: Participants (N = 288) had very positive perceptions of exercise, yet only 50% of participants would prefer to receive exercise counselling. Those who were more active postcancer diagnosis had higher exercise beliefs than those who were similarly active (p = 0.04, r = 0.27) and less active (p = 0.03, r = 0.24) postdiagnosis. Those who were less active also had lower exercise knowledge than those who were similarly active (p = 0.01, r = 0.31) and more active (p = 0.03, r = 0.26). Safety beliefs did not significantly differ between cancer survivors’ activity levels (p = 0.16). Conclusion: This survey highlights the potential benefits of a concentrated effort in connecting survivors to relevant services and resources, and utilizing cancer clinicians to communicate with survivors about the role of exercise in cancer care.

Objective: This study aimed to 1) understand factors impacting the implementation of exercise communication and referral, and 2) explore integrated clinical approaches to exercise communication and referral in cancer care. Methods: Seven focus groups (N = 53) were conducted with clinicians and exercise professionals throughout Sydney, Australia. A sub-sample of participants (n = 9) attended a half-day workshop to identifying best practice approaches for moving forward. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results: Two themes emerged: 1) Factors impacting the knowledge-to-action gap, inclusive of limited exercise specific knowledge and training opportunities, funding structure, and current referral process, and 2) Recommendations for a consistent and efficient way forward, detailing the need for oncologist-initiated communication, distribution of cancer-exercise resources, and access to exercise professionals with cancer expertise. Conclusions: This study identified factors (e.g., cancer-exercise specific training, integration of exercise physiologists) influencing exercise counselling and referral. A potential implementation-referral approach accounting for these factors and how to incorporate exercise into a standard model of cancer care, is described. Future testing is required to determine feasibility and practicality of these approaches. Practical Implications: A pragmatic model is provided to guide implementation-referral, inclusive of oncologist-initiated communication exchange, relevant resources, and access to exercise professionals with cancer expertise.

PurposeAdvanced-stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) has poor chemotherapy response and prognosis and lacks biomarkers to aid stage I adjuvant treatment. Differentiating primary MOC from gastrointestinal (GI) metastases to the ovary is also challenging due to phenotypic similarities. Clinicopathologic and gene-expression data were analyzed to identify prognostic and diagnostic features.Experimental designDiscovery analyses selected 19 genes with prognostic/diagnostic potential. Validation was performed through the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium and GI cancer biobanks comprising 604 patients with MOC (n = 333), mucinous borderline ovarian tumors (MBOT, n = 151), and upper GI (n = 65) and lower GI tumors (n = 55).ResultsInfiltrative pattern of invasion was associated with decreased overall survival (OS) within 2 years from diagnosis, compared with expansile pattern in stage I MOC [hazard ratio (HR), 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-7.41, P = 0.042]. Increased expression of THBS2 and TAGLN was associated with shorter OS in MOC patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.51, P = 0.016) and (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45, P = 0.043), respectively. ERBB2 (HER2) amplification or high mRNA expression was evident in 64 of 243 (26%) of MOCs, but only 8 of 243 (3%) were also infiltrative (4/39, 10%) or stage III/IV (4/31, 13%).ConclusionsAn infiltrative growth pattern infers poor prognosis within 2 years from diagnosis and may help select stage I patients for adjuvant therapy. High expression of THBS2 and TAGLN in MOC confers an adverse prognosis and is upregulated in the infiltrative subtype, which warrants further investigation. Anti-HER2 therapy should be investigated in a subset of patients. MOC samples clustered with upper GI, yet markers to differentiate these entities remain elusive, suggesting similar underlying biology and shared treatment strategies.

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.

Aim: Public subsidy of the oxycodone/naloxone controlled release (CR) combination in December 2011 expanded the overall market for oxycodone CR in the general public in Australia; we evaluate its impact in people with cancer. Methods: We used Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits dispensing data linked with the NSW Cancer Registry for Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) healthcare card holders 65 years and older residing in NSW between 2004 and 2013 to identify clients with cancer and their opioid dispensings. We used interrupted time series analysis to model changes in monthly rates of oxycodone CR tablets dispensed and initiations. We performed a retrospective cohort study to examine changes in client characteristics and opioid utilization over time by comparing clients initiating oxycodone CR before and after subsidy. Results: The rate of oxycodone CR tablets dispensed/month increased by 20% from December 2011, due to uptake of the oxycodone/naloxone CR combination; monthly initiations increased immediately by 17%. Initiations of buprenorphine, fentanyl, and morphine declined from December 2011. DVA healthcare card holders were significantly more likely to initiate the 5 mg oxycodone CR formulation; more likely to use immediate release oxycodone in the 90 days following initiation; and less likely to use a weak opioid in the 90 days preceding oxycodone CR initiation following December 2011 than they were prior to that time. Conclusions: The public subsidy of the oxycodone/naloxone CR formulation expanded the overall oxycodone CR market for DVA healthcare card holders with cancer. Our findings highlight the need for updated guidelines around risk management for opioid treatment in patients with cancer.

Objective To explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the risk of opioid misuse in people with cancer and pain and related clinical considerations. Design A qualitative approach using semistructured telephone interviews. Analysis used an integrative approach. Setting Primary care. Participants Australian GPs with experience of prescribing opioids for people with cancer and pain. Results Twenty-two GPs participated, and three themes emerged. Theme 1 (Misuse is not the main problem) contextualised misuse as a relatively minor concern compared with pain control and toxicity, and highlighted underlying systemic factors, including limitations in continuity of care and doctor expertise. Theme 2 ('A different mindset' for cancer pain) captured participants' relative comfort in prescribing opioids for pain in cancer versus non-cancer contexts, and acknowledgement that compassion and greater perceived community acceptance were driving factors, in addition to scientific support for mechanisms and clinical efficacy. Participant attitudes towards prescribing for people with cancer versus non-cancer pain differed most when cancer was in the palliative phase, when they were unconcerned by misuse. Participants were equivocal about the risk-benefit ratio of long-term opioid therapy in the chronic phase of cancer, and were reluctant to prescribe for disease-free survivors. Theme 3 ('The question is always, 'how lazy have you been?') captured participants' acknowledgement that they sometimes prescribed opioids for cancer pain as a default, easier option compared with more holistic pain management. Conclusions Findings highlight the role of specific clinical considerations in distinguishing risk of opioid misuse in the cancer versus non-cancer population, rather than diagnosis per se. Further efforts are needed to ensure continuity of care where opioid prescribing is shared. Greater evidence is needed to guide opioid prescribing in disease-free survivors a

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is a common and highly lethal malignancy. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have a key role in the development and progression of metastatic disease. While expression of CSC markers CD44, CD133 and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) in locoregional gastroesophageal cancer is known to be associated with poorer clinical outcomes, the significance of CSC marker expression in distal metastatic disease is unknown. We investigated the clinicopathological and prognostic associations of the CSC markers, CD44, CD133, and ALDH1, on metastatic deposits from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, and evaluated the association of CSC expression with urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression. Of the 36 patients included in the study, 16 (44%) were positive for CD44, 13 (36%) were positive for CD133, and 26 (72%) were positive for ALDH1. CD44 expression was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (OS) in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-6.9, p=0.008] and multivariate analyses (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.1-6.2, p=0.04). ALDH1 expression was significantly associated with poorer OS in univariate (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.01-5.7, p=0.04) analysis but was not significant in multivariate analysis. Both CD44 and ALDH1 expression were significantly associated with uPAR expression. We found no association between CD133 expression and OS. CD44 expression on metastatic disease from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas is an independent prognostic marker associated with poorer OS. These results expand current evidence to support the role of CSCs as biomarkers in metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is a common and highly lethal malignancy. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have a key role in the development and progression of metastatic disease. While expression of CSC markers CD44, CD133 and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) in locoregional gastroesophageal cancer is known to be associated with poorer clinical outcomes, the significance of CSC marker expression in distal metastatic disease is unknown. We investigated the clinicopathological and prognostic associations of the CSC markers, CD44, CD133, and ALDH1, on metastatic deposits from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, and evaluated the association of CSC expression with urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression. Of the 36 patients included in the study, 16 (44%) were positive for CD44, 13 (36%) were positive for CD133, and 26 (72%) were positive for ALDH1. CD44 expression was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (OS) in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-6.9, p=0.008] and multivariate analyses (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.1-6.2, p=0.04). ALDH1 expression was significantly associated with poorer OS in univariate (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.01-5.7, p=0.04) analysis but was not significant in multivariate analysis. Both CD44 and ALDH1 expression were significantly associated with uPAR expression. We found no association between CD133 expression and OS. CD44 expression on metastatic disease from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas is an independent prognostic marker associated with poorer OS. These results expand current evidence to support the role of CSCs as biomarkers in metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is a common and highly lethal malignancy. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have a key role in the development and progression of metastatic disease. While expression of CSC markers CD44, CD133 and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) in locoregional gastroesophageal cancer is known to be associated with poorer clinical outcomes, the significance of CSC marker expression in distal metastatic disease is unknown. We investigated the clinicopathological and prognostic associations of the CSC markers, CD44, CD133, and ALDH1, on metastatic deposits from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, and evaluated the association of CSC expression with urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression. Of the 36 patients included in the study, 16 (44%) were positive for CD44, 13 (36%) were positive for CD133, and 26 (72%) were positive for ALDH1. CD44 expression was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (OS) in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-6.9, p=0.008] and multivariate analyses (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.1-6.2, p=0.04). ALDH1 expression was significantly associated with poorer OS in univariate (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.01-5.7, p=0.04) analysis but was not significant in multivariate analysis. Both CD44 and ALDH1 expression were significantly associated with uPAR expression. We found no association between CD133 expression and OS. CD44 expression on metastatic disease from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas is an independent prognostic marker associated with poorer OS. These results expand current evidence to support the role of CSCs as biomarkers in metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is a common and highly lethal malignancy. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have a key role in the development and progression of metastatic disease. While expression of CSC markers CD44, CD133 and aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) in locoregional gastroesophageal cancer is known to be associated with poorer clinical outcomes, the significance of CSC marker expression in distal metastatic disease is unknown. We investigated the clinicopathological and prognostic associations of the CSC markers, CD44, CD133, and ALDH1, on metastatic deposits from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, and evaluated the association of CSC expression with urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression. Of the 36 patients included in the study, 16 (44%) were positive for CD44, 13 (36%) were positive for CD133, and 26 (72%) were positive for ALDH1. CD44 expression was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (OS) in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-6.9, p=0.008] and multivariate analyses (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.1-6.2, p=0.04). ALDH1 expression was significantly associated with poorer OS in univariate (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.01-5.7, p=0.04) analysis but was not significant in multivariate analysis. Both CD44 and ALDH1 expression were significantly associated with uPAR expression. We found no association between CD133 expression and OS. CD44 expression on metastatic disease from gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas is an independent prognostic marker associated with poorer OS. These results expand current evidence to support the role of CSCs as biomarkers in metastatic gastroesophageal cancer.

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a complex surgery to treat peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM). PSM and gastrointestinal (GI) resection from CRS can lead to significant GI symptoms and malnutrition. There is limited research into the nutrition status of this patient group and the impact of malnutrition on morbidity. Objective: This study aims to determine if preoperative malnutrition, assessed using the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), is associated with postoperative morbidity and increased length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for PSM. Methods: This study prospectively assessed the nutritional status of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC using a validated nutrition assessment tool. Preoperative clinical symptoms, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), intraoperative blood transfusions, operative time, GI resections, postoperative morbidity, and LOS, as well as pre- and postoperative nutritional interventions, were recorded. The impact of preoperative nutritional status was assessed in relation to postoperative complications and hospital LOS. Results: The study included 102 participants; 34 patients (33%) were classified as malnourished (SGA = B or C). Preoperative weight loss (15% vs. 74%; p ≤ 0.001) and the presence of clinical symptoms (18% vs. 47%; p = 0.002) were significantly higher in malnourished patients. While PCI, intraoperative blood transfusions, and GI resections were independent predictors of morbidity, malnutrition was significantly associated with infectious complications and LOS. For each grade of worsening malnutrition, LOS increased by an average of 7.65 days. Conclusions: Preoperative malnutrition is prevalent in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC and postoperative morbidity is common. Malnutrition is linked to LOS and plays a role in postoperative outcomes such as infection. Clear pre- and postoperative nutrition pathways are needed to optimize nutrition support and postoperativ

Peritoneal metastases from gastrointestinal cancers remain a morbid and fatal disease entity, reflecting an advanced metastatic stage in the disease natural history. It has been previously regarded as an untreatable condition. Survival with palliative management including systemic chemotherapy and best supportive care rarely exceeds 12 months. With advances in surgical technology and multi-modality therapy, a combined approach of surgery and chemotherapy was introduced. This surgical technique termed peritonectomy strips away the lining of the abdominal cavity using electrosurgery allowing removal of peritoneal tumor. At the completion of surgery, intraoperative instillation of heated chemotherapy solution into the peritoneal cavity known otherwise as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is performed to eradicate microscopic residual disease. This treatment reflects a progress in understanding of the pathophysiology of peritoneal metastasis as a loco-regional spread of free-circulating tumor cells in the peritoneal cavity. Initial clinical investigations reporting the outcome of this surgical therapy has shown promise demonstrating survival benefits over survival results from historical data. Recently, an increased amount of evidence of the efficacy and safety of this therapy has emerged from randomized controlled trials and an update of institutional experience from high-volume tertiary treatment centres. To improve outcomes of this therapy, there has been improved patient selection, advances in understanding of disease prognostic indicators and tailoring adjuvant therapies. This thesis compiles a series of clinical studies that highlight the development and progress of the application of this therapeutic modality, which has become landmark studies in the management of patients with peritoneal metastasis.