Search

BackgroundWhile parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC.MethodsPatients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0-1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non-LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2-year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10-11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69-12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21-9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2-year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%).ConclusionsAs CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis can be performed in two ways: Open or closed abdominal technique.AimTo evaluate the impact of HIPEC method on post-operative and long-term survival outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing CRS with HIPEC from 2000-2017 were identified in the United States HIPEC collaborative database. Post-operative, recurrence, and overall survival outcomes were compared between those who received open vs closed HIPEC.ResultsOf the 1812 patients undergoing curative-intent CRS and HIPEC, 372 (21%) patients underwent open HIPEC and 1440 (79%) underwent closed HIPEC. There was no difference in re-operation or severe complications between the two groups. Closed HIPEC had higher rates of 90-d readmission while open HIPEC had a higher rate of 90-d mortalities. On multi-variable analysis, closed HIPEC technique was not a significant predictor for overall survival (hazards ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-1.10, P = 0.14) or recurrence-free survival (hazards ratio: 1.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.93, P = 0.05) in the entire cohort. These findings remained consistent in the appendiceal and the colorectal subgroups.ConclusionIn this multi-institutional analysis, the HIPEC method was not independently associated with relevant post-operative or long-term outcomes. HIPEC technique may be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CR-PM). However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to CRS-HIPEC is poorly understood. A retrospective review of adult patients with CR-PM who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC from 2000-2017 was performed. Among 298 patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC, 196 (65.8%) received NAC while 102 (34.2%) underwent surgery first (SF). Patients who received NAC had lower peritoneal cancer index score (12.1 + 7.9 vs. 14.3 + 8.5, p = 0.034). There was no significant difference in grade III/IV complications (22.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.650), readmission (32.3% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.114), or 30-day mortality (1.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.411) between groups. NAC patients experienced longer overall survival (OS) (median 32.7 vs. 22.0 months, p = 0.044) but similar recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median 13.8 vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.456). After controlling for confounding factors, NAC was not independently associated with improved OS (OR 0.80) or RFS (OR 1.04). Among patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC for CR-PM, the use of NAC was associated with improved OS that did not persist on multivariable analysis. However, NAC prior to CRS+/-HIPEC was a safe and feasible strategy for CR-PM, which may aid in the appropriate selection of patients for aggressive cytoreductive surgery.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis can be performed in two ways: Open or closed abdominal technique.AimTo evaluate the impact of HIPEC method on post-operative and long-term survival outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing CRS with HIPEC from 2000-2017 were identified in the United States HIPEC collaborative database. Post-operative, recurrence, and overall survival outcomes were compared between those who received open vs closed HIPEC.ResultsOf the 1812 patients undergoing curative-intent CRS and HIPEC, 372 (21%) patients underwent open HIPEC and 1440 (79%) underwent closed HIPEC. There was no difference in re-operation or severe complications between the two groups. Closed HIPEC had higher rates of 90-d readmission while open HIPEC had a higher rate of 90-d mortalities. On multi-variable analysis, closed HIPEC technique was not a significant predictor for overall survival (hazards ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-1.10, P = 0.14) or recurrence-free survival (hazards ratio: 1.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.93, P = 0.05) in the entire cohort. These findings remained consistent in the appendiceal and the colorectal subgroups.ConclusionIn this multi-institutional analysis, the HIPEC method was not independently associated with relevant post-operative or long-term outcomes. HIPEC technique may be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is associated with improved survival for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CR-PM). However, the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to CRS-HIPEC is poorly understood. A retrospective review of adult patients with CR-PM who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC from 2000-2017 was performed. Among 298 patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC, 196 (65.8%) received NAC while 102 (34.2%) underwent surgery first (SF). Patients who received NAC had lower peritoneal cancer index score (12.1 + 7.9 vs. 14.3 + 8.5, p = 0.034). There was no significant difference in grade III/IV complications (22.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.650), readmission (32.3% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.114), or 30-day mortality (1.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.411) between groups. NAC patients experienced longer overall survival (OS) (median 32.7 vs. 22.0 months, p = 0.044) but similar recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median 13.8 vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.456). After controlling for confounding factors, NAC was not independently associated with improved OS (OR 0.80) or RFS (OR 1.04). Among patients who underwent CRS+/-HIPEC for CR-PM, the use of NAC was associated with improved OS that did not persist on multivariable analysis. However, NAC prior to CRS+/-HIPEC was a safe and feasible strategy for CR-PM, which may aid in the appropriate selection of patients for aggressive cytoreductive surgery.

BackgroundPostoperative complications (POCs) are associated with worse oncologic outcomes in various cancer histologies. The impact of POCs on the survival of patients with appendiceal or colorectal cancer after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is unknown.MethodsThe US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal/colorectal cancer. The analysis was stratified by noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm versus invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma. The POCs were grouped into infectious, cardiopulmonary, thromboembolic, and intestinal dysmotility. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).ResultsOf the 1304 patients, 33% had noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm (n = 426), and 67% had invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma (n = 878). In the noninvasive appendiceal cohort, POCs were identified in 55% of the patients (n = 233). The 3-year OS and RFS did not differ between the patients who experienced a complication and those who did not (OS, 94% vs 94%, p = 0.26; RFS, 68% vs 60%, p = 0.15). In the invasive appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma cohort, however, POCs (63%; n = 555) were associated with decreased 3-year OS (59% vs 74%; p < 0.001) and RFS (32% vs 42%; p < 0.001). Infectious POCs were the most common (35%; n = 196). In Multivariable analysis accounting for gender, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and incomplete resection (CCR1), infectious POCs in particular were associated with decreased OS compared with no complication (hazard ratio [HR] 2.08; p < 0.01) or other types of complications (HR, 1.6; p < 0.01). Similarly, infectious POCs were independently associated with worse RFS (HR 1.61; p < 0.01).ConclusionPostoperative complications are associated with decreased OS and RFS after CRS/HIPEC for invasive histology, but not for an indolent disease such as noninvasive appendiceal neoplasm

Significant improvements have taken place in our understanding of classification neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreas in the past decade. "These are now regarded in three entirely separate categories: (I) neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are by definition well differentiated, the pancreatic counterpart of carcinoids; (II) neuroendocrine carcinomas, which are poorly differentiated (PDNEC), the pancreatic examples of small cell carcinomas or large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas; (III) other neoplasms that have neuroendocrine differentiation or a distinct neuroendocrine component. PanNETs are by far the most common. They are now regarded as malignancies (albeit often curable when low grade and low stage) with the exception of minute incidental proliferations (tumorlets, or dysplastic-like changes) seen in the setting of some syndromes like MEN. PanNETs are staged based on their size, and for small T1 tumors, watchful waiting is now being considered, although these tumors are also known to show about 10% metastatic rate and/or progression, creating concerns about this approach. PanNETs are graded into 3, based on the proliferative activity, mostly based on the Ki-67 index, and also partly mitotic activity, although the latter seldom if ever is the determinant of the final grade. Neuroendocrine neoplasms with well differentiated morphology but Ki-67 >20% are now regarded as Pa.nNFT Grade 3 (G3); they have been shown to have a prognosis significantly worse than lesser grade PanNETs but still incomparably better than frank PDNECs, the latter typically has Ki-67 >50% (often much higher) and require platinum-based chemotherapy. There are also cases that are ambiguous between PanNET-G3 and PDNEC, and very rarely transformation of the former to the latter appears to occur. For low grade (G 1/G2) PanNETs, more refined criteria to further prognosticate this group are needed. Morphologic variants being recognized may bring new perspectives to this group., NA