Search

Background: Malignant mesotheliomas are rare, yet highly malignant tumors. Mesotheliomas are tumors that develop from mesothelial surfaces, with the pleura being the most common, followed by the peritoneum. The diagnosis of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is usually established when the disease is advanced, owing to the nonspecific clinical appearance and abdominal symptoms. Initially, MPM was treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, with or without palliative surgery. However, cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with bidirectional intraoperative chemotherapy (BDIC) has recently emerged as a treatment option for MPM. BDIC creates a bidirectional chemotherapy gradient in the peritoneal tumor cells through the simultaneous use of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy. CRS, combined with BDIC (CRS-BDIC), allows the complete elimination of residual tiny tumor cells after complete removal of the visible tumor nodules. Case Report: Herein, we present a case of a 51-year-old woman with MPM and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3b. Her treatment consisted of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, followed by CRS-BDIC using intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin, and intravenous ifosfamide. The surgery was successful, with no immediate complications or decline in the patient's kidney function. On follow up 2 months later, the patient denies suffering any chemotherapy-related adverse effects, and her kidney profile remains stable. Conclusions: In conclusion, nephrotoxicity, a known adverse effect of cisplatin and ifosfamide, might not be a contraindication for the use of these potentially nephrotoxic drugs in CRS-BDIC in patients with renal impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature reporting on the outcomes of the different procedures of nephrectomies (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic) in Saudi Arabia remains limited. Compare surgical and oncological outcomes between open and minimally invasive nephrectomies. A retrospective cohort study. The present study included all adult patients who underwent nephrectomies between January 1, 2015 and January 31, 2023. We collected demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data on 408 adult cancer patients who underwent nephrectomies at our center between January 2015 and January 2023. Statistical differences were calculated between procedure types. Overall survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Measures of operative success (intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and hospital stay) and oncological outcomes (local recurrence, metastatic progression, and chemotherapy use) between different procedure and nephrectomy types for cancer patients. A total of 408 cancer patients underwent nephrectomies. In cancer patients, open nephrectomy was associated with significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (p<0.001), incidence of blood transfusions (p<0.001), hospital stay (p<0.001), intraoperative complications (p=0.027 and p=0.001, respectively), local recurrence (p<0.001), metastatic progression (p=0.001), and chemotherapy (p=0.001) than minimally invasive surgery, but survival differences across procedure types were not statistically significant (log-rank p-value = 0.054). Regarding nephrectomy type, significant differences were observed in tumor size (p < 0.001), initial procedure type (p<0.001), operation time (p<0.001), blood transfusion (p=0.033), length of hospital stay (p=0.004), intraoperative complications (p=0.020), postoperative complications (p=0.025), Clavien classification (p=0.003), mortality (p=0.022), metastatic progression (p<0.001), and chemotherapy use (p=0.001) between simple/total nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy (RN), partial nephrectomy (PN), and nephroureterectomy. Survival differences between the four nephrectomy types were statistically significant (log-rank p value = 0.001). Minimally invasive nephrectomies reduce inpatient morbidity while conferring equivalent oncological and surgical outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: Sabbah B.N., et al.)