Search

Background: Studies from Asia indicate that normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC) may confer survival benefit in patients with gastric peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). However, data regarding this approach is lacking in western population. The current STOPGAP trial is intended to assess 1-year progression-free survival benefit of sequential systemic chemotherapy and paclitaxel NIPEC in patients with gastric/ gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma PC. Methods: This is a prospective, single center, single arm, phase II investigator-initiated clinical trial. Patients with histologically proven gastric/GEJ (Siewert 3) adenocarcinoma with positive peritoneal cytology or PC will be eligible to participate after three months of standard of care systemic chemotherapy and with no evidence of visceral metastasis on restaging scans. The primary treatment is iterative paclitaxel NIPEC with systemic paclitaxel and 5-fluorouracil, which will be administered on days1 and 8 and repeated every three weeks for 4 cycles. Patients will undergo diagnostic laparoscopy both before and after NIPEC to assess peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Patients with PCI less than or equal to 10 in whom complete cytoreduction (CRS) is feasible may opt to undergo CRS with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The primary endpoint is 1-year progression free survival and secondary endpoints are overall survival and patient reported quality of life outcomes measured by EuroQol- 5 dimensions-5 level (EuroQol-5D-5L) questionnaire. Discussion: If the sequential approach of systemic chemotherapy followed by paclitaxel NIPEC proves beneficial, then this approach could be used in larger, muti-institutional randomized clinical trial of gastric PC. Trial Registration: The trial was registered on 21/02/2021, under clinical trials.gov; Identifier: NCT04762953. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Early diagnosis, evaluation, and appropriate treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies remains difficult. While computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are commonly used for these purposes, it remains unknown whether one is superior to the other. The aim of the current study was therefore to prospectively compare the two imaging modalities, using intra-operative evaluation as a reference standard. Our findings indicate that they are comparable in the detection and evaluation of peritoneal surface malignancies. Thus, either imaging modality may be appropriate, depending on clinical indications and resource management. It should however be noted that both modalities are likely to underestimate the true burden of disease, which may negatively impact treatment decisions. Background: The performance of MRI versus CT in the detection and evaluation of peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) remains unclear in the current literature. Our study is the first prospective study in an Asian center comparing the two imaging modalities, validated against intra-operative findings. Methods: A total of 36 patients with PSM eligible for CRS-HIPEC underwent both MRI and CT scans up to 6 weeks before the operation. The scans were assessed for the presence and distribution of PSM and scored using the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), which were compared against PCI determined at surgery. Results: Both MRI and CT were 100% sensitive and specific in detecting the overall presence of PSM. Across all peritoneal regions, the sensitivity and specificity for PSM detection was 49.1% and 93.0% for MRI, compared to 47.8% and 95.1% for CT (p = 0.76). MRI was more sensitive than CT for small bowel disease, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Comparing PCI on imaging with intra-operative PCI, the mean difference was found to be −3.4 ± 5.4 (p < 0.01) for MRI, and −3.9 ± 4.1 (p < 0.01) for CT. The correlation between imaging and intra-operative PCI was poor, with a concordance coefficient of 0.76 and 0.79 for MRI and CT, respectively. Within individual peritoneal regions, there was also poor agreement between imaging and intra-operative PCI for both modalities, other than in regions 1 and 3. Conclusion: MRI and CT are comparable in the detection and evaluation of PSM. While sensitive in the overall detection of PSM, they are likely to underestimate the true disease burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]