RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare disease with poor outcomes. Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is the cornerstone of therapy. We aim to compare outcomes of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma treated at academic versus community hospitals. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma from 2004 to 2016. Patients were divided according to treating facility type: academic or community. Outcomes were assessed using log-rank tests, Cox proportional-hazard modeling, and Kaplan-Meier survival statistics. RESULTS: In total, 2682 patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma were identified. A total of 1272 (47.4%) were treated at an academic facility and 1410 (52.6%) were treated at a community facility. Five hundred forty-six (42.9%) of patients at academic facilities underwent debulking or radical surgery compared to 286 (20.2%) at community facilities. Three hundred sixty-six (28.8%) of patients at academic facilities received chemotherapy on the same day as surgery compared to 147 (10.4%) of patients at community facilities. Unadjusted 5-year survival was 29.7% (95% CI 26.7-32.7) for academic centers compared to 18.3% (95% CI 16.0-20.7) for community centers. In multivariable analysis, community facility was an independent predictor of increased risk of death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.32, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate better survival outcomes for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma treated at academic compared to community facilities. Patients at academic centers underwent surgery and received chemotherapy on the same day as surgery more frequently than those at community centers, suggesting that malignant peritoneal mesothelioma patients may be better served at experienced academic centers.
Asunto(s)
Hipertermia Inducida , Mesotelioma , Neoplasias Peritoneales , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Terapia Combinada , Hospitales Comunitarios , Humanos , Mesotelioma/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Peritoneales/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de SupervivenciaAsunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma/terapia , Quimioterapia del Cáncer por Perfusión Regional/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción , Hipertermia Inducida/métodos , Neoplasias Peritoneales/terapia , Terapia Combinada , Humanos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have historically been associated with high morbidity given the physiologic insult of an extensive operation. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways have been successful in improving postoperative outcomes for many procedures but have not been well studied in these cases. We examined the feasibility and effect of ERAS pathway implementation for patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis who underwent CRS/HIPEC between October 2015 to September 2018 were identified. Patient characteristics, disease pathology, and perioperative outcome data were obtained. Primary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-d readmissions, renal dysfunction, and complications. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients who were included, 11 (35.5%) patients underwent CRS/HIPEC prior to the implementation of the ERAS pathway, and 20 (64.5%) patients underwent CRS/HIPEC according to the ERAS guidelines. There were no significant differences in the baseline clinical or pathologic characteristics between groups. There was a significant decrease in LOS with ERAS pathway management from 9 d to 6 d (P = 0.002). No patients from either cohort experienced acute kidney injury. There was no significant difference in 30-d readmission rates or complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, ERAS pathway utilization significantly decreased postoperative LOS for patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC, without evidence of increased complications or readmissions. ERAS programs should be considered for integration into future CRS/HIPEC protocols.