Serum Tumor Markers and Outcomes in Patients With Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma.

Importance: Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers; however, there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Objective: To assess the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes and pathologic and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 52 (21-101) months. Software was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least 1 tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between March 2016 and May 2023. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of serum tumor markers with survival in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were also performed to assess associations between clinical factors (serum tumor marker levels, demographics, and patient and disease characteristics) and patient outcomes (overall survival). Results: A total of 1338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 56.5 (22.3-89.6) years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (1080 patients [80.7%]). CEA was elevated in 742 of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 381 patients (34%) and 312 patients (27%), respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; elevated vs normal was 81% vs 95% for CEA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6), 84% vs 92% for CA19-9 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4), and 69% vs 93% for CA125 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.8) (P < .001 for all). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers was associated with outcomes. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 had markedly worse survival, with 5-year survival rates of 59% for CEA (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 5.3-18.0), 64% for CA19-9 (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.0-11.7), and 57% for CA125 (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 3.5-16.5) (P < .001 for all). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease, elevated CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR for CEA, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.8; P < .001; HR for CA19-9, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .002; and HR for CA125, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.4; P < .001). Interestingly, tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high-grade tumors relative to low-grade tumors (mean value, 18.3 vs 15.0; difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.9-3.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with an 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all 3 tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Somatic mutations in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective study of serum tumor markers in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 were associated with overall survival in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their value, all 3 biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Repeat Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Recurrent Mucinous Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma: A Viable Treatment Strategy with Demonstrable Benefit.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma experience peritoneal recurrence despite complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Prior work has demonstrated that repeat CRS/HIPEC can prolong survival in select patients. We sought to validate these findings using outcomes from a high-volume center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma who underwent CRS/HIPEC at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2004 and 2021 were stratified by whether they underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease or as part of initial treatment. Only patients who underwent complete CRS/HIPEC were included. Initial and recurrent groups were compared. RESULTS: Of 437 CRS/HIPECs performed for mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, 50 (11.4%) were for recurrent disease. Patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease were more often treated with an oxaliplatin or cisplatin perfusion (35%/44% recurrent vs. 4%/1% initial, p < 0.001), had a longer operative time (median 629 min recurrent vs. 511 min initial, p = 0.002), and had a lower median length of stay (10 days repeat vs. 13 days initial, p < 0.001). Thirty-day complication and 90-day mortality rates did not differ between groups. Both cohorts enjoyed comparable recurrence free survival (p = 0.82). Compared with patients with recurrence treated with systemic chemotherapy alone, this select cohort of patients undergoing repeat CRS/HIPEC enjoyed better overall survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients with recurrent appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma, CRS/HIPEC can provide survival benefit equivalent to primary CRS/HIPEC and that may be superior to that conferred by systemic therapy alone in select patients. These patients should receive care at a high-volume center in the context of a multidisciplinary team.

Treatment Variation and Long-Term Outcomes of Low-Grade Appendiceal Neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Heterogenous nomenclature describing appendiceal neoplasms has added to uncertainty around their appropriate treatment. Although a recent consensus has established the term low-grade appendiceal neoplasm (LAMN), we hypothesize that significant variation remains in the treatment of LAMNs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained appendiceal registry, identifying patients with LAMNs from 2009 to 2019. We assessed variability in treatment, including whether patients underwent colectomy, spread of disease at presentation, and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 136 patients with LAMNs, 88 (35%) presented with localized disease and 48 (35%) with disseminated peritoneal disease. Median follow-up was 2.9 years (IQR 1.9-4.4), and 120 (88%) patients underwent pre-referral surgery. Among 26 pre-referral colectomy patients, 23 (88%) were performed for perceived oncologic need/nodal evaluation; no nodal metastases were identified. In patients with resected LAMNs without radiographic evidence of disseminated disease, 41 (47%) underwent second look diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) to evaluate for occult metastases. No peritoneal metastases were identified. Patients with disseminated disease were treated with cytoreductive surgery/heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). For patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC, 5-year recurrence-free survival was 94% (95% CI 81-98%). For patients with localized disease, 5-year RFS was 98% (95% CI 85-99%). CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in treatment patterns for LAMNs, particularly prior to referral to a high-volume center. Patients frequently underwent colectomy without apparent oncologic benefit. In the current era of high-quality cross sectional imaging, routine use of DL has low yield and is not recommended. Recurrence in this population is rare, and low-intensity surveillance can be offered. Overall prognosis is excellent, even with peritoneal disease.

Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Disadvantage Predicts Outcomes in Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) improves survival in select patients with peritoneal metastases (PM), but the impact of social determinants of health on CRS/HIPEC outcomes remains unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of a multi-institutional database of patients with PM who underwent CRS/HIPEC in the USA between 2000 and 2017. The area deprivation index (ADI) was linked to the patient's residential address. Patients were categorized as living in low (1-49) or high (50-100) ADI residences, with increasing scores indicating higher socioeconomic disadvantage. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Among 1675 patients 1061 (63.3%) resided in low ADI areas and 614 (36.7%) high ADI areas. Appendiceal tumors (n = 1102, 65.8%) and colon cancer (n = 322, 19.2%) were the most common histologies. On multivariate analysis, high ADI was not associated with increased perioperative complications, hospital/ICU LOS, or DFS. High ADI was associated with worse OS (median not reached versus 49 months; 5 year OS 61.0% versus 28.2%, P < 0.0001). On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, high ADI (HR, 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.50; P < 0.001), cancer recurrence (HR, 2.26; 95% CI 1.61-3.20; P < 0.0001), increases in peritoneal carcinomatosis index (HR, 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; P < 0.001), and incomplete cytoreduction (HR, 4.48; 95% CI 3.01-6.53; P < 0.0001) were associated with worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: Even after controlling for cancer-specific variables, adverse outcomes persisted in association with neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage. The individual and structural-level factors leading to these cancer disparities warrant further investigation to improve outcomes for all patients with peritoneal malignancies.

Identifying Core Principles of Palliative Care Consultation in Surgical Patients and Potential Knowledge Gaps for Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine is an important component of care for patients with advanced cancer. Previous studies demonstrated that surgeons tend to underuse palliative care in comparison with medical services. In addition, little is known about the specific use of palliative care services among surgical oncology practices. Therefore, we designed and performed this study to evaluate the use of palliative care in medical and surgical oncology patients. STUDY DESIGN: A single-institution retrospective review of consecutive palliative care consultations within a large National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in 2016 to 2017 was conducted. RESULTS: We analyzed 120 patients (60 surgical and 60 medical). Patient demographics in the 2 groups were similar. The surgical oncology patients were more likely to undergo consultation for advanced care planning (32% vs 13%; p = 0.02). Medical oncology patients were more likely to undergo consultation for pain management (97% vs 62%; p < 0.001). Symptom assessment scores for medical patients more frequently demonstrated dyspnea and malignancy-related pain than in surgical patients. Also, palliative care recommendations and interventions for surgical patients more frequently included end-of-life discussions and transfer to the inpatient palliative care unit. For medical oncology patients, recommendations more often included changes in pain and bowel regimen medication. In addition, despite more frequent consults for advanced care planning in the surgical patients, code status was changed to DNR more frequently in the medical patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical patients were less likely to undergo palliative care consultation for assistance with symptom management and more likely to undergo consultation for assistance with end-of-life discussions than were medical oncology patients. Advanced care planning and end-of-life discussions should be an area of focus in palliative care education for surgeons.