Surgical Options for Peritoneal Surface Metastases from Digestive Malignancies-A Comprehensive Review.

The peritoneum is a common site for the dissemination of digestive malignancies, particularly gastric, colorectal, appendix, or pancreatic cancer. Other tumors such as cholangiocarcinomas, digestive neuroendocrine tumors, or gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) may also associate with peritoneal surface metastases (PSM). Peritoneal dissemination is proven to worsen the prognosis of these patients. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS), along with systemic chemotherapy, have been shown to constitute a survival benefit in selected patients with PSM. Furthermore, the association of CRS with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) seems to significantly improve the prognosis of patients with certain types of digestive malignancies associated with PSM. However, the benefit of CRS with HIPEC is still controversial, especially due to the significant morbidity associated with this procedure. According to the results of the PRODIGE 7 trial, CRS for PSM from colorectal cancer (CRC) achieved overall survival (OS) rates higher than 40 months, but the addition of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC failed to improve the long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the PROPHYLOCHIP and COLOPEC trials failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC for preventing peritoneal metastases development in high-risk patients operated for CRC. In this review, we discuss the limitations of these studies and the reasons why these results are not sufficient to refute this technique, until future well-designed trials evaluate the impact of different HIPEC regimens. In contrast, in pseudomyxoma peritonei, CRS plus HIPEC represents the gold standard therapy, which is able to achieve 10-year OS rates ranging between 70 and 80%. For patients with PSM from gastric carcinoma, CRS plus HIPEC achieved median OS rates higher than 40 months after complete cytoreduction in patients with a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) ≤6. However, the data have not yet been validated in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the controversies regarding the most efficient drugs that should be used for HIPEC and the duration of the procedure. We also discuss the current evidence and controversies related to the benefit of CRS (and HIPEC) in patients with PSM from other digestive malignancies. Although it is a palliative treatment, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) significantly increases OS in patients with unresectable PSM from gastric cancer and represents a promising approach for patients with PSM from other digestive cancers.

Preoperative risk score (PreopScore) to predict overall survival after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop a holistic risk score incorporating preoperative tumor, liver, nutritional, and inflammatory markers to predict overall survival (OS) after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified using an international multi-institutional database. Preoperative predictors associated with OS were selected and a prognostic risk score model (PreopScore) was developed and validated using cross-validation. RESULTS: A total of 1676 patients were included. On multivariable analysis, preoperative parameters associated with OS included α-feto protein (hazard ratio [HR]1.17, 95%CI 1.03-1.34), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR2.62, 95%CI 1.30-5.30), albumin (HR0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.70), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (HR1.00, 95%CI 1.00-1.00), as well as vascular involvement (HR3.52, 95%CI 2.10-5.89) and tumor burden score (medium, HR3.49, 95%CI 1.62-7.58; high, HR3.21, 95%CI 1.40-7.35) on preoperative imaging. A weighted PreopScore was devised and made available online (https://yutaka-endo.shinyapps.io/PrepoScore_Shiny/). Patients with a PreopScore 0-2, 2-3.5, and >3.5 had incrementally worse 5-year OS of 85.8%, 70.7%, and 52.4%, respectively (p < 0.001). The c-index of the test and validation cohort were 0.75 and 0.71, respectively. The PreopScore outperformed individual parameters and previous HCC staging systems. DISCUSSION: The PreopScore can be used as a better guide to preoperatively identify patients and individualize pre-/post-operative strategies.

Assessment of clinical and pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal adenocarcinoma and its therapeutic implications.

Because almost one fourth of patients with rectal adenocarcinoma (RC) achieve pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT), having significantly higher survival rates than those without pCR, the assessment of pCR represents a highly important challenge nowadays. Moreover, recent studies revealed that organ-sparing approaches could represent a reasonable alternative to radical surgery (RS) in patients with pCR, achieving similar long-term outcomes with lower morbidity rates and improved quality of life. Unfortunately, the decision of a rectum-sparing approach should be based only on clinical, endoscopic (with or without biopsy) and radiological methods, that must accurately predict the pCR after neoadjuvant CRT, in the absence of the pathological examination of the RS specimen. Thus, a surrogate parameter called clinical complete response (cCR) emerged, to assess the results of neoadjuvant CRT. The evolving accuracy of recent endoscopic and imaging methods in assessment of cCR and their predictive value for estimation of pCR achievement are presented. The usefulness of combining the results of these evaluation methods (resulting in the development of few nomograms) for a more accurate estimation of pCR, as well as the predictive factors for pCR achievement are also debated. Moreover, the changing landscape of therapeutic approaches based on cCR assessment is discussed, emphasizing the advantages and pitfalls of rectum-sparing approaches, compared to RS. Because there are no reliable methods to estimate with 100% accuracy the pCR, the only way to decrease as much as possible the risk of misleading treatment choices is the multidisciplinary team-based decision.

Aggressive surgical approach in patients with adrenal-only metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma enables higher survival rates than standard systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines recommend systemic therapy even in patients with limited extrahepatic metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a few recent studies suggested a potential benefit for resection of extrahepatic metastases. However, the benefit of adrenal resection (AR) for adrenal-only metastases (AOM) from HCC was not proved yet. This is the first study to compare long-term outcomes of AR to those of sorafenib in patients with AOM from HCC. METHODS: The patients with adrenal metastases (AM) from HCC were identified from the electronic records of the institution between January 2002 and December 2018. Those who presented AM and other sites of extrahepatic disease were excluded. Furthermore, the patients with AOM who received other therapies than AR or sorafenib were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients with AM from HCC were treated. Out of these, 22 patients had AOM, 6 receiving other treatment than AR or sorafenib. Eventually, 8 patients with AOM underwent AR (AR group), while 8 patients were treated with sorafenib (SOR group). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different in terms of age, sex, number and size of the primary tumor, timing of AM diagnosis, Child-Pugh and ECOG status. After a median follow-up of 15.5 months, in the AR group, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates (85.7%, 42.9%, and 0%, respectively) were significantly higher than those achieved in the SOR group (62.5%, 0% and 0% at 1-, 3- and 5-year, respectively) (P = 0.009). The median progression-free survival after AR (14 months) was significantly longer than that after sorafenib therapy (6 months, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AOM from HCC, AR was associated with significantly higher overall and progression-free survival rates than systemic therapy with sorafenib. These results could represent a starting-point for future phase II/III clinical trials.