Complexity of surgery and treatment burden in patients with peritoneal malignancy is not determined by addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This study describes surgical and quality of life outcomes in patients with peritoneal malignancy treated by cytoreductive surgery (CRS) alone compared with a subgroup treated with CRS and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). METHODS: Peritoneal malignancy patients undergoing surgery between 2017 and 2023 were included. The cohort was divided into patients treated by CRS and HIPEC and those treated by CRS without HIPEC (including CRS only or maximal tumour debulking (MTB)). Main outcomes included surgical outcomes, survival, and quality of life. Groups were compared using non-parametric tests and log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. RESULTS: 403 had CRS and HIPEC, 25 CRS only and 15 MTB. CRS and HIPEC patients had a lower peritoneal carcinomatosis index (12.0 vs. 17.0 vs. 35.0; P < 0.001) and longer surgical operative time (9.3 vs. 8.3 vs. 5.2 h; P < 0.001), when compared to CRS only and MTB, respectively. No other significant difference between groups was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of selected patients with resectable peritoneal malignancy incorporates a combined strategy of CRS and HIPEC. When HIPEC is not utilized, due to significant residual disease or comorbidity precluding safe delivery, CRS alone is associated with good outcomes. Hospital stay and complications are acceptable but not significantly different to the CRS and HIPEC group. CRS alone is a complex intervention requiring comparable resources with good outcomes. In view of our findings 'intention to treat' with CRS and HIPEC should be the basis for resource allocation and funding.

Outcome Heterogeneity in Prehabilitation Trials-Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decade, the number of prehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has increased significantly. Therefore, this review aimed to describe the outcomes reported in prehabilitation RCTs in patients undergoing cancer surgery. METHODS: A search was conducted in Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to July 2021. We included RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions on postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in adult oncology patients who underwent thoracic and gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The verbatim outcomes reported in each article were extracted, and each outcome was assessed to determine whether it was defined and measured using a validated tool. Verbatim outcomes were grouped into standardized outcomes and categorized into domains. The quality of outcome reporting in each identified article was assessed using the Harman tool (score range 0-6, where 0 indicated the poorest quality). RESULTS: A total of 74 RCTs were included, from which 601 verbatim outcomes were extracted. Only 110 (18.3%) of the verbatim outcomes were defined and 270 (44.9%) were labeled as either "primary" or "secondary" outcomes. Verbatim outcomes were categorized into 119 standardized outcomes and assigned into one of five domains (patient-reported outcomes, surgical outcomes, physical/functional outcomes, disease activity, and intervention delivery). Surgical outcomes were the most common outcomes reported (n = 71 trials, 95.9%). The overall quality of the reported outcomes was poor across trials (median score: 2.0 [IQR = 0.00-3.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation RCTs display considerable heterogeneity in outcome reporting, and low outcome reporting quality. The development of standardized core outcome sets may help improve article quality and enhance the clinical utility of prehabilitation following cancer surgery.