A novel preoperative risk score to optimize patient selection for performing concomitant liver resection with cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC.

BACKGROUND: While parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: Patients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0-1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non-LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2-year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10-11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69-12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21-9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2-year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: As CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.

The impact of financial toxicity in gastrointestinal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Biopsychosocial distress screening is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Financial issues are a common source of distress in this patient population. This study uses a biopsychosocial distress screening tool to determine the factors associated with financial toxicity and the impact of these stressors on gastrointestinal cancer patients. METHODS: A 48-question, proprietary distress screening tool was administered to patients with gastrointestinal malignancies from 2009 to 2015. This validated, electronically-administered tool is given to all new patients. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (very severe problem), with responses rated at ≥3 indicative of distress. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Most of the 1,027 patients had colorectal (50%) or hepatobiliary (31%) malignancies. Additionally, 34% of all patients expressed a high level of financial toxicity. Age greater than 65 (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-0.86, P < .01), college education (odds ratio: 0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.73, P < .0001), being partnered (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.84, P < .01), and annual income greater than $40,000 (odds ratio: 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.38, P < .0001) were all protective against financial toxicity on univariate analysis. Also, heavy tobacco use was associated significantly with increased distress on univariate analysis (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-5.78, P < .01). With the exception of partnered status (odds ratio: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.85, P = .46), all these variables retained their significant association with financial toxicity in the multivariate model. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity impacts a large number of cancer patients. Further study of at-risk populations may identify patients who would benefit from pre-emptive education and counseling interventions as part of their routine cancer care.