Peritoneal carcinomatosis: intraoperative parameters in open (coliseum) versus closed abdomen HIPEC.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is associated with a poor prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC play an important role in well-selected patients with PC. The aim of the study is to present the differences in the intraoperative parameters in patients who received HIPEC in two different manners, open versus closed abdomen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The population includes 105 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal, gastric, and ovarian cancer, sarcoma, mesothelioma, and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Group A (n = 60) received HIPEC using the open technique and Group B (n = 45) received HIPEC with the closed technique. The main end points were morbidity, mortality, and overall hospital stay. RESULTS: There were two postoperative deaths (3.3%) in the open group versus no deaths in the closed group. Twenty-two patients in the open group (55%) had grade III-IV complications versus 18 patients in the closed group (40%). There are more stable intraoperative conditions in the closed abdomen HIPEC in CVP, pulse rate, and systolic pressure parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods are equal in the HIPEC procedures. Perhaps the closed method is the method of choice for frail patients due to more stable hemodynamic parameters.

Reoperation combining re-cytoreductive surgery and re-HIPEC for recurrent peritoneal carcinomatosis.

PURPOSE: Cytoreductive surgery (CS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is the proper treatment for resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative course and long-term outcome of repeat CS (reCS) plus repeat HIPEC (reHIPEC) in patients with recurrent disease, after primary CS plus primary HIPEC. METHODS: From 2004 to 2012 85 patients were subjected to primary CS + HIPEC. Fourteen of those patients developed recurrent PC and were subjected to reCS+reHIPEC during the same time period. Eligibility criteria included limited extent of the peritoneal disease, and interval of more than 12 months from the primary CS+HIPEC. The origins of the tumors were ovarian cancer (n=7) colorectal cancer (n=3), pseudomyxoma peritonei (n=3), and uterine sarcoma (n=1). RESULTS: At second laparotomy, mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 5.3 + 2.8. Among the 14 procedures, HIPEC was used in all patients. The postoperative mortality was 0% and grade 3-4 postoperative complications occurred in 4 patients. The overall 1-, 2- and 3- year overall survival rate was 90, 40 and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ReCS+reHIPEC is feasible and yields an accepted survival in highly selected patients.

The role of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of recurrent advanced ovarian cancer: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecological cancer. The current treatment of this type of cancer consists of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and systemic chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to examine if the hyperthermic intraoperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an alternative modality to treat this category of patients along with a second attempt of surgical resection and second or third line systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: Forty-eight patients suffering from advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO stages III and IV) who recurred after initial treatment with conservative or debulking surgery and systemic chemotherapy were included in this study. Twenty-four patients (group A) were treated with CRS followed by HIPEC and then systemic chemotherapy. Due to various reasons the remaining 24 patients (group B) were treated with CRS and systemic chemotherapy alone. RESULTS: The median survival for group A was 19.4 months vs. 11.2 months in group B (p <0.05). One-year survival was 85% in group A vs. 35% in group B (p <0.05). The 3-year survival rate was 50% in group A vs. 18%. in group B (p <0.01). The resection status was found to be a significant predictor of overall survival (p <0.05). Patients with peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score < 15 appeared also to have longer survival. CONCLUSION: The use of HIPEC along with the extent of the disease and the extent of cytoreduction play an important role in the survival of patients with a recurrence in an initially advanced ovarian cancer.

Morbidity and mortality of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis.

PURPOSE: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), which has been regarded as a lethal condition, may now be treated, achieving a long-term disease-free survival with cytoreductive surgery by treating macroscopic tumor seeding and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) by treating residual microscopic disease. The purpose of this study was to analyse the morbidity and mortality of this procedure. METHODS: A total of 39 consecutive patients were included in this retrospective study. After complete resection of the PC, HIPEC was performed via the coliseum technique. The chemotherapeutic agents used depended on the tumors' histology. RESULTS: Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 5.1%% (2/39) and 43.5% (17/39), respectively. The most frequent complications were pulmonary complications (31%), gastrointestinal fistulas (20%), hematologic toxicity (16%) and postoperative bleeding (11%). Statistical correlations were evidenced between morbidity and PC index (p<0.004), duration of surgery (p<0.001) and blood loss (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: This approach has resulted in a relatively high but acceptable percent of adverse events considering the expected advantage for survival.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Preliminary results and cost from two centers in Greece.

PURPOSE: To report our preliminary experience in the combined treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) using cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study included patients with PC from gynaecological, gastric and colon cancer, treated in two centers. Cytoreductive surgery included the peritonectomy procedures described by Jacquet and Sugarbaker as well as multivisceral resections in order to achieve a complete macroscopical cancer eradication. The HIPEC that followed was performed via the open abdomen technique. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (3 men and 21 women, mean age 60 years) were treated. Twelve patients had PC from ovarian cancer, 7 from colon, 3 from gastric and 2 from uterine cancer. The mean duration of the procedure was 7.83 h (range 5 -12.30). Macroscopically, complete cytoreduction (CC) was achieved in 18 (75%) patients. Two (8.3%) patients died in the first 30 days. The overall morbidity was 42% and 2 patients were reoperated. The mean follow up was 22 months (range 3-36). The overall 1-year survival was 59.1%; concerning the gynaecological cancers it was 53.8% (mean survival 11.7 months) and for gastrointestinal cancers it was 44.4% (mean survival 9.5 months). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data suggest that the combined treatment of cytoreduction plus HIPEC for PC is associated with acceptable mortality and morbidity and offers an improved survival in these patients. An optimal patient selection and establishment of experienced centres are of paramount importance.