Defining Benchmarks for Pelvic Exenteration Surgery: A Multicentre Analysis of Patients with Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary (LARC) and recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. BACKGROUND DATA: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. METHODS: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. RESULTS: 763 patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARC and 299 (39%) had LRRC. 544 patients (71%) who met predefined lower risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For LARC patients, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; comprehensive complication index (CCI): ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For LRRC patients, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; CCI: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. CONCLUSIONS: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

Risk of Postoperative Ischemic Stroke and Myocardial Infarction in Patients Operated for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment for ischemic stroke (IS) and myocardial infarction (MI) is done routinely before surgery, but the increase in risks associated with surgery is not known. The aim of this study is to assess the risk of arterial ischemic events during the first year after oncological surgery. METHODS: We used Swedish healthcare databases to identify 443,300 patients who underwent cancer surgery between 1987 and 2016 and 4,127,761 matched comparison subjects. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke during the hospitalization with logistic regression and calculated 1-year cumulative incidences and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes after discharge. RESULTS: The cumulative incidences of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke during the first postoperative year were 1.33% and 1.25%, respectively. In the comparison cohort, the corresponding 1-year cumulative incidences were 1.04% and 1.00%. During the hospitalization, the OR for myocardial infarction was 8.81 (95% CI 8.24-9.42) and the OR for ischemic stroke was 6.71 (95% CI 6.22-7.23). After discharge, the average HR during follow-up for 365 days was 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) for myocardial infarction and 1.02 (95% CI 0.99-1.05) for ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: We found an overall increased risk of IS and MI during the first year after cancer surgery that was attributable to events occurring during the hospitalization period. After discharge from the hospital, the overall risk of myocardial infarction was lower among the cancer surgery patients than among matched comparison subjects.

Patient reported long-term side effects on bowel function and anal pain in anal cancer survivors - 3- and 6-year results from the Swedish national ANCA study.

AIM: The primary therapeutic option for anal cancer treatment is chemoradiotherapy resulting in 80% survival. The aim of this study was to assess long-term bowel function impairment and anal pain at 3 and 6 years after anal cancer diagnosis, based on a hypothesis of an increase in impairment over time. A secondary aim was to investigate if chemoradiotherapy increased the risk for bowel impairment, compared to radiotherapy alone. METHOD: The ANal CAncer study (ANCA) consists of a national Swedish cohort of patients diagnosed with anal cancer between 2011-2013. Patients within the study were invited to respond to a study-specific questionnaire at 3- and 6-years after diagnosis. Descriptive analyses for the primary endpoint and ordinal logistic regressions for secondary endpoint were performed. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients (84%) were included in the study. At 3 years of follow-up, 264 patients were alive. A total of 195 of these patients (74%) answered a study specific questionnaire, and at 6 years 154 patients (67%). Fifty-seven percent experienced bowel urgency at both 3 and 6 years. There was an increased risk for repeated bowel movement within 1 h (OR 2.44 [95% CI: 1.08-5.61, p = 0.03]) at 3 years in patients who had been treated by chemoradiation compared to radiotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Impairment in bowel function and anal pain after anal cancer treatment should be expected and remains after 6 years. This suggests that long-term follow-up may be necessary in some form after customary follow-up. The addition of chemotherapy increases long-term side effects of bowel function.

Patient reported long-term side effects from treatment on urinary and sexual function in anal cancer survivors - 3- and 6-year results from the Swedish national ANCA study.

AIM: The standard treatment for anal cancer is chemoradiotherapy. Most patients survive anal cancer but remain living with long-term side effects related to the treatment received. The aim of this study was to assess the occurrence of long-term impairment of urinary and sexual function at 3 and 6 years after diagnosis and to investigate the additive effect from chemotherapy in combined chemoradiotherapy on urinary incontinence, compared to radiotherapy alone. METHOD: The ANal CAncer study (ANCA) is based on a national Swedish cohort of patients diagnosed with anal cancer between 2011 and 2013. All identified patients within the study were invited to respond to a study-specific questionnaire at 3 and 6 years. Descriptive analyses for the primary endpoint were performed. To investigate a possible additional effect from chemotherapy logistic regression was used. RESULTS: A total of 388 patients were included in the study. At 3 years 264 patients were alive and invited to respond to an anal cancer specific questionnaire. The 3- and 6 year response rates were 195 (74%) and 155 patients (67%), respectively. The patient reported urinary function impairment at 3 years were urgency (63%), incomplete bladder emptying (47%), and incontinence (46%) and there was an absolute increase of the prevalence of urinary dysfunction in about 10% at 6 years. Three years after diagnosis, 77% reported that intercourse was not part of their sex life; this percentage increased at 6 years to 83%. We found no negative effect of chemotherapy in combined chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone on patient reported urinary incontinence. CONCLUSION: For anal cancer survivors, urinary function was impaired after 3 years and continued to deteriorate as measured at 6 years after diagnosis. Anal cancer and its treatment negatively affected sexual function for both men and women. This may explain why patients reported that sexual activity and frequency of intercourse was not of importance in their life.

Locoregional Failure During and After Short-course Radiotherapy Followed by Chemotherapy and Surgery Compared With Long-course Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery: A 5-Year Follow-up of the RAPIDO Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze risk and patterns of locoregional failure (LRF) in patients of the RAPIDO trial at 5 years. BACKGROUND: Multimodality treatment improves local control in rectal cancer. Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) aims to improve systemic control while local control is maintained. At 3 years, LRF rate was comparable between TNT and chemoradiotherapy in the RAPIDO trial. METHODS: A total of 920 patients were randomized between an experimental (EXP, short-course radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery) and a standard-care group (STD, chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and optional postoperative chemotherapy). LRFs, including early LRF (no resection except for organ preservation/R2 resection) and locoregional recurrence (LRR) after an R0/R1 resection, were analyzed. RESULTS: Totally, 460 EXP and 446 STD patients were eligible. At 5.6 years (median follow-up), LRF was detected in 54/460 (12%) and 36/446 (8%) patients in the EXP and STD groups, respectively ( P =0.07), in which EXP patients were more often treated with 3-dimensional-conformed radiotherapy ( P =0.029). In the EXP group, LRR was detected more often [44/431 (10%) vs. 26/428 (6%); P =0.027], with more often a breached mesorectum (9/44 (21%) vs. 1/26 (4); P =0.048). The EXP treatment, enlarged lateral lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margin, tumor deposits, and node positivity at pathology were the significant predictors for developing LRR. Location of the LRRs was similar between groups. Overall survival after LRF was comparable [hazard ratio: 0.76 (95% CI, 0.46-1.26); P =0.29]. CONCLUSIONS: The EXP treatment was associated with an increased risk of LRR, whereas the reduction in disease-related treatment failure and distant metastases remained after 5 years. Further refinement of the TNT in rectal cancer is mandated.

Watch and wait after neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: comparison of outcomes in patients with and without a complete response at first reassessment in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD).

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer, watch and wait for patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment has an established evidence base. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and management of a near-cCR. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients who achieved a cCR at first reassessment versus later reassessment. METHODS: This registry study included patients from the International Watch & Wait Database. Patients were categorized as having a cCR at first reassessment or at later reassessment (that is near-cCR at first reassessment) based on MRI and endoscopy. Organ preservation, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Subgroup analyses were done for near-cCR groups based on the response evaluation according to modality. RESULTS: A total of 1010 patients were identified. At first reassessment, 608 patients had a cCR; 402 had a cCR at later reassessment. Median follow-up was 2.6 years for patients with a cCR at first reassessment and 2.9 years for those with a cCR at later reassessment. The 2-year organ preservation rate was 77.8 (95 per cent c.i. 74.2 to 81.5) and 79.3 (75.1 to 83.7) per cent respectively (P = 0.499). Similarly, no differences were found between groups in distant metastasis-free survival or overall survival rate. Subgroup analyses showed a higher organ preservation rate in the group with a near-cCR categorized exclusively by MRI. CONCLUSION: Oncological outcomes for patients with a cCR at later reassessment are no worse than those of patients with a cCR at first reassessment.

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. METHODS: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting. KEY POINTS: • Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. • These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Patient-reported QoL in anal cancer survivors 3 and 6 years after treatment-results from the Swedish national ANCA study.

PURPOSE: The impact of anal cancer treatment for the patients is best evaluated by the patients themselves. The purpose of this study was to investigate quality of life (QoL) in patients with anal cancer at 3 and 6 years after treatment. METHODS: A Swedish national cross-sectional prospective cohort study with patients diagnosed with anal cancer between 2011 and 2013. Patients were invited to respond to a QoL questionnaire at 3 and 6 years, with focus on bowel, urinary and sexual function, social and mental function, co-morbidity, lifestyle, daily activities, personal characteristics, and perceived QoL. It also contained questions on the severity of the symptoms regarding occurrence, frequency, and duration and the level of "bother" experienced related to functional symptoms. QoL and prevalence of bother with urinary, sexual, bowel dysfunction, and anal pain were described. The prevalence of impaired QoL was compared with a healthy reference population. The association between QoL and experiencing bother was quantified by regression models. RESULTS: From an original cohort of 464 patients with anal cancer, 264 (57%) were alive and contacted at 3 years and 230 (50%) at 6 years. One hundred ninety-five (74%) patients responded to the 3-year and 152 (66%) to the 6-year questionnaire. Sixty percent reported low QoL at both 3 and 6 years. Impaired QoL was more prevalent among patients with major bother due to bowel dysfunction (at 3 years RR 1.42, 95% CI (1.06-1.9) p-value 0.020, at 6 years RR 1.52, 95% CI (1.03-2.24) p-value 0.034) and urinary dysfunction (at 6 years RR 1.44, 95% CI (1.08-1.91) p-value 0.013). There was a tendency to a positive relationship between the number of bodily functions causing bother and risk for impaired QoL. CONCLUSION: Patients treated for anal cancer reported bother regarding several bodily functions as well as poor QoL both at 3 and 6 years without much improvement. Bother was also associated with low QoL indicating that function-related bother should be addressed.

Short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15-21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3-14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01558921, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5-5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8-27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1-34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression). INTERPRETATION: The observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

Perineal healing following salvage surgery for anal cancer.

AIM: Approximately 25% of anal cancer patients undergo abdominoperineal excision or more extensive surgery. Following surgery, a high perineal complication rate has been reported. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based multimodal interventional programme introduced to mitigate the risk of complications. This study aims to describe perineal healing in relation to ERAS compliance, type of resection and method of perineal reconstruction in patients with anal cancer after salvage surgery. METHOD: This is a retrospective cohort study including all patients undergoing abdominal surgery for squamous cell anal cancer in Stockholm between January 2005 and December 2015. Data collection was from registers supplemented by chart review. All patients were followed until death or 1 year after surgery. The associations between ERAS compliance, patient and treatment characteristics and perineal wound healing were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients (67 women) were included, of whom 72 were ERAS compliant. Of patients alive, healing after surgery occurred in 61/98 and 84/89 at 3 months and 1 year, respectively. Perineal healing at 3 months was statistically significantly associated with younger age and type of perineal reconstruction (in favour of vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap). No associations were observed at 1 year but almost all wounds were healed. CONCLUSION: Age and type of perineal reconstruction appear to be significantly associated with improved healing at 3 months whereas compliance to an ERAS protocol and type of resection do not. Nearly all patients had a fully healed perineal wound 1 year after surgery for anal cancer.

Differences in management and outcome for colon and rectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: a population-based cohort study.

AIM: Surgical treatment of colorectal cancer with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM) can follow three different strategies with regard to the timing of liver resection. The aim of this study was to describe the selection of surgical strategy, focusing on differences between colon and rectal cancer with SCRLM, postoperative morbidity/mortality and survival. METHOD: This was a retrospective population-based study of patients with SCRLM registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry in the Stockholm/Gotland region during 2010-2017 and treated with surgical resection of the primary tumour and liver metastases (LM). Patients were followed for 5 years or censored at 22 November 2018. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Patients with rectal cancer were treated with the 'liver first' strategy in 70% of cases, whereas the main treatment strategies for colonic tumours were 'simultaneous resection' (44%) and 'primary first' (37%). Rectal cancer had a superior 5-year survival rate compared with colon tumours with SCRLM (62 vs. 47%; p = 0.033). There was no difference in survival between treatment strategies irrespective of primary tumour location. Postoperative complications occurred most commonly among rectal tumours treated with simultaneous resection (p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Patients with rectal cancer and SCRLM were more often treated with the 'liver first' strategy than patients with colon cancer. Patients with rectal cancer and SCRLM where both primary tumour and LM were operated on had significantly better survival than corresponding patients with colon cancer.

Perineal Wound Closure Using Biological Mesh Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision.

AIMS: This study aimed to describe the short-term perineal healing rates in patients with perineal reconstruction using a biological mesh following extralevator abdominoperineal excision (elAPE). METHODS: In a retrospective, descriptive single-centre cohort study, 88 consecutive patients treated with elAPE and perineal closure using a biological mesh between January 2011 and December 2015 were reviewed. All available data from electronic hospital records was collected. Patients were followed for 1 year following surgery and perineal wound status assessed at 3 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: In total, 63 patients were male and all but 8 patients were treated for primary rectal cancer. All patients but 3 had received radiotherapy prior to surgery. Multivisceral excisions were performed in 19 patients. Omentoplasty was performed in 55 patients and 3 different types of meshes were used during the study period. At 3 months, 58 patients (66%) had a healed perineum. No association was detected between patient, tumour or perioperative characteristics and perineal wound status at 3 months. At 1 year, 4 patients were deceased and among the remaining 84, the perineal wound was healed in 77 patients (92%). CONCLUSION: The use of biological meshes in perineal reconstruction following elAPE is feasible and safe, and the perineal wound is healed in the majority of the patients within 3 months.

Neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer: comprehensive review.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has an established role in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. However, its role continues to evolve due to both advances in the available treatment modalities, and refinements in the indications for neoadjuvant treatment and subsequent surgery. METHODS: A narrative review of the most recent relevant literature was conducted. RESULTS: Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have an established role in improving local but not systemic disease control in patients with rectal cancer. Total neoadjuvant therapy offers advantages over short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy, not only in terms of increased local response but also in reducing the risk of systemic relapses. Non-operative management is increasingly preferred to surgery in patients with rectal cancer and clinical complete responses but is still associated with some negative impacts on functional outcomes. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be of some benefit in patients with locally advanced colon cancer with proficient mismatch repair, although patient selection is a major challenge. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with deficient mismatch repair cancers in the colon or rectum is altering the treatment paradigm for these patients. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatments for patients with colon or rectal cancers continue to evolve, increasing the complexity of decision-making for patients and clinicians alike. This review describes the current guidance and most recent developments.

Secondary cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for recurrent colorectal peritoneal metastases.

Background: Secondary treatment of recurrent colorectal peritoneal metastases after previous cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is poorly investigated. Objectives: To evaluate the overall survival outcome of secondary (repeat) CRS + HIPEC compared to palliative treatment in recurrent peritoneal disease. Methods: Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases treated with an index CRS + HIPEC and subsequently having recurrent peritoneal disease were identified from the prospective Swedish national HIPEC registry. Patients were divided into interventional group (secondary CRS + HIPEC) or palliative group. Multivariable logistic regression, propensity-score matching, and survival outcomes were calculated. Results: Among 575 patients who underwent complete CRS between 2010 and 2021, 208 (36 %) were diagnosed with a subsequent recurrent peritoneal disease. Forty-two patients (20 %) were offered secondary CRS + HIPEC. Propensity-score matching of secondary interventional cases with palliative cases succeeded in 88 % (n = 37) in which female sex, lower peritoneal cancer index at index surgery, longer disease-free interval, and absence of extra-peritoneal metastases were identified as the most relevant matching covariates. Median OS from date of recurrence was 38 months (95%CI 30-58) in the interventional group and 19 months (95%CI: 15-24) in the palliative group (HR 0.35 95%CI: 0.20-0.63, p = 0.0004). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. As reference, the median OS from index CRS + HIPEC in the whole colorectal registry (n = 575) was 41 months (95%CI: 38-45). Conclusion: After matching for relevant factors, the hazard ratio for death was significantly reduced in patients who were offered a secondary CRS + HIPEC procedure for recurrent peritoneal disease. Selection bias is inherent, but survival outcomes were comparable to those achieved after the initial procedure.