Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Recirculation with CO2: A Safe Technique.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) has evolved as a treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis in various tumors after a careful and complete cytoreductive surgery, and it demonstrated much better and longer survival than more traditional therapeutic schemas. Our objective has been to examine the safety, efficacy and survival achieved with closed technique with CO2-agitation system Combat PRS® (Peritoneal Recirculation System: PRS). To achieve this, we compared the appearance of adverse events, mortality and survival with the described using classic techniques (open, closed without CO2-agitation) for the treatment of selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis; Materials and methods: We studied overall survival, disease-free survival and safety (morbidity and mortality) of the administration of HIPEC through a closed method technique with CO2 recirculation (Combat PRS®) in 482 patients from 11 Spanish hospitals; Results: The mortality of our technique (1.66%) was similar to other published techniques (open, closed). Morbidity exhibited a 9.96% rate of Clavien-Dindo (CD) III/IV complications in 482 patients, which was lower than in other series. Survival (overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)) was similar to previously published results: 86% 1y-OS, 54% 3y-OS, 77% 1y-DFS and 31% 3y-DFS; Conclusion: The procedure with closed PRS with CO2 agitation is as safe as standard open and closed procedures for the administration of HIPEC after complete cytoreductive surgery, with similar and very low mortality (1.66%) and lower morbidity (9.96% CD III and IV in our series vs range of 20-40% in the majority of different series); only Kusamura had similar results, with 12% in 205 patients, using the closed technique without CO2 agitation).

Unusual Case of Gallbladder Adenocarcinoma Metastasis to the Abdominal Wall 11 Years Later: Synchronous Presentation with Two Malignant Colon Tumors, Coincidence or Not?

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall masses are a common finding in clinical practice. A high percentage of these masses are malignant. We present the case of a patient operated for a gallbladder adenocarcinoma, who consulted eleven years later for a malignant mass of the abdominal wall in synchrony with two adenocarcinomas of the left colon and sigmoid. Case Report. A 75-year-old male underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy with an incidental diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ (TisN0M0 according to AJCC 8th edition). The operative report mentioned that the removal of the gallbladder was difficult due to the inflammatory process, and the gallbladder was accidentally opened during the operation. It was not clear from the operative report whether an extraction bag was utilized to remove the specimen, but the histopathological study confirmed an open gallbladder. He presented 11 years later with an asymptomatic heterogeneous complex cystic mass involving the anterior rectus abdominis muscle. Colonoscopy showed synchronous tumors in the descending and sigmoid colon with pathology confirming adenocarcinoma. The patient underwent an elective laparotomy with resection of the anterior abdominal wall mass, left hemicolectomy, and sigmoidectomy. The histopathological results of the abdominal mass (CK7, CK20, EMA, CEA positive) were described as metastasis of adenocarcinoma of biliary origin. Discussion. Port site recurrences are rare complications following laparoscopic surgery when malignancy is unsuspected. Possible factors related to local implantation include direct seeding of spilled bile or tumor cells into the wound or shedding of tumor cells due to pneumoperitoneum-induced loss of the peritoneal barrier at the trocar site. In the absence of distant metastasis, treatment should include wide port site excision with malignancy-free surgical margins. CONCLUSION: Abdominal wall metastasis from gallbladder carcinoma is rare, and its synchronous presentation with a malignant neoplasm of the colon is exceptional. This is the first report of a patient with abdominal wall metastasis from a gallbladder adenocarcinoma operated eleven years ago that debuted synchronously with two adenocarcinomas of the left colon and sigma.

¿Qué hacer ante una neoplasia mucinosa papilar intraductal de páncreas? Nuestra experiencia / What to do with an intraductal papilary mucinous pancreatic neoplasm? Our experience

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las neoplasias quísticas pancreáticas representan un grupo heterogéneo de enfermedades, donde la neoplasia mucinosa papilar intraductal está alcanzando protagonismo. El objetivo del estudio es revisar nuestra serie de neoplasias quísticas pancreáticas intervenidas y valorar la concordancia con las recomendaciones de Fukuoka. MÉTODOS: Revisamos de forma retrospectiva nuestra experiencia analizando los datos clínicos y radiológicos, la indicación quirúrgica y el estudio histológico de los 11 pacientes intervenidos en nuestro centro desde julio de 2011 a julio de 2015 por esta enfermedad, con el objetivo de valorar la concordancia con los consensos actuales. RESULTADOS: En nuestra serie la mayoría de los casos (7/11) presentaban síntomas al diagnóstico. El diagnóstico preoperatorio se alcanzó en 10 pacientes mediante radiología y/o ecoendoscopia. Las indicaciones quirúrgicas fueron presencia de síntomas, datos radiológicos de sospecha de malignidad y neoplasia de rama secundaria asintomática mayor a 30mm. Los hallazgos en estudio histológico fueron de malignidad en 6/11 (2 neoplasia invasiva, 4 displasia de alto grado), displasia moderada en 2/11, displasia de bajo grado en 2/11 y ausencia de displasia en un paciente. CONCLUSIONES: La indicación quirúrgica de las neoplasias mucinosas papilares intraductales de páncreas depende de los síntomas asociados, dimensiones, localización, riesgo y sospecha de malignidad

INTRODUCTION: Cystic pancreatic neoplasms are a heterogeneous group of pathology, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia is becoming more common. The aim of this study is to review our series of cystic pancreatic neoplasms that underwent surgery and to evaluate the similarities with Fukuoka recommendations. METHODS: Retrospective review of our experience analyzing clinical and radiological data, indication for surgery and pathology study of 11 patients operated on in our centre from july 2011 to july 2015, aiming to evaluate the degree of agreement with the current consensus. RESULTS: In our series the majority of cases (7/11) had symptoms at diagnosis. Preoperative diagnosis was achieved in 10 patients using radiology and/or endoscopy. Indications for surgery were the presence of symptoms, radiological data suspicious of malignancy, and secondary branch neoplasia over 30mm. Pathological findings were malignancy in 6/11 cases (2 invasive neoplasia, 4 high grade dysplasia), moderate dysplasia in 2/11, low-grade dysplasia in 2/11 and no dysplasia in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical indication of intraductal mucinous pancreatic neoplasms depends on the associated symptoms, size, location, risk and suspicion of malignancy

What to do with an intraductal papilary mucinous pancreatic neoplasm? Our experience. / ¿Qué hacer ante una neoplasia mucinosa papilar intraductal de páncreas? Nuestra experiencia.

INTRODUCTION: Cystic pancreatic neoplasms are a heterogeneous group of pathology, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia is becoming more common. The aim of this study is to review our series of cystic pancreatic neoplasms that underwent surgery and to evaluate the similarities with Fukuoka recommendations. METHODS: Retrospective review of our experience analyzing clinical and radiological data, indication for surgery and pathology study of 11 patients operated on in our centre from july 2011 to july 2015, aiming to evaluate the degree of agreement with the current consensus. RESULTS: In our series the majority of cases (7/11) had symptoms at diagnosis. Preoperative diagnosis was achieved in 10 patients using radiology and/or endoscopy. Indications for surgery were the presence of symptoms, radiological data suspicious of malignancy, and secondary branch neoplasia over 30mm. Pathological findings were malignancy in 6/11 cases (2 invasive neoplasia, 4 high grade dysplasia), moderate dysplasia in 2/11, low-grade dysplasia in 2/11 and no dysplasia in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical indication of intraductal mucinous pancreatic neoplasms depends on the associated symptoms, size, location, risk and suspicion of malignancy.