Standardizing eligibility and patient selection for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Delphi consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure for minimally invasive drug administration in patients with peritoneal metastasis. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of uniformity in treatment protocols and standardization of this practice. This study aimed to reach a consensus on eligibility, patient selection, and choice of chemotherapy for PIPAC. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. A steering group formulated a list of baseline statements, addressing the objectives. The steering group consisted of seven expert surgical and medical oncologists. Available evidence and published key opinions were critically reviewed. An international expert panel scored those statements on a 4-point Likert scale. The statements were submitted electronically and anonymously. Consensus was reached if the agreement rate was ≥75%. A minimum Cronbach's alpha of >0.8 was set. RESULTS: Forty-five (45/58; 77.6%) experts participated and completed all rounds. Experts were digestive surgeons (n = 28), surgical oncologists (n = 7), gynecologists (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 4), and one clinical researcher. Their assessment of 81 preliminary statements in the first round resulted in 41 consolidated statements. In round two, consensus was reached on 40 statements (40/41; 97.6%) with a consensus of ≥80% for each individual statement. In the third round, 40 statements were unanimously approved as definitive. The choice of first- and second-line chemotherapy remained controversial and could not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This International Delphi study provides practical guidance on eligibility and patient selection for PIPAC. Ongoing trial data and long-term results that could contribute to the further standardization of PIPAC are eagerly awaited.

Perioperative Fluid Management in Colorectal Surgery: Institutional Approach to Standardized Practice.

The present review discusses restrictive perioperative fluid protocols within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. Standardized definitions of a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen are lacking since they depend on conflicting evidence, institutional protocols, and personal preferences. Challenges related to restrictive fluid protocols are related to proper patient selection within standardized ERAS protocols. On the other hand, invasive goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is reserved for more challenging disease presentations and polymorbid and frail patients. While the perfusion rate (mL/kg/h) appears less predictive for postoperative outcomes, the authors identified critical thresholds related to total intravenous fluids and weight gain. These thresholds are discussed within the available evidence. The authors aim to introduce their institutional approach to standardized practice.

2022 Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Selected patients with peritoneal metastases of colorectal cancer (PM-CRC) can benefit from potentially curative cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 40 months. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this evidence-based consensus were to define the indications for HIPEC, to select the preferred HIPEC regimens, and to define research priorities regarding the use of HIPEC for PM-CRC. METHODS: The consensus steering committee elaborated and formulated pertinent clinical questions according to the PICO (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) method and assessed the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Standardized evidence tables were presented to an international expert panel to reach a consensus (4-point, weak and strong positive/negative) on HIPEC regimens and research priorities through a two-round Delphi process. The consensus was defined as ≥ 50% agreement for the 4-point consensus grading or ≥ 70% for either of the two combinations. RESULTS: Evidence was weak or very weak for 9/10 clinical questions. In total, 70/90 eligible panelists replied to both Delphi rounds (78%), with a consensus for 10/10 questions on HIPEC regimens. There was strong negative consensus concerning the short duration, high-dose oxaliplatin (OX) protocol (55.7%), and a weak positive vote (53.8-64.3%) in favor of mitomycin-C (MMC)-based HIPEC (preferred choice: Dutch protocol: 35 mg/m2, 90 min, three fractions), both for primary cytoreduction and recurrence. Determining the role of HIPEC after CRS was considered the most important research question, regarded as essential by 85.7% of the panelists. Furthermore, over 90% of experts suggest performing HIPEC after primary and secondary CRS for recurrence > 1 year after the index surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, despite the negative results of PRODIGE 7, HIPEC could be conditionally recommended to patients with PM-CRC after CRS. While more preclinical and clinical data are eagerly awaited to harmonize the procedure further, the MMC-based Dutch protocol remains the preferred regimen after primary and secondary CRS.

Second annual report from the ISSPP PIPAC database.

Objectives: To monitor the results of PIPAC directed therapy based on data from the International Society for the Study of the Pleura and Peritoneum (ISSPP) PIPAC database. Methods: Analysis of data from patients entered between June 15th, 2020, and February 28th, 2023. Results: Twelve centers reported 2,456 PIPAC procedures in 809 patients (median 2, range 1-18) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from different primary tumors. Approximately 90 % had systemic chemotherapy prior to PIPAC. Twenty-eight percent were treated in prospective protocols. Overall non-access rate was 3.5 %. Concomitant surgical procedures were performed during PIPAC in 1.6 % of the patients. Median length of stay was 2 days. A total of 95 surgical complications were recorded, but only 22 % of these were graded ≥3b. Seventeen-hundred-and-three adverse events were noted, and 8 % were classified ≥3. The rate of complete or major histological response (peritoneal regression grade score, PRGS≤2) increased between the first and the third PIPAC in the group of patients who were evaluated by PRGS, and a PRGS ≤2 or a reduction of the mean PRGS of at least 1 between first and third PIPAC were observed in 80 %. Disease progression (50 %) or technical issues (19 %) were the most important reasons for stopping PIPAC treatment. Median overall survival from first PIPAC directed treatment varied from 10.7 months (CI 8.7-12.5) in gastric cancer to 27.1 months (16.4-50.5) in mesothelioma. Conclusions: The ISSPP PIPAC database provides substantial real-world data supporting the use of PIPAC directed therapy in patients with PM from different primary tumors.

Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients.

Introduction: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the primary cause of mortality in women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Our study assessed pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as treatment for peritoneal surface metastases (PSM) from recurrent or progressive OC and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors. Material and methods: This retrospective cohort study, conducted across 18 international centers, analyzed the clinical practices of patients receiving palliative treatment for PSM from OC who underwent PIPAC. All patients were initially treated appropriately outside any clinical trial setting. Feasibility, safety, and morbidity were evaluated along with objective endpoints of oncological response. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic factors for OS and PFS. Results: From 2015-2020, 234 consecutive patients were studied, from which 192 patients were included and stratified by platinum sensitivity for analysis. Patients with early recurrence, within one postoperative month, were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding platinum sensitivity (platinum sensitive (PS) and resistant (PR)), but chemotherapy frequency differed, as did PCI before PIPAC. Median PCI decreased in both groups after three cycles of PIPAC (PS 16 vs. 12, p < 0.001; PR 24 vs. 20, p = 0.009). Overall morbidity was 22%, with few severe complications (4-8%) or mortality (0-3%). Higher pathological response and longer OS (22 vs. 11m, p = 0.012) and PFS (12 vs. 7m, p = 0.033) were observed in the PS group. Multivariate analysis (OS/PFS) identified ascites (HR 4.02, p < 0.001/5.22, p < 0.001), positive cytology at first PIPAC (HR 3.91, p = 0.002/1.96, p = 0.035), and ≥ 3 PIPACs (HR 0.30, p = 0.002/0.48, p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors of overall survival/progression-free survival. Conclusions: With low morbidity and mortality rates, PIPAC is a safe option for palliative treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Promising results were observed after 3 PIPAC, which did improve the peritoneal burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of PIPAC as an independent prognostic factor.

No signs of check-list fatigue - introducing the StOP? intra-operative briefing enhances the quality of an established pre-operative briefing in a pre-post intervention study.

Background: The team timeout (TTO) is a safety checklist to be performed by the surgical team prior to incision. Exchange of critical information is, however, important not only before but also during an operation and members of surgical teams frequently feel insufficiently informed by the operating surgeon about the ongoing procedure. To improve the exchange of critical information during surgery, the StOP?-protocol was developed: At appropriate moments during the procedure, the leading surgeon briefly interrupts the operation and informs the team about the current Status (St) and next steps/objectives (O) of the operation, as well as possible Problems (P), and encourages questions of other team members (?). The StOP?-protocol draws attention to the team. Anticipating the occurrence of StOP?-protocols may support awareness of team processes and quality issues from the beginning and thus support other interventions such as the TTO; however, it also may signal an additional demand and contribute to a phenomenon akin to "checklist fatigue." We investigated if, and how, the introduction of the StOP?-protocol influenced TTO quality. Methods: This was a prospective intervention study employing a pre-post design. In the visceral surgical departments of two university hospitals and one urban hospital the quality of 356 timeouts (out of 371 included operation) was assessed by external observers before (154) and after (202) the introduction of the StOP?-briefing. Timeout quality was rated in terms of timeout completeness (number of checklist items mentioned) and timeout quality (engagement, pace, social atmosphere, noise). Results: As compared to the baseline, after the implementation of the StOP?-protocol, observed timeouts had higher completeness ratings (F = 8.69, p = 0.003) and were rated by observers as higher in engagement (F = 13.48, p < 0.001), less rushed (F = 14.85, p < 0.001), in a better social atmosphere (F = 5.83, p < 0.016) and less noisy (F = 5.35, p < 0.022). Conclusion: Aspects of TTO are affected by the anticipation of StOP?-protocols. However, rather than harming the timeout goals by inducing "checklist fatigue," it increases completeness and quality of the team timeout.

[Anal cancer screening. A decade's experience of a consultation in a tertiary centre]. / Dépistage du cancer anal. Expérience d'une décennie de consultation spécialisée.

Anal cancer is a disease with a low but gradually increasing incidence, especially in developed countries. Most of these cancers are caused by the HPV. In Switzerland, more than 70 % of the sexually active population is infected with HPV at least once, making it the most common sexually transmitted disease. Immunosuppression and anal sex remain other major risk factors. Precancerous lesions can progress to anal cancer (up to 13 % at 5 years), hence the importance of early detection. High resolution anoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and primary treatment of lesions. It is therefore important to monitor at-risk groups and to proactively screen for gynaecological and anal HPV infection.

Le cancer anal a une incidence faible mais en constante augmentation, particulièrement dans les pays développés. Le HPV est responsable de la plupart de ces cancers. En Suisse, plus de 70 % de la population sexuellement active est infectée au moins une fois par le HPV, ce qui en fait la maladie sexuellement transmissible la plus fréquente. D'autres facteurs de risque incluent l'immunosuppression et les rapports sexuels anaux. Les lésions précancéreuses peuvent évoluer en cancer de l'anus (jusqu'à 13 % à 5 ans), justifiant l'importance d'un dépistage précoce. L'anuscopie de haute résolution est l'examen privilégié pour le diagnostic et le traitement primaire des lésions. Il est donc crucial de surveiller les groupes à risque et d'adopter une attitude proactive en matière de dépistage de l'infection HPV gynécologique et anale.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

The role of cytology in patients undergoing pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Objectives: Cytology of ascites or peritoneal washing is a routine part of staging of peritoneal metastases (PM). We aim to determine value of cytology in patients undergoing pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients having PIPAC for PM of different primary between January 2015 and January 2020. Results: A total of 75 patients (median 63 years (IQR 51-70), 67 % female) underwent a total of 144 PIPAC. At PIPAC 1 59 % patients had positive and 41 % patients had negative cytology. Patients with negative and positive cytology only differed in terms of symptoms of ascites (16% vs. 39 % respectively, p=0.04), median ascites volume (100 vs. 0 mL, p=0.01) and median PCI (9 vs. 19, p<0.01). Among 20 patients who completed 3 PIPACs (per protocol), cytology changed in one from positive to negative, and in two from negative to positive. Median overall survival was 30.9 months in the per protocol group and 12.9 months in patients having <3 PIPACs (=0.519). Conclusions: Positive cytology under PIPAC treatment is more frequently encountered in patients with higher PCI and symptomatic ascites. Cytoversion was rarely observed and cytology status had no impact on treatment decisions in this cohort.

A prediction model to refine the timing of an early second-look laparoscopic exploration in patients with colon cancer at high risk of early peritoneal metastasis recurrence.

BACKGROUND: In patients at high risk of peritoneal metastasis (PM) recurrence following surgical treatment of colon cancer (CC), second-look laparoscopic exploration (SLLE) is mandatory; however, the best timing is unknown. We created a tool to refine the timing of early SLLE in patients at high risk of PM recurrence. METHODS: This international cohort study included patients who underwent CC surgery between 2009 and 2020. All patients had PM recurrence. Factors associated with PM-free survival (PMFS) were assessed using Cox regression. The primary endpoint was early PM recurrence defined as a PMFS of <6 months. A model (logistic regression) was fitted and corrected using bootstrap. RESULTS: In total, 235 patients were included. The median PMFS was 13 (IQR, 8-22) months, and 15.7% of the patients experienced an early PM recurrence. Synchronous limited PM and/or ovarian metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.66-3.78]; p < 0.001) were associated with a very high-risk status requiring SLLE. T4 (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: [1.03-2.11]; p = 0.036), transverse tumor localization (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: [0.17-0.69]; p = 0.002), emergency surgery (HR: 2.06; 95% CI: [1.36-3.13]; p < 0.001), mucinous subtype (HR: 0.50; 95% CI [0.30, 0.82]; p = 0.006), microsatellite instability (HR: 2.29; 95% CI [1.06, 4.93]; p = 0.036), KRAS mutation (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: [1.24-2.55]; p = 0.002), and complete protocol of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: [0.89-0.96]; p < 0.001) were also prognostic factors for PMFS. Thus, a model was fitted (area under the curve: 0.87; 95% CI: [0.82-0.92]) for prediction, and a cutoff of 150 points was identified to classify patients at high risk of early PM recurrence. CONCLUSION: Using a nomogram, eight prognostic factors were identified to select patients at high risk for early PM recurrence objectively. Patients reaching 150 points could benefit from an early SLLE.

The 2022 PSOGI International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: Methodology.

BACKGROUND: A group of experts from the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) and the BIG-RENAPE group carried out a consensus among surgeons experienced in treating peritoneal malignancies from around the world to derive recommendations on indications of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), choice and details of HIPEC regimens, and areas for future research. This manuscript describes the methodology of achieving this consensus and the degree of participation of experts. METHODS: The Delphi technique was used and the questionnaire comprised three categories: evidence-based recommendations using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system with the PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome) method, an opinion survey, and research recommendations. A consensus was achieved if any one option had >50% of votes, or positive or negative recommendations combined had > 70% of votes. RESULTS: Of the 145 experts solicited, 71.1% in round I and 72.2% in round II took the survey. Participation was highest among surgeons treating both gastrointestinal and gynecological malignancies. Of 113 questions, after round I, a consensus was achieved for 72 (63.7%) questions, and after the second round, consensus was achieved for another 22 (19.4%) questions, making a total of 94 (83.1%) questions for which a consensus was achieved. CONCLUSION: This consensus was carried out using a thorough review of literature and robust rating of evidence, and included key experts and opinion leaders from across the world. The results could guide clinicians on the use of HIPEC, both in their day-to-day clinical practice and in designing clinical trials.

Nab-PIPAC: a phase IB study protocol of intraperitoneal cisplatin and nab-paclitaxel administered by pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the treatment of advanced malignancies confined to the peritoneal cavity.

INTRODUCTION: Intraperitoneal dissemination is a major problem resulting in very poor prognosis and a rapid marked deterioration in the quality of life of patients. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emergent laparoscopic procedure aiming to maximise local efficacy and to reduce systemic side effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Nab-PIPAC, a bicentre open-label phase IB, aims to evaluate safety of nab-paclitaxel and cisplatin association using in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of gastric, pancreatic or ovarian origin as ≥1 prior line of systemic therapy. Using a 3+3 design, sequential intraperitoneal laparoscopic application of nab-paclitaxel (7.5, 15, 25, 37.5, 52.5 and 70 mg/m2) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2) through a nebuliser to a high-pressure injector at ambient temperature with a maximal upstream pressure of 300 psi. Treatment maintained for 30 min at a pressure of 12 mm Hg and repeated4-6 weeks intervals for three courses total.A total of 6-36 patients are expected, accrual is ongoing. Results are expected in 2024.The primary objective of Nab-PIPAC trial is to assess tolerability and safety of nab-paclitaxel and cisplatin combination administered intraperitoneally by PIPAC in patients with PC of gastric, pancreatic or ovarian origin. This study will determine maximum tolerated dose and provide pharmacokinetic data. ETHIC AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committees of Geneva and Vaud (CCER-2018-01327). The study findings will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and research meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04000906.

Impact of etiology leading to abdominoperineal resection with anterolateral thigh flap reconstruction: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Large and deep perineal defects following abdominal perineal resection (APR) are a challenge for reconstructive surgeons. Even if generally performed for oncological reasons, APR can be indicated as well in extended infection-related debridement for Hidradenitis suppurativa, Fournier's gangrene, or Crohn's disease. We aimed to compare the outcomes of two groups of patients with different indications for APR (infectious vs. oncological) after pedicled anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap coverage RESULTS: Forty-four consecutive pedicled ALT flap used for coverage after APR in 40 patients were analyzed. 26 patients (65%) underwent APR for oncological reasons and 14 patients (35%) for infectious reasons. The overall postoperative complications rate was significantly higher for infectious cases (76.5% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.0304). Major complications occurred in 52.9% of infectious cases versus 11.1% of oncological cases (p = 0.0045). Obesity and infectious etiology were independent risk factors for overall and major complications, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing APR for acute or chronic infections had significantly more overall and major complications than patients having oncological APR. Modified care might be considered, especially in obese patients, in terms of surgical debridement, antibiotic treatment modalities, and postoperative management.

An algorithm based on the postoperative decrease of albumin (ΔAlb) to anticipate complications after liver surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative decrease of albumin (ΔAlb) appeared as a promising predictor of complications after digestive surgery, but its role after liver surgery remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze whether and how ΔAlb can be used to predict complications after liver surgery. METHODS: A bicentric retrospective analysis of patients undergoing liver surgery (2010-2016) was performed, following TRIPOD guidelines. The preoperative and postoperative difference of albumin was calculated on POD 0 and defined as ΔAlb. Patients with any missing variable were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall complications according to the Clavien classification. A multiparametric algorithm based on ΔAlb was generated to optimize prediction performance. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were analyzed. At least one complication occurred in 66 (60%) patients. Patients with and without complication showed a ΔAlb of 15.8 vs. 9.5 g/L (p<0.001). Area under ROC curve (AUC) of ΔAlb was 0.75 (p<0.01.). The ΔAlb-based algorithm showed an AUC of 0.84 (p<0.01), significantly improving performance (p=0.03). Multivariable analysis identified ΔAlb as independent predictor of complications (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: ΔAlb appeared as a promising predictor independently associated with the risk of complication after liver surgery. The study presents a novel decision-tree based on ΔAlb to anticipate complications.

Histological regression of peritoneal metastases of recurrent tubo-ovarian cancer after systemic chemotherapy.

Introduction: Post-treatment histological regression of peritoneal metastases (PM) is a new and potentially important predictor of oncological outcomes. Histology of PM from adnexal origin is usually evaluated by the Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS). The aim of this preliminary study was to quantify the response of PM of recurrent tubo-ovarian cancer (TOVC) after systemic chemotherapy by using the recently validated Peritoneal Regression Grading System (PRGS) and compare it with CRS. Correlation with per operative evaluation through Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was performed. Material and methods: Retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients with recurrent PM from TOVC undergoing surgery after prior systemic chemotherapy from January 2015 to March 2019. Biopsies were assessed with the four-scale PRGS. Results: Thirty-eight patients were included. Patients had a median of 2 (range 1-2) lines and 12 (range 3-18) cycles of prior systemic chemotherapy. Overall mean (SD) PRGS was 2.3 (±1.1). Of the patients, 26% (10) had complete response (PRGS 1), 40% (15) had major response (PRGS 2), 26% (10) minor response (PRGS 3), and 8% (3) had no response (PRGS 4). Mean PRGS was positively correlated with the Peritoneal Cancer Index (ρ = 0.5302, p = 0.0003) and inversely correlated with CRS (ρ = -0.8403, p < 0.0001). No correlation was highlighted between mean PRGS and overall survival (ρ = -0.0195, p = 0.9073). Conclusion: CRS and mean PRGS correlated with each other. Histological response of PM after systemic chemotherapy was quantifiable and variable. The role of PRGS for the evaluation of treatment response and as potential surrogate marker for oncological outcomes is part of ongoing and planned research.