Effect of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy on Cytoreductive Surgery in Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Peritoneal Metastases: The Phase III GASTRIPEC-I Trial.

PURPOSE: In patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), chemotherapy is the treatment of choice. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are still being debated. This randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter phase III trial (EudraCT 2006-006088-22; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02158988) explored the impact on overall survival (OS) of HIPEC after CRS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with GC and histologically proven PM were randomly assigned (1:1) to perioperative chemotherapy and CRS alone (CRS-A) or CRS plus HIPEC (CRS + H). HIPEC comprised mitomycin C 15 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 in 5 L of saline perfused for 60 minutes at 42°C. The primary end point was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), other distant metastasis-free survival (MFS), and safety. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and June 2018, 105 patients were randomly assigned (53 patients to CRS-A and 52 patients to CRS + H). The trial stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment. In 55 patients, treatment stopped before CRS mainly due to disease progression/death. Median OS was the same for both groups (CRS + H, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 8.7 to 17.7] months v CRS-A, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 7.0 to 19.4] months; P = .1647). The PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 7.0) in the CRS-A group and 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.5; P = .047) in the CRS + H group. The CRS + H group showed better MFS (10.2 months [95% CI, 7.7 to 14.7] v CRS-A, 9.2 months [95% CI, 6.8 to 11.5]; P = .0286). The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups (CRS-A, 38.1% v CRS + H, 43.6%; P = .79). CONCLUSION: This study showed no OS difference between CRS + H and CRS-A. PFS and MFS were significantly better in the CRS + H group, which needs further exploration. HIPEC did not increase AEs.

Non-mucinous adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the anal region masquerading as abscess or fistula: a retrospective analysis and systematic review of literature.

PURPOSE: Abscess or fistula of the anal region is an uncommon presentation of malignancy. Under the assumption of a benign condition, diagnostics is often delayed, resulting in advanced tumour stages at first diagnosis. Due to the case rarity, treatment guidelines for cancers of anorectal region masquerading as abscess or fistula are missing. METHODS: We analysed all patients presenting with an abscess or fistula of the anal region in our department between January 2004 and August 2020. The malignancies were included to our study to acquire data on clinical presentation, treatment and outcome. Furthermore, a systematic review to present adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas associated to an abscess or fistula was performed. RESULTS: 0.5% of the patients treated for an abscess or fistula of the anal region met the selection criteria. Mean time from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis of malignancy was 100 days. Histology revealed adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma each in two patients. All patients had locally advanced tumours without distant metastases, in two cases with regional lymph-node metastases. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was applied in two patients. All patients underwent abdomino-perineal resection of the rectum. The overall outcome reveals a recurrence-free survival of 4.5 and 3 years for two patients. Further two patients died within 5 months after the primary resection. CONCLUSION: Advanced carcinomas of the anorectal region may masquerade as abscess or fistula, cause diagnostic problems and delay oncologic treatment. However, even in these very advanced situations, surgical therapy with curative intent should be attempted.

Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: how can we improve outcome?

PURPOSE: Patients over 70 years of age are characterised by diminished long-term survival rates following resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to younger patients. The aim of this study was to clarify whether reduced survival is a result of malignancy, comorbidities or the treatment received. METHODS: All patients with CRC, who were admitted to our institution over a period of 10 years, were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Disease-specific, disease-free and overall survival rates were calculated dependent on variables considered potentially relevant for the patients' prognosis. RESULTS: 915 patients were included in the study. Observed 5- and 10-year survival rates for the whole group were 48 ± 2% and 40 ± 2%, respectively, but 10-year survival rates dropped to 14 ± 4% for patients aged 80 and older. Resection of the primary tumour was attempted in all cases independent of age. Emergency admission, Charlson index ≥2, ECOG ≥2, old age, second malignancies, distant metastases, high grading and non-resective surgery were identified as independent prognostic parameters associated with decreased overall survival. In contrast, disease-specific and disease-free survival rates for patients after elective radical resection in UICC-stage I-III did not show significant differences related to age. Tumour site, UICC-stage and resection status were independent statistically significant predictors of disease-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: Similar disease-specific survival rates in all age groups speak in favour of tumour resection in curative intent even in old patients. Better outcome may be achieved, if regular screening for colorectal cancer is considered even in the elderly to avoid late presentation requiring emergency surgery.

Regulation of Clinical Trials with Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Germany.

In the European Union, clinical trials for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are regulated at the national level, in contrast to the situation for a Marketing Authorisation Application, in which a centralised procedure is foreseen for these medicinal products. Although based on a common understanding regarding the regulatory requirement to be fulfilled before conduct of a clinical trial with an Advanced Therapy Investigational Medicinal Product, the procedures and partly the scientific requirements for approval of a clinical trial application differ between the European Union Member States. This chapter will thus give an overview about the path to be followed for a clinical trial application and the subsequent approval process for an Advanced Therapy Investigational Medicinal Product in Germany and will describe the role of the stakeholders that are involved. In addition, important aspects of manufacturing, quality control and non-clinical testing of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in the clinical development phase are discussed. Finally, current and future approaches for harmonisation of clinical trial authorisation between European Union Member States are summarised.