RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is standard of care in the Netherlands in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer following interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Differences in patient selection, technical aspects, and perioperative management exist between centers performing HIPEC. Standardization aims to reduce unwanted variation in clinical practice. As part of an implementation process, we aimed to standardize perioperative care for patients treated with CRS and HIPEC using a Delphi-based consensus approach. METHODS: We performed a two-phase modified Delphi method involving a multidisciplinary panel of 40 experts who completed a survey on CRS and HIPEC. During a consensus meeting, survey outcomes and available scientific evidence was discussed. Items without consensus (<75% agreement) were adjusted and evaluated in a second survey. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in the first round on 51% of items. After two rounds, consensus was reached on the majority of items (82%) including patient selection, preoperative workup, technical aspects of CRS and HIPEC, and postoperative care. No consensus was reached on the role of HIPEC in rare ovarian cancer types, preoperative bowel preparation, timing to create bowel anastomoses, and manipulation of the perfusate. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch experts reached consensus on most items regarding interval CRS and HIPEC for ovarian cancer. This consensus study may help to align treatment protocols and to minimize practice variation. Topics without consensus may be put on the research agenda of HIPEC for ovarian cancer.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Despite optimal patient selection and surgical effort, recurrence is seen in over 70% of patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal metastases (PM). Apart from the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), completeness of cytoreduction and tumour grade, there are other factors like disease distribution in the peritoneal cavity, pathological response to systemic chemotherapy (SC), lymph node metastases and morphology of PM which may have prognostic value. One reason for the underutilisation of these factors is that they are known only after surgery. Identifying clinical predictors, specifically radiological predictors, could lead to better utilisation of these factors in clinical decision making and the extent of peritoneal resection performed for different tumours. This study aims to study these factors, their impact on survival and identify clinical and radiological predictors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: There is no therapeutic intervention in the study. All patients with biopsy-proven PM from colorectal, appendiceal, gastric and ovarian cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma undergoing CRS will be included. The demographic, clinical, radiological, surgical and pathological details will be collected according to a prespecified format that includes details regarding distribution of disease, morphology of PM, regional node involvement and pathological response to SC. In addition to the absolute value of PCI, the structures bearing the largest tumour nodules and a description of the morphology in each region will be recorded. A correlation between the surgical, radiological and pathological findings will be performed and the impact of these potential prognostic factors on progression-free and overall survival determined. The practices pertaining to radiological and pathological reporting at different centres will be studied. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Zydus Hospital ethics committee (27 July, 2020) and Lyon-Sud ethics committee (A15-128). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2020/09/027709; Pre-results.
