Building an Efficient Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Program Despite the Lower-Middle-Income Barriers: Ukraine Experience.

PURPOSE: Cytoreductive surgery/hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) programs are often limited to centers in developed countries because of extensive requirements. We aimed to analyze efficacy and challenges of CRS/HIPEC centers in lower-middle-income settings in the Ukraine example. METHODS: A multicenter descriptive study was conducted using data sets (2008-2022) from Kyiv, Lviv, and Odesa centers. Patients with appendiceal neoplasm (AN); colorectal cancer (CRC); malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM); and epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer (EOC) treated with CRS ± HIPEC were included. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed for N ≥ 20 cohorts using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: We included 596 patients. At Kyiv and Lviv centers, 37 and 28 patients with AN had completeness of cytoreduction (CC-0/1) rates of 84% and 71%, respectively. Thirty-day major morbidity stood at 24% and 18%, respectively. Median OS was not reached (NR) at both centers. Nineteen patients with CRC from Kyiv, 11 from Lviv, and 156 from Odesa had CC-0/1 rates of 84%, 91%, and 86%, respectively. Thirty-day major complications occurred in 16%, 18%, and 8%, respectively. Median OS in the Odesa cohort was 35 (95% CI, 32 to 38) months. Among 15 Kyiv, five Lviv, and six Odesa patients with MPM, CC-0/1 rates were 67%, 80%, and 100%, respectively, while major complications occurred in 13%, 0%, and 17%, respectively. OS was not analyzed because of small MPM cohorts. At Kyiv, Lviv, and Odesa centers, 91, 40, and 89 patients, respectively, had primary EOC. CC-0/1 rates were 79%, 100%, and 80%, and 30-day major morbidity rates were 23%, 5%, and 6%, respectively. Median OS was NR, 71 (95% CI, 32 to 110), and 67 (95% CI, 61 to 73) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: CRS/HIPEC programs in lower-middle-income environment can achieve safety and survival that meet global standards. Our discussion highlights common obstacles in such settings and proposes effective overcoming strategies.

Analysis of risk factors for recurrence in cervical cancer patients after fertility-sparing treatment: The FERTIlity Sparing Surgery retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer should, in principle, follow identical algorithms to that in patients without future reproductive plans. In recent years, a trend toward nonradical procedures, such as conization or simple trachelectomy, has become apparent in medical literature, because of their associations with better pregnancy outcomes. However, the published reports included small numbers of patients and heterogenous treatment strategies to ascertain the safety of such approaches. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to collect multi-institutional data regarding the oncological outcomes after fertility-sparing treatment in patients with cervical cancer and to identify prognostic risk factors, including the influence of the radicality of individual cervical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Patients aged 18 to 40 years with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018 stage IA1 with positive lymphovascular space invasion or ≥IA2 cervical cancer who underwent any type of fertility-sparing procedure were eligible for this retrospective observational study, regardless of their histotype, tumor grade, and history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Associations between disease- and treatment-related characteristics with the risk of recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 733 patients from 44 institutions across 13 countries were included in this study. Almost half of the patients had stage IB1 cervical cancer (49%), and two-thirds of patients were nulliparous (66%). After a median follow-up of 72 months, 51 patients (7%) experienced recurrence, of whom 19 (2.6%) died because of the disease. The most common sites of recurrence were the cervix (53%) and pelvic nodes (22%). The risk of recurrence was 3 times higher in patients with tumors >2 cm in size than in patients with smaller tumors, irrespective of the treatment radicality (19.4% vs 5.7%; hazard ratio, 2.982; 95% confidence interval, 1.383-6.431; P=.005). The recurrence risk in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size did not differ between patients who underwent radical trachelectomy and patients who underwent nonradical (conization and simple trachelectomy) cervical procedures (P=.957), regardless of tumor size subcategory (<1 or 1-2 cm) or lymphovascular space invasion. CONCLUSION: Nonradical fertility-sparing cervical procedures were not associated with an increased risk of recurrence compared with radical procedures in patients with tumors ≤2 cm in size in this large, multicenter retrospective study. The risk of recurrence after any type of fertility-sparing procedure was significantly greater in patients with tumors >2 cm in size.