Is Systemic Chemotherapy Useful in Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases? A Propensity-Score Analysis.

PURPOSE: Multimodal treatment of colorectal (CRC) peritoneal metastases (PM) includes systemic chemotherapy (SC) and surgical cytoreduction (CRS), eventually with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), in select patients. Considering lack of clear guidelines, this study was designed to analyze the role of chemotherapy and its timing in patients treated with CRS-HIPEC. METHODS: Data from 13 Italian centers with PM expertise were collected by a collaborative group of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO). Clinicopathological variables, SC use, and timing of administration were correlated with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local (peritoneal) DFS (LDFS) after propensity-score (PS) weighting to reduce confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC were included in the propensity-score weighting. Of the total patients, 19.9% did not receive chemotherapy within 6 months of surgery, 32.4% received chemotherapy before surgery (pregroup), 28.9% after (post), and 18.8% received both pre- and post-CRS-HIPEC treatment (peri). SC was preferentially administered to younger (p = 0.02) and node-positive (p = 0.010) patients. Preoperative SC is associated with increased rate of major complications (26.9 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.0009). After PS weighting, there were no differences in OS, DFS, or LDFS (p = 0.56, 0.50, and 0.17) between chemotherapy-treated and untreated patients. Considering SC timing, the post CRS-HIPEC group had a longer DFS and LDFS than the pre-group (median DFS 15.4 vs. 9.8 m, p = 0.003; median LDFS 26.3 vs. 15.8 m, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CRC-PM treated with CRS-HIPEC, systemic chemotherapy was not associated with overall survival benefit. The adjuvant schedule was related to prolonged disease-free intervals. Additional, randomized studies are required to clarify the role and timing of systemic chemotherapy in this patient subset.

Thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm: Inside its pathophysiology.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate pathophysiology of pseudoaneurysm of the thoracic aorta, an acute or chronic pathology, respectively, secondary to blunt thoracic trauma and aortitis, or complicating a deep penetrating aortic ulcer, intraparietal hematoma, aortic aneurysm, and even aortic graft, often with atherosclerosis as a common background. METHODS: Given the relative rarity of this disease, an "inductive" retrospective method made it possible to retrieve clinical, radiological, and histopathological elements, which were mutually compared and validated through a "deductive" process of reinterpretation. RESULTS: We have identified three main structural constituents of this disease: a cavity, a single blood entry port, communicating with the aortic lumen, and a pseudocapsule. It is often caused by a chronic degenerative pathology of the intima and medial layers of the aorta, typically involving elastic fibers and smooth muscle cells, with possible intermediate stages of deep aortic ulcer or intraparietal hematoma. Otherwise, the acute onset may be secondary to acute aortitis or aortic injury. CONCLUSIONS: Today, thanks to the current angiographic tools represented by 3-D high resolution multidetector CT and MRI angiography, the diagnosis of thoracic aortic pseudoaneurysm is easier, as well as its surgical indications.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) implementation in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Insights from Italian peritoneal surface malignancies expert centers.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a complex procedure that involves extensive peritoneal and visceral resections followed by intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program aims to achieve faster recovery by maintaining pre-operative organ function and reducing the stress response following surgery. A recent publication introduced dedicated ERAS guidelines for CRS and HIPEC with the aim of extending the benefits to patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. METHODS: A survey was conducted among 21 Italian centers specializing in peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) treatment to assess adherence to ERAS guidelines. The survey covered pre/intraoperative and postoperative ERAS items and explored attitudes towards ERAS implementation. RESULTS: All centers completed the survey, demonstrating expertise in PSM treatment. However, less than 30 % of centers adopted ERAS protocols despite being aware of dedicated guidelines. Preoperative optimization was common, with variations in bowel preparation methods and fasting periods. Intraoperative normothermia control was consistent, but fluid management practices varied. Postoperative practices, including routine abdominal drain placement and NGT management, varied greatly among centers. The majority of respondents expressed an intention to implement ERAS, citing concerns about feasibility and organizational challenges. CONCLUSIONS: The study concludes that Italian centers specialized in PSM treatment have limited adoption of ERAS protocols for CRS ± HIPEC, despite being aware of guidelines. The variability in practice highlights the need for standardized approaches and further evaluation of ERAS applicability in this complex surgical setting to optimize patient care.

External validation of COMPASS and BIOSCOPE prognostic scores in colorectal peritoneal metastases treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

INTRODUCTION: The selection of patients undergoing cytoreductive- surgery (CRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is crucial. BIOSCOPE and COMPASS are prognostic scores designed to stratify survival into four classes according to clinical and pathological features. The purpose of this study is to analyze the prognostic role of these scores using a large cohort of patients as an external reference. METHODS: Overall survival analysis was performed using Log-Rank and Kaplan-Meier curves for each score. The probability of survival at 12, 36, and 60 months was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: From the validation cohort of 437 patients, the analysis included 410 patients in the COMPASS group and 364 patients in the BIOSCOPE group (100% data completeness). We observed a different patient distribution between classes (high-risk for BIOSCOPE compared to COMPASS, p = 0.0001). Nevertheless, both COMPASS and BIOSCOPE effectively stratified overall survival (Log-Rank, p = 0.0001 in both cases), with a lack of discrimination between COMPASS classes II and III (p = n.s.). COMPASS at 12 m and BIOSCOPE at 60 m showed the best performance in terms of survival prediction (AUC of 0.82 and 0.81). The specificity of the two tests is good (median 81.3%), whereas sensibility is quite low (median 64.2%). CONCLUSION: Following external validation in a large population of patients with CRC-PM who are eligible for surgery, the COMPASS and BIOSCOPE scores exhibit high inter-test variability but effectively stratify cancer-related mortality risk. While the quality of the scores is similar, BIOSCOPE shows better inter-tier differentiation, suggesting that tumor molecular classification could improve test discrimination capability. More powerful stratification scores with the inclusion of novel predictors are needed.