Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) leads to prolonged survival for selected patients with colorectal (CRC) peritoneal metastases (PM). This study aimed to analyze the prognostic role of micro-satellite (MS) status and RAS/RAF mutations for patients treated with CRS.MethodsData were collected from 13 Italian centers with PM expertise within a collaborative group of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Clinical and pathologic variables and KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutational and MS status were correlated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).ResultsThe study enrolled 437 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC. The median OS was 42.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 33.4–51.2 months], and the median DFS was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3–14.9 months). The local (peritoneal) DFS was 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.4–24.6 months). In addition to the known clinical factors, KRAS mutations (p = 0.005), BRAF mutations (p = 0.01), and MS status (p = 0.04) were related to survival. The KRAS- and BRAF-mutated patients had a shorter survival than the wild-type (WT) patients (5-year OS, 29.4% and 26.8% vs 51.5%, respectively). The patients with micro-satellite instability (MSI) had a longer survival than the patients with micro-satellite stability (MSS) (5-year OS, 58.3% vs 36.7%). The MSI/WT patients had the best prognosis. The MSS/WT and MSI/mutated patients had similar survivals, whereas the MSS/mutated patients showed the worst prognosis (5-year OS, 70.6%, 48.1%, 23.4%; p = 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, OS was related to the Peritoneal Cancer Index [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05 per point], completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score (HR, 2.8), N status (HR, 1.6), signet-ring (HR, 2.4), MSI/WT (HR, 0.5), and MSS/WT-MSI/mutation (HR, 0.4). Similar results were obtained for DFS.ConclusionFor patients affected by CRC-PM who are eligible for CRS, clinical and pathologic criteria need to be integrated with molecular features (KRAS/BRAF mutation). Micro-satellite status should be strongly considered because MSI confers a survival advantage over MSS, even for mutated patients.

Background: Peritoneal metastases (PM) represent a common and challenging manifestation of several gastrointestinal and gynecologic malignancies. Bidirectional treatment—combining Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) with systemic chemotherapy—has emerged as a strategy to enhance locoregional control while maintaining systemic coverage. Objective: This systematic review aimed to analyze the study design, characteristics, and timing of the treatments administered—including the type of systemic chemotherapy, intraperitoneal agents used in PIPAC, and interval between administrations—as well as the clinical outcomes, safety profile, and overall methodological quality of the available literature on bidirectional treatment for peritoneal metastases. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2025. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients undergoing bidirectional treatment. Data extraction focused on survival, response assessment (PRGS, PCI), adverse events, systemic and intraperitoneal regimens, treatment interval, and study methodology. Results: A total of 22 studies involving 1015 patients (742 treated with bidirectional therapy) were included. Median overall survival ranged from 2.8 to 19.6 months, with the most favorable outcomes observed in gastric and colorectal cancer cohorts. PRGS improvement after multiple PIPAC cycles was reported in >80% of evaluable cases. High-grade adverse events (CTCAE ≥ 3) occurred in up to 17% of patients in most studies, with only one study reporting treatment-related mortality. However, methodological quality was generally moderate, with considerable heterogeneity in treatment protocols, response criteria, systemic regimens, and toxicity attribution. Conclusions: Bidirectional therapy with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy appears to be a feasible and potentially effective strategy for selected patients with peritoneal metastases. Despite encouraging outcomes, definitive conclusions are limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of available studies. Prospective standardized trials are needed to confirm efficacy, clarify patient selection, and optimize treatment protocols.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative approach for treating peritoneal carcinomatosis that applies chemotherapeutic drugs into the peritoneal cavity as an under-pressure airflow. It improves local bioavailability of cytostatic drugs as compared to conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to prove feasibility, efficacy and safety of this new treatment. Patients included in the analysis underwent at least two single port PIPAC procedures; drugs used were Oxaliplatin for colorectal cancers and Cisplatin + Doxorubicin for ovarian, gastric, and primary peritoneal cancers. The primary endpoint was the Disease Control Rate according to the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. Secondary significant endpoints were overall and progression free survival, tumor regression on histology, and quality of life. Safety and tolerability were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4. Sixty-three patients were enrolled in this trial. Forty patients (100 PIPAC) were eligible for analysis. Twenty patients were undergoing systemic chemotherapy. Fourteen patients reported an objective response (35%). Median overall survival was 18.1 months; median progression-free survival was 7.4 months. Minor morbidity was observed in seven procedures. Grade 3 complications occurred in two patients, and grade 4 in one patient submitted to reoperation. Single-port PIPAC is feasible, safe, and easy to perform. The combined treatment based on systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC does not induce significant hepatic and renal toxicity and can be considered a valid therapeutic option in patients with advanced peritoneal disease. Further studies on the use of PIPAC alone, possibly with different drug dosages, may define the real effectiveness of the procedure.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is a common metastatic pattern in ovarian, gastric, colorectal, and appendiceal cancer; systemic chemotherapy is the current standard of care for peritoneal metastatic disease; however, in a subset of patients its beneficial effect remains questionable. More effective perioperative chemotherapy is needed. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new treatment that applies chemotherapeutic drugs into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. It's a safe and feasible approach that improves local bioavailability of chemotherapeutic drugs as compared with conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Till now the drugs used in PIPAC for the treatment of the peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) are cisplatin, doxorubicin, and oxaliplatin; as of yet, there are no data comparing different drug formulations and dosage schedules of PIPAC. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 1.5 mg/sm was aerosolized in PIPAC procedures. Pharmacokinetics analysis of 10 procedures performed with conventional doxorubicin solution at the dose of 1.5 mg/m were compared to 15 procedures with the same dose of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD). Significant differences between experimental groups were detected by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction; a p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A statistically different doxorubicin tissue concentration was observed for the doxorubicin solution compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the right parietal peritoneum and right diaphragm. In the Caelyx series a mean tissue concentration of 1.27 ± 1.33 mg/g was reported, while in the second one we registered a mean concentration of 3.1 ± 3.7 mg/g. The delivery of nano-particles in PIPAC was feasible, but pegylated liposomal concentrations are lower than standard doxorubicin formulation. Probably mechanical and physical properties of pressurized aerosol chemotherapy might alter their stability and cause structural disintegration.

Background Optimal cytoreduction (macroscopic Residual Tumor, RT = 0) is the best survival predictor factor in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). It doesn’t exist a consolidated criteria to predict optimal surgical resection at interval debulking surgery (IDS). The aim of this study is to develop a predictive model of complete cytoreduction at IDS. Methods We, retrospectively, analyzed 93 out of 432 patients, with advanced EOC, underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and IDS from January 2010 to December 2016 in two referral cancer centers. The correlation between clinical-pathological variables and residual disease at IDS has been investigated with univariate and multivariate analysis. A predictive score of cytoreduction (PSC) has been created by combining all significant variables. The performance of each single variable and PSC has been reported and the correlation of all significant variables with progression free survival (PFS) has been assessed. Results At IDS, 65 patients (69,8%) had complete cytoreduction with no residual disease ( R  = 0). Three criteria independently predicted R  > 0: age ≥ 60 years ( p  = 0.014), CA-125 before NACT > 550 UI/dl ( p  = 0.044), and Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) > 16 ( p  < 0.001). A PSC ≥ 3 has been associated with a better accuracy (85,8%), limiting the number of incomplete surgeries to 16,5%. Moreover, a PCI > 16, a PSC ≥ 3 and the presence of R > 0 after IDS were all significantly associated with shorter PFS ( p  < 0.001, p  < 0.001 and p  = 0.004 respectively). Conclusions Our PSC predicts, in a large number of patients, complete cytoreduction at IDS, limiting the rate of futile extensive surgeries in case of presence of residual tumor (R > 0). The PSC should be prospectively validated in a larger series of EOC patients undergoing NACT-IDS.

Background Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new treatment that applies chemotherapeutic drugs into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. It improves local bioavailability of chemotherapeutic drugs as compared with conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy. It has been proved to be safe and feasible if performed as an exclusive treatment in patients affected by peritoneal carcinomatosis. The first results in patients treated with PIPAC associated with systemic chemotherapy are presented. Methods Between June 2015 and February 2016, 57 PIPAC applications with oxaliplatin or cisplatin + doxorubicin every 6 weeks at 37 °C and 12 mmHg for 30 min were performed. Forty PIPAC procedures performed in 14 patients were included in this study; thirteen patients were undergoing systemic chemotherapy with a wash-out interval of at least 2 weeks before and 1 week after each PIPAC. Safety, tolerability, and postoperative complications were assessed by collection of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 2. Results Forty PIPAC administrations were performed in 14 patients with no major perioperative complications. CTCAE grades 1 and 2 were observed after six and eight procedures, respectively, for abdominal pain and nausea. Renal and hepatic functions were not impaired; no cumulative renal toxicity was observed after repeated PIPAC procedures in association with systemic chemotherapy. Conclusions These preliminary data show that the association of PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy does not induce significant hepatic and renal toxicity. It allows inclusion of patients with extraperitoneal disease or at a high risk of developing it. Further studies are needed to assess whether this combination therapy could become part of the standard treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper–Pearson exact CIs in all instances. Results: A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3–4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61–0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I2 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%. Conclusions: PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.

Esophagectomy is the selected treatment for nonmetastatic esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer, although high perioperative morbidity and mortality incur. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) effectively reduces cardiopulmonary complications compared to open esophagectomy and offers a technical advantage, especially for lymph node dissection and intrathoracic anastomosis. This article aims at describing our initial experience of Ivor Lewis RAMIE, focusing on the technique’s main steps and robotic-sewn esophagogastrostomy. Prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients who underwent Ivor Lewis RAMIE for cancer was reviewed. Reconstruction was performed with a gastric conduit pull-up and a robotic-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded as prescribed by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Thirty patients underwent Ivor Lewis RAMIE with complete mediastinal lymph node dissection and robot-sewn anastomosis. No intraoperative complications nor conversion occurred. Pulmonary complications totaled 26.7%. Anastomotic leakage (ECCG, type III) and conduit necrosis (ECCG, type III) both occurred in one patient (3.3%). Chylothorax appeared in 2 patients (6.7%) (ECCG, Type IIA). Anastomotic stricture, successfully treated with endoscopic dilatations, occurred in 8 cases (26.7%). Median overall postoperative stay was 11 days (range, 6–51 days). 30 day and 90 day mortality was 0%. R0 resection was performed in 96.7% of patients with a median number of 47 retrieved lymph nodes. RAMIE with robot-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis appears to be feasible, safe and effective, with favorable perioperative results. Nevertheless, further high-quality studies are needed to define the best anastomotic technique for Ivor Lewis RAMIE.

BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are known to potentially improve the management and outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery, with limited evidence of their implementation in hospital networks and in a large population. We aimed to assess the impact of the implementation of an ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer surgery in the entire region of Piemonte, Italy, supported by an audit and feedback (A&F) intervention.MethodsA large, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial enrolled patients scheduled for elective surgery at 29 general surgery units (clusters). At baseline (first 3 months), standard care was continued in all units. Thereafter, four groups of clusters began to adopt the ERAS protocol successively. By the end of the study, each cluster had a period in which standard care was maintained (control) and a period in which the protocol was applied (experimental). ERAS implementation was supported by initial training and A&F initiatives. The primary endpoint was length of stay (LOS) without outliers (>94th percentile), and the secondary endpoints were outliers for LOS, postoperative medical and surgical complications, quality of recovery and compliance with ERAS items.ResultsOf 2626 randomised patients, 2397 were included in the LOS analysis (1060 in the control period and 1337 in the experimental period). The mean LOS without outliers was 8.5 days during the control period (SD 3.9) and 7.5 (SD 3.5) during the experimental one. The adjusted difference between the two periods was a reduction of −0.58 days (95% CI −1.07, −0.09; p=0.021). The compliance with ERAS items increased from 52.4% to 67.3% (estimated absolute difference +13%; 95% CI 11.4%, 14.7%). No difference in the occurrence of complications was evidenced (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.89, 1.68).ConclusionImplementation of the ERAS protocol for colorectal cancer, supported by A&F approach, led to a substantial improvement in compliance and a reduction in LOS, without meaningful effects on complications. Trial registration number NCT04037787.