Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hyperthermic intraperitoneal intraoperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Methods A total of 200 patients with advanced ovarian cancer were enrolled in this retrospective study and randomly allocated to two groups (research registry number: 11353). On the first day after abdominal closure, routine treatment was performed in the non-HIPEC group, whereas HIPEC was performed in the HIPEC group. The surgical outcomes, overall survival, progression-free survival, side effects, and quality of life of patients were compared between the two groups, and the risk factors for overall survival and progression-free survival were analyzed. Results The basic information of the patients showed no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the time from surgery to first flatus, postoperative hospital stay, abdominal pain, bleeding, leakage, or other blood indices between the two groups (p > 0.05); however, the symptoms of ileus and pelvic abscess appeared more frequently in the non-HIPEC group (p < 0.05). HIPEC, tumor size, N stage, T stage, and vascular invasion were significant indicators, while HIPEC, tumor size, vascular invasion, N stage, and T stage were independent prognostic factors. The 3-year survival rate of the HIPEC group (42%) was higher than that of the non-HIPEC group (21%) (p < 0.001). The progression-free survival curve of the HIPEC group was superior to that of the non-HIPEC group (p < 0.001), and the recurrence rate of the HIPEC group (25%) was lower than that of the non-HIPEC group (49%) (p < 0.001). Conclusions HIPEC can reduce the possibility of perioperative complications such as intestinal obstruction and pelvic abscess, and the overall survival and progression-free survival curves were better in the HIPEC group.

The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery has been associated with encouraging survival results in some patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who were eligible for complete macroscopic resection. We aimed to assess the specific benefit of adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery compared with receiving cytoreductive surgery alone. We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 17 cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18–70 years and had histologically proven colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, a Peritoneal Cancer Index of 25 or less, and were eligible to receive systemic chemotherapy for 6 months (ie, they had adequate organ function and life expectancy of at least 12 weeks). Patients in whom complete macroscopic resection or surgical resection with less than 1 mm residual tumour tissue was completed were randomly assigned (1:1) to cytoreductive surgery with or without oxaliplatin-based HIPEC. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation, and stratified by centre, completeness of cytoreduction, number of previous systemic chemotherapy lines, and timing of protocol-mandated systemic chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin HIPEC was administered by the closed (360 mg/m2) or open (460 mg/m2) abdomen techniques, and systemic chemotherapy (400 mg/m2 fluorouracil and 20 mg/m2 folinic acid) was delivered intravenously 20 min before HIPEC. All individuals received systemic chemotherapy (of investigators' choosing) with or without targeted therapy before or after surgery, or both. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received surgery. This trial is registed with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00769405, and is now completed. Between Feb 11, 2008, and Jan 6, 2014, 265 patients were included and randomly assigned, 133 to the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 132 to the cytoreductive surgery alone group. After median follow-up of 63·8 months (IQR 53·0–77·1), median overall survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 36·2–53·8) in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 41·2 months (35·1–49·7) in the cytoreductive surgery group (hazard ratio 1·00 [95·37% CI 0·63–1·58]; stratified log-rank p=0·99). At 30 days, two (2%) treatment-related deaths had occurred in each group.. Grade 3 or worse adverse events at 30 days were similar in frequency between groups (56 [42%] of 133 patients in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group vs 42 [32%] of 132 patients in the cytoreductive surgery group; p=0·083); however, at 60 days, grade 3 or worse adverse events were more common in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group (34 [26%] of 131 vs 20 [15%] of 130; p=0·035). Considering the absence of an overall survival benefit after adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery and more frequent postoperative late complications with this combination, our data suggest that cytoreductive surgery alone should be the cornerstone of therapeutic strategies with curative intent for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Institut National du Cancer, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique du Cancer, Ligue Contre le Cancer.

Abstract Background Both hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP) have shown survival benefits in ovarian cancer (OC), but direct comparisons between the two perfusion modalities are lacking. This study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety between HIPEC and conventional IP in OC. Methods This retrospective real-world study analyzed 606 patients with stages II-IV OC who received HIPEC or IP following cytoreductive surgery between 2013 and 2024. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events were secondary endpoints. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate result robustness and subgroup analyses to explore potential effect modification. Results After a median follow-up of 26 months, disease progression occurred in 40.6% of patients in the HIPEC group and 55.0% in the IP group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; P = .103). Mortality rates were 13.2% and 22.5%, respectively (HR 0.83; P = .434), showing no significant differences in progression and survival between the two groups. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a trend toward improved progression-free outcomes with HIPEC, particularly among patients with BRCA wild-type or BRCA1-mutated tumors and early postoperative perfusion. Hypoalbuminemia was the most common event in both groups (HIPEC 27.2%; IP 15.6%). HIPEC group had more abdominal distension and wound dehiscence, whereas IP patients experienced nausea and rash more frequently. Conclusions HIPEC did not significantly improve survival over conventional IP in the overall population, but showed greater benefit in specific subgroups, underscoring the importance of individualized intraperitoneal chemotherapy strategies in OC.

Purpose Despite advances in systemic therapy, outcomes of patients with gastric cancer (GC) peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) remain poor, in part because of poor penetrance of systemic therapy into peritoneal metastasis due to the plasma-peritoneal barrier and anarchic intra-tumoral circulation. Hence, regional treatment approach with administration of chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal cavity (intraperitoneal, IP) under various conditions, combined with or without cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has remained an area of significant research interest. The purpose of this review is to provide high-level evidence for regional treatment approaches in the management of GCPC with limited peritoneal disease. Methods A review of the current literature and ongoing clinical trials for regional IP therapies for GCPC was performed. Studies included in this review comprise of phase III randomized controlled trials, non-randomized phase II studies, high-impact retrospective studies, and active ongoing clinical trials for each available IP modality. Results The three common IP approaches are heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC) and more recently introduced, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC). These IP approaches have been combined with systemic therapy and/or CRS with varying degrees of promising results, demonstrating evidence of improvements in survival rates and peritoneal disease control. Patient selection, optimization of systemic therapy, and completeness of cytoreduction have emerged as major factors influencing the design of contemporary and ongoing trials. Conclusion IP chemotherapy has a clear role in the management of patients with GCPC, and when combined with CRS in appropriately selected patients has the potential to significantly improve survival. Ongoing and upcoming IP therapy clinical trials hold great promise to shape the treatment paradigm for GCPC.

Introduction Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) has been established as an effective treatment for peritoneal cancer (PC). However, this kind of combination therapy is associated with a high lactate level. Moreover, studies have suggested that the rate of complications early after surgery directly increased with elevated lactate levels. Glucose-insulin-potassium (GIP), a potent cardioprotective intervention, has been demonstrated to adjust blood glucose (BG) levels and reduce lactate levels. However, the insulin-glucose ratio should be adjusted according to the surgery performed. Here, we aimed to evaluate the advantages of using modified GIP during CRS/HIPEC to reduce the lactate level at the end of surgery and further reduce the incidence of early postoperative complications. Methods and analysis The modified GIP versus conventional management during surgery study is a single-center, randomized, single-blinded outcome assessment clinical trial of 80 patients with PC who are between 18 and 64 years old and undergoing CRS/HIPEC. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive modified GIP or conventional treatment (1:1). The primary outcome will be the plasma lactate level at the end of surgery. The secondary outcomes will include the highest levels and fluctuation ranges of lactate and BG during surgery, extubation time, APACHE-II score 24 h after surgery, postoperative defecation and exhaust time, postoperative lactate clearance time, postoperative liver and kidney function, incidence of complications within 7 days after surgery, length of intensive care unit stay (LIS), length of hospital stay (LHS), and total cost of hospitalization. Ethics and dissemination The trial protocol was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Beijing Shijitan Hospital Affiliated with Capital Medical University, approval number sjtky11-1x-2022(118). The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration ChiCTR2200057258. Registered on March 5, 2022.

Intraperitoneal (IP) route of drug administration in laboratory animals is a common practice in many in vivo studies of disease models. While this route is an easy to master, quick, suitable for chronic treatments and with low impact of stress on laboratory rodents, there is a common concern that it may not be an acceptable route for drug administration in experimental studies. The latter is likely due to sparsity of information regarding pharmacokinetics of pharmacological agents and the mechanisms through which agents get systemic exposure after IP administration. In this review, we summarize the main mechanisms involved in bioavailability of IP administered drugs and provide examples of pharmacokinetic profiles for small and large molecules in comparison to other routes of administration. We conclude with a notion that IP administration of drugs in experimental studies involving rodents is a justifiable route for pharmacological and proof-of-concept studies where the goal is to evaluate the effect(s) of target engagement rather than properties of a drug formulation and/or its pharmacokinetics for clinical translation.

Background Appendiceal pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP), a rare tumor from mucinous appendiceal origins, is treated with Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC). However, tubing blockages during HIPEC treatment pose a common challenge, impeding the smooth progression of therapy. Few studies to date have explored the incidence and risk factors of tube occlusion during HIPEC in patients with appendiceal PMP, as well as its adverse impact on postoperative complications. Methods From October 2017 to June 2023, a total of 80 patients with appendiceal PMP undergoing combined CRS and HIPEC were included in this study. Tubing blockage events were strictly defined, with patients experiencing blockages during HIPEC treatment allocated to the study group, while those with unobstructed perfusion were assigned to the control group. A comparative analysis was conducted between the two groups regarding post-HIPEC health assessments and occurrence of complications. Risk factors for luminal occlusion during closed HIPEC procedures were identified through univariate and multivariate analysis of data from 303 HIPEC treatments. Results Tubing blockages occurred in 41 patients (51.3%). The study group experienced prolonged gastrointestinal decompression time (4.1 ± 3.0 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7 days, P  = 0.003) and prolonged time to bowel movement (6.1 ± 2.3 vs. 5.1 ± 1.8 days, P  = 0.022) compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups. The 1-year survival rate postoperatively was 97%, and the 3-year survival rate was 81%, with no association found between tubing blockage and poorer survival. Additionally, In 303 instances of HIPEC treatment among these 80 patients, tube occlusion occurred in 89 cases (89/303, 29.4%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed age, diabetes, hypertension, and pathology as independent risk factors for tube occlusion. Conclusion Tubing blockages are a common occurrence during HIPEC treatment, leading to prolonged postoperative gastrointestinal functional recovery time. When patients are elderly and have concomitant hypertension and diabetes, along with a histological type of low-grade mucinous tumor, the risk of tube occlusion increases. However, this study did not find a significant correlation between tubing blockage and the incidence of postoperative complications or overall patient survival.

Background/objectives: Despite the incremental improvement of survival with systemic therapy in metastatic gastric cancer (GC), the outcomes of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) remain poor. The limited effectiveness of systemic therapy is attributed to the blood–peritoneal barrier and anarchic intra-tumoral circulation, which reduce the penetration of systemic therapy. Approaches that incorporate intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy, in addition to systemic therapies, may be a viable alternate strategy. Therefore, we provide a review of biology of gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis and evidence for bidirectional iterative IP chemotherapy in GCPC. Methods: A comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed to find the relevant articles and ongoing phase II/III clinical trials in iterative IP chemotherapy in GCPC. Results: Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy leverages the blood–peritoneal barrier to allow for the administration of high concentrations of chemotherapy directly to the peritoneal metastases, with a significant reduction in the systemic toxicity and enhanced drug efficacy against peritoneal metastasis. This pharmacokinetic advantage of IP chemotherapy can be further enhanced by additional measures such as heat or aerosolization. There are three IP chemotherapy approaches, namely, heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC), and normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC). Recent evidence suggests that iterative IP chemotherapy combined with systemic therapy may offer significant survival benefits for patients with peritoneal metastasis. Furthermore, bidirectional treatment approaches may also increase the chances of surgical resection and survival. Conclusions: IP chemotherapy plays a pivotal role in the management of gastric carcinomatosis, particularly in combination with cytoreduction in highly selected patients. The combination of systemic and regional control may increase the chances of surgical resection and may ultimately lead to significant survival benefits.

Background Multimodality therapy incorporating a combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), intraperitoneal (IP) and systemic therapy continues to evolve for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) However, treatment and outcomes vary depending on tumor of origin. Aims To develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines to facilitate treatment decision‐making for patients with PC based on available evidence. Materials and Methods The American Radium Society (ARS) multidisciplinary expert panel performed a comprehensive systematic review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established modified Delphi consensus methodology. Results Treatment of PC is often treated with a combination of CRS and IP ± systemic chemotherapy but specific recommendations exist for different tumor types and outcomes vary. Discussion Treatment of PC is complex and varies depending on origin of primary tumor and extent of disease. These AUC assist in patient and treatment selection for different clinical scenarios. Conclusion A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the management of PC from different tumor origins.

Background HIPEC is an emerging procedure to treat peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer. Data about HIPEC in locally advanced gastric cancer is scarce. The purpose of this trial is to evaluate the safety and toxicity of prophylactic HIPEC with cisplatin for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Methods From March 2015 to November 2016, a prospective, randomized phase II trial was conducted. After radical gastrectomy, patients in the experimental group underwent HIPEC with cisplatin followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with SOX regime. Patients in the other group were treated with SOX regime alone. Postoperative complications and patient survival were compared. Results In total, 50 patients were eligible for analyses. No significant difference was found in the incidence of postoperative complications including anastomotic/intestinal leakage, liver dysfunction, bone marrow suppression, wound infection and ileus ( P  > 0.05). Mean duration of hospitalization after radical gastrectomy was 11.7 days. 12.2 days in experimental group and 10.8 days in control group respectively ( P  = 0.255). The percentage of patients with elevated tumor markers was 12.1% in experimental group, which was significantly lower than 41.2% in control group ( P  = 0.02). 3-year RFS of patients who treated with or without prophylactic HIPEC were 84.8 and 88.2% respectively ( P  = 0.986). In the multivariate analysis, pathological T stage was the only independent risk factor for the RFS of patients ( P  = 0.012, HR =15.071). Conclusion Additional intraoperative HIPEC with cisplatin did not increase postoperative complications for locally advanced gastric cancer after curative surgery. Prophylactic HIPEC with cisplatin was safe and tolerable, while it did not reduce the risk of peritoneal recurrence in this trial, supporting further studies to validate the efficacy of it. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000038331. Registered 18 September 2020 - Retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=59692 .