Current Status of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Colorectal Cancer (CRC)

Abstract

Accounting for 8.7% of global cancer deaths, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. Cytoreduction surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is part of a multimodal strategy for managing CRC. HIPEC is designed to target residual microscopic disease using heated chemotherapy. There are several techniques including the open abdomen “coliseum” technique, which uses a silastic sheet to create a perfusion chamber and allows for manipulation of contents; whereas the closed abdomen technique maintains a sterile environment and may involve abdominal wall massage for heat distribution; lastly, the laparoscopic method combines the benefits of both techniques with enhanced drug distribution through laparoscopy. Research has shown that the coliseum technique offers superior heat uniformity, while the laparoscopic method provides optimal distribution with advanced monitoring tools. We examined early trials, procedural variations, and recent clinical research to assess its efficacy.

HIPEC involves the administration of heated chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal cavity after CRS in order to enhance local tumor control and survival. Various regimens that have been explored, including the Sugarbaker, triple dosing, and low dose mitomycin C regimen, report mixed results. The selection of chemotherapy drugs and their efficacy at high temperatures is crucial, with studies yielding mixed results for oxaliplatin and mitomycin C. The advantages of HIPEC, especially with oxaliplatin-based regimens, have been questioned by recent trials such as the PRODIGE 7 study because of problems like chemoresistance and greater postoperative morbidity. On the other hand, HIPEC is still supported by some as a good choice for individuals who are carefully chosen, particularly when combined with other forms of treatment. Despite being widely used in several cancer centers around the world for other pathologies, HIPEC remains a debated treatment option in CRC with peritoneal metastases. Even though the current evidence suggests that it might not provide a statistically meaningful overall survival improvement when compared to CRS alone, it might still be useful in some clinical settings or when combined with well-designed protocols. Thus, the necessity of more research and standardized protocols is paramount.

Determining the role of HIPEC, maximizing patient selection, and contrasting its effectiveness with other intraperitoneal treatments such as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy will require ongoing trials and future research. Until clearer evidence emerges, HIPEC should be considered a therapeutic option for selected patients and offered by dedicated, experienced centers and surgical teams.

Keywords

cytoreductive surgery - multimodality - curative approach - chemotherapy - colorectal cancer

S.P. Somashekhar

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the world accounting for 8.7% of all cancer deaths.[1] Cytoreduction surgery (CRS) along with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is part of one of the multimodal approaches toward the management of CRCs. Since peritoneum is the second most common metastatic site and is involved in about 10% of cases at initial presentation, its prognostic and predictive role is well recognized.[2] The peritoneum is a serous membrane that covers abdominal and pelvic organs, with limited vascularization. It forms a plasma peritoneum barrier that reduces efficacy of cancer-directed systemic therapy. CRS involves surgical removal of all macroscopic disease, whereas HIPEC targets residual microscopic disease using heated chemotherapy. CRS with HIPEC appears to slow oncological progression without affecting long-term survival though the operation is still experimental and should be reserved for younger patients under the age of 60.[3] HIPEC as a novel addition to the multimodality armamentarium has also been used with benefit in other cancers like ovarian cancer and gastric cancer, where its impact on overall survival (OS) is significant.[4] [5] In fact, one of the earliest randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of HIPEC was performed in patients of CRC with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by Verwaal et al demonstrating significant improvement in the prognosis.[6] In properly selected patients, CRS + HIPEC is associated with a median OS of 51 months and can give a potential cure or long-term remission in a significant number of patients.[7] [8]

Value of HIPEC depends on the efficacy of the chemotherapy agent at high temperatures. Various perioperative intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy studied include “Sugarbaker regimen,” “triple dosing regimen,” and the “low dose mitomycin C regimen: concentration-based regimen.”[9] Factors that affect outcome include, but are not limited to, the extent of disease, completeness of surgery, type of primary tumor (organ of origin), histological subtype, and age. For instance, PC with appendiceal origin have a much longer OS as compared to that of gastric origin.[10] Since there have been a lot of publications on the subject, conflicting data is often difficult to interpret, and the process of administering HIPEC is benefiting from technological advances, we bring to you the current status of HIPEC in CRC.

HIPEC in CRC: Early Trials and Applications

HIPEC is a procedure that involves the direct administration of heated chemotherapy drugs for a short time into the abdominal cavity after surgical removal of the primary tumor.[11] This approach allows for the direct targeting of residual tumor cells and micrometastases within the peritoneal cavity and has the potential to improve local control as well as survival. Multiple phase 2 studies conducted in the 1990s laid the foundation for larger retrospective and prospective studies.[12] [13] [14] One study conducted by Verwaal et al included a total of 105 patients who underwent surgical cytoreduction followed by HIPEC. The results showed significant improvement in OS compared to surgery alone.[6] Another study by Glehen et al reported similar findings.[15] These studies sparked increasing interest in using HIPEC as adjuvant treatment for CRC. Several questions still remained unanswered. Who are the patients most likely to benefit from HIPEC? Does it really improve the OS and to what extent? Will preliminary results be verified in larger prospective studies? Are there technological parameters that could be optimized? Verwaal et al's pioneering work with a period of 6 years has still left us perplexed in identifying patients that would have the best chance of improvement in OS.[16]

HIPEC Procedure

Preoperative evaluation must include patients' age, body mass index, comorbidities, performance status, organ reserves, prior therapies (and its tolerability), and fitness to undergo the rigorous procedures.[2] [17] Once a suitable patient is identified, the procedure can be carried out via the open abdomen or closed abdomen technique.

Open abdomen technique: The “coliseum technique” (described elsewhere in details) uses a silastic sheet to suspend the abdominal wall, forming a “coliseum” receptacle for the instillation of the peritoneal perfusate. An incision in the center of this sheet allows manipulation of the intra-abdominal contents and prevents statis of the heated perfusate. A smoke evacuator is utilized to remove aerosolized chemotherapy.[18]

Closed abdomen technique: This is the more popular method of HIPEC ([Fig. 1]). The colonic anastomoses can be performed before or after the HIPEC perfusion. Its main advantage is being a sterile closed circuit. This abdominal wall may be physically massaged during the perfusion in order to enhance uniform heat distribution.[18]

Fig. 1 Sterile closed abdominal technique for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

A prospective phase II trial evaluating seven different procedures in 32 participants conducted by Elias et al documented the limitations of completely closing the abdominal wall before perfusion—limited the amount of the perfusion, decreased spatial diffusion of the instillate, and led to a lack of thermal uniformity. Elias et al concluded that the coliseum technique was recognized as the best technique for heat uniformity and spatial diffusion.[19]

Laparoscopic method: Laparoscopic HIPEC in lithotomy position combines advantages of open and closed techniques. Laparoscopy allows stirring of abdominal contents during closed-abdomen HIPEC. Balloon trocars provide wide exposure of the parietal surface and alternating laparoscopic stirring achieves optimal drug distribution. Thermal probes, drains, palpators, and the use of pneumoperitoneum allows the closed perfusion HIPEC to be done over 90 minutes.[20]

The Advent of Liquid Biopsy and Its Integration with HIPEC

Liquid biopsy can identify patients most likely to benefit from HIPEC as circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA) levels can assess tumor burden and predict response to therapy.[21] [22] Serial ctDNA testing can identify early signs of recurrence, allowing for timely adjustments to the treatment regimen, thereby personalizing management.[23] [24] Mutations identified through liquid biopsy also guide targeted therapy decisions as well as the choice of the chemotherapy drug(s) used during HIPEC.[25] If ctDNA testing indicates low tumor burden postsurgery, it might also help avoid unnecessary adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.[24] Integrating liquid biopsy results into clinical decision-making algorithms for CRC treatment plans holds significant promise.[26] However, it cannot be considered as standard of care at this time.

HIPEC in Colorectal Cancer: Current Scenario

Several published RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses have been published on the use of HIPEC in CRC.[27] [28] [29] In a recent study, Cohen et al commented that, while the procedure is feasible, oncological safety and criteria for appropriate patient selection are still being evaluated.[30] Oxaliplatin and mitomycin C are the two most common drugs used for HIPEC. Zhang et al's meta-analysis comparing the survival efficacy of oxaliplatin against mitomycin C in patients having CRC with PC, concluded that mitomycin C is the safer option. On the other hand, Hompes et al had not reported any significant difference between the two.[31] [32] While oxaliplatin can provide the advantage of a shorter exposure time (as reported by Wisselink et al), it did not translate into differences in OS and disease-free survival (DFS) as compared to mitomycin.[33] The more recent PRODIGE 7 is crucial in today's decision making.[34]

In this trial 265 patients were randomly assigned to either CRS + HIPEC with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy or CRS alone. After a median follow-up of 63.8 months, there was no significant difference in OS between the two groups. Fortunately, HIPEC did not increase the rate of early postoperative complications or mortality at 30 days in this trial. Nor was there a difference in the frequency of grade 3 or worse digestive fistulae. However, the addition of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC to CRS did increase the frequency of grade 3 or worse complications at 60 days. The authors concluded that the treatment for peritoneal metastases should prioritize complete surgical removal of visible tumors (macroscopic complete cytoreductive surgery).[35]

Another study was published to determine whether HIPEC is better if the chemotherapy drug is not oxaliplatin. Kitaguchi et al conducted a retrospective collaborative cohort study in Korea and Japan comparing CRS + HIPEC with R0 (CC – completeness of cytoreduction) resection for patients with cancer and peritoneal metastasis (CPM) having a low PC index (PCI) scores (less than or equal to 6). Patients in the CRS arm did not undergo peritoneal stripping. The study results showed that CRS + HIPEC significantly prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS) (35.9% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and peritoneal RFS (PRFS) (44.5% vs. 27.6%, p = 0.017) but no benefit in OS (59.4% vs. 74.1%, p = 0.087). The postoperative complications remained similar between the two groups. Propensity score matching analysis also confirmed that OS was significantly longer in the R0 resection group (59.4% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.031). The study concluded that in patients with low PCI scores, CRS + HIPEC provides only the benefit of longer local control of CPM (as evidenced by longer RFS and PRFS). The importance of complete cytoreduction for improving OS cannot be overemphasized. Future research with prospective studies and longer follow-up will add value to the emerging data on the place of HIPEC in CRC.[36]

There are additional factors that have been shown to have important clinical implications for specific subgroups of patients. Di Giorgio et al's meta-analysis showed that low skeletal muscle mass before surgery is an important adverse prognostic factor.[37] Conflicting rates of postoperative bleeding as well as venous thromboembolism (postsurgery) was discussed thoroughly by Lundbech et al in their meta-analysis. Their manuscript indicates that CRS + HIPEC pose only a low risk of bleeding in the 30-day postoperative period and low risk of venous thromboembolism in the 90-day postoperative period.[38] Addressing cancer-associated anemia has the potential to improve tolerance of patients to HIPEC.[39] [40] Incorporation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy alongside HIPEC + CRS remains controversial in the absence of prospective studies.[41] The review by de Cuba et al suggests that curative resection + HIPEC shows a lower OS in comparison with CRS and HIPEC combination.[42] Other prognostic factors to keep in mind are site of primary, adjuvant chemotherapy use, intestinal obstruction or perforation, PCI score, and morbidity grade as reported by Narasimhan et al and Hallam et al.[43] [44] [45] Systemic chemotherapy post-CRS-HIPEC can provide survival advantage to carefully selected patients.[46] So also does excision of liver metastasis.[47]

No wonder the recent systematic review by Parikh et al failed to find clear evidence of OS benefit.[48] We could extrapolate from HIPEC use in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer,[49] but only to encourage CRC patients to enter RCTs involving HIPEC.[50] Alternatives to HIPEC, such as early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), are under investigation and we eagerly await their mature data.[28]

There is scepticism among oncologists regarding CRC with PC, after the three recently published RCTs that investigated the role of HIPEC. The PRODIGE 7 trial examined the role of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in patients treated with curative intent.[35] Conversely, the PROPHYLOCHIP and the COLOPEC were designed to investigate the prophylactic role of HIPEC in high-risk patients (T4aN01-2, synchronous lesions).[51] [52] Although all three trials demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of HIPEC in treating or preventing peritoneal metastases, these results are not sufficient to abandon HIPEC.

The common point of these trials is the use of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC regimen. Based on the results of these papers, the experts are of the opinion that oxaliplatin-based HIPEC is ineffective in improving surgery results in patients with CRC with PC and should be abandoned for several reasons. First, most of the patients in these received oxaliplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX), which raised the question of whether systemic oxaliplatin might induce chemoresistance and reduce the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC. In a recent study, oxaliplatin chemoresistance was demonstrated in the preoperative setting, potentially making the HIPEC regimen ineffective.[53] Second, oxaliplatin-based HIPEC has higher rate of postoperative complications (grade 3 morbidity in the HIPEC arm was 26% vs. 15%, p = 0.035).[35] Another issue with these trails investigating the effectiveness of HIPEC is the difficulties in conducting randomized trials in this subset of patients (isolated peritoneal metastasis [PM] with PCI less than 20). Moreover, the choice of OS as the primary endpoint does not adequately prove the role of CRS-HIPEC, which is primarily a locoregional treatment directed to control metastatic disease inside the peritoneal cavity.

Only a minority of patients will be cured after CRS-HIPEC, and survival results are mainly related to response to systemic chemotherapy. For this reason, peritoneal recurrence/progression-free survival would have been more appropriate endpoint. Although the PRODIGE 7 trial did not support the use of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC, there are two positives in the trial. First, the trial unequivocally proves the role of CRS in the multimodal treatment of patients with CRC with PC. The gain of 42 months in median OS is a remarkable result and 15% of patients can be considered cured at 5 years. Second, significant benefit on the survival of HIPEC was seen in patients with PCI score between 11 and 15.[35] Even though oncologists have reservations about the role of CRS + HIPEC.[54]

The debate on the role of HIPEC in CRC PM treatment is constantly evolving. It is premature to completely dismiss the role of HIPEC. One of the major issues requiring further investigation after the PRODIGE 7 trial publication (and COLOPEC and PROPHYLOCHIP as well) is the choice of intraperitoneal or combination of drugs for HIPEC. Several trials are ongoing investigating mitomycin-based HIPEC after CRS. HIPEC could still prove to be useful with new protocols/new drug combinations. In future trials, apart from trails for Mytomicin C (MMC), a change in the oxaliplatin regimen is needed. Only one-half of oxaliplatin is systemically absorbed over 30 minutes of HIPEC, thus limiting its exposure to the peritoneal layers, extending the HIPEC time up to 120 minutes with a lower drug dose could improve the oxaliplatin-based HIPEC efficacy. The addition of a second drug to oxaliplatin (i.e., irinotecan) is another option. In a survey of expert surgeons of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI), the panelists consider CRS + HIPEC still an indication for CRC with PC and the change of HIPEC regimen in most of the panelists, with a shift toward MMC-based HIPEC as mentioned in the meta-analysis where several studies are ongoing investigating other HIPEC drugs and regimens both for therapeutic and prophylactic setting.[55]

The results of the Spanish trial HIPECT4 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02614534) have been recently presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2022 (abstract n 314O).[56] Proactive cytoreductive surgery associated with mitomycin C-based HIPEC at the time of primary cT4 CRC curative resection leads to a significant improvement in the 3-year locoregional control rate (97% in the HIPEC group vs. 87%). However, the DFS was not statistically different between groups.

Conclusion

IP therapies like HIPEC, EPIC, and PIPAC are potentially useful locoregional treatments in CRC with PC patients. Despite being widely used in several cancer centers around the world for other pathologies, its role had never been conclusively proved in CRC with PC as the HIPEC regimen has not been standardized. HIPEC continues to remain an option in the management of CRC with peritoneal metastases. As of today, it has failed to conclusively prove its OS benefit. The studies conducted by Cao et al, Narasimhan et al, and Hallam et al show that success rates vary based on patient selection, chemotherapy regimens, and several other factors of prognostic importance. Further research will determine the exact benefit and criteria of patient selection for HIPEC, especially in comparison to CRS alone or with EPIC and PIPAC. Their role in conjunction with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is also to be teased out. HIPEC should still be considered a therapeutic option for selected patients and offered by dedicated, experienced centers and surgical teams.

In the meantime, we encourage the participation of eligible CRC patients in HIPEC clinical trials till such time as its definitive role in patient care is proven conclusively.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 Cancer of the Colon and Rectum - Cancer Stat Facts. SEER. Accessed May 14, 2024 at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html
• 2 Ben Aziz M, Di Napoli R. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2024. . Accessed May 14, 2024 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK570563/
• 3 Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer - PMC. . Accessed May 15, 2024 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4716024/
• 4 Coccolini F, Cotte E, Glehen O. et al. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40 (01) 12-26
• 5 Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed. Accessed May 15, 2024 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26453145/
• 6 Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, de Bree E. et al. Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21 (20) 3737-3743
• 7 Elias D, Lefevre JH, Chevalier J. et al. Complete cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (05) 681-685
• 8 Goéré D, Malka D, Tzanis D. et al. Is there a possibility of a cure in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis amenable to complete cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy?. Ann Surg 2013; 257 (06) 1065-1071
• 9 Van der Speeten K, Lemoine L, Sugarbaker P. Overview of the optimal perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy regimens used in current clinical practice. Pleura Peritoneum 2017; 2 (02) 63-72
• 10 Dehal A, Smith JJ, Nash GM. Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy: an evidence-based review-past, present and future. J Gastrointest Oncol 2016; 7 (01) 143-157
• 11 González-Moreno S, González-Bayón LA, Ortega-Pérez G. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: rationale and technique. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2010; 2 (02) 68-75
• 12 Cavaliere F, Perri P, Di Filippo F. et al. Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with intent to cure. J Surg Oncol 2000; 74 (01) 41-44
• 13 Chemohyperthermic peritoneal perfusion for peritoneal dissemination in various intra-abdominal malignancies - PubMed. Accessed May 16, 2024 at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10421021/
• 14 Schneebaum S, Arnold MW, Staubus A, Young DC, Dumond D, Martin Jr EW. Intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion with mitomycin C for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 1996; 3 (01) 44-50
• 15 Glehen O, Kwiatkowski F, Sugarbaker PH. et al. Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (16) 3284-3292
• 16 Verwaal VJ, Bruin S, Boot H, van Slooten G, van Tinteren H. 8-year follow-up of randomized trial: cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15 (09) 2426-2432
• 17 Solanki SL, Mukherjee S, Agarwal V. et al. Society of Onco-Anaesthesia and Perioperative Care consensus guidelines for perioperative management of patients for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Indian J Anaesth 2019; 63 (12) 972-987
• 18 Glehen O, Cotte E, Kusamura S. et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: nomenclature and modalities of perfusion. J Surg Oncol 2008; 98 (04) 242-246
• 19 Elias D, Antoun S, Goharin A, Otmany AE, Puizillout JM, Lasser P. Research on the best chemohyperthermia technique of treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis after complete resection. Int J Surg Investig 2000; 1 (05) 431-439
• 20 Lotti M, Capponi MG, Piazzalunga D. et al. Laparoscopic HIPEC: a bridge between open and closed-techniques. J Minim Access Surg 2016; 12 (01) 86-89
• 21 Yang YC, Wang D, Jin L. et al. Circulating tumor DNA detectable in early- and late-stage colorectal cancer patients. Biosci Rep 2018; 38 (04) BSR20180322
• 22 El Messaoudi S, Mouliere F, Du Manoir S. et al. Circulating DNA as a strong multimarker prognostic tool for metastatic colorectal cancer patient management care. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22 (12) 3067-3077
• 23 Kasi PM, Budde G, Krainock M. et al. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) serial analysis during progression on PD-1 blockade and later CTLA-4 rescue in patients with mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. J Immunother Cancer 2022; 10 (01) e003312
• 24 Circulating tumor DNA analysis for assessment of recurrence risk, benefit of adjuvant therapy, and early relapse detection after treatment in colorectal cancer patients.—Aalborg University's Research Portal. Accessed June 1, 2024 at: https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/circulating-tumor-dna-analysis-for-assessment-of-recurrence-risk-
• 25 Cremolini C, Rossini D, Dell'Aquila E. et al. Rechallenge for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to first-line cetuximab and irinotecan: a phase 2 single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5 (03) 343-350
• 26 Raza A, Khan AQ, Inchakalody VP. et al. Dynamic liquid biopsy components as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2022; 41 (01) 99
• 27 Zhao PY, Hu SD, Li YX. et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients at high risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg 2020; 7: 590452
• 28 Yurttas C, Hoffmann G, Tolios A. et al. Systematic review of variations in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer. J Clin Med 2018; 7 (12) 567
• 29 Stamou K, Gouvas N, Pechlivanides G, Xynos E. Primary curative surgery and preemptive or adjuvant hyperthermic peritoneal chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients at high risk to develop peritoneal carcinomatosis. A systematic review. J Balkan Union Oncol 2018; 23 (05) 1249-1261
• 30 Cohen L, Alam F, Flood MP. et al. A systematic review of minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal malignancy. ANZ J Surg 2024; 94 (7-8): 1324-1332
• 31 Zhang X, Wu Q, Wei M, Deng X, Gu C, Wang Z. Oxaliplatin versus mitomycin C in HIPEC for peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35 (10) 1831-1839
• 32 Hompes D, D'Hoore A, Wolthuis A. et al. The use of oxaliplatin or mitomycin C in HIPEC treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a comparative study. J Surg Oncol 2014; 109 (06) 527-532
• 33 Wisselink DD, Braakhuis LLF, Gallo G. et al. Systematic review of published literature on oxaliplatin and mitomycin C as chemotherapeutic agents for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2019; 142: 119-129
• 34 Quenet F, Elias D, Roca L. et al. A UNICANCER phase III trial of hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC): PRODIGE 7. JCO 2018; 36 (18) LBA3503-LBA3503
• 35 Quénet F, Elias D, Roca L. et al; UNICANCER-GI Group and BIG Renape Group. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22 (02) 256-266
• 36 Kitaguchi D, Park EJ, Baik SH, Sasaki S, Tsukada Y, Ito M. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus R0 resection for resectable colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases and low peritoneal cancer index scores: a collaborative observational study from Korea and Japan. Int J Surg 2024; 110 (01) 45-52
• 37 Di Giorgio A, Rotolo S, Cintoni M. et al. The prognostic value of skeletal muscle index on clinical and survival outcomes after cytoreduction and HIPEC for peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2022; 48 (03) 649-656
• 38 Lundbech M, Krag AE, Iversen LH, Hvas AM. Postoperative bleeding and venous thromboembolism in colorectal cancer patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022; 37 (01) 17-33
• 39 Natalucci V, Virgili E, Calcagnoli F. et al. Cancer related anemia: an integrated multitarget approach and lifestyle interventions. Nutrients 2021; 13 (02) 482
• 40 Mehta SS, Gelli M, Agarwal D, Goéré D. Complications of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in the treatment of peritoneal metastases. Indian J Surg Oncol 2016; 7 (02) 225-229
• 41 Flood MP, Kong JCH, Wilson K. et al. The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical management of colorectal peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2022; 29 (11) 6619-6631
• 42 de Cuba EMV, Kwakman R, Knol DL, Bonjer HJ, Meijer GA, Te Velde EA. Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for peritoneal metastases combined with curative treatment of colorectal liver metastases: systematic review of all literature and meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Treat Rev 2013; 39 (04) 321-327
• 43 Cao C, Yan TD, Black D, Morris DL. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cytoreductive surgery with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16 (08) 2152-2165
• 44 Narasimhan V, Tan S, Kong J. et al. Prognostic factors influencing survival in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2020; 22 (11) 1482-1495
• 45 Hallam S, Tyler R, Price M, Beggs A, Youssef H. Meta-analysis of prognostic factors for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastasis undergoing cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. BJS Open 2019; 3 (05) 585-594
• 46 Tonello M, Cenzi C, Pizzolato E. et al. Systemic chemotherapy in colorectal peritoneal metastases treated with cytoreductive surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16 (06) 1182
• 47 Flood MP, Das AA, Soucisse ML. et al. Synchronous liver resection, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal liver and peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2021; 64 (06) 754-764
• 48 Parikh MS, Johnson P, Romanes JP. et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 2022; 65 (01) 16-26
• 49 Dominic JL, Kannan A, Tara A. et al. Prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the prevention and control of peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. EXCLI J 2021; 20: 1328-1345
• 50 Gurusamy K, Leung J, Vale C. et al. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy for people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 2024; 48 (06) 1385-1403
• 51 Goéré D, Glehen O, Quenet F. et al; BIG-RENAPE group. Second-look surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus surveillance in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases (PROPHYLOCHIP-PRODIGE 15): a randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2020; 21 (09) 1147-1154
• 52 Klaver CEL, Wisselink DD, Punt CJA. et al; COLOPEC collaborators group. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced colon cancer (COLOPEC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 4 (10) 761-770
• 53 Prabhu A, Brandl A, Wakama S. et al. Effect of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy on chemosensitivity in patients with peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: proof-of-concept study. BJS Open 2021; 5 (02) zraa075
• 54 Braam HJ, Boerma D, Wiezer MJ, van Ramshorst B. Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: experiment or standard care? A survey among oncologic surgeons and medical oncologists. Int J Clin Oncol 2015; 20 (05) 928-934
• 55 Sommariva A, Tonello M, Coccolini F. et al. Colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases: the impact of the results of PROPHYLOCHIP, COLOPEC, and PRODIGE 7 trials on peritoneal disease management. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 15 (01) 165
• 56 Arjona-Sanchez A, Cano-Osuna M, Gutierrez A. et al. 314O Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in locally advanced colon cancer (HIPECT4): a randomized phase III study. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: S680

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. Dezember 2024

Angenommen: 10. Januar 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. Februar 2025