Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Management of Advanced Ovarian Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jewell A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6162496 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Management of Advanced Ovarian Cancer.
Jewell Andrea A McMahon Megan M Khabele Dineo D
Cancers 20180901 9
Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has several potential benefits. Higher doses of chemotherapy can be used with HIPEC because the plasma-peritoneal barrier results in little absorption into the blood stream. HIPEC offers higher peritoneal penetration in comparison to an intravenous (IV) regimen and does not have the traditional normothermic intraperitoneal (IP) regimen limitation of post-operative adhesions. Hyperthermia itself has cytotoxic effects and can potentiate antineoplastic ef ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOvarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an obvious target for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is usually given as an intravenous (IV) infusion repeatedly over five to eight cycles. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is given by infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the peritoneal cavity. There are biological reasons why this might increase the anticancer effect and reduce some systemic adverse effects in comparison to IV therapy.ObjectivesTo determine if adding a component of the chemotherapy regime into the peritoneal cavity affects overall survival, progression-free survival, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity in the primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, MEDLINE (1951 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011). We updated these searches in February 2007, August 2010, May 2011 and September 2015. In addition, we handsearched and cascade searched the major gynaecological oncology journals up to May 2011.Selection criteriaThe analysis was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration.Data collection and analysisWe extracted data on overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse events and QOL and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using RevMan software.Main resultsNine randomised trials studied 2119 women receiving primary treatment for ovarian cancer. We considered six trials to be of high quality. Women were less likely to die if they received an IP component to chemotherapy (eight studies, 2026 women; HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 0.90). Intraperitoneal component chemotherapy prolonged the disease-free interval (five studies, 1311 women; HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.86). There was greater serious toxicity with regard to gastrointestinal effects, pain, fever and infection but less ototoxicity with the IP than the IV route.Authors' conclusionsIntraperitoneal chemotherapy increases overall survival and progression-free survival from advanced ovarian cancer. The results of this meta-analysis provide the most reliable estimates of the relative survival benefits of IP over IV therapy and should be used as part of the decision making process. However, the potential for catheter related complications and toxicity needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual woman. The optimal dose, timing and mechanism of administration cannot be addressed from this meta-analysis. This needs to be addressed in the next phase of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8602974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOvarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an obvious target for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is usually given as an intravenous (IV) infusion repeatedly over five to eight cycles. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is given by infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the peritoneal cavity. There are biological reasons why this might increase the anticancer effect and reduce some systemic adverse effects in comparison to IV therapy.ObjectivesTo determine if adding a component of the chemotherapy regime into the peritoneal cavity affects overall survival, progression-free survival, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity in the primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, MEDLINE (1951 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011). We updated these searches in February 2007, August 2010 and May 2011. In addition, we handsearched and cascade searched the major gynaecological oncology journals.Selection criteriaThe analysis was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration.Data collection and analysisWe extracted data on overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse events and QOL and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using RevMan software.Main resultsNine randomised trials studied 2119 women receiving primary treatment for ovarian cancer. We considered six trials to be of high quality. Women were less likely to die if they received an IP component to chemotherapy (eight studies, 2026 women; HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 0.90). Intraperitoneal component chemotherapy prolonged the disease-free interval (five studies, 1311 women; HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.86). There was greater serious toxicity with regard to gastrointestinal effects, pain, fever and infection but less ototoxicity with the IP than the IV route.Authors' conclusionsIntraperitoneal chemotherapy increases overall survival and progression-free survival from advanced ovarian cancer. The results of this meta-analysis provide the most reliable estimates of the relative survival benefits of IP over IV therapy and should be used as part of the decision making process. However, the potential for catheter related complications and toxicity needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual woman. The optimal dose, timing and mechanism of administration cannot be addressed from this meta-analysis. This needs to be addressed in the next phase of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4164826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP)and intravenous chemotherapy (IP)for primary advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsPubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched using multiple terms for primary advanced ovarian cancer, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies in both Chinese and English (up to date 15 August 2022). Outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events. The data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales were used to assess the risk of bias in the included comparative study. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used for randomized controlled trials.ResultsIn total, 32 studies, including 6347 patients and 8 different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis results showed that HIPEC2 (carboplatin with area under the curve 10) exhibited a statistically significant OS benefit compared to IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1 (cisplatin with 75/100 mg/m2). Intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significantly better likelihood of overall survival compared to IV. For progression-free survival, our statistical results only suggest a better progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC1 compared with weekly dose-dense chemotherapy. No evidence of difference was observed between the other comparison groups. Compared with the non-HIPEC group, HIPEC may had a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3).ConclusionOur statistical analysis suggests that the groups receiving HIPEC2 had a better OS than the groups receiving IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1. For PFS, our analysis only showed HIPEC1 is better than IV. Moreover, HIPEC may lead to a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3). HIPEC therapy for advanced ovarian cancer is currently controversial.
| S-EPMC9917421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) holds promise as an adjunctive treatment strategy in malignancies affecting the peritoneal surface, effectively targeting remaining microscopic residual tumor. HIPEC increases concentrations of chemotherapy directly within the peritoneal cavity compared with the intravenous route and reduces the systemic side effects associated with prolonged adjuvant intraperitoneal exposure. Furthermore, hyperthermia increases tissue penetration and is synergistic with the therapeutic chemotherapy agents used. In ovarian cancer, evidence is building for its use in both primary and recurrent scenarios. In this review, we examine the history of HIPEC, the techniques used, and the available data guiding its use in primary and recurrent ovarian cancer.
| S-EPMC7168334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study investigated miRNA and cytokine expression changes in peritoneal fluid samples of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (OVCA) after receiving hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during cytoreduction surgery (CRS). We collected samples prior to HIPEC, immediately after HIPEC, and 24/48/72 h after CRS from a total of 6 patients. Cytokine levels were assessed using a multiplex cytokine array, and a miRNA PanelChip Analysis System was used for miRNA detection. Following HIPEC, miR-320a-3p, and miR-663-a were found to be immediately down-regulated but increased after 24 h. Further, significant upregulation post-HIPEC and sustained increases in expression were detected in six other miRNAs, including miR-1290, miR-1972, miR-1254, miR-483-5p, miR-574-3p, and miR-574-5p. We also found significantly increased expression of cytokines, including MCP-1, IL-6, IL-6sR, TIMP-1, RANTES, and G-CSF. The changing expression pattern throughout the study duration included a negative correlation in miR-320a-3p and miR-663-a to cytokines including RANTES, TIMP-1, and IL-6 but a positive correlation in miRNAs to cytokines including MCP-1, IL-6sR, and G-CSF. Our study found miRNAs and cytokines in the peritoneal fluid of OVCA patients demonstrated different expression characteristics following CRS and HIPEC. Both changes in expression demonstrated correlations, but the role of HIPEC remains unknown, prompting the need for research in the future.
| S-EPMC10253890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ovarian cancer is a major cause of cancer related-death in women around the world. Recent statistics on the worldwide cancer burden by the International Agency for the research on Cancer revealed ovarian cancer being both the eighth most frequent malignancy in the west countries. Peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer is a major challenge in the clinical management. Despite the evidence of the benefit of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in ovarian cancer with peritoneal deposits it has not been widely adopted, mainly due to logistical difficulties and less to the logoregional morbidity as pain. The role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients during the end of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is a more tolerable feasible method with potential advantages as drug distribution, combination with hyperthermia and application before tumor regrowth. The aim of this article is to investigate the potential benefits of HIPEC explains the rationale, data of major clinical trials meta-analyses and recent randomized trial are presented and explains the indications patient selection and the best time to applicate of this aggressive logo regional treatment.
| S-EPMC7812203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) has shown survival benefits for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the integration of HIPEC into clinical practice.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ICS with HIPEC compared with ICS alone in clinical practice for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, multicenter, comparative effectiveness cohort study enrolled 205 patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer who had received at least 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by ICS with HIPEC or ICS without HIPEC at 7 Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group institutions between September 1, 2017, and April 22, 2022. Nine patients were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria.ExposuresNeoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by ICS with HIPEC or ICS without HIPEC.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) and the safety profile were the key secondary end points.ResultsThis study included 196 patients (median age, 58.0 years [range, 38-82 years]), of whom 109 underwent ICS with HIPEC and 87 underwent ICS without HIPEC. The median duration of follow-up was 28.2 months (range, 3.5-58.6 months). Disease recurrence occurred in 128 patients (65.3%), and 30 patients (15.3%) died. Interval cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC was associated with a significant improvement in median PFS compared with ICS without HIPEC (22.9 months [95% CI, 3.5-58.6 months] vs 14.2 months [95% CI, 4.0-56.2 months]; P = .005) and median OS (not reached [95% CI, 3.5 months to not reached] vs 53.0 [95% CI, 4.6-56.2 months]; P = .002). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 postoperative complications was similar in both groups (ICS with HIPEC, 3 of 109 [2.8%] vs ICS without HIPEC, 3 of 87 [3.4%]; P > .99). Among patients with recurrence, the frequency of peritoneal recurrence was lower in the ICS with HIPEC group than in the ICS without HIPEC group (21 of 64 [32.8%] vs 41 of 64 [64.1%]; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that ICS in conjunction with HIPEC was associated with longer PFS and OS than ICS without HIPEC for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer and was not associated with higher rates of postoperative complications. The lower rate of peritoneal recurrence after HIPEC may be associated with improved OS.
| S-EPMC10483378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOvarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. Although treatment with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results, its role remains elusive. The aim of this study was to assess the comprehensive randomized evidence for the use versus non-use of HIPEC in primary and recurrent ovarian cancer.Materials and methodsThe Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases, as well as the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference abstracts of the last 5 years, were scrutinized in January 2022 for randomized, controlled trials that studied the use of HIPEC in ovarian cancer. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and progression-free survival, as well as post-operative morbidity were the outcomes of interest. This study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.ResultsSix randomized, controlled trials that randomized 737 patients were included in our analysis; of these, four studies (519 patients) were in primary and two (218 patients) in recurrent settings. In primary ovarian cancer, the combination of HIPEC with interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved the 5-year OS [393 patients, risk ratio (RR) = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.90; P value = 0.001] and DFS (hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI 0.41-0.87; P value = 0.008) compared with standard treatment alone. In the absence of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the use of HIPEC + CRS was not associated with any survival advantage (126 patients, 4-year OS, RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.57-1.53; P value = 0.781), but the sample size was smaller in this subset. Use of HIPEC in recurrent ovarian cancer did not provide any survival advantage (5-year OS: 218 patients, RR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.45-1.62; P value = 0.626). The risk for grade ≥3 adverse events was similar between HIPEC and no HIPEC (RR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.98-1.18; P value = 0.109).ConclusionsIn primary ovarian cancer the combination of HIPEC with interval CRS and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a safe option that significantly improved 5-year OS and DFS. Its use in other settings should continue to be considered investigational.
| S-EPMC9588894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peritoneal metastasis is a common final pathway in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Microscopic evidence of early peritoneal dissemination of gastric cancer is present in a substantial proportion of patients presumed to have localized disease. Prognosis is poor even for patients with microscopic and low-volume peritoneal carcinomatosis highlighting the need for a more effective treatment strategy. Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been evaluated in gastric cancer and is associated with improved survival in selected patients. We hypothesize that removal of the primary tumor combined with treatment of low-volume peritoneal metastasis may improve survival in patients with gastric cancer. Our group is investigating the role of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy administered at time of gastrectomy in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma and metastasis limited to the peritoneum. To date, trials dedicated to the study of regional therapy for peritoneal metastasis due to gastric cancer have originated primarily in Asian centers. Although the incidence of gastric cancer is relatively low in the United States, mortality rates are high and the need is real for prospective study of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with this deadly disease.
| S-EPMC5750183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Phase 3 trials have demonstrated a survival advantage for patients with optimally debulked epithelial ovarian cancer who received intravenous (IV) and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy compared with IV therapy alone. This was despite a significant proportion of patients in the IV/IP arms not completing all 6 planned cycles. Our objective was to evaluate the prognostic significance of the number of IV/IP cycles administered. METHODS/MATERIALS:Data were analyzed for all patients with stage III to IV epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent optimal primary cytoreduction followed by 1 or more cycles of IV/IP chemotherapy from January 2005 to July 2011 at our institution. A landmark analysis was performed to associate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the number of IV/IP cycles given. RESULTS:We identified 201 patients; 26 (13%) received 1 to 2 cycles of IV/IP chemotherapy, 41 (20%) received 3 to 4 cycles, and 134 (67%) received 5 to 6 cycles. The 5-year PFS for patients who received 1 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 to 6 cycles was 18%, 29%, and 17%, respectively. The 5-year OS for patients who received 1 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 to 6 cycles was 44%, 54%, and 57%, respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS (P = 0.31) or OS (P = 0.14) between the 3 groups. The most common reason for discontinuing IV/IP therapy was treatment-related toxicity (77%). Postoperative complications were the most common reason for not initiating IV/IP therapy (42%) in patients who subsequently transitioned to it. CONCLUSIONS:We did not detect a significant survival difference between patients who received 1 to 2, 3 to 4, or 5 to 6 IV/IP chemotherapy cycles. Women may still derive a survival benefit if they receive fewer than 6 IV/IP cycles.
| S-EPMC4408230 | biostudies-literature