Anesthetic management of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC): The importance of hydro-electrolytic and acid-basic control.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mendonca FT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5512179 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Gastric cancer associated peritoneal carcinomatosis (GCPC) has a poor prognosis with a median survival of less than one year. Systemic chemotherapy including targeted agents has not been found to significantly increase the survival in GCPC. Since recurrent gastric cancer remains confined to the abdominal cavity in many patients, regional therapies like aggressive cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have been investigated for GCPC. HIPEC has been used for three indications in GC- as an adjuvant therapy after a curative surgery, HIPEC has been shown to improve survival and reduce peritoneal recurrences in many randomised trials in Asian countries; as a definitive treatment in established PC, HIPEC along with CRS is the only therapeutic modality that has resulted in long-term survival in select groups of patients; as a palliative treatment in advanced PC with intractable ascites, HIPEC has been shown to control ascites and reduce the need for frequent paracentesis. While the results of randomised trials of adjuvant HIPEC from western centres are awaited, the role of HIPEC in the treatment of GCPC is still evolving and needs larger studies before it is accepted as a standard of care.
| S-EPMC4716024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The management of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer origin has evolved considerably over the last three decades with the establishment of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as efficacious therapies in carefully selected patients. Other approaches such as the use of prophylactic/adjuvant HIPEC in patients who are considered high-risk and those with positive peritoneal cytology will benefit from additional data before being adopted into routine clinical practice. Lastly, there are new and emerging intraperitoneal chemotherapy techniques such as early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) for residual microscopic disease, and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) for patients with advanced unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis, which are currently under evaluation in clinical trials. The following review outlines the natural history of gastric cancer, currently available neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies for resectable disease, and existing evidence supporting various approaches to CRS and intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC6896138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceStudies on the prognostic role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) are currently not available.ObjectivesTo evaluate outcomes after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC compared with CRS alone in patients with PMP.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed data from the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) registry, including 1924 patients with histologically confirmed PMP due to an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Eligible patients were treated with CRS with or without HIPEC from February 1, 1993, to December 31, 2017, and had complete information on the main prognostic factors and intraperitoneal treatments. Inverse probability treatment weights based on the propensity score for HIPEC treatment containing the main prognostic factors were applied to all models to balance comparisons between the CRS-HIPEC vs CRS-alone groups in the entire series and in the following subsets: optimal cytoreduction, suboptimal cytoreduction, high- and low-grade histologic findings, and different HIPEC drug regimens. Data were analyzed from March 1 to June 1, 2018.InterventionsHIPEC including oxaliplatin plus combined fluorouracil-leucovorin, cisplatin plus mitomycin, mitomycin, and other oxaliplatin-based regimens.Main outcomes and measuresOverall survival, severe morbidity (determined using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology for Adverse Events, version 3.0), return to operating room, and 30- and 90-day mortality. Differences in overall survival were compared using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. A sensitivity analysis was based on the E-value from the results of the main Cox proportional hazards model. Differences in surgical outcomes were compared using weighted multivariable logistic models.ResultsOf the 1924 patients included in the analysis (997 [51.8%] men; median age, 56 [interquartile range extremes (IQRE), 45-65] years), 376 were in the CRS-alone group and 1548 in the CRS-HIPEC group. Patients with CRS alone were older (median age, 60 [IQRE, 48-70] vs 54 [IQRE, 44-63] years), had less lymph node involvement (14 [3.7%] vs 119 [7.7%]), received more preoperative systemic chemotherapy (198 [52.7%] vs 529 [34.2%]), and had higher proportions of high-grade disease (179 [47.6%] vs 492 [31.8%]) and suboptimal cytoreduction residual disease (grade 3, 175 [46.5%] vs 117 [7.6%]). HIPEC was not associated with a higher risk of worse surgical outcomes except with mitomycin, with higher odds of morbidity (1.99; 95% CI, 1.25-3.19; P = .004). HIPEC was associated with a significantly better overall survival in all subsets (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs], 0.60-0.68, with 95% CIs not crossing 1.00). The weighted 5-year overall survival was 57.8% (95% CI, 50.8%-65.7%) vs 46.2% (95% CI, 40.3%-52.8%) for CRS-HIPEC and CRS alone, respectively (weighted HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83; P < .001; E-value, 2.03). Such prognostic advantage was associated with oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil-leucovorin (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.93; P = .03) and cisplatin plus mitomycin (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.78; P = .001) schedules.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, HIPEC was associated with better overall survival when performed after CRS in PMP, generally without adverse effects on surgical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7841579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has emerged as one of the primary modalities of treatment of diffuse peritoneal malignancies. It is a complex surgical procedure with the patients facing major and potentially life threatening alterations of haemodynamic, respiratory, metabolic and thermal balance with significant fluid losses and the perioperative management is challenging for anaesthesiologists and intensive care physicians. Though the alterations are short lived, these patients require advanced organ function monitoring and support perioperatively. The anaesthesiologist is involved in the management of haemodynamics, respiratory function, coagulation, haematologic parameters, fluid balance, thermal variations, and metabolic and nutritional support perioperatively. The chemotherapy instillate used are known to cause nephrotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, dyselectrolytemia and lactic acidosis. The preoperative polypharmacy for pain control, previous surgery and/or chemotherapy, malnourished status secondary to feeding problems and tumour wasting syndrome make the task all the more challenging. The anaesthesiologist also needs to consider the perioperative care from a quality of life perspective and proper preoperative counselling is important. The present overview summarizes the challenges faced by the anaesthesiologist regarding the pathophysiological alterations during the Cytoreductive surgery and Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods.
| S-EPMC4818608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSecondary cytoreductive surgery (CRS) can afford promising results in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer; however, the impact of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) remains unclear. We compared the outcomes of secondary CRS combined with and without HIPEC in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who underwent secondary CRS, with or without HIPEC (n=46), at the Yonsei Cancer Center between January 2006 and February 2021. Of the 46 included patients, 20 underwent secondary CRS-plus-HIPEC, while 26 underwent secondary CRS without HIPEC (henceforth referred to as secondary CRS-only).ResultsOf the 46 patients, 84.8% and 89.1% had undergone optimal surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy, respectively, as the initial treatment before the first relapse. Overall, 32.6% of patients received maintenance therapy, such as bevacizumab or polyadenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitors. The median follow-up period was 15.9 months. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 32.7 and 25.1 months in the secondary CRS-plus-HIPEC and secondary CRS-only groups, respectively; however, both groups failed to reach the median overall survival (OS). Based on the Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no difference in PFS (P=0.587) or OS (P=0.239) between the two groups. We identified patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and found that the median PFS was 25.1 months in the secondary CRS-only group; this was not achieved in the secondary CRS-plus-HIPEC group (P=0.244).ConclusionsIn patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary CRS with HIPEC did not improve survival when compared with CRS without HIPEC. However, on subgrouping patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, the addition of HIPEC to secondary CRS tended to improve PFS.
| S-EPMC10788571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreoperative bevacizumab has been reported to increase postoperative complication risk following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). We sought to review our experience with preoperative bevacizumab in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancy.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of patients who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy with or without bevacizumab prior to CRS/HIPEC at a high-volume academic center from 2007-2018.ResultsOf 499 patients, a total of 88 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (n = 34) or in combination with bevacizumab (n = 54) within 3 months prior to CRS/HIPEC. No differences existed in 60-day major morbidity (17.6 vs. 16.7%, p = 0.81) or 60-day mortality (0 vs. 0%) between the two cohorts, and neoadjuvant bevacizumab was not associated with increased odds of overall complications (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.35-2.09, p = 0.73) or major morbidity (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.24-3.00, p = 0.81). Stratifying patients by primary tumor origin and post-operative complications did not reveal any significant differences between the two treatment groups. In addition, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in both cohorts.ConclusionsPreoperative bevacizumab is not associated with increased morbidity or mortality following CRS/HIPEC. Neoadjuvant therapy employing this biologic agent is safe and should not be a deterrent for aggressive cytoreduction with curative intent.
| S-EPMC7714141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has an emerging role in the treatment of peritoneal malignancies. The CRS-HIPEC approach has known treatment-related toxicities. This study sought to determine the predictors of major postoperative complications after CRS-HIPEC in a high-volume center.From a single-institution database, this study investigated complications experienced by patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC. Multiple preoperative and operative factors were analyzed for their ability to predict 60-day Clavien grade 3 and greater (major) complications by logistic regression. A predictive model was created from preoperative factors using multivariate logistic regression. The model was tested by Akaike's information criterion, the Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit Test, the receiver operating characteristic, and the Youden Index.The study evaluated 247 patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC. The primary tumor site was the appendix in 166 cases (67.2 %), the colorectal area in 51 cases (20.6 %), the peritoneum (mesothelioma) in 22 cases (8.9 %), the ovary in 5 cases (2 %), and the small bowel in 3 cases (1.2 %). The median peritoneal cancer index was 14 (range 0-29), and 235 patients (95.1 %) had a complete (CC-0/1) cytoreduction. Major complications occurred for 41 patients (16.6 %), classified as grade 3 in 33 cases (13.4 %), grade 4 in 5 cases (2 %), and grade 5 (deaths) in 3 cases (1.2 %). The factors predictive of major complications in the multivariate analysis were a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score higher than 0 [odds ratio (OR), 2.505; p = 0.035], presence of preoperative symptoms (OR 1.951; p = 0.064), and prior resection status [no resection or prior CRS-HIPEC (OR 2.087) vs. prior resection without CRS-HIPEC (OR 3.209); p = 0.046]. These variables were used to create a tool predictive of postoperative complications.Presence of symptoms, CCI, and prior resection status predict major complications and define a low-risk population after CRS-HIPEC.
| S-EPMC5841914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Water lavage (WL) during gastrointestinal cancer surgery has osmotically mediated lytic effects on tumor cells. We investigated the safety and efficacy of WL with CRS-HIPEC.This is a retrospective review, 1/2003-7/2014, of a single institution experience with CRS-HIPEC comparing patients who had WL (WL+) to those who did not (WL-).Of 157 CRS-HIPECs, 16 (10.2%) were WL+. WL+ had more PCI scores >20 compared to WL- (56.3% vs 19.4%, respectively, p = 0.003); however, the completeness of cytoreduction (CC) was similar. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or post-operative complications. The average POD 1 sodium (Na) level was statistically lower in the WL+ group (133.6 ± 2.5 vs 135.5 ± 3.2 mEq/L, p = 0.023); however, the average Na at discharge for each group was 140 mEq/L. There were no differences in 3-year OS (3WL+:0.63 vs WL-:0.68, p = 0.97) or RFS (WL+:0.32 vs WL-:0.39, p = 0.47). A subset analysis for patients with PCI >20 showed no difference between groups.WL offers a low cost, safe and theoretically efficacious method of tumor cell lysis for peritoneal malignancy.
| S-EPMC5833924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In Taiwan, colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis is considered a terminal condition. We examined the clinical outcomes of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) treatment for colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis in Taiwan.We enrolled patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastasis from Taipei Medical University, Wanfang Hospital between January 1999 and December 2014. Of the enrolled patients, 3 had mucinous-type tumors. In total, we enrolled 31 patients who underwent a total of 33 procedures. Of the 31 patients, 2 received the HIPEC procedure twice. Cytoreductive surgery was performed followed by HIPEC. The hazard ratios of death following cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.The 2- and 5-year overall survival rates of these patients following cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC were 57% and 38%, respectively. The completeness of cytoreduction (CC) scores were CC-0, CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3 in 18 (54.5%), 3 (9%), 7 (21.2%), and 5 (15.2%) patients, respectively. The mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 16.20, and the mean postoperative PCI (PPCI) was 4.6. The major risk factors for death in these patients were a total PCI score?>?20, total PPCI score > 0, and CC score ? 2 (P?=?0.022, 0.031, and 0.0001, respectively; log-rank test). Multivariate analysis revealed that the total PPCI score was the strongest predictor of death following cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in these patients.In Taiwan, performing cytoreductive surgery and administering HIPEC for treating colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis are feasible and resulted in long-term survival. In addition, the total PPCI score was related to poor prognosis following cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastasis.
| S-EPMC5207543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite extensive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC), most patients with resectable peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer experience disease relapse. MOC31PE immunotoxin is being explored as a novel treatment option for these patients. MOC31PE targets the cancer-associated epithelial cell adhesion molecule, and kills cancer cells by distinct mechanisms, simultaneously causing immune activation by induction of immunogenic cell death (ICD).MethodsSystemic and local cytokine responses were analyzed in serum and intraperitoneal fluid samples collected the first three postoperative days from clinically comparable patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC with (n = 12) or without (n = 26) intraperitoneal instillation of MOC31PE. A broad panel of 27 pro- and antiinflammatory interleukins, chemokines, interferons, and growth factors was analyzed using multiplex technology.ResultsThe time course and magnitude of the systemic and local postoperative cytokine response after CRS-HIPEC were highly compartmentalized, with modest systemic responses contrasting substantial intraperitoneal responses. Administration of MOC31PE resulted in changes that were broader and of higher magnitude compared with CRS-HIPEC alone. Significantly increased levels of innate proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) as well as an interesting time response curve for the strong T-cell stimulator interferon (IFN)-γ and its associated chemokine interferon gamma-induced protein/chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 10 (IP-10) were detected, all associated with ICD.ConclusionsOur study revealed a predominately local rather than systemic inflammatory response to CRS-HIPEC, which was strongly enhanced by MOC31PE treatment. The MOC31PE-induced intraperitoneal inflammatory reaction could contribute to improve remnant cancer cell killing, but the mechanisms remain to be elucidated in future studies.
| S-EPMC8349350 | biostudies-literature