Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 1;156(3):e206363.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6363. Epub 2021 Mar 10.

The Role of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Pseudomyxoma Peritonei After Cytoreductive Surgery

Affiliations

The Role of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Pseudomyxoma Peritonei After Cytoreductive Surgery

Shigeki Kusamura et al. JAMA Surg. .

Abstract

Importance: Studies on the prognostic role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) are currently not available.

Objectives: To evaluate outcomes after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC compared with CRS alone in patients with PMP.

Design, setting, and participants: This 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.

Interventions: HIPEC including oxaliplatin plus combined fluorouracil-leucovorin, cisplatin plus mitomycin, mitomycin, and other oxaliplatin-based regimens.

Main outcomes and measures: Overall 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.

Results: Of 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 relevance: In this cohort study, HIPEC was associated with better overall survival when performed after CRS in PMP, generally without adverse effects on surgical outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Glehen reported receiving personal fees from Gamida Cell, Ltd, during the conduct of the study. Dr de Hingh reported receiving grants from F. Hoffman–La Roche Ltd, Kankerbestrijding, and Quality in Products and Services/RanD outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Kaplan-Meier Overall Survival Curves According to Treatment
Data in the overall series (A) include patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) alone and those undergoing CRS with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Remaining data are stratified by the HIPEC regimen compared with CRS alone (B-E). Data are shown as weighted comparisons.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Effect Size of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) on Overall Survival According to Subsets and HIPEC Regimens
Data are presented as weighted hazard ratios (HRs) of death using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and bootstrap 95% CI for HIPEC treatment. Arrow indicates 95% CI extends beyond boundary of the graph; diamond center, overall HR; ends of diamond, overall 95% CI. CC-0/1 indicates optimal cytoreduction (residual disease of <2.5 mm); CC-2/3, suboptimal cytoreduction (residual disease of ≥2.5 mm).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Effect Size of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) on Short-term Surgical Outcomes According to Subsets and Drug Combinations
Data are presented as weighted odds ratios (ORs) of unfavorable surgical outcomes from multivariable logistic models and bootstrap 95% CI for patients treated with HIPEC. Morbidity is determined by grades 3 to 5 in the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology for Adverse Events, version 3.0. Arrow indicates width of 95% CI extends beyond boundary of the graph. CRS indicates cytoreductive surgery.

Comment in

References

    1. Moran BJ, Cecil TD. The etiology, clinical presentation, and management of pseudomyxoma peritonei. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2003;12(3):585-603. doi:10.1016/S1055-3207(03)00026-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carr NJ, McCarthy WF, Sobin LH. Epithelial noncarcinoid tumors and tumor-like lesions of the appendix: a clinicopathologic study of 184 patients with a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer. 1995;75:757-768. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19950201)75:3<757::AID-CNCR2820750303>3.0.CO;2-F - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sugarbaker PH. New standard of care for appendiceal epithelial neoplasms and pseudomyxoma peritonei syndrome? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(1):69-76. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70539-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sugarbaker PH. Comprehensive management of peritoneal surface malignancy using cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: the Washington Cancer Institute approach. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2009;10(12):1965-1977. doi:10.1517/14656560903044974 - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Driel WJ, Koole SN, Sirkorska K, et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:230-240. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1708618 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances