Practice Guideline


Indications for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cytoreductive surgery: a clinical practice guideline


R.C. Auer, MD*, D. Sivajohanathan, MPH, J. Biagi, MD, J. Conner, MD§, E. Kennedy, MD||, T. May, MD#


doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3747/co.27.6033


ABSTRACT

Objective

The purpose of the present review was to provide evidence-based guidance about the provision of cytoreductive surgery (crs) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec) in the treatment of peritoneal cancers.

Methods

The guideline was developed by the Program in Evidence-Based Care together with the Surgical Oncology Program at Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) through a systematic review of relevant literature, patient- and caregiver-specific consultation, and internal and external reviews.

Results

Recommendation 1a: For patients with newly diagnosed stage iii primary epithelial ovarian or fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, hipec should be considered for those with at least stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the time that interval crs (if complete) or optimal cytoreduction is achieved.

Recommendation 1b: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the addition of hipec when primary crs is performed for patients with newly diagnosed advanced primary epithelial ovarian or fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, outside of a clinical trial.

Recommendation 2: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer outside the context of a clinical trial.

Recommendation 3: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs in patients with peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis outside the context of a clinical trial.

Recommendation 4: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs for the prevention of peritoneal carcinomatosis in colorectal cancer outside the context of a clinical trial; however, hipec using oxaliplatin is not recommended.

Recommendation 5: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs for the treatment of gastric peritoneal carcinomatosis outside the context of a clinical trial.

Recommendation 6: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs for the prevention of gastric peritoneal carcinomatosis outside the context of a clinical trial.

Recommendation 7: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs as a standard of care in patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma; however, patients should be referred to hipec specialty centres for assessment for treatment as part of an ongoing research protocol.

Recommendation 8: There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs as a standard of care in patients with disseminated mucinous neoplasm in the appendix; however, patients should be referred to hipec specialty centres for assessment for treatment as part of an ongoing research protocol.

KEYWORDS: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, hipec, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, cytoreductive surgery, crs, practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal malignancies include cancers that arise from the lining of the peritoneal cavity (primary peritoneal malignancy, including mesothelioma and serous carcinoma of the peritoneum) and those that have spread to the peritoneum from a primary cancer site within the abdominal cavity (secondary peritoneal malignancy). The rarity of primary peritoneal malignancies coupled with the time it takes to collect and report cancer data mean that Canadian and Ontario-specific incidence data are currently not available. An incidence rate of 0.2–3 per million has been reported for peritoneal mesothelioma in industrialized countries1. Secondary isolated peritoneal spread is relatively common with ovarian and gastrointestinal malignancies, including colorectal, appendiceal, and gastric. Survival rates vary depending on the histology and burden of disease, with the median ranging from months (gastric cancer)2 to almost 5 years (ovarian cancer)3.

Cytoreductive surgery (crs) is a complex procedure that comprises a peritonectomy and resection of involved viscera as indicated, with the goal of leaving the patient with only microscopic residual disease4. A systematic approach toward comprehensive crs was described in 1995 by Dr. Paul Sugarbaker5, and that approach has generally been adopted. The addition of hipec to crs was first evaluated in the 1980s. The biologic rationale for intraperitoneal delivery was based on studies demonstrating a pharmacokinetic advantage because the peritoneal–plasma barrier allows for a high concentration gradient of chemotherapeutic drugs between the peritoneal cavity and the systemic circulation6 and because blood drainage from the peritoneal cavity occurs through the portal system, providing a “first-pass” effect through the liver, reducing systemic toxicity and simultaneously increasing intrahepatic concentrations7. The addition of hyperthermia is based on experimental evidence that malignant cells are more sensitive to the effects of hyperthermia in the range of 41°C to 43°C, resulting in accelerated cell death8. Moreover, synergism between heat and the enhanced cytotoxicity of certain chemotherapeutics used during hipec has been well documented9.

The surgical expertise required for the crs procedure; the experience, technical requirements, and infrastructure required to deliver intraoperative hipec; and the multidisciplinary team required to care for patients receiving those treatments have dictated that specialized centres be created for care delivery1012. The use of hipec is an emerging field, and the current standard of care in Ontario for the relevant disease sites is systemic chemotherapy or best supportive care.

The Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc) together with the Surgical Oncology Program at Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) developed the present guideline, which contains recommendations for the use of crs with hipec. The guideline focuses on the use of hipec with formal crs or in the prophylactic setting after resection of the primary tumour. It does not evaluate early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy or sequential postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy, both of which have been explored in ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The pebc produces evidence-based and evidence-informed guidance documents using the methods of the practice guidelines development cycle13,14. The process for the present guideline included a systematic review, with interpretation of the evidence by the authors, who then drafted recommendations based on the evidence and expert consensus; internal review by content and methodology experts; and external review by clinicians and other stake-holders. The authors had expertise in surgical oncology, medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, pathology, and health research methodology.

Further details of the methods and findings of the systematic review that informed the guideline recommendations have been published elsewhere15. Brief ly, medline, embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) comparing hipec in addition to crs with either systemic chemotherapy, early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy, sequential postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy, crs alone, or any combination of the foregoing in adult patients with a diagnosis of mesothelioma or appendiceal (including appendiceal mucinous neoplasms), colorectal, gastric, ovarian, or primary peritoneal carcinoma. All rcts were assessed for quality using components of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Part 2, Section 8.5 in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, downloadable from http://handbook.cochrane.org/); non-rcts were assessed using the robins-i (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool, downloadable from https://www.riskofbias.info/.

Patient- and Caregiver-Specific Consultation Group

A combination of patients, survivors, and caregivers participated as Consultation Group members. They reviewed copies of draft recommendations and provided feedback to the Working Group’s health research methodologist about comprehensibility, appropriateness, and feasibility. The health research methodologist relayed the feedback to the Working Group for consideration.

Internal Review

Guidelines produced by the pebc are reviewed by a panel of content experts (the Expert Panel) and a methodology panel (the Report Approval Panel).

The pebc Report Approval Panel, a 3-person panel with methodology expertise, must unanimously approve the guideline document.

The Expert Panel for this guideline consisted of surgical, medical, and gynecologic oncologists. For a guideline document to be approved, 75% of the Expert Panel must cast a vote indicating approval of the document or must abstain from voting for a specified reason; of those that vote, 75% must approve the document.

The Working Group was responsible for incorporating the feedback from both panels.

External Review

The pebc external review process is 2-pronged and includes a targeted peer review that is intended to obtain direct feedback on the draft guidelines from a small number of specified content experts and a professional consultation that is intended to facilitate dissemination of the final guideline to Ontario practitioners. In the professional consultation, feedback was obtained through a brief online survey of health care professionals and other stakeholders who are the intended users of the guideline. All surgical and medical oncologists with an interest in gastrointestinal cancers and any clinicians with an interest in ovarian cancers or mesothelioma in the pebc database were contacted by e-mail.

RESULTS

The full systematic review15 provides details of the methodologic characteristics of the evidence and clinical outcomes.

Patient- and Caregiver-Specific Consultation Group

Five individuals (patients, survivors, or caregivers) participated as consultation group members.

Internal Review

Three Report Approval Panel members, including the pebc scientific director and two methodology experts, reviewed and approved the draft guideline in May 2019.

Of the 20 members of the Expert Panel, 18 members cast votes (90% response rate) in May 2019. Of those who voted, 16 approved the document (89%).

External Review

After approval of the document at internal review, the authors circulated the draft document to external review participants for review and feedback. Seven clinical experts from North America were identified by the Working Group as targeted peer reviewers. Three agreed to be reviewers; two responses were received. Table I summarizes the results of the review.

TABLE I Responses to 9 items on the targeted peer reviewer questionnaire

 

In the professional consultation, 76 individuals who practice in Ontario were contacted, and 14 responses (18.4%) were received. Three stated that they did not have interest in this area or were unavailable to review the guideline at the time; one stated that they were now retired; and one did not want to participate in the professional consultation. Table II summarizes the results of the survey responses from 9 professionals.

TABLE II Responses to 4 items on the professional consultation survey

 

GUIDELINE

The target population for this guideline is adults (≥18 years of age) with a diagnosis of mesothelioma or appendiceal (including appendiceal mucinous neoplasms), colorectal, gastric, ovarian, or primary peritoneal carcinoma. The intended users of the guideline are clinicians involved in the care of such patients.

The guideline addresses the role of hipec with crs and not the role of crs alone. Although evidence to make recommendations for many of the target sites is lacking, many rcts are noted to be ongoing. This guideline will be reviewed annually for any new evidence. When writing the recommendations, the Working Group considered overall survival (os) to be a critical outcome and progression-free survival (pfs), recurrence-free survival (rfs), adverse events, and quality of life (qol) to be important outcomes. Some patient input was sought, and patients indicated that all of the outcomes mentioned would be important to them in making any treatment decisions.

Recommendation 1a

For patients with newly diagnosed stage iii primary epithelial ovarian or fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, hipec should be considered for those with at least stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the time that interval crs (if complete) or optimal cytoreduction is achieved.

Qualifying Statement

The Working Group members recommend prospectively collecting data relating to these patients to evaluate real-world outcomes and applicability.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from one rct16,17 in which the overall certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is moderate.

The multicentre trial by van Driel et al.16 compared patients with newly diagnosed stage iii epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer who received interval crs plus hipec using cisplatin [hipec/cisplatin (n = 122)] with interval crs alone (n = 123). No upper age limit to enrol in the trial was imposed, but the oldest patient was aged 66 years. All women had at least stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and had complete or optimal cytoreduction at the time of surgery. Patients received an additional 3 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel after interval surgery. A significant difference in median os was reported between the crs plus hipec arm (45.7 months) and the crs-only arm [33.9 months; hazard ratio (hr): 0.67; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.48 to 0.94; p = 0.02] after a median follow-up of 4.7 years. Similar results were obtained for median rfs between the crs plus hipec arm (14.2 months) and the crs-only arm (10.7 months; hr: 0.66; 95% ci: 0.50 to 0.87; p = 0.003). Exploratory subgroup analyses of os and rfs did not reveal any specific subgroup (that is, age, histologic type, previous surgery, number of involved regions, or laparoscopy before surgery) that experienced better or worse outcomes with crs and hipec or with standard treatment.

The os probability at 3 years in the treatment and standard arms was 62% (95% ci: 54% to 72%) and 48% (95% ci: 39% to 58%) respectively. A p value was not reported. The rfs probability at 3 years in the treatment and standard arms was 17% (95% ci: 11% to 26%) and 8% (95% ci: 4% to 16%) respectively. A p value was not reported.

No significant differences between the groups were noted in the incidence of adverse events of any grade16, and no significant differences in health-related qol outcomes were reported over time17.

Interpretation of the Evidence

In patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval crs with hipec, the Working Group members determined that the benefits (that is, increased os) outweighed the harms (that is, adverse events). Given the large survival benefit and the lack of significant differences in adverse events and qol, patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer would consider this treatment option to be acceptable.

This recommendation is generalizable to all patients with stage iii primary epithelial ovarian or fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, who have complete or optimal cytoreduction. It cannot be generalized to patients who have suboptimal cytoreduction.

Recommendation 1b

There is insufficient evidence to recommend the addition of hipec when primary crs is performed for patients with newly diagnosed advanced primary epithelial ovarian or fallopian tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, outside of a clinical trial.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from one rct18 available in abstract form, in which the overall certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is low.

The multicentre trial by Lim et al.18, currently published in abstract form, compared patients with stage iii or iv primary epithelial ovarian cancer who received primary crs plus hipec/cisplatin (n = 2) with those receiving crs alone (n = 92). Only patients who achieved optimal cytoreduction were included. This rct showed no difference in 5-year os (hipec/cisplatin arm, 51%; non-hipec arm, 49.4%; p = 0.574) or 5-year pfs (hipec/cisplatin arm, 20.9%; non-hipec arm, 16.0%; p = 0.569). Median follow-up was not reported. In a subgroup analysis of women who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, no difference in median os (p = 0.407) or median pfs (p = 0.137) was observed between the two arms.

The most common adverse event was anemia, experienced by significantly more participants in the hipec/cisplatin arm (67.4%) than by those in the non-hipec arm (50%, p = 0.025). Elevation of creatinine was also significantly higher in the hipec/cisplatin arm (p = 0.026). No differences between the arms were observed for transfusion (p = 0.432), neutropenia (p = 0.151), and thrombocytopenia (p = 0.136).

Interpretation of the Evidence

The Working Group members determined that the evidence from an abstract of a rct is insufficient to make definitive recommendations about the use of hipec after primary crs in this patient population.

Recommendation 2

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer outside the context of a clinical trial.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from one rct19 comparing patients who received surgery plus hipec with those who received surgery alone, where the overall certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is considered to be low. Although the trial reported itself as a phase iii rct, it presents unclear methods and statistical analyses, resulting in questions about its validity; results should be interpreted with caution. Further, it was not found in any clinical trial registry.

A mean os of 26.7 months was reported in patients who received surgery plus hipec (n = 60), and a mean os of 13.4 months, in patients who received surgery alone (n = 60, p = 0.006). In exploratory subgroup analyses, survival was significantly higher in patients with complete cytoreduction (no residual tumour, CC-0) who received hipec (30.9 months) than in those who received surgery only (16.9 months, p = 0.038). In patients who received surgery only, survival was longer in those with a CC-0 cytoreduction (16.1 months) than in those with a CC-2 cytoreduction (residual tumour 2.5 mm–2.5 cm; 6.7 months, p = 0.002). In a subgroup analysis by score on the peritoneal carcinomatosis index (pci), survival was significantly higher for surgery plus hipec than for surgery alone both in patients with a pci of 15 or less (30.4 months vs. 15.4 months, p = 0.031) and in those with a pci of more than 15 (21.5 months vs. 9.2 months, p = 0.049).

No mortality, morbidity, or qol data were presented.

Interpretation of the Evidence

There was agreement among the members of the Working Group that evidence with such unclear methods and statistical analyses is insufficient to make definitive recommendations and to be generalizable to all patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Recommendation 3

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs in patients with peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis outside the context of a clinical trial.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from two rcts2022, one fully published and the other available in abstract form, in which the overall certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is low.

The trial by Verwaal et al.21,22 compared patients who received crs plus hipec using mitomycin C (hipec/mmc) plus systemic chemotherapy (n = 54) with patients who received standard therapy (n = 51), which consisted of single-agent systemic chemotherapy and surgery in cases of symptoms of intestinal obstruction. The trial reported significant differences in disease-specific survival (22.2 months for crs plus hipec/mmc vs. 12.6 months for standard therapy, p = 0.028) and pfs (12.6 months for crs plus hipec/mmc vs. 7.7 months for standard therapy, p = 0.020) after a median follow-up of 94 months. However, the chemotherapy regimen administered in the standard therapy arm consisted of fluorouracil–leucovorin, which is not representative of current systemic chemotherapy regimens. Exploratory subgroup analyses did not reveal that any specific subgroup (that is, stratified by sex, age, site, or tumour origin) experienced better or worse outcomes with crs plus hipec or with standard therapy.

Four patients (8%) died as a result of treatment, and two stopped adjuvant chemotherapy as a result of toxicity in the hipec/mmc arm; two stopped treatment in the non-hipec arm because of toxicity.

The prodige 7 trial20, currently published in abstract form, compared patients who received crs plus hipec/oxaliplatin plus systemic chemotherapy (n = 133) with patients who received crs and systemic chemotherapy (n = 132). The trial showed no difference in median os (41.7 months for crs plus hipec vs. 41.2 months for crs only; hr: 1.00; 95% ci: 0.73 to 1.37; p = 0.995) or median rfs (13.1 months for crs plus hipec vs. 11.1 months for crs only; hr: 0.90; 95% ci: 0.69 to 1.90; p = 0.486) after a median follow-up of 63.8 months. However, the systemic chemotherapy regimen administered in the control arm consisted of fluorouracil–leucovorin, which is not representative of current systemic chemotherapy regimens.

In a subgroup analysis of patients with a medium-range pci (>11 to ≤15), the median os was 32.7 months (95% ci: 23.5 to 38.9) for the non-hipec arm and 41.6 months (95% ci: 36.1 to not reached) for the hipec/oxaliplatin arm (hr: 0.437; 95% ci: 0.21 to 0.90; p = 0.0209).

No difference in the postoperative mortality rate was reported between the experimental and standard arms. The morbidity rates did not differ at 30 days, but at 60 days, significant differences in the rate of grades 3–5 morbidity were observed (24.1% for the hipec/oxaliplatin arm vs. 13.6% for the non-hipec arm, p = 0.030).

None of the studies reported qol data.

Interpretation of the Evidence

The Working Group members noted that, although two rcts were found (one currently available in abstract form), recommendations could not be made because the control arms of both trials were not representative of current oncologic practice, resulting in outcomes that are not generalizable to current practice.

The Working Group members determined that the evidence from an abstract of a rct is insufficient to make definitive recommendations about the use of hipec after crs in this patient population.

One dissenting opinion emerged from the Working Group: One member suggested that the recommendation state, “There is insufficient evidence for or against the use of hipec with crs in patients with peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis.” The rationale for the dissenting opinion was that the study by Verwaal et al.21,22 showed a large difference in disease-specific survival for crs plus hipec/mmc compared with the systemic chemotherapy consisting of fluorouracil–leucovorin used in the control arm. Although the best systemic chemotherapy was not used, it is uncertain whether use of the best systemic chemotherapy would completely negate the survival benefit reported with crs plus hipec.

Recommendation 4

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs for the prevention of peritoneal carcinomatosis in colorectal cancer outside the context of a clinical trial; however, hipec using oxaliplatin is not recommended.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from two rcts23,24 (one available in abstract form) in which the overall certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is moderate.

The multicentric colopec trial by Klaver et al.23 compared patients having T4 or perforated colon cancer who received adjuvant hipec plus crs and adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (n = 100) with their counterparts who received adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 102). Adjuvant hipec was performed simultaneously (9%) or within 5–8 weeks (91%) after the primary tumour resection. Within the experimental arm, 87% of patients received adjuvant hipec, and 19% of patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases (9% preceding adjuvant hipec). This rct showed no differences between the experimental and control arms for 18-month disease-free survival [69.0% (95% ci: 60.0% to 78.0%) vs. 69.3% (95% ci: 60.3% to 78.3%) respectively, p = 0.99], 18-month os [93.0% (95% ci: 87.9% to 98.1%) vs. 94.1% (95% ci: 89.6% to 98.6%), p = 0.82], or 18-month peritoneal metastases–free survival [80.9% (95% ci: 73.3% to 88.5%) vs. 76.2% (95% ci: 68.0% to 84.4%), p = 0.28].

The colopec trial23 reported that postoperative complications occurred in 14% of patients who received adjuvant hipec (n = 87).

The ProphyloCHIP trial by Goere et al.24, currently published in abstract form, included patients with a high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases after 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, randomizing them to a surveillance arm (n = 79) or to a systemic second-look surgery plus hipec/oxaliplatin arm (n = 71). The rct showed no difference in 3-year disease-free survival (p = 0.75) or 3-year os (p value not reported).

Interpretation of the Evidence

In patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer receiving adjuvant hipec plus crs and adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, the Working Group members determined that the desirable effect of increased survival did not occur. Given the absence of a survival benefit, patients would not consider this treatment option to be acceptable.

The Working Group members determined that the evidence from an abstract of an rct is insufficient to make definitive recommendations about the use of hipec after primary crs in this patient population.

Recommendation 5

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec plus crs for the treatment of gastric peritoneal carcinomatosis outside the context of a clinical trial.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from one rct25 in which the overall certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is low.

The rct by Yang et al.25 showed a significant difference in median os between the crs plus hipec/cisplatin plus mmc arm (11.0 months; 95% ci: 10.0 months to 11.9 months) and the crs-only arm (6.5 months; 95% ci: 4.8 months to 8.2 months; p = 0.046). Each arm included 34 patients. In subgroup analyses, the median os was significantly greater for patients scored CC-0 to CC-1 than for patients scored CC-2 to CC-3 in both the hipec/cisplatin plus mmc arm (p = 0.000) and the non-hipec arm (p = 0.000). For patients with incomplete cytoreduction, os was longer in the hipec/cisplatin plus mmc arm than in the non-hipec arm (8.2 months for hipec/cisplatin plus mmc vs. 4.0 months for non-hipec treatment, p = 0.024). Similarly, in subgroup analyses by score on the pci, median os for patients with a high score on the pci was significantly longer in the hipec/cisplatin plus mmc arm (13.5 months; 95% ci: 8.7 months to 18.3 months) than in the non-hipec arm (3.0 months; 95% ci: 2.4 months to 3.6 months; p = 0.012); median os was not different for patients with a low score on the pci in either arm (p = 0.464).

In a multivariate analysis, crs plus hipec (hr: 2.617; 95% ci: 1.436 to 4.769; p = 0.002), synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis (p = 0.02), a CC-0 or CC-1 score (p = 0.003), 6 cycles or more of chemotherapy (p = 0), and no serious adverse effects (p = 0) were identified as major independent prognostic factors for survival.

No significant differences in serious adverse events were demonstrated between patients receiving crs plus hipec (14.7%) and those receiving crs alone (11.7%, p = 0.839).

No qol data were presented.

Interpretation of the Evidence

Although the benefits (that is, increased os) outweighed the harms (that is, adverse events), the Working Group members concluded that a single small study conducted in an Asian population was insufficient to form a recommendation. Further, the control arm of the trial used crs alone, which is currently not the standard of care in these patients in North America.

Differences in the biology of gastric cancers between Asian and non-Asian patients limit the generalizability of the results.

Recommendation 6

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs for the prevention of gastric peritoneal carcinomatosis outside the context of a clinical trial.

Key Evidence

The evidence comes from four Asian rcts2629 (three from Japan, one from China) in which the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is low. The trials present unclear methods and statistical analyses, which include providing no randomization details and not specifying the primary outcome (assumed to be os) nor the outcomes of interest.

The trial by Cui et al.26 reported that differences in median survival for patients who received surgery only (27 months), neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (33 months), surgery plus hipec/cisplatin (32 months), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery plus hipec/cisplatin (36 months) were statistically significant (p = 0.001). The differences in median pfs between the four groups were also reported to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). Each arm included 48 patients.

The trial by Yonemura et al.27 showed that survival was significantly better in patients who received continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion with mmc plus cisplatin (5-year survival: 61%) than in patients who received continuous normothermic peritoneal perfusion (5-year survival: 44%; p = 0.017) or surgery alone (5-year survival: 42%; p = 0.019). The arms included 48, 44, and 47 patients respectively.

Similarly, Fujimoto et al.28 reported that survival rates were significantly higher in the hipec/mmc arm (2-year survival: 88%; 4-year: 76%; 8-year: 62%) compared with the control arm (2-year survival: 77%; 4-year: 58%; 8-year: 49%; p = 0.0362). The arms included 71 and 70 patients respectively. Peritoneal recurrence was more frequent in the control arm (p < 0.001).

The final results of the rct reported by Hamazoe et al.29 found no significant differences in 5-year survival between the arm using continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion with mmc (64.3%) and the arm using surgery only (52.5%, p = 0.2427), with 42 and 40 patients enrolled respectively. Median survival was reported to be 77 months with continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion plus surgery and 66 months with control treatment.

All four rcts2629 found no significant differences in adverse events between the experimental and control arms.

None of the studies reported qol data.

Interpretation of the Evidence

Although the benefits (that is, increased os) outweighed the harms (that is, adverse events) in the studies, the Working Group members concluded that confinement to Asian populations, lack of methodologic details, and low certainty of the evidence prevented the forming of recommendations.

Differences in the biology of gastric cancers between Asian and non-Asian patients limit the generalizability of the results.

Recommendation 7

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs as a standard of care in patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma; however, patients should be referred to hipec specialty centres for assessment for treatment as part of an ongoing research protocol.

Qualifying Statement

The Working Group members recommend prospective research protocols with standardized treatment approaches at high-volume centres because that approach will provide survival benchmarks and feasibility data for future comparative studies.

Key Evidence

To date, no randomized or comparative studies have compared the use of crs plus hipec with other methods of oncologic management in patients with peritoneal mesothelioma. The evidence comes from one retrospective cohort study30 (n = 1547), which conducted a multivariable analysis that included the use of crs plus hipec as a variable. The certainty of that evidence is very low.

When compared with the crs plus hipec cohort, cohorts receiving chemotherapy alone, crs alone, or observation were independently associated with poorer os (p < 0.001) in analyses controlled for age, sex, Charlson/Deyo score, insurance, and histology30. However, no statistically significant difference in os was observed when comparing crs plus hipec with crs plus chemotherapy (p = 0.397).

Adverse events were not reported.

No qol data were presented.

Recommendation 8

There is insufficient evidence to recommend hipec with crs as a standard of care in patients with disseminated mucinous neoplasm in the appendix; however, patients should be referred to hipec specialty centres for assessment for treatment as part of an ongoing research protocol.

Qualifying Statement

The Working Group members recommend prospective research protocols with standardized treatment approaches at high-volume centres because that approach will provide survival benchmarks and feasibility data for future comparative studies.

Key Evidence

To date, no randomized studies have compared the use of crshipec with other methods of oncologic management in patients with disseminated mucinous neoplasms. The evidence comes from one comparative study31 that assessed the differences between patients treated during the debulking era (n = 33) and during the crs plus hipec era (n = 87), and four retrospective cohort studies3235 that conducted multivariable analyses including the use of crs plus hipec as a variable. The certainty of this evidence is very low. All four cohort studies included a combination of patients with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis, peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis, and hybrid histologies.

The comparative study by Jarvinen et al.31 showed no significant difference in the 5-year os rates between the crs plus hipec era (69%) and the debulking era (67%, p = 0.92). The treatment received in the crs plus hipec era was heterogeneous, and only 64% of patients received crs plus hipec.

The retrospective study by Sinukumar et al.32 showed that the use of hipec was not associated with os, but was independently associated with increased pfs (hr: not reported; 95% ci: 1.26 to 9.8; p = 0.016).

In both studies by Chua et al.33,34, the use of hipec was not independently associated with os (p > 0.05). However, the use of hipec was independently associated with pfs (hr: 0.645; 95% ci: 0.44 to 0.96; p = 0.030)33. In an exploratory subgroup analysis by histologic subtype, the use of hipec remained nonsignificant.

The study by Glehen et al.35 showed that the use of hipec was independently associated with increased survival (p < 0.001) in patients who had received an incomplete cytoreduction. The hrs and cis were not provided.

In the study by Jarvinen et al.31, 30-day mortality was not significantly different in the two groups. The four cohort studies3235 reported morbidity and mortality data in aggregate and not by treatment group.

None of the studies reported qol data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Indications for HIPEC Guideline Development Group thanks the following individuals for their assistance in developing this report: Fulvia Baldassarre, Melissa Brouwers, William (Bill) Evans, Anand Govindarajan, Sheila McNair, Jonathan Sussman, Norma Varela, Willemien J. van Driel, and Emily Vella for providing feedback on draft versions, and Jillian Sing for conducting a data audit.

The pebc is a provincial initiative of Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health. All work produced by the pebc is editorially independent from the Ontario Ministry of Health.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: TM reports personal fees received from ConMed and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. The remaining authors (RCA, DS, JB, JC, and EK) have no conflicts to disclose.

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

*Departments of Surgery and of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON,
Department of Oncology, McMaster University, and Program in Evidence-Based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Hamilton, ON,
Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston, ON,
§Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON,
||Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON,
#Department of Oncology, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON.

REFERENCES

1 Boffetta P. Epidemiology of peritoneal mesothelioma: a review. Ann Oncol 2007;18:985–90.
cross-ref  

2 Thomassen I, van Gestel YR, van Ramshorst B, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin: a population-based study on incidence, survival and risk factors. Int J Cancer 2014;134: 622–8.
cross-ref  

3 Winter WE 3rd, Maxwell GL, Tian C, et al. Prognostic factors for stage iii epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3621–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  

4 Dehal A, Smith JJ, Nash GM. Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy: an evidence-based review—past, present and future. J Gastrointest Oncol 2016;7:143–57.
pubmed  pmc  

5 Sugarbaker PH. Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg 1995;221:29–42.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

6 Flessner MF. The transport barrier in intraperitoneal therapy. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2005;288:F433–42.
cross-ref  pubmed  

7 Speyer JL, Sugarbaker PH, Collins JM, Dedrick RL, Klecker RW Jr, Myers CE. Portal levels and hepatic clearance of 5-fluorouracil after intraperitoneal administration in humans. Cancer Res 1981;41:1916–22.
pubmed  

8 Overgaard J. Effect of hyperthermia on malignant cells in vivo. A review and a hypothesis. Cancer 1977;39:2637–46.
cross-ref  pubmed  

9 de Bree E, Tsiftsis DD. Principles of perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Recent Results Cancer Res 2007;169:39–51.
pubmed  

10 Dube P, Sideris L, Law C, et al. Guidelines on the use of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal surface malignancy arising from colorectal or appendiceal neoplasms. Curr Oncol 2015;22:e100–12.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

11 Smeenk RM, Verwaal VJ, Zoetmulder FA. Learning curve of combined modality treatment in peritoneal surface disease. Br J Surg 2007;94:1408–14.
cross-ref  pubmed  

12 Yan TD, Links M, Fransi S, et al. Learning curve for cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy—a journey to becoming a nationally funded peritonectomy center. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:2270–80.
cross-ref  pubmed  

13 Browman GP, Levine MN, Mohide EA, et al. The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:502–12.
cross-ref  pubmed  

14 Browman GP, Newman TE, Mohide EA, et al. Progress of clinical oncology guidelines development using the practice guidelines development cycle: the role of practitioner feedback. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1226–31.
cross-ref  pubmed  

15 Auer RC, Sivajohanathan D, Biagi J, Conner J, Kennedy E, May T. Indications for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cytoreductive surgery: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2020;127:76–95.
cross-ref  pubmed  

16 van Driel WJ, Koole SN, Sikorska K, et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;378:230–40.
cross-ref  pubmed  

17 Koole SN, Kieffer JM, Sikorska K, et al. Health-related quality of life after interval cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec) in patients with stage iii ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019;S0748–7983:30444–5.

18 Lim MC, Chang SJ, Yoo HJ, Nam BH, Bristow R, Park SY. Randomized trial of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec) in women with primary advanced peritoneal, ovarian, and tubal cancer [abstract 5520]. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.5520; cited 29 May 2020]

19 Spiliotis J, Halkia E, Lianos E, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hipec in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective randomized phase iii study. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:1570–5.
cross-ref  

20 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 [abstract LBA3503]. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.18_suppl.LBA3503; cited 29 May 2020]
cross-ref  

21 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;15:2426–32.
cross-ref  pubmed  

22 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;21:3737–43.
cross-ref  pubmed  

23 Klaver CEL, Wisselink DD, Punt CJA, et al. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced colon cancer (colopec): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;4:761–70.
cross-ref  pubmed  

24 Goere D, Glehen O, Quenet F, et al. Results of a randomized phase 3 study evaluating the potential benefit of a second-look surgery plus hipec in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases (prophylochip—NTC01226394) [abstract 3531]. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.3531; cited 29 May 2020]
cross-ref  

25 Yang XJ, Huang CQ, Suo T, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy improves survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer: final results of a phase iii randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:1575–81.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

26 Cui HB, Ge HE, Bai XY, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal perfusion chemotherapy on advanced gastric cancer. Exp Ther Med 2014;7:1083–8.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

27 Yonemura Y, de Aretxabala X, Fujimura T, et al. Intraoperative chemohyperthermic peritoneal perfusion as an adjuvant to gastric cancer: final results of a randomized controlled study. Hepatogastroenterology 2001;48:1776–82.

28 Fujimoto S, Takahashi M, Mutou T, Kobayashi K, Toyosawa T. Successful intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion for the prevention of postoperative peritoneal recurrence in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. Cancer 1999;85:529–34.
cross-ref  pubmed  

29 Hamazoe R, Maeta M, Kaibara N. Intraperitoneal thermochemotherapy for prevention of peritoneal recurrence of gastric cancer: final results of a randomized controlled study. Cancer 1994;73:2048–52.
cross-ref  pubmed  

30 Verma V, Sleightholm RL, Rusthoven CG, et al. Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: national practice patterns, outcomes, and predictors of survival. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:2018–26.
cross-ref  pubmed  

31 Jarvinen P, Ristimaki A, Kantonen J, et al. Comparison of serial debulking and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in pseudomyxoma peritonei of appendiceal origin. Int J Colorectal Dis 2014;29:999–1007.
cross-ref  pubmed  

32 Sinukumar S, Mehta S, As R, et al. Analysis of clinical outcomes of pseudomyxoma peritonei from appendicular origin following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy—a retrospective study from indepso. Indian J Surg Oncol 2019;10(suppl 1):65–70.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

33 Chua TC, Moran BJ, Sugarbaker PH, et al. Early- and long-term outcome data of patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei from appendiceal origin treated by a strategy of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2449–56.
cross-ref  pubmed  

34 Chua TC, Yan TD, Smigielski ME, et al. Long-term survival in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei treated with cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: 10 years of experience from a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:1903–11.
cross-ref  pubmed  

35 Glehen O, Mohamed F, Sugarbaker PH. Incomplete cytoreduction in 174 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from appendiceal malignancy. Ann Surg 2004;240:278–85.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  


Correspondence to: Rebecca Auer, c/o Duvaraga Sivajohanathan, Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Juravinski Hospital, G Wing, 2nd Floor, Room 224, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8. E-mail: ccopgi@mcmaster.ca

(Return to Top)


Current Oncology, VOLUME 27, NUMBER 3, June 2020