ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (pmCRC) in a large international data set of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pmCRC from 39 centres who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC between 1991 and 2018 were selected and compared for the HIPEC protocols received-oxaliplatin-HIPEC versus mitomycin-HIPEC. Following analysis of crude data, propensity-score matching (PSM) and Cox-proportional hazard modelling were performed. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the HIPEC dose-response effects (high versus low dose, dose intensification and double drug protocols) on OS, RFS and 90-day morbidity. Furthermore, the impact of the treatment time period was assessed. RESULTS: Of 2760 patients, 2093 patients were included. Median OS was 43 months (95% c.i. 41 to 46 months) with a median RFS of 12 months (95% c.i. 12 to 13 months). The oxaliplatin-HIPEC group had an OS of 47 months (95% c.i. 42 to 53 months) versus 39 months (95% c.i. 36 to 43 months) in the mitomycin-HIPEC group (P = 0.002), aHR 0.77, 95% c.i. 0.67 to 0.90, P < 0.001. The OS benefit persisted after PSM of the oxaliplatin-HIPEC group and mitomycin-HIPEC group (48 months (95% c.i. 42 to 59 months) versus 40 months (95% c.i. 37 to 44 months)), P < 0.001, aHR 0.78 (95% c.i. 0.65 to 0.94), P = 0.009. Similarly, matched RFS was significantly higher for oxaliplatin-HIPEC versus others (13 months (95% c.i. 12 to 15 months) versus 11 months (95% c.i. 10 to 12 months, P = 0.02)). High-dose mitomycin-HIPEC protocols had similar OS compared to oxaliplatin-HIPEC. HIPEC dose intensification within each protocol resulted in improved survival. Oxaliplatin + irinotecan-HIPEC resulted in the most improved OS (61 months (95% c.i. 51 to 101 months)). Ninety-day mortality in both crude and PSM analysis was worse for mitomycin-HIPEC. There was no change in treatment effect depending on the analysed time period. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin-based HIPEC provided better outcomes compared to mitomycin-based HIPEC. High-dose mitomycin-HIPEC was similar to oxaliplatin-HIPEC. The 90-day mortality difference favours the oxaliplatin-HIPEC group. A trend for dose-response between low- and high-dose HIPEC was reported.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures , Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy , Mitomycin , Oxaliplatin , Peritoneal Neoplasms , Humans , Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Peritoneal Neoplasms/secondary , Peritoneal Neoplasms/therapy , Peritoneal Neoplasms/mortality , Mitomycin/administration & dosage , Mitomycin/therapeutic use , Aged , Oxaliplatin/administration & dosage , Oxaliplatin/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Adult , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage , Propensity Score , Disease-Free Survival , Treatment Outcome , Proportional Hazards ModelsABSTRACT
Background: There is a paucity of studies evaluating perioperative systemic chemotherapy in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRCPM). The aim was to evaluate neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapy in CRCPM. Methods: Patients with CRCPM from 39 treatment centres globally from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2018, who underwent CRS+HIPEC were identified and stratified according to neoadjuvant/adjuvant use. Crude data analysis, propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox-proportional hazard modelling was performed. Findings: Of 2093 patients, 1613 were included in neoadjuvant crude evaluation with 708 in the PSM cohort (354 patients/arm). In the adjuvant evaluation, 1176 patients were included in the crude cohort with 778 in the PSM cohort (389 patients/arm). The median overall survival (OS) in the PSM cohort receiving no neoadjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy was 37.0 months (95% CI: 32.6-42.7) vs 34.7 months (95% CI: 31.2-38.8, HR 1.08 95% CI: 0.88-1.32, p = 0.46). The median OS in the PSM cohort receiving no adjuvant therapy vs adjuvant therapy was 37.0 months (95% CI: 32.9-41.8) vs 45.7 months (95% CI: 38.8-56.2, HR 0.79 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, p = 0.022). Recurrence-free survival did not differ in the neoadjuvant evaluation but differed in the adjuvant evaluation - HR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.87-1.25, p = 0.66) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.98, p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard modelling in the crude cohorts showed hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI: 0.92-1.26, p = 0.37) for administering neoadjuvant therapy and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-1.03, p = 0.095) for administering adjuvant therapy. Interpretation: Neoadjuvant therapy did not confer a benefit to patients undergoing CRS+HIPEC for CRCPM, whereas adjuvant therapy was associated with a benefit in this retrospective setting. Funding: None.
