Suppr超能文献

细胞减灭术-腹腔内热灌注化疗在外周性疾病患者中是否仍有适应证?

Is Cytoreductive Surgery-Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Still Indicated in Patients With Extraperitoneal Disease?

机构信息

The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

出版信息

J Surg Res. 2022 Sep;277:269-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.007. Epub 2022 May 4.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with extraperitoneal disease (EPD) is controversial.

METHODS

Among patients with peritoneal metastases from appendiceal cancer (AC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) who underwent CRS-HIPEC, those with EPD (liver, lung, or retroperitoneal lymph nodes [RP LN]) were retrospectively compared to those without EPD. Overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) analyses were performed before/after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Among 1341 patients with AC (64%) or CRC (36%) who underwent CRS ± HIPEC, 134 (10%) had EPD whereas 1207 (90%) did not. EPD was located in the lungs (47%), RP LN (28%), liver (18%), or multiple (6%). Patients with EPD experienced worse median OS (34 versus 63 mo; P = 0.002) and RFS (12 versus 19 mo; P < 0.001). On a multivariable analysis, EPD was associated with worse RFS (P = 0.003), but not OS (P = 0.071). After PSM, the association of EPD with OS (P = 0.204) and RFS (P = 0.056) was no longer significant. In the multivariable analysis of the PSM cohort, EPD was not associated with OS (P = 0.157) or RFS (P = 0.110).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this large retrospective multi-institutional study suggest that EPD alone, while a negative prognostic indicator, should not be considered an absolute contraindication to CRS ± HIPEC for otherwise well-selected patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. Further research is needed to delineate whether location of EPD influences OS and RFS following CRS-HIPEC.

摘要

引言

细胞减灭术(CRS)和腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)在腹膜外疾病(EPD)患者中的作用存在争议。

方法

在接受 CRS-HIPEC 的阑尾癌(AC)和结直肠癌(CRC)腹膜转移患者中,回顾性比较了 EPD(肝、肺或腹膜后淋巴结 [RP LN])患者与无 EPD 患者。在进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)之前/之后进行总体生存(OS)和无复发生存(RFS)分析。

结果

在 1341 例接受 CRS ± HIPEC 的 AC(64%)或 CRC(36%)患者中,134 例(10%)有 EPD,而 1207 例(90%)无 EPD。EPD 位于肺部(47%)、RP LN(28%)、肝脏(18%)或多个部位(6%)。EPD 患者的中位 OS(34 与 63 个月;P=0.002)和 RFS(12 与 19 个月;P<0.001)更差。多变量分析显示,EPD 与 RFS 差相关(P=0.003),但与 OS 无关(P=0.071)。PSM 后,EPD 与 OS(P=0.204)和 RFS(P=0.056)的相关性不再显著。PSM 队列的多变量分析显示,EPD 与 OS(P=0.157)或 RFS(P=0.110)无关。

结论

这项大型回顾性多机构研究的结果表明,EPD 本身虽然是一个预后不良的指标,但对于经过精心选择的腹膜表面恶性肿瘤患者,如果其他方面情况良好,不应被视为 CRS ± HIPEC 的绝对禁忌证。需要进一步研究以确定 EPD 的位置是否会影响 CRS-HIPEC 后的 OS 和 RFS。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验