Browsing by Subject "HIPEC"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A novel preoperative risk score to optimize patient selection for performing concomitant liver resection with cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC
    (Wiley, 2021) Lee, Rachel M.; Gamboa, Adriana C.; Turgeon, Michael K.; Zaidi, Mohammad Y.; Kimbrough, Charles; Leiting, Jennifer; Grotz, Travis; Lee, Andrew J.; Fournier, Keith; Powers, Benjamin; Dineen, Sean; Baumgartner, Joel M.; Veerapong, Jula; Mogal, Harveshp; Clarke, Callisia; Wilson, Gregory; Patel, Sameer; Hendrix, Ryan; Lambert, Laura; Pokrzywa, Courtney; Abbott, Daniel E.; LaRocca, Christopher J.; Raoof, Mustafa; Greer, Jonathan; Johnston, Fabian M.; Staley, Charles A.; Cloyd, Jordan M.; Maithel, Shishir K.; Russell, Maria C.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: While parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC. Methods: Patients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000-2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0-1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non-LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2-year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10-11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69-12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21-9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2-year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%). Conclusions: As CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Incidence, Survival Analysis and Future Perspective of Primary Peritoneal Mesothelioma (PPM): A Population-Based Study from SEER Database
    (MDPI, 2022-02) Ullah, Asad; Waheed, Abdul; Khan, Jaffar; Mishra, Ankita; Tareen, Bisma; Nama, Noor; Karki, Nabin Raj; Panezai, Muhammad Saleem; Zarate, Luis Velasquez; White, Joseph; Cason, Frederick D.; Matolo, Nathaniel; Misra, Subhasis; Karim, Nagla Abdel; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Primary peritoneal mesothelioma (PPM) is a rare and aggressive tumor arising from the visceral and parietal peritoneum. The diagnosis and treatment of PPM are often delayed because of non-specific clinical presentation, and the prognosis is worse. The current study investigated the demographic, clinical, and pathological factors affecting patient prognosis and survival in PPM. Methods: Demographic and clinical data of 1998 patients with PPM were extracted from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1975–2016). The chi-square test, paired t-test, and multivariate analysis were used to analyze the data. Results: The majority of PPM patients were male (56.2%, p < 0.005) and Caucasian (90.4%, p < 0.005, with a mean age of diagnosis was 69 ± 13 years. The grading, histological, and tumor size information were classified as “Unknown” in most of the cases, but when available, poorly differentiated tumors (8.7%), malignant mesothelioma, not otherwise specified (63.4%) and tumors > 4 cm in size (8%), respectively, were most common, p < 0.005. Chemotherapy was administered to 50.6% of patients, followed by resection (29.2%) and radiation (1.5%), p < 0.001. The cohort of PPM had a five-year overall survival of 20.3% (±1.1), compared to 43.5% (±5.9), 25.9% (± 8.4), and 18.7% (±1.6) for those with surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy alone, respectively. Poor differentiation (OR = 4.2, CI = 3.3–4.9), tumor size > 4 cm (OR = 3.9, CI = 3.2–4.5), Caucasian race (OR = 2.9, CI = 2.6–4.4), and distant SEER stage (OR = 2.5, CI = 1.1–3.2) were all linked with increased mortality (p < 0.001). Conclusion: An extremely rare and aggressive peritoneal tumor, PPM may be difficult to identify at the time of diagnosis. Radiation therapy likely to have a limited function in the treatment of this condition, with surgery and chemotherapy being the primary choices. All PPM patients should be enrolled in a nationwide registry to improve our understanding of the pathogenesis and identify factors affecting survival.