Open versus closed technique for administration of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Morbidity and mortality outcomes from a high-volume centre
Menée au Royaume-Uni à l'aide de données multicentriques portant sur 252 patients présentant des métastases péritonéales ayant pour origine un cancer colorectal, cette étude analyse les taux de morbidité et de mortalité postopératoires de deux types de chimiothérapie intrapéritonéale hyperthermique, l'une administrée par voie ouverte (dite du « Colisée ») et l'autre à ventre fermé
Résumé en anglais
Background and aims: Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an established treatment in selected patients with peritoneal metastases, delivered in the UK in specialist centres. HIPEC can be administered via the open coliseum technique as first described by Sugarbaker (O-HIPEC) or using a closed technique (C-HIPEC). Data comparing the safety and outcomes of these different approaches is limited. This study aims to compare morbidity and mortality rates of O-HIPEC and C-HIPEC following CRS for peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer and appendiceal tumours.
Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing CRS with open (05/2019–04/2020) and closed (05/2020–04/2021) HIPEC were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Baseline data including primary pathology, HIPEC agent and major operative procedures were analysed using Chi-squared and Fishers exact tests to ensure comparability of groups. Primary outcomes were 30- and 60-day postoperative mortality and morbidity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, CTCAE). Secondary outcomes were length of critical care and overall hospital stay. In addition, morbidity and mortality were compared between HIPEC agents (mitomycin and oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil).
Results: 99 patients (39.3%) and 153 patients (60.7%) underwent O-HIPEC, C-HIPEC respectively. Groups were well matched for baseline demographics, pathology, and HIPEC agent. In the O-HIPEC and C-HIPEC groups respectively, the incidence of 60-day complications (CTCAE 1–4) was 40.4% vs 39.3% (chi squared 0.94) and severe complications (CTCAE 3–4) 14% vs 13% (Fisher's exact p = 1) There was no perioperative mortality but one death in each group within the follow up period. There was no difference in in morbidity or mortality between those receiving mitomycin or oxaliplatin.
Conclusion: Closed administration of HIPEC is safe with no difference in post-operative morbidity or mortality compared to open HIPEC administration. Differences in longer term oncological outcomes including overall survival and disease-free survival between open and closed HIPEC techniques are yet to be determined.
