Search

Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel, minimally invasive, safe, and repeatable method to treat carcinomatosis. Evidence regarding the clinical benefit (quality of life and survival) of PIPAC compared with that of conventional standard therapy (ST) is lacking., Methods: This is the secondary analysis of the phase 1 US-PIPAC trial for refractory colorectal and appendiceal carcinomatosis. A PIPAC cohort was compared with a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients receiving ST. The primary outcome was number of good days (number of days alive and out of the hospital). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and objective functional recovery (daily step count)., Results: The study included 32 patients (PIPAC, 12; ST, 20) with similar baseline characteristics. Compared with the ST cohort, the PIPAC cohort had lower median inpatient hospital stays (> 24 h) within 6 months (0 vs 1; p = 0.015) and 1 year (1 vs 2; p = 0.052) and higher median good days at 6 months (181 vs 131 days; p = 0.042) and 1 year (323 vs 131 days; p = 0.032). There was no worsening of HRQoL after repeated PIPACs. Step counts diminished immediately after PIPAC but returned to baseline within 2-4 weeks. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a favorable association between receipt of PIPAC and OS (median, 11.3 vs 5.1 months; p = 0.036)., Conclusion: Compared with ST, PIPAC was associated with higher number of good days, reduced hospitalization burden, and longer OS without a negative impact on HRQoL with repeated PIPACs. These findings are foundational for evaluation of PIPAC in a randomized clinical trial., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Each year a percentage of the 1.2 million men and women in the United States with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer join the 700,000 people who have an ostomy. Education targeting the long-term, chronic care of this population is lacking. This report describes the development of a Chronic Care Ostomy Self-Management Program, which was informed by (1) evidence on published quality-of-life changes for cancer patients with ostomies, (2) educational suggestions from patients with ostomies, and (3) examination of the usual care of new ostomates to illustrate areas for continued educational emphases and areas for needed education and support. Using these materials, the Chronic Care Ostomy Self-Management Program was developed by a team of multi-disciplinary researchers accompanied by experienced ostomy nurses. Testing of the program is in process. Pilot study participants reported high satisfaction with the program syllabus, ostomy nurse leaders, and ostomate peer buddies.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and optimal timing of quality of life assessment for patients undergoing palliative surgical evaluation., Methods: Patients with an advanced malignancy undergoing consultation for palliative surgical intervention were prospectively enrolled from November 2009 to January 2011. Follow-up quality of life assessment was performed using validated instruments at 1 and 3 months post-enrollment. Univariate analysis of variables was performed to identify clinicopathologic variables associated with questionnaire completion., Results: Of 77 patients enrolled, the most common clinical presentations included bowel obstruction (32 %), abdominal pain (21 %), wound complications (18 %), and gastrointestinal bleeding (11 %). Of the 77 patients, 34 (44 %) were treated with nonoperative/nonprocedural care, 9 (12 %) with endoscopic or interventional radiologic procedures, and 34 (44 %) with surgery. Follow-up questionnaires were obtained at 1 month and 3 months in 48 % and 15 %, respectively. A total of 31 patients (40 %) died prior to study completion. On univariate analysis, death was the only factor associated with questionnaire response. All other demographic, clinical, and treatment variables were not associated with response to questionnaires. There were no significant differences in baseline or follow-up quality of life scores between patients treated with surgical intervention or nonoperative management., Conclusions: Death during the study period was a significant factor in limiting adequate follow-up assessment. Future studies attempting to obtain follow-up data on patients evaluated for palliative surgical intervention may require larger patient numbers to account for frequent early death in this population and anticipate the need to account for the high rate of missing data in statistical analysis.

Background: Despite increasing attention to end-of-life care in oncology, palliative surgery (PS) remains poorly defined. A survey to test the definition, assess the extent of use, and evaluate attitudes and goals of surgeons regarding PS was devised., Methods: A survey of Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) members., Results: 419 SSO members completed a 110-item survey. Surgeons estimated 21% of their cancer surgeries as palliative in nature. Forty-three percent of respondents felt PS was best defined based on pre-operative intent, 27% based on post-operative factors, and 30% on patient prognosis. Only 43% considered estimated patient survival time an important factor in defining PS, and 22% considered 5-year survival rate important. The vast majority (95%) considered tumor still evident following surgery in a patient with poor prognosis constituted PS. Most surgeons felt PS could be procedures due to generalized illness related to cancer (80%) or related to cancer treatment complications (76%). Patient symptom relief and pain relief were identified as the two most important goals in PS, with increased survival the least important., Conclusion: PS is a major portion of surgical oncology practice. Quality-of-life parameters, not patient survival, were identified as the most important goals of PS.