Search

Simple Summary: Mini-invasive surgery represents an interesting yet challenging technical evolution for treating peritoneal metastases. This retrospective study aims to present the experience of the Italian Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Oncoteam with laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), including a detailed description of the technique and a systematic review of the literature. The study shows the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic CRS-HIPEC and its association with favorable outcomes in properly selected patients. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has gained increasing acceptance in clinical practice. Performing CRS and HIPEC laparoscopically represents a challenging and intriguing technical evolution. However, the experiences are limited, and the evidence is low. This retrospective analysis was performed on patients treated with laparoscopic CRS-HIPEC within the Italian Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Oncoteam. Clinical, perioperative, and follow-up data were extracted and collected on prospectively maintained databases. We added a systematic review according to the PRISMA method for English-language articles through April 2022 using the keywords laparoscopic, hyperthermic, HIPEC, and chemotherapy. From 2016 to 2022, fourteen patients were treated with Lap-CRS-HIPEC with curative intent within the Italian centers. No conversion to open was observed. The median duration of surgery was 487.5 min. The median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 3, and complete cytoreduction was achieved in all patients. Two patients (14.3%) had major postoperative complications, one requiring reintervention. After a median follow-up of 16.9 months, eleven patients were alive without disease (78.6%), two patients developed recurrence (14.3%), and one patient died for unrelated causes (7.1%). The literature review confirmed these results. In conclusion, current evidence shows that Lap-CRS-HIPEC is feasible, safe, and associated with a favorable outcome in selected patients. An accurate patient selection will continue to be paramount in choosing this treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Colorectal peritoneal metastases could potentially benefit from locoregional treatments such as cytoreduction combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Three recently published RCTs that have investigated HIPEC in the setting of radical or prophylactic/II^ look surgery have improved the current knowledge of the treatment of CRC PM. The current review summarizes the results of these trials, emphasizing the highlights and criticisms and focusing on the potential impact and future directions in the clinical practice of HIPEC. Oxaliplatin-based HIPEC seems ineffective in improving surgery results in patients with CRC PM. Moreover, the same oxaliplatin-based regimen is ineffective in preventing CRC PM occurrence and should be abandoned. Several ongoing trials are investigating mitomycin-based HIPEC after radical surgery or as a prevention strategy. Meanwhile, HIPEC should still be considered a therapeutic option for selected patients and offered by dedicated, experienced centers and surgical teams. HIPEC is a potentially useful locoregional treatment combined with cytoreduction in patients with peritoneal colorectal metastases. Despite being widely used in several cancer centers around the world, its role had never been investigated before the results of three important RCTs appeared on this topic. The PRODIGE 7 trial clarified the role of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC in patients treated with radical surgery. Conversely, the PROPHYLOCHIP and the COLOPEC were designed to chair the role of HIPEC in patients at high risk of developing peritoneal metastases. Although all three trials demonstrated the relative ineffectiveness of HIPEC for treating or preventing peritoneal metastases, these results are not sufficient to abandon this technique. In addition to some criticisms relating to the design of the trials and their statistical value, the oxaliplatin-based HIPEC was found to be ineffective in preventing or treating peritoneal colorectal metastases, especially in patients already treated with systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Several studies are ongoing investigating further HIPEC drugs and regimens. The review deeply discussed all the aspects and relapses of this new evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence against the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy are increasing and ERAS guidelines suggest the benefit of drain avoidance. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether this practice is still widespread. We conducted a survey among Italian surgeons through the Italian Gastric Cancer Research Group and the Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons, aiming to understand the current use of prophylactic drain. A 28-item questionnaire-based survey was developed to analyze the current practice and the individual opinion about the use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy. Groups based on age, experience and unit volume were separately analyzed. Response of 104 surgeons from 73 surgical units were collected. A standardized ERAS protocol for gastrectomy was applied by 42% of the respondents. Most of the surgeons, regardless of age, experience, or unit volume, declared to routinely place one or more drain after gastrectomy. Only 2 (1.9%) and 7 surgeons (6.7%) belonging to high volume units, do not routinely place drains after total and subtotal gastrectomy, respectively. More than 60% of the participants remove the drain on postoperative day 4–6 after performing an assessment of the anastomosis integrity. Interestingly, less than half of the surgeons believe that drain is the main tool for leak management, and this percentage further drops among younger surgeons. On the other hand, drain's role seems to be more defined for duodenal stump leak treatment, with almost 50% of the surgeons recognizing its importance. Routine use of prophylactic drain after gastrectomy is still a widespread practice even if younger surgeons are more persuaded that it could not be advantageous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]