Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 13, pp 3950–3959 | Cite as

Postoperative Complications Independently Predict Cancer-Related Survival in Peritoneal Malignancies

  • M. Haroon A. Choudry
  • Yongli Shuai
  • Heather L. Jones
  • Reetesh K. Pai
  • James F. Pingpank
  • Steven S. Ahrendt
  • Matthew P. Holtzman
  • Herbert J. Zeh
  • David L. Bartlett
Peritoneal Surface Malignancy

Abstract

Background

The authors hypothesized that postoperative complications after cytoreductive surgery–hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (CRS–HIPEC) have a negative impact on perioperative and oncologic outcomes and that the novel Comprehensive Comorbidity Index (CCI) would be a better predictor of such outcomes than the traditional Clavien–Dindo classification (CDC).

Methods

The study used a prospective database of 1296 patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) undergoing CRS–HIPEC between 2001 and 2016. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate survival. Multivariate analyses identified associations with perioperative and oncologic outcomes. The Akaike information criterion and the Schwarz (Bayesian information) criterion were used to compare model fitting for CCI versus CDC.

Results

In this study, CRS–HIPEC was performed for malignant mesothelioma (12%) and PM from appendix (50%), colorectal (30%), and ovarian (8%) cancers. Major postoperative in-hospital complications (CDC grades 3–4) occurred for 24% of the patients. However, a range of CCI scores was calculated for each CDC grade because 36% of the patients experienced multiple complications. After a median follow-up period of 55 months, the median progression-free survival was 15 months, and the median overall survival was 39 months. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, postoperative in-hospital complications (measured by CDC or CCI) were independent prognostic factors for 30-day post-discharge morbidity and readmission, as well as for survival. The CCI scores demonstrated higher prognostic sensitivity for these outcomes than CDC grades.

Conclusions

Reduction of postoperative complications after CRS–HIPEC is essential for optimal short- and long-term outcomes. For assessing total burden of postoperative complications per patient, CCI is superior to CDC and more sensitive for assessing surgery- and cancer-related outcomes after CRS–HIPEC.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was partially funded by generous support from Valarie Koch and the New Era Cap Company. The project was supported by the National Institutes of Health through Grant No. UL1-TR-001857, using a Red cap-maintained database.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aoyama T, Oba K, Honda M, et al. Impact of postoperative complications on the colorectal cancer survival and recurrence: analyses of pooled individual patients’ data from three large phase III randomized trials. Cancer Med. 2017;6:1573–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Correa-Gallego C, Gonen M, Fischer M, et al. Perioperative complications influence recurrence and survival after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamphues C, Bova R, Schricke D, et al. Postoperative complications deteriorate long-term outcome in pancreatic cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:856–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matsuda A, Matsumoto S, Seya T, et al. Does postoperative complication have a negative impact on long-term outcomes following hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis? A meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2485–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P. Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;253:890–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mrak K, Eberl T, Laske A, Jagoditsch M, Fritz J, Tschmelitsch J. Impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival after resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:20–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slankamenac K, Slankamenac M, Schlegel A, et al. Impact of postoperative complications on readmission and long-term survival in patients following surgery for colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32:805–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baratti D, Kusamura S, Iusco D, et al. Postoperative complications after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy affect long-term outcome of patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: a two-center study of 101 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:858–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graziosi L, Marino E, De Angelis V, Rebonato A, Donini A. Survival prognostic factors in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment: analysis from a single oncological center. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee L, Alie-Cusson F, Dube P, Sideris L. Postoperative complications affect long-term outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. J Surg Oncol. 2017;116:236–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schneider MA, Eshmuminov D, Lehmann K. Major postoperative complications are a risk factor for impaired survival after CRS/HIPEC. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2224–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simkens GA, van Oudheusden TR, Luyer MD, et al. Serious postoperative complications affect early recurrence after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2656–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Binkowska AM, Michalak G, Slotwinski R. Current views on the mechanisms of immune responses to trauma and infection. Cent Eur J Immunol. 2015;40:206–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Immunosuppression in sepsis: a novel understanding of the disorder and a new therapeutic approach. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:260–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roxburgh CS, Horgan PG, McMillan DC. The perioperative immune/inflammatory insult in cancer surgery: time for intervention? Oncoimmunology. 2013;2:e27324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeOliveira ML, Winter JM, Schafer M, et al. Assessment of complications after pancreatic surgery: a novel grading system applied to 633 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2006;244:931–7 (discussion 937–9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clavien PA, Vetter D, Staiger RD, et al. The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI(R)): added value and clinical perspectives 3 years “down the line.” Ann Surg. 2017;265:1045–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA. The Comprehensive Complication Index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim TH, Suh YS, Huh YJ, et al. The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) is a more sensitive complication index than the conventional Clavien–Dindo classification in radical gastric cancer surgery. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21:171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nederlof N, Slaman AE, van Hagen P, et al. Using the Comprehensive Complication Index to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on complication severity after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3964–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dumitra S, O’Leary M, Raoof M, et al. The Comprehensive Complication Index: a new measure of the burden of complications after hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:688–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slankamenac K, Nederlof N, Pessaux P, et al. The comprehensive complication index: a novel and more sensitive endpoint for assessing outcome and reducing sample size in randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2014;260:757–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bao P, Bartlett D. Surgical techniques in visceral resection and peritonectomy procedures. Cancer J. 2009;15:204–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davison JM, Choudry HA, Pingpank JF, et al. Clinicopathologic and molecular analysis of disseminated appendiceal mucinous neoplasms: identification of factors predicting survival and proposed criteria for a three-tiered assessment of tumor grade. Mod Pathol. 2014;27:1521–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tang LH, Shia J, Soslow RA, et al. Pathologic classification and clinical behavior of the spectrum of goblet cell carcinoid tumors of the appendix. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:1429–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milovanov V, Sardi A, Aydin N, et al. Extensive surgical history prior to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is associated with poor survival outcomes in patients with peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis of appendiceal origin. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:881–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ahmed S, Stewart JH, Shen P, Votanopoulos KI, Levine EA. Outcomes with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for peritoneal metastasis. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:575–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Newton AD, Bartlett EK, Karakousis GC. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a review of factors contributing to morbidity and mortality. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7:99–111.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Snowden CP, Prentis JM, Anderson HL, et al. Submaximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts complications and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing major elective surgery. Ann Surg. 2010;251:535–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moonesinghe SR, Mythen MG, Das P, Rowan KM, Grocott MP. Risk stratification tools for predicting morbidity and mortality in adult patients undergoing major surgery: qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiology. 2013;119:959–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fitz-Henry J. The ASA classification and peri-operative risk. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;93:185–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haynes SR, Lawler PG. An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation. Anaesthesia. 1995;50:195–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alyami M, Kim BJ, Villeneuve L, et al. Ninety-day postoperative morbidity and mortality using the National Cancer Institute’s common terminology criteria for adverse events better describe postoperative outcome after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Int J Hyperthermia. 2018;34:532–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Haroon A. Choudry
    • 1
  • Yongli Shuai
    • 2
  • Heather L. Jones
    • 1
  • Reetesh K. Pai
    • 3
  • James F. Pingpank
    • 1
  • Steven S. Ahrendt
    • 1
  • Matthew P. Holtzman
    • 1
  • Herbert J. Zeh
    • 1
  • David L. Bartlett
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Surgical Oncology, Koch Regional Perfusion CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.The University of Pittsburgh Medical Cancer Hillman Cancer Center Biostatistics FacilityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations