Oncologic Risk Stratification Following Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Appendiceal Carcinomatosis
- 264 Downloads
Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of appendiceal origin demonstrate variable oncologic outcomes, despite aggressive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS–HIPEC). We sought to devise a prognostic risk stratification system for oncologic outcomes following CRS–HIPEC.
A total of 197 patients undergoing CRS–HIPEC for the treatment of appendiceal PC were reviewed from a prospective database. Kaplan–Meier survival curves and multivariate Cox regression models were used to identify prognostic factors affecting oncologic outcomes. Clinicopathologic variables affecting overall survival (OS) were utilized to develop a prognostic staging system and nomograms.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that high-grade tumor histology, lymph node metastasis, and incomplete cytoreduction were high-risk features, adversely affecting OS. Patients were stratified on the presence of high-risk features as follows: low-risk patients had no risk factors (n = 102); intermediate-risk patients had one risk factor (n = 49); and high-risk patients had more than one risk factor (n = 46). Median OS for low-risk patients was not reached, and was 43 and 22 months for intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. Five-year OS was 72, 43, and 13 % for low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively (p < 0.0003 for low vs. intermediate risk, and p = 0.06 for intermediate vs. high risk).
We propose a three-tier staging system for appendiceal PC following CRS–HIPEC, based on histologic grade, lymph node involvement, and completeness of cytoreduction. The presence of any one or more of these high-risk features significantly decreased survival in our single-institution database and provided the basis for a prognostic staging system and corresponding nomograms.
KeywordsOverall Survival Histologic Grade Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Complete Cytoreduction Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
- 1.Ronnett BM, Zahn CM, Kurman RJ, Kass ME, Sugarbaker PH, Shmookler BM. Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis and peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis. A clinicopathologic analysis of 109 cases with emphasis on distinguishing pathologic features, site of origin, prognosis, and relationship to “pseudomyxoma peritonei”. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995;19(12):1390–408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Glehen O, Osinsky D, Cotte E, et al. Intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia using a closed abdominal procedure and cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: morbidity and mortality analysis of 216 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(8):863–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.2.2. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- 30.Harrell F Jr, Frank E. Regression modeling strategies, with applications to linear models. Logistic regression and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.Google Scholar
- 36.Turaga K, Levine E, Barone R, et al. Consensus guidelines from The American Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies on standardizing the delivery of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal cancer patients in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(5):1501–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Maheshwari V, Tsung A, Lin Y, Zeh HJ 3rd, Finkelstein SD, Bartlett DL. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity for tumor-suppressor genes can accurately classify and predict the clinical behavior of mucinous tumors arising from the appendix. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(12):1610–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Van Ruth S, Hart AAM, Bonfrer JMG, Verwaal VJ, Zoetmulder FAN. Prognostic value of baseline and serial carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19.9 measurements in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei treated with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):961–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar