Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2024
Prophylaxis and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin using hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stefano Mauro, Perrina Daniele, Vallicelli Carlo, Ansaloni Luca, Fugazzola Paola, Coccolini Federico, Agnoletti Vanni, Frassineti Giovanni Luca, Passardi Alessandro, Tamberi Stefano, Framarini Massimo, Tassinari Davide, Matteucci Laura, Sturaro Chiara, Gallo Graziana, Catena Fausto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis significantly worsens the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. Cytoreduction + hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in the prevention and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in advanced gastric cancer (AGC); however, its application remains controversial owing to the variability of the approaches used to perform it and the lack of high-quality evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of surgery and HIPEC in the prevention and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing surgery + HIPEC vs surgery + chemotherapy for the prophylaxis of peritoneal carcinomatosis and cytoreduction + HIPEC vs chemotherapy or other palliative options for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies enrolling 1641 patients were included. Surgery + HIPEC significantly improved overall survival in both prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56) and therapeutic (HR, 0.57) settings. When surgery + HIPEC was performed with prophylactic intent, the pooled 3-year mortality rate was 32%, whereas for the control group it was 55%. The overall and peritoneal recurrence rates were also reduced (risk ratio [RR], 0.59 and 0.40, respectively). No significant difference was found in morbidity between groups (RR, 0.92).
CONCLUSION: Based on the current knowledge, HIPEC in AGC seems to be a safe and effective tool for prophylaxis and a promising resource for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Regarding the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis, the scarcity of large-cohort studies and the heterogeneity of the techniques adopted prevented us from achieving a definitive recommendation.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing surgery + HIPEC vs surgery + chemotherapy for the prophylaxis of peritoneal carcinomatosis and cytoreduction + HIPEC vs chemotherapy or other palliative options for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies enrolling 1641 patients were included. Surgery + HIPEC significantly improved overall survival in both prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56) and therapeutic (HR, 0.57) settings. When surgery + HIPEC was performed with prophylactic intent, the pooled 3-year mortality rate was 32%, whereas for the control group it was 55%. The overall and peritoneal recurrence rates were also reduced (risk ratio [RR], 0.59 and 0.40, respectively). No significant difference was found in morbidity between groups (RR, 0.92).
CONCLUSION: Based on the current knowledge, HIPEC in AGC seems to be a safe and effective tool for prophylaxis and a promising resource for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Regarding the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis, the scarcity of large-cohort studies and the heterogeneity of the techniques adopted prevented us from achieving a definitive recommendation.