
==== Front
World J Surg Oncol
World J Surg Oncol
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
1477-7819
BioMed Central London

39218891
3464
10.1186/s12957-024-03464-9
Research
Efficacy and safety of cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer peritoneal metastasis
Yan Guojun
Zhang Kai
Yan Lijun
Zhang Yanbin sjtyyzyb@mail.ccmu.edu.cn

grid.24696.3f 0000 0004 0369 153X Department of Peritoneal Cancer Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 10, Tieyi Road, Yangfangdian Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038 China
2 9 2024
2 9 2024
2024
22 21229 5 2024
8 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Objectives

Pancreatic cancer with peritoneal metastasis presents a challenging prognosis, with limited effective treatment options available. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as a treatment strategy for this patient group.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer who underwent CRS + HIPEC treatment at Beijing Shijitan Hospital from March 2017 to December 2023. The study focused on assessing clinical features, the incidence of sever adverse events (SAEs), and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 10 patients were enrolled in this study. The median OS was 24.2 months, suggesting an improvement over traditional therapies. While SAEs were noted, including two cases of severe complications necessitating additional surgical interventions, no perioperative fatalities were recorded. The overall survival time for patients with CC0/1 was not significantly different from that of patients with CC2/3, and no prognostic predictors were identified.

Conclusions

The combination of CRS and HIPEC appears to be a viable and promising treatment modality for patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer, offering an improved survival rate with manageable safety concerns. Further research is needed to refine patient selection criteria and to explore the long-term benefits of this approach.

Keywords

Cytoreductive surgery
Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy
Peritoneal metastasis
Pancreatic cancer
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Pancreatic cancer is associated with a notably poor prognosis and ranks as the 14th most common cancer globally, contributing to the seventh highest number of cancer-related deaths [1, 2]. In China, recent data indicates an incidence of over 13,000 new cases and deaths annually [3]. Despite advancements in healthcare, pancreatic cancer incidence and mortality rates continue to rise [4]. Surgical resection with tumor-free margins (R0) represents the sole opportunity for long-term survival. However, median overall survival (OS) post-surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy ranges from 16.5 to 28.0 months [5, 6]. Challenges such as local recurrence and metastasis are significant impediments to successful treatment.

Approximately half of the patients present with metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, with liver metastases being the most common, followed by peritoneal carcinomatosis, occurring in 9.2–60.0% of cases [7, 8]. Historically considered incurable, peritoneal carcinomatosis from pancreatic origin has been managed palliatively, resulting in a median OS between 1.5 and 17.0 months [7, 9]. Chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel has only modestly extended median OS by 1.8 months compared to gemcitabine alone [10], while FOLFIRINOX has shown a slight improvement over gemcitabine monotherapy [11]. Nevertheless, the median OS for metastatic pancreatic cancer hovers around just 4.4 to 11.1 months, irrespective of whether patients receive gemcitabine combination chemotherapy or aggressive regimens like FOLFIRINOX [12]. Regional therapeutic strategies, such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), have shown limited progress, offering a median overall survival of around 17.0 months [8].

There is a conspicuous gap in the literature concerning the use of a combined approach of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC for the treatment of peritoneal metastases from pancreatic cancer. The efficacy of this approach has been documented in various other peritoneal malignancies [13–16], but its application specifically for pancreatic cancer peritoneal metastasis has not yet been thoroughly explored. This study aims to address this research void by evaluating the safety and efficacy of CRS + HIPEC for managing peritoneal metastases originating from pancreatic cancer.

Metaerials and methods

The paitents with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer who received CRS + HIPEC were enrolled at Department of Peritoneal Cancer, Beijing shijitan Hospital, between March 2017 and December 2023. Synchronous peritoneal metastasis was identified by the simultaneous detection of pancreatic cancer and peritoneal metastasis, whereas metachronous peritoneal metastasis was characterized by the occurrence of peritoneal metastasis following pancreatectomy. The research methodology strictly adhered to the ethical guidelines stipulated by the institutional review board, and was consistent with the principles of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments. Approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Shijitan Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their undergoing CRS + HIPEC, following a detailed explanation of the procedure and its potential risks.

Inclusion criteria

The decision to pursue CRS combined HIPEC for pancreatic cancer with peritoneal metastasis was informed by a preoperative set of inclusion criteria established to identify candidates who may benefit from this aggressive therapeutic strategy, despite it not being the standard care for this patient cohort. The criteria encompassed: (1) A confirmed diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with biopsy-confirmed or frozen pathology-verified peritoneal metastasis; (2) Assessment of disease extent via imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography (PET), suggesting that the peritoneal metastases were potentially resectable; (3) Evaluation of the patient’s overall health and performance status, ensuring suitability for enduring major surgery and its associated risks; (4) Adequate organ function, as determined by laboratory testing, to withstand the potential impact of the procedure; (5) Consensus among a multidisciplinary team, including hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal surgeons, medical oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists, that the patient would likely derive benefit from the CRS + HIPEC approach; and (6) The patient’s informed consent, which entailed an extensive discussion of the procedure’s risks, benefits, and available alternative treatments.

Procedure of CRS + HIPEC

The CRS + HIPEC procedure involved: (1)Surgical approach: an open abdominal method was adopted for CRS, followed by HIPEC. (2) Tumor burden evaluation: the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was calculated intraoperatively in accordance with the method described by Sugarbaker, ranging from 0 ~ 39 [17]. (3) Tumor removal: all macroscopically visible tumors, including those involving the viscera and peritoneum affected by carcinomatosis, were resected maximally. The organ resections incorporated procedures on the ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, complete colon, gastrectomy, small intestine resection, rectal resection, and excision of the ovaries and fallopian tubes, hysterectomy, partial hysterectomy, kidney, and spleen, pancreas, gallbladder, and bladder. The peritonectomy encompassed the bilateral diaphragmatic peritoneum, greater and lesser omentum, bilateral colonic sulcus peritoneum, hepatic round ligament, anterior wall peritoneum, pelvic floor peritoneum, and mesentery. (4) HIPEC Administration: Following the CRS, HIPEC was administered using a combination of docetaxel (120 mg) and cisplatin (120 mg) for a duration of 30 to 60 min. (5) Digestive tract reconstruction: following CRS + HIPEC, digestive tract reconstruction was undertaken. (6) Cytoreduction completeness assessment: the extent of cytoreduction was evaluated based on the size of residual nodules: CC-0 indicated no visible nodules; CC-1, residual nodules smaller than 2.5 mm; CC-2, nodules measuring 2.5 mm to 2.5 cm; and CC-3, nodules larger than 2.5 cm.

Study endpoints and definitions

Collected clinical data included parameters such as gender, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS). Detailed information pertaining to CRS + HIPEC encompassed operation duration, organ resections, peritoneum resection, anastomosis procedures, specifics of HIPEC administration, PCI score, CC score, and the requirement for blood transfusions, as well as related preoperative and postoperative treatments.

Postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification System, which comprises nine categories with forty-eight adverse events distributed across levels I to IV. Complications at levels III to IV were defined as severe adverse events (SAEs) [18]. Outcome measures were OS, defined as the time from the date of CRS + HIPEC to the last follow-up or death.

Statistical analysis

All statistical evaluations were conducted employing the SPSS (version 26.0, IBM, Chicago). We opted for the utilization of non-parametric methodologies for the meticulous analysis of the data. OS was analyzed utilizing Kaplan-Meier estimates, with survival curves being determined through the application of the log-rank test. Hazard ratios and P-values were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

This study enrolled 10 patients, including 3 males and 7 females, with a median age of 52 years (32 ~ 66 years) and a median BMI of 23.55 (19.5 ~ 29.6). The majority had not received treatment before CRS + HIPEC (70%) owing to simultaneous peritoneal metastasis, with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma being the most common pathology (60%) (Table 1). Figure 1 showed one case received CRS + HIPEC.

Table 1 Characteristics of 10 patients who underwent CRS + HIPEC

Variables	n	%	
Age [Median]	52 [32 ~ 66]		
Gender			
 Male	3	30.0%	
 Female	7	70.0%	
BMI [Median]	24.0 [19.5 ~ 29.6]		
KPS [Median]	90 [80 ~ 100]		
Syn/Met			
 Syn	8	80.0%	
 Met	2	20.0%	
Treatment before CRS + HIPEC			
 No	7	70.0%	
 Yes	3	30.0%	
Pathology			
 Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma	6	60.0%	
 IHC indicated pancreatic origin.	4	40.0%	
Met: metachronous; Syn: synchronous; IHC: Immunohistochemistry; BMI: Body Mass Index; KPS: Karnofsky Performance Status

Fig. 1 Surgical and histopathological insights. (A) Abdominal exploration revealed the greater omentum nodules marked by a blue arrow. (B) Detailed view of a suspected lesion in the intestine, indicated by a blue arrow. (C) Completion of CRS resulted in the removal of the greater omentum and surrounding tissues, achieving CC-0. (D) Histological examination of the excised tissue, using hematoxylin and eosin stain, reveals irregular glandular structures and atypical cells, with a diagnosis of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma based on cell differentiation levels. Scale bar equals 100 μm

Operative details revealed a median PCI of 19, indicating a diverse spectrum of tumor burdens. The median duration of the CRS + HIPEC procedure was 508 min, with a significant proportion of cases achieving complete cytoreduction (CC-0 to CC-1 in 60% of patients) (Table 2).

Significantly, two patients experienced SAEs (Table 2): one developed a thoracic infection requiring secondary surgery, and another suffered from postoperative intestinal obstruction. Despite these complications, there were no perioperative deaths, underscoring the procedure’s safety profile. Some patients received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and/or additional surgery following CRS + HIPEC.

Table 2 Intraoperative Data and postoperative SAEs for CRS + HIPEC

CRS + HIPEC	All patients (n = 10)	
PCI, [Median]	19 [9 ~ 38]	
Operation time, [Median]	508 min [252 ~ 718 min]	
Open HIPEC technique	10	
CC0/1	6	
SAEs	2	

The median follow-up period was 12.0 months, during which the median OS reached 24.2 months (Fig. 2), suggesting a potential improvement in outcomes for patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer following CRS + HIPEC. Factors influencing OS as determined by univariate analysis are presented in Table 3. Age, gender, prior chemotherapy, PCI score, CC score, and whether peritoneal metastasis was synchronous or metachronous, along with the postoperative morbidity, were not statistically significant.

Table 3 Risk factors analysis

		Univariate Analysis	
Prodictor of prognosis	All patients (n = 10)	P-value	
Gender		0.525	
 Male	3		
 Female	7		
Age		0.484	
 ≥ 65	2		
 < 65	8		
Prior chemotherapy		0.557	
 Yes	3		
 No	7		
Syn/Met		0.606	
 Syn	8		
 Met	2		
PCI		0.526	
 > 20	3		
 ≤ 20	7		
CC		0.543	
 CC0/1	6		
 CC2/3	4		
Postoperative morbidity		0.466	
 Yes	2		
 No	8		
Met: metachronous; Syn: synchronous;

Fig. 2 A: OS of patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer following CRS+/HIPEC. B: No significant differences in OS were observed when comparing patients with peitoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer in both CC0/1 and CC2/3 groups

Discussion

The encouraging findings of our study highlight the potential of CRS + HIPEC as a viable treatment option for pancreatic cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis. The observed median OS of 24.2 months post-treatment marks a significant departure from the historically dismal prognosis associated with this advanced stage of the disease. This improvement in survival metrics suggests that the localized delivery of chemotherapy during HIPEC, combined with the maximal reduction of tumor burden achieved through CRS, can effectively combat the aggressive nature of pancreatic cancer cells within the peritoneal cavity.

CRS + HIPEC was initially applied to the treatment of peritoneal pseudomyxoma in the United States during the 1980s, demonstrating significant therapeutic benefits [19]. Over the ensuing four decades, advancements in technique have expanded the application of this comprehensive approach to a wider array of peritoneal carcinomas. These include metastatic ovarian cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, mesothelioma, and pseudomyxoma. Reports on the use of CRS + HIPEC for these indications have been encouraging, highlighting its adaptability and potential as a modality in the treatment of peritoneal malignancies [13, 14, 20, 21]. Furthermore, even in the context of refractory hepatocellular carcinoma, the implementation of CRS + HIPEC has shown promise in improving prognosis, with selected patients experiencing enhanced long-term survival outcomes [22–24].

Conventionally, metastatic disease has been regarded as contraindicative to surgical intervention, owing to the aggressive biological behavior of such tumors. To date, there exists no comprehensive study specifically addressing the role of CRS + HIPEC in the context of peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer. However, a limited number of retrospective analyses and case series have explored the potential benefit of reoperation for recurrent or distant metastatic pancreatic cancer over the past several years. Thomas et al. [25] reviewed patients with recurrent or metastatic disease of pancreatic cancer who underwent secondary surgery and identified that carefully selected cases may derive significant survival benefits from reoperation, with a reported median OS of 36.0 months in lung metastasis or localized recurrence patients. Notably, it appears that lung metastasis may be more amenable to reoperation compared to other sites of disease [25, 26]. For instances of liver metastasis or localized recurrence, median OS following M1 resection was 12.3 months, with 5-year OS rates of 8.1% for liver metastases and 10.1% for distant interaortocaval lymph nodes resection [27]. Shailesh and colleagues also reported on pancreatic cancer patients with metastasis who underwent resection, revealing a median OS of 12.9 months [28]. In a retrospective study conducted by Natasha er al [29], provided important insights into the potential benefits of CRS + HIPEC for patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer. The observation of a 15.0 months OS in one patient following the CRS + HIPEC intervention is noteworthy. Collectively, these studies suggest that judicious patient selection for reoperation may confer substantial survival advantages.

HIPEC has been documented to enhance the penetration of chemotherapeutic agents into tumor tissues, augmenting their cytotoxic effects by several-fold compared to normothermic conditions [8, 30]. The hyperthermic environment itself induces a heat shock response in tumor cells, potentially triggering apoptosis and sensitizing these cells to the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy [31]. Moreover, preliminary applications of HIPEC specifically in the setting of pancreatic cancer have shown encouraging results [32], suggesting that the combination of surgical resection with HIPEC could yield superior outcomes.

It is important to note that while our study provides evidence supporting the potential benefits of CRS + HIPEC for pancreatic cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis, it also highlights the need for careful patient selection. Further studies are necessary to identify the optimal candidates for this treatment modality and to establish clear guidelines for patient selection.

Conclusions

The integrated approach of CRS + HIPEC offers a new therapeutic option for patients with peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer. The observed improvements in OS justify further investigation into the role of this combined modality in the management of this challenging disease. Ongoing clinical trials and prospective studies will be instrumental in defining the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of CRS + HIPEC in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the medical team and staff at Beijing Shijitan Hospital for their dedication and expertise in treating the patients included in this study. Special thanks are extended to the nurses and support personnel for their tireless care and commitment to patient well-being.

Author contributions

Guojun Yan: Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing the original draft, Visualization. Kai Zhang: Data curation; Investigation; writing – review and editing. Lijun Yan: Data curation; Investigation; writing – review and editing. Yanbin Zhang: Data curation; Investigation; writing – review and editing, supervision.

Funding

This research did not receive any financial support or funding.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures were conducted in strict accordance with the ethical guidelines established by the responsible institutional and national committees on human experimentation, fully adhering to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its subsequent amendments. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Beijing Shijitan Hospital. Written informed consent was secured from all participants before they underwent CRS + HIPEC.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2021 71 3 209 49 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.33538338 10.3322/caac.21660
2. Barcellini A Peloso A Pugliese L Vitolo V Cobianchi L Locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: challenges and progress Onco Targets Ther 2020 13 12705 20 10.2147/OTT.S220971 33335406
Barcellini A, Peloso A, Pugliese L, Vitolo V, Cobianchi L. Locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: challenges and progress. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:12705–20.33335406 10.2147/OTT.S220971
3. Xia C Dong X Li H Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants Chin Med J 2022 135 5 584 90 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002108 35143424
Xia C, Dong X, Li H, et al. Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chin Med J. 2022;135(5):584–90.35143424 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002108
4. Cabasag CJ Ferlay J Laversanne M Pancreatic cancer: an increasing global public health concern Gut 2022 71 8 1686 7 34686577
Cabasag CJ, Ferlay J, Laversanne M, et al. Pancreatic cancer: an increasing global public health concern. Gut. 2022;71(8):1686–7.34686577
5. Neoptolemos JP Palmer DH Ghaneh P Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a muentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet 2017 389 10073 1011 24 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32409-6 28129987
Neoptolemos JP, Palmer DH, Ghaneh P, et al. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a muentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10073):1011–24.28129987 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32409-6
6. Demir IE Jäger C Schlitter AM R0 versus R1 resection matters after pancreaticoduodenectomy, and less after distal or total pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer Ann Surg 2018 268 6 1058 68 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002345 28692477
Demir IE, Jäger C, Schlitter AM, et al. R0 versus R1 resection matters after pancreaticoduodenectomy, and less after distal or total pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2018;268(6):1058–68.28692477 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002345
7. Thomassen I Lemmens VE Nienhuijs SW Luyer MD Klaver YL de Hingh IH Incidence, prognosis, and possible treatment strategies of peritoneal carcinomatosis of pancreatic origin: a population-based study Pancreas 2013 42 1 72 5 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31825abf8c 22850624
Thomassen I, Lemmens VE, Nienhuijs SW, Luyer MD, Klaver YL, de Hingh IH. Incidence, prognosis, and possible treatment strategies of peritoneal carcinomatosis of pancreatic origin: a population-based study. Pancreas. 2013;42(1):72–5.22850624 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31825abf8c
8. Frassini S Calabretto F Granieri S Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur J Surg Oncol 2022 48 9 1911 21 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.05.030 35688711
Frassini S, Calabretto F, Granieri S, et al. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48(9):1911–21.35688711 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.05.030
9. McGuigan A Kelly P Turkington RC Jones C Coleman HG McCain RS Pancreatic cancer: a review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes World J Gastroenterol 2018 24 43 4846 61 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4846 30487695
McGuigan A, Kelly P, Turkington RC, Jones C, Coleman HG, McCain RS. Pancreatic cancer: a review of clinical diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(43):4846–61.30487695 10.3748/wjg.v24.i43.4846
10. Von Hoff DD Ervin T Arena FP Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine N Engl J Med 2013 369 18 1691 703 10.1056/NEJMoa1304369 24131140
Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1691–703.24131140 10.1056/NEJMoa1304369
11. Conroy T Desseigne F Ychou M FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer N Engl J Med 2011 364 19 1817 25 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923 21561347
Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1817–25.21561347 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923
12. Di Costanzo F Di Costanzo F Antonuzzo L Mazza E Giommoni E Optimizing first-line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer: efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine Cancers 2023 15 2 416 10.3390/cancers15020416 36672366
Di Costanzo F, Di Costanzo F, Antonuzzo L, Mazza E, Giommoni E. Optimizing first-line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer: efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. Cancers. 2023;15(2):416.36672366 10.3390/cancers15020416
13. Turaga K Levine E Barone R 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 10.1245/s10434-013-3061-z 23793364
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):1501–5.23793364 10.1245/s10434-013-3061-z
14. Chicago Consensus Working Group The Chicago Consensus on peritoneal surface malignancies: management of appendiceal neoplasms Cancer 2020 126 11 2525 33 10.1002/cncr.32881 32282073
Chicago Consensus Working Group. The Chicago Consensus on peritoneal surface malignancies: management of appendiceal neoplasms. Cancer. 2020;126(11):2525–33.32282073 10.1002/cncr.32881
15. Van Cutsem E Cervantes A Adam R ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer Ann Oncol 2016 27 8 1386 422 10.1093/annonc/mdw235 27380959
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1386–422.27380959 10.1093/annonc/mdw235
16. Mehta S Schwarz L Spiliotis J Is there an oncological interest in the combination of CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis of HCC? Results of a multicenter international study Eur J Surg Oncol 2018 44 11 1786 92 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.021 29885982
Mehta S, Schwarz L, Spiliotis J, et al. Is there an oncological interest in the combination of CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis of HCC? Results of a multicenter international study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(11):1786–92.29885982 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.05.021
17. Jacquet P Sugarbaker PH Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis Cancer Treat Res 1996 82 359 74 10.1007/978-1-4613-1247-5_23 8849962
Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359–74.8849962 10.1007/978-1-4613-1247-5_23
18. Clavien PA Barkun J de Oliveira ML The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience Ann Surg 2009 250 2 187 96 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2 19638912
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.19638912 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
19. Spratt JS Adcock RA Muskovin M Sherrill W McKeown J Clinical delivery system for intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy Cancer Res 1980 40 2 256 60 6766084
Spratt JS, Adcock RA, Muskovin M, Sherrill W, McKeown J. Clinical delivery system for intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 1980;40(2):256–60.6766084
20. Ledermann JA Raja FA Fotopoulou C Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol 2013 24 vi24 32 10.1093/annonc/mdt333 24078660
Ledermann JA, Raja FA, Fotopoulou C, et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:vi24–32.24078660 10.1093/annonc/mdt333
21. Ettinger DS Wood DE Stevenson J Mesothelioma: peritoneal, version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023 21 9 961 79 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0045 37673108
Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Stevenson J, et al. Mesothelioma: peritoneal, version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023;21(9):961–79.37673108 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0045
22. Tabrizian P Franssen B Jibara G Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal hepatocellular carcinoma J Surg Oncol 2014 110 7 786 90 10.1002/jso.23739 25091997
Tabrizian P, Franssen B, Jibara G, et al. Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(7):786–90.25091997 10.1002/jso.23739
23. Takemura N Hasegawa K Aoki T Surgical resection of peritoneal or thoracoabdominal wall implants from hepatocellular carcinoma Br J Surg 2014 101 8 1017 22 10.1002/bjs.9489 24828028
Takemura N, Hasegawa K, Aoki T, et al. Surgical resection of peritoneal or thoracoabdominal wall implants from hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2014;101(8):1017–22.24828028 10.1002/bjs.9489
24. Hung KC Yang KL Huang GC Chen YF Chang WT Chuang CC Cytoreduction surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for treating advanced peritoneal metastases of hepatocellular carcinoma Pleura Peritoneum 2020 5 2 20190030 10.1515/pp-2019-0030 32566724
Hung KC, Yang KL, Huang GC, Chen YF, Chang WT, Chuang CC. Cytoreduction surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for treating advanced peritoneal metastases of hepatocellular carcinoma. Pleura Peritoneum. 2020;5(2):20190030.32566724 10.1515/pp-2019-0030
25. Thomas RM Truty MJ Nogueras-Gonzalez GM Selective reoperation for locally recurrent or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following primary pancreatic resection J Gastrointest Surg 2012 16 9 1696 704 10.1007/s11605-012-1912-8 22644446
Thomas RM, Truty MJ, Nogueras-Gonzalez GM, et al. Selective reoperation for locally recurrent or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following primary pancreatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(9):1696–704.22644446 10.1007/s11605-012-1912-8
26. Ilmer M Schiergens TS Renz BW Oligometastatic pulmonary metastasis in pancreatic cancer patients: Safety and outcome of resection Surg Oncol 2019 31 16 21 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.08.010 31473583
Ilmer M, Schiergens TS, Renz BW, et al. Oligometastatic pulmonary metastasis in pancreatic cancer patients: Safety and outcome of resection. Surg Oncol. 2019;31:16–21.31473583 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.08.010
27. Hackert T Niesen W Hinz U Radical surgery of oligometastatic pancreatic cancer Eur J Surg Oncol 2017 43 2 358 63 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.023 27856064
Hackert T, Niesen W, Hinz U, et al. Radical surgery of oligometastatic pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(2):358–63.27856064 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.023
28. Shrikhande SV Kleeff J Reiser C Pancreatic resection for M1 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Ann Surg Oncol 2006 14 1 118 27 10.1245/s10434-006-9131-8 17066229
Shrikhande SV, Kleeff J, Reiser C, et al. Pancreatic resection for M1 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;14(1):118–27.17066229 10.1245/s10434-006-9131-8
29. Leigh N Solomon D Pletcher E Is cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy indicated in hepatobiliary malignancies? World J Surg Oncol 2020 18 1 124 10.1186/s12957-020-01898-5 32527272
Leigh N, Solomon D, Pletcher E, et al. Is cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy indicated in hepatobiliary malignancies? World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18(1):124.32527272 10.1186/s12957-020-01898-5
30. Kamei T Kitayama J Yamaguchi H Spatial distribution of intraperitoneally administrated paclitaxel nanoparticles solubilized with poly (2-methacryloxyethyl phosphorylcholine-co n-butyl methacrylate) in peritoneal metastatic nodules Cancer Sci 2011 102 1 200 5 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01747.x 20942868
Kamei T, Kitayama J, Yamaguchi H, et al. Spatial distribution of intraperitoneally administrated paclitaxel nanoparticles solubilized with poly (2-methacryloxyethyl phosphorylcholine-co n-butyl methacrylate) in peritoneal metastatic nodules. Cancer Sci. 2011;102(1):200–5.20942868 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01747.x
31. Glehen O Kwiatkowski F Sugarbaker PH Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional study J Clin Oncol 2004 22 16 3284 92 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.012 15310771
Glehen O, Kwiatkowski F, Sugarbaker PH, et al. Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16):3284–92.15310771 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.012
32. Tentes AA Stamou K Pallas N Karamveri C Kyziridis D Hristakis C The effect of hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as an adjuvant in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer Int J Hyperth 2016 32 8 895 8 10.1080/02656736.2016.1227094
Tentes AA, Stamou K, Pallas N, Karamveri C, Kyziridis D, Hristakis C. The effect of hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as an adjuvant in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Int J Hyperth. 2016;32(8):895–8.10.1080/02656736.2016.1227094
