This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yan, T. D. Articles by Morris, D. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yan, T. D. Articles by Morris, D. L.

Selection of Patients with Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis for Cytoreductive Surgery and Perioperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Nationally Funded Peritonectomy Center, Department of Surgery, University of New South Wales, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: David L. Morris, MD, PhD; E-mail: David.Morris{at}unsw.edu.au

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS PATIENT SELECTION FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES

 
Background: Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been suggested as a treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. However, the survival benefit is achieved at the expense of moderate to high perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Methods: This review summarized the important prognostic factors for survival; outlined the patient selection process from major peritonectomy centers, paying particular attention to preoperative evaluation; and identified areas for potential improvement. Emphasis was placed on a strict patient selection process to avoid futile aggressive treatments.

Results: Currently, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and laparoscopy have been utilized in the preoperative evaluation process to identify potential surgical candidates. Patients with good performance status, low volume of peritoneal disease, and absence of extra-abdominal metastases are more likely to benefit from the combined treatment.

Conclusions: Quantitative assessment of the extent of disease is possible and should be performed at the time of primary cancer operation. Careful selection of patients to identify surgical candidates with favorable prognostic indicators is important.

Key Words: Patient selection • Colorectal carcinoma • Peritoneal carcinomatosis • Cytoreductive surgery • Intraperitoneal chemotherapy

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS PATIENT SELECTION FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES

 
Traditionally, systemic chemotherapy was routinely used for patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRPC), whereas surgery was only offered to palliate complications such as intestinal obstruction. Over the past decade, an evolving role of modern systemic chemotherapy and biological agents with improved response rates has occurred for colorectal metastases.^1–4 However, there is a lack of data regarding survival of the subset of patients with isolated CRPC treated by the modern systemic chemotherapy. At the same time, it has been realized that peritoneal carcinomatosis is a form of local-regional cancer dissemination and not another manifestation of systemic metastasis.⁵ On the basis of the better understanding of the natural history, in recent years, a targeted local-regional treatment for CRPC has been suggested, which integrates cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (PIC) into one treatment strategy. This combined treatment approach attempts to target both macroscopic and microscopic disease involving the peritoneal cavity. Some evidence has suggested that this management option could potentially achieve survival benefits in the proportion of patients that meet strict selection criteria.^6–8 In 2004, an international registry study on 506 patients from 28 institutions showed a median survival of 19 months, with 3- and 5-year survival of 39% and 19%, respectively.⁶ More importantly, a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT), conducted in Holland, demonstrated that CRS combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) was associated with better survival than traditional systemic chemotherapy.⁷

Although there is more evidence demonstrating the efficacy of the combined treatment, the current opinions on the standard of care for patients with CRPC are polarized. Many medical and surgical oncologists are still insisting on more proof before accepting the combined approach. In contrast, others, including most specialist peritonectomy surgeons, think it is inappropriate or even unethical to conduct further randomized trials when there is no reported evidence demonstrating the efficacy of modern systemic chemotherapy in this group of patients.

The Fifth International Peritoneal Oncology Meeting was held on December 4–6, 2006, in Milan, Italy. One of the main objectives of the meeting was to reach a consensus, through the Delphi process,⁹ on methodology, preoperative investigations, and treatment strategies for CRPC. The question has arisen as to the next logical step to take, before further comparative data become available. From a peritonectomy surgeon’s standpoint, more emphasis needs to be placed on stringent patient selection to identify most appropriate surgical candidates and avoid futile aggressive treatments.

The aims of this review are to summarize the important prognostic factors for survival in CRPC patients after the combined treatment; to outline patient selection process from major peritonectomy centers, paying particular attention to preoperative evaluation; and to identify areas for potential improvement.

	METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS PATIENT SELECTION FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES

 
To provide a comprehensive review on important prognostic indicators affecting survival, a systematic electronic literature search with Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE covering the period from January 1966 to August 2006 was performed in September 2006, to include experimental and observational studies that used CRS and PIC for CRPC. All studies selected were human trials published in English. Studies that included other cancer diagnoses when reporting aggregate outcomes were excluded.

A total of 39 relevant articles were identified. Twenty-five articles analyzed potential prognostic indicators for survival.^6,7,10–32 There was one RCT comparing CRS and HIPEC with traditional systemic chemotherapy,⁷ and the remaining 24 articles were observational case series.^6,10–32

Prognostic Indicators
In the early efforts to manage CRPC, patients were scored as carcinomatosis present versus absent. In the former group, no survival at 5 years was expected. It was soon realized that not all patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis were the same. Especially in the past 5 years, specialist centers have adopted the combined treatment for CRPC.⁸ Because more patients are now managed in a relatively uniform manner, the data regarding important prognostic indicators reported by one center can be shared by others. It has been found that the use of quantitative prognostic indicators allows a more precise prediction of treatment outcomes.³³ Four different scoring systems by which to quantify CRPC have been described: the Sugarbaker Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), the Dutch Simplified Peritoneal Cancer Index (SPCI), the Lyon Staging System, and the Completeness of Cytoreduction (CCR) score.

Peritoneal Cancer Index
PCI is an assessment combining lesion size (LS-0 to LS-3) with tumor distribution in 13 abdominopelvic regions (AR-0 to AR-12), to quantify the extent of disease as a numerical score (PCI-0 to PCI-39).³⁴ Many prospective studies have used this scoring system and demonstrated marked survival advantages with a low PCI.^6,10–19 However, there are some caveats in the use of PCI in CRPC. Currently, the cutoff of a low PCI associated with a favorable survival has not been clearly defined, in that the available clinical evidence does not allow reliable prediction on when it is suitable to proceed with the combined treatment solely on the basis of the value of PCI. Gomes da Silva and Sugarbaker¹⁴ reported that the median survival for PCI of <20 was 41 months, compared with 16 months for PCI of >20. Elias and colleagues¹⁵ found that the survival difference was between PCI of 15 and PCI of >15. Yan et al.¹⁸ and Kecmanovic et al.¹⁹ reported a marked survival difference comparing PCI of 13 with PCI of >13. At the Milan Peritoneal Oncology Consensus Meeting, 67% of the voters did not regard a PCI of >20 as an absolute exclusion criterion for the combined treatment, especially when considering low-grade tumors or young patients without mesenteric or liver involvement.

Unlike appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, CRPC is a more invasive cancer. Therefore, the window of opportunity to potentially eradicate the disease when it is confined to the peritoneal cavity is narrow. Progressive disease may result in cancer invasion along the mesenteric border between the small bowel and the small bowel mesentery or at numerous sites on the small bowel surface. Lymph node metastases in groups unrelated to the primary cancer, representing lymphatic dissemination from peritoneal carcinomatosis (i.e., metastases from metastases), may also present. These situations confer a poor prognosis. Thus, cancer at crucial anatomic sites may override a favorable PCI score.

Simplified Peritoneal Cancer Index and Lyon Staging System
The Dutch SPCI registers presence versus absence of tumors in seven abdominal areas: left and right subdiaphragmatic spaces, subhepatic space, omentum/transverse colon, small intestine/mesentery, ileocolic region, and pelvis.²⁰ This system is routinely used at the Netherlands Cancer Institute for prognostic assessment.^7,20,21 The Lyon Staging System describes five stages of peritoneal carcinomatosis in terms of its size and distribution.³³ Stage 0 indicates no macroscopic disease; stage 1 indicates tumors up to 5 mm localized in one abdominal region; stage 2 indicates tumors up to 5 mm diffused throughout the whole abdomen; stage 3 indicates tumors up to 2 cm; and stage 4 indicates tumors greater than 2 cm. In all prospective studies reported from the Lyon group, there were important differences between the prognosis of stage 1 and 2 versus stage 3 and 4.^6,22–25

CCR Score
Use of the International Union Against Cancer score measuring the extent of residual disease after cytoreduction is possible, but it is preferentially used for surgical resection of primary cancers. Even after a complete cytoreduction, a microscopic confirmation, R0, for peritoneal carcinomatosis is not practical. Jacquet and Sugarbaker³⁴ proposed a CCR score that quantifies the extent of residual disease into four categories. CCR-0 indicates no visible evidence of residual tumor; CCR-1 indicates residual tumors 2.5 mm in diameter; CCR-2 indicates residual tumors between 2.5 mm and 2.5 cm; and CCR-3 indicates residual tumors >2.5 cm or a confluence of disease present at any site.

Nearly all treatment centers agree that in both noninvasive and invasive peritoneal disease, the CCR score is the principle prognostic indicator for survival.^{6,7,10–14,16–22,26–32} One interesting observation is that the definition of a complete or adequate cytoreduction may vary when assessing different disease processes. In CRPC, complete cytoreduction may require a CCR-0 score.^{6,7,10–14,16–22,26–32} In the Dutch randomized trial, 17 of 18 patients who had CCR-0 cytoreduction were still alive at the completion of the study.⁷ In 1996, Elias and coworkers³⁵ attempted a randomized study comparing CRS and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) versus CRS without EPIC. The trial was terminated prematurely as a result of recruitment difficulties. Although EPIC did not have any measurable effect, both arms demonstrated a 2-year survival of 60% in patients who had CCR-0 cytoreduction. The authors concluded that CCR-0 was a prerequisite for long-term survival.³⁵ A recent update from the same group reported a 5-year survival of 49% in 30 patients who received CCR-0 cytoreduction and heated intraoperative oxaliplatin.³⁶ In the registry study by Glehen et al.,⁶ 271 patients had CCR-0 cytoreduction and their median survival was 32 months, with a 3-year survival of 47%. These results were far better than CCR-1 or CCR-2 (Table 1). The role of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in CCR-1 and CCR-2 cytoreduction is questionable. Modern systemic chemotherapy with or without biological agents should be considered in these patients.

CCR score is related to the pretreatment tumor load and the surgeon’s ability to eradicate gross disease. It is likely that if the disease is detected and treated early, the tumor volume may be small at the time of cytoreduction, and therefore, a complete removal of all tumors may be more feasible. Considering the current lack of clinical evidence on the efficacy of modern systemic chemotherapy for isolated CRPC, these patients should be recommended early to a peritonectomy center for assessment before embarking on systemic chemotherapy alone.⁸ More importantly, an accurate documentation of the extent of peritoneal disease by using PCI at the time of primary cancer resection is extremely useful. This could greatly facilitate the patient selection process when considering the combined treatment.

Other Prognostic Indicators
In addition to these quantitative prognostic indicators, several clinical and histopathological parameters have also been shown to influence the prognosis. These include: age,⁶ performance status,³¹ intestinal obstruction,³¹ malignant ascites,³¹ preoperative systemic chemotherapy,⁶ adjuvant systemic chemotherapy,⁶ repeat surgery,^6,46 disease-free interval,⁴⁶ tumor differentiation,^6,20,22,47 signet-ring cell,²⁰ mucinous adenocarcinoma,^11,18 lymph node status,^6,14 and solid organ metastases.^6,15,31,48

It is known that poor tumor differentiation and lymph node metastases in patients with primary colorectal cancer indicate a poor prognosis. They may reflect the aggressive biological behaviors of the disease and a propensity for systemic metastases. Some centers perform synchronous resection of regional lymph nodes and/or liver metastases. As a result of limited data, the current evidence does not preclude these patients from the combined treatment. Recently, Elias and coworkers⁴⁸ showed a 3-year overall survival of 42% and disease-free survival of 24% in 24 patients with synchronous peritoneal and liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Because colorectal cancer spreads not only by the transcoelomic route but also via lymphatic and hematogenous dissemination, the containment of disease only with targeted local-regional therapy in high-risk patients is inadequate. Best systemic chemotherapy with or without biological agents should be considered in these patients.

The prognostic significance of mucinous versus nonmucinous colorectal adenocarcinoma is not well understood. Some reports showed that mucinous type was associated with a reduced survival,^49–51 but others did not support such findings.^52,53 Mucinous colorectal adenocarcinoma has a tendency to cause peritoneal dissemination.^11,18 This phenomenon may be related to the physical property of mucinous tumors, in that the mucin may act as a transport vehicle that facilitates tumor cell distribution within the peritoneal cavity. In a recent study, 7 of 30 patients with mucinous histology were found to have a larger volume of disease at the time of cytoreduction.¹⁸ Their 2-year survival was 26%, as compared with 80% in the nonmucinous group. Although this survival difference might be related to the extent of peritoneal disease (PCI), it might also be due to some biological differences between mucinous and nonmucinous tumors.

Table 2 summarizes all important prognostic indicators for survival, identified systematically from the original studies in the current literature. It shows that quantitative prognostic indicators, such as PCI and CCR, have proven to be useful in predicting survival. Although other clinical and histopathological parameters seem to correlate with prognosis, these parameters should be evaluated further to allow a more reliable prediction.

	PATIENT SELECTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS PATIENT SELECTION FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES

Preoperative Investigations
The sensitivity of multislice CT in diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis varies from 60% to 90%,^59–62 which depends on the quality of CT, the size of tumor nodules, the abdominopelvic regions examined, and the interpretation of the radiologist.^59,63,64 In general, CT is easier to perform, provides a higher spatial resolution, and is more familiar to clinicians. It is limited, however, by its difficulty in small nodule detection, especially in the absence of ascites. This may be the case in many patients with early tumor dissemination. Gadolinium-enhanced MRI with its superior contrast resolution is an attractive alternative to CT.^65–67 However, MRI requires longer scanning time and is more easily influenced by movement artifacts as a result of respiration and bowel peristalsis.

During surgery, most sites of peritoneal tumor infiltration, including omentum, diaphragms, and pelvis, can be satisfactorily managed with peritonectomy procedures, as described by Sugarbaker.⁶⁸ Also ileocecal involvement is well treated with intestinal resection. Therefore, tumor deposits in these areas, even when missed by preoperative CT or MRI scans, usually have limited impact on prediction of successfulness of cytoreduction. Yet disease infiltration into the small bowel and its mesentery is a major limiting factor for complete cytoreduction. Yan et al.⁶⁹ defined interpretive CT findings of small bowel and small bowel mesentery into four classes (class 0–III) according to the spectrum of disease severity. This radiologic classification is useful in determining the operability for peritoneal mesothelioma. In class III disease, whereby the configuration of the small bowel on CT appears thickened and distorted, it usually means that an adequate cytoreduction is unable to be achieved. The application of this CT classification in CRPC is currently being evaluated prospectively in a multi-institutional study.⁷⁰ It is likely that CT features indicating small bowel obstruction, distortion, bowel wall thickening, and enhancement may correlate strongly with a poor prognosis, because the disease at this stage is usually too far advanced for salvage treatment with cytoreduction.^59,69

However, these anatomic imaging techniques (CT and MRI) can diagnose pathologic processes only after they reach a detectable size, become contour deforming, or have abnormal enhancement after intravenous contrast administration. PET with 2-[¹⁸F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) can differentiate tumors more easily from adjacent structures because of the focally increased FDG tracer uptake. PET has an overall sensitivity of >85% in the detection of colorectal metastases in the entire body, according to a recently published meta-analysis.⁷¹ But the high sensitivity is associated with a lower specificity as a result of other areas of normal physiologic accumulation of FDG and the lack of anatomical registration. This major drawback of PET is overcome by the availability of integrated whole-body PET/CT imaging systems, yielding intrinsically fused morphological and functional data sets. However, PET/CT may be limited by its high cost and availability. Given a spatial resolution of 4–6 mm available in the PET/CT systems and the fact that FDG is an unspecific radioactive tracer, negative PET/CT results would still not exclude micrometastases.

Currently, all noninvasive imaging modalities have major limitations in the assessment of low-volume disseminated peritoneal disease and may fail to detect early localized disease at a stage where treatment is most likely to be beneficial. Laparoscopic exploration is a reliable way of assessing tumor severity in the peritoneal cavity and may supplement the information provided by the imaging techniques. Recent studies showed that laparoscopy is safe to diagnose and stage peritoneal carcinomatosis.^72–74 However, it is important to acknowledge that this technique is difficult to assess patients with extensive prior surgery and lymph nodes involving in the retroperitoneal space.^75,76 The spread of malignant cells through the trocar tract is another major concern.

Table 3 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of CT, MRI, PET, and laparoscopy. Considering these current investigational modalities, a high-quality cross-sectional imaging study, either contrast-enhanced multislice CT or gadolinium-enhanced MRI, should be performed routinely. Although these two modalities have similar diagnostic accuracy, the simplicity and better spatial resolution make CT a more widely used imaging tool for detection of peritoneal tumors. FDG-PET, or preferably PET/CT, should be at least selectively considered as part of preoperative workup in high-risk patients. Laparoscopic exploration may supplement imaging modalities to allow direct visualization. However, the use of these investigations should be individualized and planned as part of a multidisciplinary approach. One of the key consensus points regarding preoperative investigations from the Milan Peritoneal Oncology Meeting was that contrast-enhanced multislice CT is the fundamental imaging modality, whereas MRI, PET, laparoscopy, and serum tumor markers are supplementary investigational modalities in preoperative evaluation of candidates undergoing the combined treatment.

In Amsterdam, patients with histologically proven CRPC, without clinical or radiological evidence of liver or lung metastases, who were <70 years old and fit to undergo major surgery, were eligible for this therapy.²⁰ In their RCT, which had a median follow-up of 22 months, the median survival was 22 months in the cytoreduction group and 13 months in the control arm (P = .032).⁷ In a more recent update on 117 CRPC patients, after a median follow-up of 46 months, the median survival was 22 months.²¹

In Lyon, all patients underwent physical examination, routine blood tests (serum electrolytes and liver function tests), cardiac echocardiogram, spirometry, hepatic ultrasound, and cerebral, thoracic, and abdominopelvic CT.²² The inclusion criteria were: age <70 years, primary colorectal adenocarcinoma, peritoneal carcinomatosis confirmed by cytological and/or pathological examination, synchronous or metachronous CRPC, absence of extra-abdominal dissemination, and absence of liver metastases as per preoperative investigations. The exclusion criteria were: renal or myocardial impairment, administration of systemic chemotherapy in the month before inclusion, central nervous system disease (vascular or tumor), and World Health Organization performance status score of >2. By using these selection criteria, only 53 of 152 patients with CRPC were eligible for the combined treatment. After a median follow-up of 60 months, the overall median survival was 13 months.²²

In Villejuif, the preoperative workup included a clinical examination, measurements of carcinoembryonic antigen levels, chest and abdominopelvic CT, and colonoscopy.³⁵ The eligibility criteria for CRS and intraperitoneal hyperthermic oxaliplatin were good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 1–2), age <65 years, no extra-abdominal tumors, no evidence of intestinal obstruction, no debilitating ascites, and no clinical or radiological evidence of bulky or irresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis.³⁵ All their patients had already received neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy for at least 3 months. Patients were excluded from the combined treatment if they experienced rapid progressive disease while receiving systemic chemotherapy and/or if a complete cytoreduction could not be achieved. After a median follow-up of 55 months, 30 patients had a median survival of 60 months and 5-year overall and disease-free survival of 49% and 34%, respectively.³⁶

In Padova, patients with CRPC underwent total body CT and/or PET. Most patients underwent exploratory laparotomy.⁴⁷ Patients with lymph nodal or solid organ metastases were not considered for the therapy, and those with incomplete cytoreduction were ineligible for intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The median survival was 18 months in 46 patients after a 15-month follow-up.⁴⁷

In Sydney, patients underwent physical examinations, contrast-enhanced total body CT, and PET to assess the extent of the disease.¹⁸ The inclusion criteria consisted of age >18 and 80 years; patients diagnosed with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal carcinoma, and signed informed consent. The exclusion criteria consisted of World Health Organization performance status of >2; bleeding diatheses not responding to medical treatments, and extra-abdominal colorectal metastases. After a median follow-up of 12 months, the overall median survival of 30 patients was 29 months, with 2-year survival of 64%.¹⁸

The differences in the survival results among all institutions were partly due to factors such as variations in recruitment criteria, treatment protocols, surgical experience, and length of follow-up. The results from the Milan Peritoneal Oncology Consensus Meeting suggest that patients who have a good performance status ( 2), absence of extra-abdominal metastases, resectable regional lymph nodes or hepatic metastases, low peritoneal disease involvement, and potential complete cytoreduction candidates, as per contrast-enhanced multislice CT with or without PET and laparoscopy, should be considered for the combined treatment. Ninety-two percent of the voters would consider CRS and HIPEC followed by best adjuvant systemic chemotherapy for patients with limited peritoneal carcinomatosis found at the time of resection of primary disease (T₄ N₀ M₁). Because evidence on excluding patients with resectable synchronous regional lymph nodes and/or hepatic metastases is lacking, all voters would consider either neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic chemotherapy combined with CRS and HIPEC as an appropriate treatment for patients with limited peritoneal carcinomatosis and positive lymph nodes (T₄ N₂ M₁). Sixty-seven percent of the voters did not consider liver metastases as an exclusion criterion.

	FUTURE DIRECTIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS PATIENT SELECTION FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES

 
Currently, only one RCT has been performed.⁷ Many oncologists are insisting on more proof before accepting the combined treatment as the standard of care. There are no published data that specifically demonstrate the efficacy of modern systemic chemotherapy for patients with CRPC. The historical controls mainly include 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapeutic regimens. Although patients with a complete cytoreduction have a more favorable prognosis, again, the current evidence is insufficient to conclude whether the survival advantage is entirely due to surgery or is associated with the features which predispose these patients to a complete cytoreduction. However, given the promising results currently achieved, recruiting patients to undergo more RCTs comparing CRS and HIPEC with modern systemic chemotherapy alone may not be practical, partly because patients are relatively well informed about the promising results of the combined treatment. Also, there may be an unwillingness of peritonectomy surgeons to participate in such randomized trials. In 1996, the French group tried to compare CRS with EPIC versus CRS without EPIC, but only 35 patients enrolled in 4 years, and the study was terminated prematurely before it reached the required 90 patients.³⁵ According to the investigators, the discontinuation of the trial was related to promising results found in CRS with HIPEC at the time. It was also suggested from this trial that the period of time required to recruit an adequate number of patients is likely to extend over different evolutions of both the intervention and the comparator. Although only a small number of patients may be required to achieve adequate statistical power to detect a proposed large difference in outcomes, the precision of the estimate of effectiveness in a small trial is likely to be low.

However, the fact that RCTs are difficult to perform should not constitute a plea against randomization. Perhaps at this point an important question to ask is, what is the additional value of HIPEC? An RCT comparing CRS and HIPEC with no HIPEC, both followed by best systemic chemotherapy, may be a more feasible proposal in the current medical setting. Alternatively, conducting a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized trial with a clearly defined protocol for patient group, intervention, comparator, and endpoints may also be potentially meaningful. This high-quality prospective observational data collection may provide more accurate estimates of outcomes for the procedure, in addition to information of prognostic factors associated with a favorable prognosis. Importantly, outcomes must be recorded on an intention-to-treat basis, i.e., for all patients in whom complete cytoreduction and HIPEC is attempted, regardless of whether or not peritonectomy is performed and whether or not optimal cytoreduction is achieved or an open-and-close procedure is carried out. Many centers only report outcomes in patients who received complete cytoreduction or in patients who had both CRS and HIPEC. Although this may be predictive of outcome, it only applies to selected patients, usually with favorable prognostic features, and is not useful in terms of patient selection.

Currently, a prospective multi-institutional phase II registry study by using CRS and HIPEC with mitomycin C followed by modern adjuvant systemic chemotherapy for patients with isolated CRPC is in process.⁷⁰ This study involves 66 peritoneal surface malignancy surgeons from 46 institutions in 16 countries. In this study, PCI is the designated scoring system, and preoperative workup includes contrast-enhanced multislice chest and abdominopelvic CT. PET is considered for exclusion of extra-abdominal disease. In patients who have received neoadjuvant modern systemic chemotherapy with or without biological agents, if they respond to the systemic therapy and have a good performance status, CRS and HI-PEC is then considered. In theory, this chemoselection approach may enable selection of a biologically favorable group that responds to chemotherapy, allowing patients who develop progressive disease during this interval of reevaluation to avoid a major surgery. It needs to be acknowledged that although response to preoperative chemotherapy as a patient selection criterion has been suggested in the management of multiple colorectal liver metastases, the evidence of this chemoselection approach in CRPC is not clear, but it could potentially be a favorable patient selection criterion.³⁶

However, in reality, many patients referred to specialist peritonectomy centers have already been treated by medical oncologists. These patients have disease that has failed to respond to systemic chemotherapy, so they seek combined treatment as a last resort. After the RCT by the Dutch group, and until further convincing evidence on systemic chemotherapy or other treatment options demonstrating superior results becomes available, it may be fair to suggest an early referral for the potential surgical candidates to specialist peritonectomy centers for evaluation before embarking on systemic therapy alone.

As emphasized in the present review, CRS with HIPEC is not indicated for all patients with CRPC, and the results achieved by international experts in this field may not be replicated in routine clinical practice. However, it is clear that the mere documentation of presence versus absence of peritoneal disease is no longer adequate. Quantitative assessment of the extent of disease is now possible and should be performed at the time of primary cancer operation, so that adjuvant treatments for appropriately selected patients can be followed. Patients with good performance status, low volume of peritoneal disease, and absence of extra-abdominal metastases are more likely to benefit from the combined treatment. This is very much dependent on early diagnosis, early referral to specialist peritonectomy centers for staging, and prompt intervention. A collaborative effort from medial oncologists, colorectal surgeons, and peritoneal surface malignancy treatment centers is required.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
There are no potential conflicts of interests.

Received for publication November 20, 2006. Accepted for publication January 2, 2007.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS PATIENT SELECTION FUTURE DIRECTIONS REFERENCES

 

1. Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L, Hainsworth JD, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin: an active regimen for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:3502–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:2335–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Kabbinavar F, Schulz J, McCleod M, et al. Addition of bevacizumab to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:3697–705.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Colucci G, Gebbia V, Paoletti G, et al. Phase III randomized trial of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX4 in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell’Italia Meridionale. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:4866–75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Koppe MJ, Boerman OC, Oyen WJ, Bleichrodt RP. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin: incidence and current treatment strategies. Ann Surg 2006; 243:212–22.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. 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; 22:3284–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, de Bree E, et al. Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:3737–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Yan TD, Black D, Savady R, Sugarbaker PH. Systematic review on the efficacy of cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:4011–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311:376–80.[Free Full Text]
10. Sugarbaker PH, Jablonski KA. Prognostic features of 51 colorectal and 130 appendiceal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and intra-peritoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg 1995; 221:124–32.[Medline]
11. Sugarbaker PH, Schellinx ME, Chang D, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from adenocarcinoma of the colon. World J Surg 1996; 20:585–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Pestieau SR, Sugarbaker PH. Treatment of primary colon cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis: comparison of concomitant vs delayed management. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43:1341–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Carmignani CP, Ortega-Perez G, Sugarbaker PH. The management of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis and hematogenous metastasis from colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:391–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Gomes da Silva R, Sugarbaker P. Analysis of 10 prognostic factors in 70 patients having complete cytoreduction plus perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer. Am J Coll Surg 2006; 203:878–86.[CrossRef]
15. Elias D, Blot F, El Otmany A, et al. Curative treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from colorectal cancer by complete resection and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancer 2001; 92:71–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Hadi R, Saunders V, Utkina O, et al. Review of patients with peritoneal malignancy treated with peritonectomy and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76:156–61.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Shehata M, Chu F, Saunders V, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer and small bowel cancer treated with peritonectomy. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76:467–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Yan TD, Chu F, Links M, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis—non-mucinous tumor associated with an improved survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32:1119–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Kecmanovic DM, Pavlov MJ, Ceranic MS, et al. Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer by cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31:147–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Verwaal VJ, van Tinteren H, van Ruth S, Zoetmulder FAN. Predicting the survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin treated by aggressive cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Br J Surg 2004; 91:739–46.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, Witkamp A, et al. Long-term survival of peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:65–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Glehen O, Cotte E, Schreiber V, et al. Intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia and attempted cytoreductive surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. Br J Surg 2004; 91:747–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Sadeghi B, Arvieux C, Glehen O, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-gynecologic malignancies: results of the EVO-CAPE 1 multi-centric prospective study. Cancer 2000; 88:358–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Beaujard AC, Glehen O, Caillot JL, et al. Intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia with mitomycin C for digestive tract cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer 2000; 88:2512–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Glehen O, Osinsky D, Beaujard AC, Gilly FN. Natural history of peritoneal carcinomatosis from nongynecologic malignancies. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2003; 12:729–39.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Portilla A, Sugarbaker P, Chang D. Second-look surgery after cytoreduction and intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: analysis of prognostic features. World J Surg 1999; 23:23–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Gomes da Silva R, Cabanas J, Sugarbaker PH. Limited survival in the treatment of carcinomatosis from rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48:2258–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Glehen O, Mithieux F, Osinsky D, et al. Surgery combined with peritonectomy procedures and intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia in abdominal cancers with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:799–806.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Loggie BW, Fleming RA, McQuellon RP, et al. Cytoreductive surgery with intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy for disseminated peritoneal cancer of gastrointestinal origin. Am Surg 2000; 66:561–8.[Medline]
30. Shen P, Levine EA, Hall J, et al. Factors predicting survival after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy with mitomycin C after cytoreductive surgery for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Arch Surg 2003; 138:26–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Shen P, Hawksworth J, Lovato J, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy with mitomycin C for peritoneal carcinomatosis from nonappendiceal colorectal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:178–86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Culliford A, Brooks A, Sharma S, et al. Surgical debulking and intraperitoneal chemotherapy for established peritoneal metastases from colon and appendix cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8:787–95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Glehen O, Gilly FN. Quantitative prognostic indicators of peritoneal surface malignancy: carcinomatosis, sarcomatosis, and peritoneal mesothelioma. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2003; 12:649–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res 1996; 82:359–74.[Medline]
35. Elias D, Delperro J-R, Sideris L, et al. Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: impact of complete cytoreductive surgery and difficulties in conducting randomized trials. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:518–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Elias D, Raynard B, Farkhondeh F, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin: long-term results of intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia with oxaliplatin following complete cytoreductive surgery. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2006; 30:1200–4.[Medline]
37. Yan TD, Links M, Glenn D, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for pseudomyxoma peritonei from appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. Br J Surg 2006; 93:1270–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Yan TD, Sugarbaker P, Bijelic L. Critical analysis of treatment failure following complete cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal dissemination from appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. J Surg Oncol (in press).
39. Yan TD, Brun E, Carlos A, Sugarbaker P. Prognostic indicators for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:41–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Yan TD, Yoo D, Sugarbaker P. Significance of lymph node metastasis in patients with diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32:948–53.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Yan TD, Welch L, Black D, Sugarbaker P. A systematic review on the efficacy of cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for diffuse malignancy peritoneal mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 2006; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl 428.
42. Feldman AL, Libutti SK, Pingpank JF, et al. Analysis of factors associated with outcome in patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma undergoing surgical debulking and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:4560–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Deraco M, Nonaka D, Baratti D, et al. Prognostic analysis of clinicopathologic factors in 49 patients with diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma treated with cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13:229–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Brigand C, Monneuse O, Mohamed F, et al. Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma treated by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia: results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13:405–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Loggie BW, Fleming RA, McQuellon RP, et al. Prospective trial for the treatment of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Am Surg 2001; 67:999–1003.[Medline]
46. Verwaal VJ, Boot H, Aleman BMP, et al. Recurrences after peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin treated by cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: location, treatment, and outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:375–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Pilati P, Mocellin S, Rossi CR, et al. Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal intraoperative chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from colon adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:508–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
48. Elias D, Benizri E, Pocard M, et al. Treatment of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis and liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32:632–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
49. Nozoe T, Anai H, Nasu S, Sugimachi K. Clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous carcinoma of the colon and rectum. J Surg Oncol 2000; 75:103–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
50. Papadopoulos VN, Michalopoulos A, Netta S, et al. Prognostic significance of mucinous component in colorectal carcinoma. Tech Coloproctol 2004; 8(Suppl 1):s123–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
51. Kanemitsu Y, Kato T, Hirai T, et al. Survival after curative resection for mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46:160–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
52. Kang H, O’Connell JB, Maggard MA, et al. A 10-year outcomes evaluation of mucinous and signet-ring cell carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48:1161–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
53. Du W, Mah JT, Lee J, et al. Incidence and survival of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum: a population-based study from an Asian country. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47:78–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
54. Verwaal VJ, van Tinteren H, Ruth SV, Zoetmulder FAN. Toxicity of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol 2004; 85:61–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
55. Yan TD, Alderman R, Edwards G, Sugarbaker P. Morbidity and mortality assessment of cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma—a prospective study of 70 consecutive cases. Ann Surg Oncol 2006.
56. Esquivel J, Vidal-Jove J, Steves MA, Sugarbaker PH. Morbidity and mortality of cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Surgery 1993; 113:631–6.[Medline]
57. Younan R, Kusamura S, Baratti D, et al. Bowel complications in 203 cases of peritoneal surface malignancies treated with peritonectomy and closed-technique intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:910–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58. Kusamura S, Younan R, Baratti D, et al. Cytoreductive surgery followed by intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion: analysis of morbidity and mortality in 209 peritoneal surface malignancies treated with closed abdomen technique. Cancer 2006; 106:1144–53.[CrossRef][Medline]
59. Jacquet P, Jelinek JS, Steves MA, Sugarbaker PH. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer 1993; 72:1631–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
60. Tempany C, Zou K, Siverman S, et al. Staging of advanced ovarian: comparision of imaging modalities—report from the Radiological Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 2000; 215:761–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Davies J, Chalmers A, Sue-Ling H, et al. Spiral computed tomography and operative staging of gastric carcinoma: a comparision with histopathological staging. Gut 1997; 41:314–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. de Bree E, Koops W, Kroger R, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin: correlation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. J Surg Oncol 2004; 86:64–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
63. de Bree E, Koops W, Kroger R, et al. Preoperative computed tomography and selection of patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32:65–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
64. Jacquet P, Jelinek JS, Chang D, et al. Abdominal computed tomographic scan in the selection of patients with mucinous peritoneal carcinomatosis for cytoreductive surgery. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 181:530–8.[Medline]
65. Low RN, Barone RM, Lacey C, et al. Peritoneal tumor: MR imaging with dilute oral barium and intravenous gadolinium-containing contrast agents compared with unenhanced MR imaging and CT. Radiology 1997; 204:513–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
66. Low RN, Saleh F, Song SY, et al. Treated ovarian cancer: comparison of MR imaging with serum CA-125 level and physical examination—a longitudinal study. Radiology 1999; 211:519–28.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Low RN, Duggan B, Barone RM, et al. Treated ovarian cancer: MR imaging, laparotomy reassessment, and serum CA-125 values compared with clinical outcome at 1 year. Radiology 2005; 235:918–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
68. Sugarbaker PH. Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg 1995; 221:29–42.[Medline]
69. Yan TD, Haveric N, Carmignani CP, et al. Abdominal computed tomography scans in the selection of patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma for comprehensive treatment with cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancer 2005; 103:839–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
70. Esquivel J, Sticca R, Sugarbaker P, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal surface malignancies of colonic origin: a consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 14:128–33.[CrossRef][Medline]
71. Huebner R, Park K, JE S, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1177–89.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
72. Pomel C, Appleyard T, Gouy S, et al. The role of laparoscopy to evaluate candidates for complete cytoreduction of peritoneal carcinomatosis and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31:540–3.[CrossRef][Medline]
73. Tozzi R, Kohler C, Ferrara A, Schneider A. Laparoscopic treatment of early ovarian cancer: surgical and survival outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 93:199–203.[CrossRef][Medline]
74. Deffieux X, Castaigne D, Pomel C. Role of laparoscopy to evaluate candidates for complete cytoreduction in advanced stages of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16:35–40.[CrossRef][Medline]
75. Gretschel S, Siegel R, Estevez-Schwarz L, et al. Surgical strategies for gastric cancer with synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis. Br J Surg 2006; 93:1530–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
76. Pomel C, Appleyard T, Gouy S, et al. The role of laparoscopy to evaluate candidates for complete cytoreduction of peritoneal carcinomatosis and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31:540–3.[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. T. Johnson, K. M. Horton, and E. K. Fishman Nonvascular Mesenteric Disease: Utility of Multidetector CT with 3D Volume Rendering RadioGraphics, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 721 - 740. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yan, T. D. Articles by Morris, D. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yan, T. D. Articles by Morris, D. L.