RESUMEN
PIPAC is a new surgical procedure and a viable treatment option for PSM patients, due to promising therapeutic outcomes, minimal invasiveness, limited surgical morbidity, and systemic toxicity side effects. However, its implementation throughout hospitals is hard to obtain due to its fragile economical sustainability. A retrospective health economic analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the cost of hospitalization for patients undergoing PIPAC treatment at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, in Rome. The average cost of a PIPAC procedure was defined based on the cost of surgery (cost of surgical material, operating room, intraperitoneal chemotherapy), hospital stay, diagnostic examinations, and drugs used during the stay. A total of 493 PIPAC procedures were performed on 222 patients with peritoneal metastases or primary peritoneal cancer from 2017 to 2023. Since the mean remuneration for each PIPAC hospitalization is 5916 and the mean expenditure per hospitalization is 6538, this results in an operating profit per PIPAC hospitalization of -622. The reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the Italian National Health System currently only partially covers the hospital's costs. Development of specific codes and adequate reimbursement for PIPAC by recognizing this procedure as a proper treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis is essential.
RESUMEN
Locally advanced extraperitoneal rectal cancer represents a significant clinical challenge, and currently, the standard treatment is based on neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by radical surgical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME). In the last 30 years, its management has undergone significant changes due to the improvement of complementary radio- and chemotherapy treatments, the improvement of minimally invasive surgical approaches and the diffusion of organ-sparing approaches, such as nonoperative management, commonly called "watch and wait" (NOM) and local excision (LE), in highly selected patients who achieve a major or complete response to neoadjuvant CRT. This review aimed to critically examine the efficacy and oncological safety of NOM and LE compared to those of standard TME in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant CRT. Both the pros and cons of these approaches were strictly analyzed, providing a comprehensive and critical overview of these novel management strategies for rectal cancer.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Neoadyuvante , Neoplasias del Recto , Neoplasias del Recto/terapia , Neoplasias del Recto/radioterapia , Humanos , Espera Vigilante , Quimioradioterapia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Quimioradioterapia AdyuvanteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis is one of deadliest metastatic patterns of gastric cancer, being associated with a median overall survival (OS) of 4 months. Up to now, palliative systemic chemotherapy (pSC) has been the only recommended treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate a potential survival benefit after CRS + HIPEC compared to pSC. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines in March 2024. Manuscripts reporting patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer treated with CRS + HIPEC were included. A meta-analysis was performed, comparing the survival results between the CRS + HIPEC and pSC groups, and the primary outcome was the comparison in terms of OS. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs). We assessed heterogeneity using the Q2 statistic. RESULTS: Out of the 24 papers included, 1369 patients underwent CRS + HIPEC, with a median OS range of 9.8-28.2 months; and 103 patients underwent pSC, with a median OS range of 4.9-8 months. CRS + HIPEC was associated with significantly increased survival compared to palliative systemic chemotherapy (-1.8954 (95% CI: -2.5761 to -1.2146; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CRS + HIPEC could provide survival advantages in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis compared to pSC.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) has an unfavourable prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are promising treatment options that have been shown to improve survival. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different treatments such as systemic chemotherapy, systemic chemotherapy + PIPAC, and CRS + HIPEC in patients with GCPM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study included 82 patients with GCPM treated between January 2016 and June 2021. After first-line chemotherapy, depending on disease response and burden, the patients were divided into three treatment groups: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy + PIPAC, and CRS + HIPEC. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis, which was compared among the treatment groups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven (45.1%) patients were administered systemic chemotherapy alone, 25 (30.4%) received chemotherapy + PIPAC, and 20 (24.4%) underwent CRS + HIPEC. The CRS + HIPEC group had better OS (median 24 months) than the PIPAC group (15 months, p = 0.01) and chemotherapy group (5 months, p = 0.0001). Following CRS + HIPEC, the postoperative grade 3-4 complication rate was 25%, and no postoperative in-hospital deaths occurred. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 12 months. Multivariate analysis identified peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) > 7 as an independent predictor of worse DFS. No independent predictors of OS were identified. CONCLUSION: Among patients with GCPM, we identified a highly selected population with oligometastatic disease. In this group, CRS + HIPEC provided a significant survival advantage with an acceptable major complication rate compared with other available therapies (systemic chemotherapy alone or in combination with PIPAC).