Abstract 538P
Background
CCS and HIPEC are used as therapeutic approaches for metastatic colorectal cancer patients. However, the combination of hepatectomy with CCS and HIPEC in patients with liver metastasis is emerging as a controversial topic in the medical field.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for studies comparing combined hepatectomy with CRS and HIPEC for metastatic liver and peritoneal tumors with HIPEC alone for peritoneal metastasis in patients with primary colorectal cancer. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software 4.3.2. We considered as significant p values < 0.05.
Results
We included 959 patients from 9 retrospective studies. The mean age in the combined group was 57.42 and in the group with HIPEC alone, it was 55.72 years. The mean peritoneal carcinomatosis index was 12.01 in the combined group and 9.29 in the control group. The mean overall survival (OS) was 27.99 months for the intervention and 36.89 for the control, and the mean disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 10.34 and 13.27 months, respectively. The mean follow-up in the studies was 43.35 months. The 5-year OS was not significantly different between the groups (HR 1.37; 95% CI 0.99–1.89; p = 0.06). Additionally, the intervention group showed a significantly higher length of ICU stay (MD 0.72 days; 95% CI 0.20–1.23; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD 6.71 days; 95% CI 3.24–10.17; p < 0.01), with an already expected increase in operative time (MD 53.44 minutes; 95% CI -3.91–110.79; p = 0.07). The intervention group also showed higher severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo >3) (33.33% vs. 18.72%; OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.50–4.18; p < 0.001). The recurrence rate was higher in the intervention group, even though it was not statistically significant (62.63% vs. 55.16%; OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.55–2.16; p = 0.803).
Conclusions
Our analysis showed that combining CRS and HIPEC with hepatectomy leads to a higher morbidity, and recurrence rate, with a lower mean OS and DFS. Therefore, combining CCS and HIPEC with hepatectomy should be avoided.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
375P - Results from the Danish Breast Cancer Group's (DBCG) NAME-trial: A direct comparison of oral navelbine given either classic or metronomic in metastatic breast cancer
Presenter: Anne Sofie Brems-Eskildsen
Session: Poster session 15
376P - Evaluating adherence to oral anticancer medications in metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer patients
Presenter: Rana El-Shewy
Session: Poster session 15
377P - Phase II study of trifluridine/tipiracil in pre-treated patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A Dutch BOOG (2019-01 TIBET) study
Presenter: Niels Guchelaar
Session: Poster session 15
378P - Updated data on real-world efficacy and safety of inetetamab-based therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with prior exposure to trastuzumab
Presenter: Duan Yang
Session: Poster session 15
379P - Safety and efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan and concomitant radiation therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A multicentre international retrospective cohort study
Presenter: Luca Visani
Session: Poster session 15
381P - Treatment rechallenge after grade 1 trastuzumab-deruxtecan related interstitial lung disease: A real-world experience
Presenter: Kelsey Natsuhara
Session: Poster session 15
382P - Pyrotinib combined with metronomic oral etoposide (VP-16) in heavily pretreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A single-arm, phase II study
Presenter: Jiaxuan Liu
Session: Poster session 15