scholarly journals Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Clinical and Therapeutic Aspects

Mesothelioma ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristian Mesina ◽  
Mihaela-Iustina Mesina-Botoran ◽  
Theodor Viorel Dumitrescu ◽  
Mihai Calin Ciorbagiu ◽  
Cosmin Vasile Obleaga
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Advanced Stages ◽  
Crs And Hipec ◽  
New Treatment

Mesothelioma is a very rare malignant disease that originates from mesothelial cells that line the serosa: pleura, peritoneum, pericardium, or testicular vaginal tunic. Peritoneal mesothelioma accounts for 7–10% of all mesotheliomas diagnosed, and ranks second after pleural localization of mesothelioma. The incidence of peritoneal mesothelioma is 0.5–3 cases per million in men and 0.2–2 cases per million in women. Diagnosis of peritoneal mesothelioma is difficult due to nonspecific symptoms and because of this patients present in advanced stages of the disease. Histologically there are three major categories of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: epithelioid, sarcomatoid, and biphasic. The differential diagnosis of peritoneal mesothelioma is made with peritoneal pseudomyxoma, ovarian tumors, and peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer. An important role in differential diagnosis, in addition to immunohistochemistry, is played by various tumor markers and genetic tests. The treatment of peritoneal mesothelioma is performed by cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), with good results for patients in the early stages of the disease. For patients with advanced disease, a new treatment has been proposed: pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). For patients who cannot use CRS and HIPEC, the only therapeutic option remains chemotherapy (systemic + intraperitoneal).

Survival according to mutations in BRAF, KRAS, or microsatellite instability (MSI-H) after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3565-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein G Larsen ◽  
Svein Dueland ◽  
M Goscinski ◽  
Sonja Steigen ◽  
Eva Hofsli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Crs And Hipec ◽  
Disease Free

3565 Background: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and mutations in BRAF V600E (mutBRAF) or KRAS (mutKRAS) have a worse prognosis after liver or lung surgery/ablation, whereas the impact of microsatellite instability (MSI-H) has not been well studied. Few patients with mutBRAF receive liver or lung surgery (1-4%), whereas mutBRAF is present in 5-12% of mCRC trial patients and in up to 20% of the general mCRC population. The frequency and prognostic role of mutBRAF, mutKRAS and MSI has not been well studied after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer. Methods: The Norwegian Radium Hospital is the only center offering CRS and HIPEC in Norway. From 2004 to 2015 257 patients with histology proven peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer, appendiceal cancer excluded, was consecutively enrolled. Molecular analyses of KRAS, BRAF and MSS/MSI in mutBRAF were done. Fourteen patients were excluded due to missing tumour blocks (7), unsuccessful analysis (4) and other malignant disease (1). Results: 180 of 243 patients obtained complete cytoreductive surgery and received HIPEC for 90 minutes with Mitomycin C (45-70mg). Median survival for the 180 patients was 47 months and 5-year survival rate 40.1%. Median disease-free survival was 10 months. mutBRAF was found in 23.4% of cases, mutKRAS 35.1% and double-wild type 41.5%. mutBRAF with MSS was found in 16.4%, mutBRAF with MSI-H in 7.0%. 3-year disease free survival (DFS) and median overall survival (OS) was 38.9% and 59 months with mutBRAF with MSI-H, significantly higher compared to 24.2% and 30 months in patients with double wild type, 13.2 % and 41 months in mutKRAS and 17.9% and 22 months in mutBRAF with MSS. Conclusions: A surprisingly high frequency of mutBRAF was seen in mCRC patients after CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal metastatic disease. Patients with mutBRAF and MSI-H had a significantly better DFS and OS after CRS and HIPEC. DFS for patients with mutBRAF and MSS was numerically lower but not statistically different from patients with mutKRAS or double wild type.

scholarly journals Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for synchronous liver and peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: where is the limit?

HPB ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S779
Author(s):  
L. Carrion-Alvarez ◽  
J.A. Martinez-Piñeiro-Muñoz ◽  
I. Manzanedo-Romero ◽  
V. Antolin-Sanchez ◽  
P. Haro-Preston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases

scholarly journals Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Is there a new treatment?

Rare Tumors ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-152
Author(s):  
Kakil Ibrahim Rasul ◽  
David J Kerr
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

The authors report a novel, alternative approach to treat malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) targeting, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) using anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) chemotherapy combination.

Peritoneal mesothelioma

2016 ◽  
pp. 533-545
Author(s):  
H. Richard Alexander ◽  
Dario Baratti ◽  
Terence C. Chua ◽  
Marcello Deraco ◽  
Raffit Hassan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Cancer Index ◽  
Abdominal Cavity ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Multimodality Treatment ◽  
Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Abdominal Disease ◽  
Crs And Hipec ◽  
Rare Malignancy

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy arising from the serosa of the abdominal cavity; its natural history is hallmarked by intra-abdominal disease progression. Peritoneal mesothelioma patients generally present with abdominal pain and/or ascites. Pathologically, a positive immunostain for calretinin has markedly increased the accuracy of diagnosis. A new staging system combining extent of tumour burden measured by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), abdominal nodal status and extra-abdominal metastases has been demonstrated to reliably stratify patient outcomes after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic perioperative chemotherapy (HIPEC). Over the past decade, the management of these patients has evolved as a multimodality treatment similar to ovarian cancer treatment and now involves CRS and HIPEC.

scholarly journals Uncommon indications for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 129-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Zheng Yi Yee ◽  
Grace Hwei Ching Tan ◽  
Claramae Shulyn Chia ◽  
Khee Chee Soo ◽  
Melissa Ching Ching Teo
Keyword(s):  
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer Index ◽  
Transitional Cell ◽  
Granulosa Cell Tumor ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer ◽  
Crs And Hipec ◽  
Uncommon Tumor

AbstractBackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has changed treatment for selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) arising from appendiceal, colorectal, epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal and gastric cancers. However, the results of CRS with HIPEC remain unclear in PM from other tumor histologies.MethodsWe report a series of 10 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between 2006 and 2015, for PM arising from uncommon tumor origins.ResultsTen patients with PM from uncommon tumor origins underwent CRS and HIPEC. Median age was 46.5 years. Two patients had ovarian Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (SLCT) and two had small bowel adenocarcinomas. The other histologies included: ovarian transitional cell carcinoma, ovarian granulosa cell tumor, endometroid adenocarcinoma, endocervical adenocarcinoma, synovial sarcoma, and ovarian leiomyosarcoma. Median peritoneal cancer index was 9 (2–18) and complete cytoreduction was achieved for all patients. Median follow-up was 14 months (2–100), and median time to recurrence from CRS and HIPEC was 16.0 months by Kaplan–Meier estimate. Four patients remain alive and disease-free, five are alive with disease, and one had died with disease. Median survival was not reached.ConclusionsEight of ten patients with peritoneal metastases in the above rare indications survived 10 months or more after CRS and HIPEC. These encouraging results are a rationale for prospective clinical trials in these tumor histologies.

Peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin – cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The financial aspect

2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Tomasz Jastrzębski ◽  
Marek Bębenek
Keyword(s):  
Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Cytoreductive Surgery ◽  
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy ◽  
Distant Metastases ◽  
Peritoneal Metastases ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Colorectal Origin ◽  
Crs And Hipec ◽  
Financial Aspect

About 10% to 15% of patients with colon cancer have intraperitoneal metastases at diagnosis. The patients with intraperitoneal metastases and without distant metastases can benefit from cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Because up to a half of patients live for at least 5 years after this treatment, the treatment is used more and more often. The treatment of patients with intraperitoneal metastases with CRS and HIPEC costs more than the majority of other medical procedures, because CRS is extensive and takes a lot of time, and after surgery, patients need intensive care and expensive medications and equipment. Currently, only 40% to 80% of costs of CRS and HIPEC are reimbursed in Poland. Because CRS and HIPEC mean a financial loss to hospitals, they are rarely performed. We analyzed the costs of treating patients with peritoneal metastases by CRS and HIPEC in two centers (Gdank, Wroclaw) and showed how this treatment is reimbursed outside Poland. We discussed whether adequate qualification of patients and experience of the teams giving the treatment could reduce the costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document