Abstract
Background: During the last few years, Cytoreductive Surgery plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) has entered the national comprehensive cancer network guidelines as a new protocol for improving patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus on its long-term efficiency, and it still is under debate.
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Cytoreductive Surgery Plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer in Iran.
Method: Thirty patients with Stage IIIc and IV advanced ovarian cancer underwent cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at Jam Hospital with a fixed surgical team in Tehran, Iran, from 2019 to 2021. Fourteen patients were new cases, and sixteen of them were recurrent cases. At the end of cytoreductive surgery, by using a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy device, Cisplatin was circulated in the peritoneal cavity for 90 minutes at a dose of 80-100 mg/ m2 at 43°C.
Results: Among 30 patients with 54.97±10.74 years of mean age, the mean overall survival was 564.967 days, and 2-year survival rates were 66.7%. According to Fisher's exact test, there was a statistically significant relationship between disease-free after surgery and mortality rate (p=0.00). However, there was no statistically significant relationship between recurrence after surgery and mortality rate (p=0.093).
Conclusion: Based on these findings, cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy had a survival rate of 66.7% within two years in advanced ovarian cancer patients. However, to achieve better results, careful selection of patients and complete cytoreductive surgery should be performed.
Keywords: Cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, advanced ovarian cancer, peritoneal cavity, adjuvant chemotherapy, cellular proteins.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32552-2] [PMID: 30910306]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2021.32.e95] [PMID: 34708597]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.21.9691] [PMID: 19704064]
[PMID: 12174480]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30566-7] [PMID: 30413383]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21559] [PMID: 31099893]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2018.80247] [PMID: 30655930]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1369/0022155417742897] [PMID: 29164988]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S205950] [PMID: 32617007]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000231680.58221.a7] [PMID: 16946210]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0271-y] [PMID: 30353045]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx441]
[PMID: 22025930]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3773] [PMID: 33168565]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-019-0748-4] [PMID: 31666131]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/gs-20-335] [PMID: 32953629]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pp-2018-0114] [PMID: 30911662]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.14184]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.06.036] [PMID: 30087071]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.022] [PMID: 32977989]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10010043] [PMID: 31947647]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.11.0932] [PMID: 17617518]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.22017] [PMID: 21713780]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186725] [PMID: 29059209]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1708618] [PMID: 29342393]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6464-z] [PMID: 29637438]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6631-2] [PMID: 29978366]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.528] [PMID: 30786961]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.06.021] [PMID: 31230982]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0500] [PMID: 27009941]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0275] [PMID: 19608639]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0543-1] [PMID: 31383985]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5686-1] [PMID: 27896512]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.047] [PMID: 31778904]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.25703] [PMID: 31531879]
[PMID: 27415829]