Curative treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: Current status and future trends

Transcription

1 Curative treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: Current status and future trends Léon Maggiori, Dominique Elias To cite this version: Léon Maggiori, Dominique Elias. Curative treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: Current status and future trends. EJSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology, WB Saunders, 2010, 36 (7), pp.599. < /j.ejso >. <hal > HAL Id: hal Submitted on 26 Jun 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

2 Accepted Manuscript Title: Curative treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: Current status and future trends Authors: Léon Maggiori, Dominique Elias PII: S (10) DOI: /j.ejso Reference: YEJSO 2969 To appear in: European Journal of Surgical Oncology Received Date: 22 February 2010 Accepted Date: 4 May 2010 Please cite this article as: Maggiori Léon, Elias D. Curative treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: Current status and future trends, European Journal of Surgical Oncology (2010), doi: /j.ejso This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

3 Review CURATIVE TREATMENT OF COLORECTAL PERITONEAL CARCINOMATOSIS : CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE TRENDS Léon Maggiori, MD, Dominique Elias, MD, PhD Department of Surgical Oncology Institut Gustave Roussy Address for correspondence and reprints: Dominique Elias, Département de Chirurgie Générale Oncologique, Institut Gustave Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulins, Villejuif Cédex, France (Tel ; dominique.elias@igr.fr) Titre 1

4 INTRODUCTION Peritoneal dissemination or carcinomatosis from colorectal carcinoma is a form of disease progression which can affect 30 to 40% of patients [1, 2]. Natural history studies show that peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is uniformly fatal, with median survival not exceeding 6 months [3]. For more than a decade, as an alternative approach to overcome this disease, a handful of centers have pursued aggressive cytoreductive surgery to resect macroscopic disease as much as possible, combining it with intraperitoneal chemotherapy (initially without and then with hyperthermia), to treat any residual occult disease. The aim of this review is to report the current status of this novel combined treatment, focusing on issues that have been solved and those which continue to pose problem and attempting to foresee future developments. 1) A new therapeutic concept becoming increasingly popular Concept In 1980, Spratt was the first to describe the combination of maximal cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to treat a recurring peritoneal pseudomyxoma [4], but the main apostle of this method was PH Sugarbaker [5]. The main principles are : treating the macroscopic (visible) malignant peritoneal disease with complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS), and immediately after, treating the remaining microscopic (non visible) malignant peritoneal disease with HIPEC. It is essential that surgery resects all tumor seeding greater than 1 mm because the chemotherapy bath cannot penetrate tumor seeding beyond 1-2 mm Titre 2

5 in depth [6, 7]. Hyperthermia, in addition to intraperitoneal chemotherapy, has clearly demonstrated its ability to potentiate the penetration and activity of local chemotherapy in cancer cells in vitro, and this role was confirmed in vivo in several studies [8, 9]. Finally, HIPEC must be performed immediately after surgery to avoid peritoneal adhesions in which cancer cells become trapped and could constitute a tumor sanctuary [10, 11]. HIPEC is becoming widespread Publications devoted to HIPEC have increased exponentially between 1994 and To date, approximately five hundred have concerned colorectal PC. At the same time, the number of centers using HIPEC has progressively increased worldwide. In France, it increased from 3 in 1994 to 25 in This reflects the enhanced interest of physicians in this new therapeutic approach. 2) Validated and nonvalidated aspect of this combined treatment Global results This combined treatment (CCRS immediately followed by HIPEC) works, as definitively demonstrated by the randomized study of the Amsterdam group: 105 patients presenting colorectal PC were randomized between surgery + HIPEC (and systemic chemotherapy) versus systemic chemotherapy alone [12]. In that study, 50% of the patients in the experimental arm were ultimately not good candidates for HIPEC because their PC could not be completely surgically resected. In spite of Titre 3

6 this selection bias, the reported median survival was 22 months in the experimental arm versus 13 months in the control group (p=0.032) (figure 1). A more recent retrospective study compared similar patients with resectable PC treated with CCRS and HIPEC to standard systemic chemotherapy: the median survival rate was 63 months in the CCRS + HIPEC group versus 24 months in the systemic chemotherapy group (figure 2) [13]. Complete cytoreductive surgery The impact of the completeness of cytoreductive surgery is very strong in this combined treatment. This is clearly apparent in all studies from experienced as well as less experienced centers. For example, we report in figure 3 the survival rates according to the radicality of surgery in the 523 patients collected by the AFC (Association Française de Chirurgie) registry [14]. This study underlined the strong impact of the completeness of cytoreductive surgery on overall survival: 5 years after surgery, no patient was alive if the size of the remaining tumor nodules after surgery was 2.5 millimeters whereas nearly 30% of the patients were alive if CCRS was possible (p<0.0001). Furthermore, CCRS was identified as an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (p=0.05). Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy The exact effect of HIPEC alone in this package is currently unknown in human beings. Its role is to cure the residual microscopic PC after complete cytoreductive surgery. In a randomized trial in rats, those treated with HIPEC survived longer than those treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy alone or exclusively with intraperitoneal hyperthermia [8]. Until now, no comparable trial Titre 4

7 has been proposed to patients, but a French randomized multicentric trial (Prodige 7) is ongoing which is comparing HIPEC versus no HIPEC after complete cytoreductive surgery. HIPEC techniques are heterogeneous but their elaboration is highly complex. The combination of drugs can be modified, as can their concentration, but also the composition as well as the volume of the perfusion, the duration, and the temperature. A high number of combinations of these six parameters is possible, and it is not possible to test all of them. Each modification of one of these parameters implies conducting a new pharmacokinetic study. Schematically, there are two main trends worldwide for HIPEC : one uses mitomycin C over min at 41 C with a closed-abdomen technique, and the other uses oxaliplatin (± irinotecan) over min at 43 C with an opened-abdomen technique. In the future, there is a rationale for conducting HIPEC with other drugs and new targeted therapy (without hyperthermia, if monoclonal antibodies are used). 3) What indications and what results in 2010? Indications Indications are based on absolute and relative contraindications. An absolute contraindication for CCRS plus HIPEC is a poor general status, the presence of extra-peritoneal metastases and huge and diffuse PC. Relative contraindications are : a subocclusive syndrome due to more than one digestive stenosis, peritoneal disease progressing under chemotherapy and the presence of more than 3 Titre 5

8 resectable liver metastases (LM are not contraindicated if there are < 4 and they are easily resectable )[15]. Oncologic Results Results obtained with CCRS + HIPEC are interesting and promising. In the AFC study, overall 5-year survival was 27%. This result takes into account all the learning curves of 28 different centers and will be the worst possibly obtained. The results of experienced centers, concerning patients who underwent CCRS + HIPEC are consistent, with overall 5-year survival rates close to 40% [16-18]. It was 32% for the 70 patients reported on by da Silva et al.[17], 43% for the 59 patients reported by Verwaal et al. [16], and 48% for the 30 patients in the study by Elias et al.[18]. Such a survival rate has never been published before about PC, even if it concerns only selected patients. It is thus a real therapeutic revolution. Furthermore, these results are exactly similar to those obtained with hepatectomy for liver metastases [13]. The message appears to be that selected patients with PC should be treated with this combined therapy in the same way as selected patients with LM should be treated with hepatectomy, given that the same survival rates are obtained [19]. Post-operative mortality and morbidity The first studies concerning CCRS and HIPEC reported high post-operative mortality and morbidity rates, creating a obstacle to its diffusion. However, in the AFC study, the postoperative mortality rate was comparable to that of standard colorectal surgery (3%) and grade 3 or 4 complications (according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria) occurred in 31% of the patients [13]. Titre 6

9 These acceptable operative results were confirmed in a recent Australian study, which reported a postoperative mortality rate of 3% and a severe morbidity rate of 43% [20]. Thus, fear of a severe post-operative course is no longer an acceptable reason for not using CCRS and HIPEC. Prognostic factors Some studies recently underlined the prognostic impact of the extent of the peritoneal disease (measured with the peritoneal cancer index : PCI) [14, 17]. This index ranges from 1 to 39 (a score from 0 to 3 is given for each of the 13 intraabdominal areas)[21]. Among the 523 patients in the AFC registry, a peritoneal index > 20 appeared as one of the main prognostic factors for survival in the multivariate analysis [14]. The results of the AFC registry are reported in figure 4. Five-year overall survival is directly correlated with the PCI, ranging from 44% with a very low PCI (less than 6) to 7% with the highest PCI (more than 19). We currently believe that a PCI exceeding 20 should be considered as a relative contraindication for CCRS with HIPEC. The main prognostic factors for survival selected by various studies through multivariate analysis are as follows : the completeness of cytoreductive surgery, a PCI score > 20, the presence of positive lymph nodes and the delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy[13, 17]. When they are resectable simultaneously with HIPEC, associated liver metastases merely exert a borderline non-significant impact [13]. Until now, no CCRS plus HIPEC technique has demonstrated clear superiority over another. The technique commonly used in our department has been extensively described elsewhere [22, 23]. Titre 7

10 4) New trends for HIPEC in the future Established macroscopic PC: a) Standardization of the techniques. A comparative study of the main techniques is desirable, but difficult and to perform and time-consuming. While awaiting the results of such a study, treatment decision-making is based on a consensus among experts. Ongoing multicentric studies are a way of standardizing these techniques. The relation between the duration and the temperature of HIPEC should be carefully explored. In addition, the intraperitoneal use of new targeted drugs ought to be explored. b) Progress with new targeting molecules. If new and more efficient molecules capable of treating colorectal cancers become available, then the place of HIPEC will be re-analyzed. A prospective multicentric trial will be necessary to compare CCRS and HIPEC to a non-surgical treatment using these new drugs. c) Cost-efficiency of CCRS-HIPEC. This combined treatment is complex and costly (approximately 35,000 Euros per patient). It cures only 20% of the patients with PC, but significantly increases median survival. Its cost-efficiency can be measured with the QALY method which measures the price of one year of survival gained with the treatment [24]. After that, each country will have to decide if it is rich enough to pay the price and whether treating this advanced disease is a priority or not. Also, The results of Titre 8

11 such treatment will have to be weighed against the cost of new systemic chemotherapy molecules (close to 5,000 Euros per month). d) A surgical procedure reserved for specialized centers. CCRS and HIPEC are technically challenging, with a rather long learning curve[13]. Moreover, as mentioned above, it is an expensive treatment. High volume and experienced centers obtain better results than others [13] and quality control measurement does not currently exist. Controlling the quality of surgery is currently difficult to implement and apply to gastric and rectal cancers. It will be even more difficult for this complex technique. This is why there is a strong rationale for authorizing this activity exclusively in a few specialized centers in the future. Prophylactic HIPEC for high-risk patients All the series concerning the treatment of established macroscopic PC conclude that survival results are far better when peritoneal disease is less bulky [13, 16, 17]. Also postoperative morbidity and mortality are significantly lower when the peritoneal index is lower, because surgery is less extensive [14,15]. These two points are strong arguments in favor of operating patients with the lowest peritoneal index. However, early PC is currently not detectable clinically, biologically or with imaging. Early PC is only detectable by a second-look laparotomy. Second-look laparoscopy is not recommended because it does not allow the surgeon to re-expose all the dissection planes of the first surgery, and because palpation cannot be used. The aim of this second-look procedure is to detect the beginning of PC early and to treat it with cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC. As this a rather aggressive and expensive treatment, it should be proposed Titre 9

12 exclusively to patients presenting a high risk of developing PC after resection of the primary. A major proportion of the at-risk population has recently be defined by Elias et al [25] and concerns: 1) patients presenting a few nodules of synchronous PC which are completely resected with the primary tumor, 2) patients with ovarian metastasis, and 3) patients with a perforated primary tumor (spontaneous or iatrogenic). A second-look procedure performed one year after the first surgery and 6 months after the end of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy, in asymptomatic patients with a completely negative work-up, was able to detect macroscopic PC in respectively 63%, 75% and 33% of these sub-groups. Patients with macroscopic PC were treated with cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC, with no mortality, low morbidity and a promising survival rate (2-year disease-free survival exceeding 50%). Patients without macroscopic PC were treated prophylactically with or without HIPEC. The subgroup receiving HIPEC presented far fewer peritoneal recurrences than those who did not receive HIPEC (17% versus 43%, respectively). Based on this preliminary study, a multicentric randomized trial was designed which will begin in France in All high-risk patients (see definition above) will receive the standard adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with FOLFOX over 6 months. Afterwards, a complete work-up will be performed. If it is negative, patients will be randomized between a simple survey (control group) and a second-look with in principle HIPEC. The main evaluation criterion will be the rate of peritoneal recurrences at 3 years. To date, the risk of developing PC has not been clearly established for patients with a pt4 lesion of the colon or an occlusive tumor. Data in the Titre 10

13 literature are discordant and a new prospective study on this issue would be useful. Conclusion In conclusion, comparable to the rise in the use of hepatectomy for colorectal LM observed fifteen years ago, CCRS and HIPEC is becoming the standard treatment for colorectal PC. This combined treatment is a complex and costly therapeutic package that is slowly being adopted by surgical teams. However, it is associated with promising long-term survival and is currently the only treatment able to cure patients with PC. Its future evolution may lead to even better oncologic and surgical results. The authors thank Ms lorna Saint-Ange for editing. Titre 11

14 Figure 1: Overall survival after surgery + HIPEC or standard systemic chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis (from Verwaal et al. J Clin Oncol 2003.) Titre 12

15 Figure 2: Overall survival after CCRS + HIPEC or standard systemic chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis (from Elias et al. J Clin Oncol 2009) Titre 13

16 Figure 3: Overall survival rate according to the completeness of cytoreductive surgery after surgery and HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis (from Elias D et al. J Clin Oncol 2009) Titre 14

17 Figure 4: Overall survival rate according to the peritoneal cancer index after surgery and HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis (from Elias D et al. J Clin Oncol 2009) Same Figures in black and white: figure 3 and figure 4 Titre 15

18 Titre 16

19 Titre 17

20 REFERENCES 1. Chu DZ, Lang NP, Thompson C, Osteen PK, Westbrook KC. Peritoneal carcinomatosis in nongynecologic malignancy. A prospective study of prognostic factors. Cancer 1989; 63: Sadeghi B, Arvieux C, Glehen O, Beaujard AC, Rivoire M, Baulieux J, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-gynecologic malignancies: results of the EVOCAPE 1 multicentric prospective study. Cancer 2000; 88: Jayne DG, Fook S, Loi C, Seow-Choen F. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2002; 89: Spratt JS, Adcock RA, Muskovin M, Sherrill W, McKeown J. Clinical delivery system for intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1980; 40: Sugarbaker PH, Cunliffe WJ, Beliveau JF, de Bruin E, Graves T. Rationale for perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy as a surgical adjuvant for gastrointestinal malignancy. Reg Cancer Treatment 1988; 1: Los G, Mutsaers PH, van der Vijgh WJ, Baldew GS, de Graaf PW, McVie JG. Direct diffusion of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(ii) in intraperitoneal rat tumors after intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a comparison with systemic chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1989; 49: van de Vaart PJ, van der Vange N, Zoetmulder FA, van Goethem AR, van Tellingen O, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin with regional hyperthermia in advanced ovarian cancer: pharmacokinetics and cisplatin-dna adduct formation in patients and ovarian cancer cell lines. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: Titre 18

21 8. Koga S, Hamazoe R, Maeta M, Shimizu N, Kanayama H, Osaki Y. Treatment of implanted peritoneal cancer in rats by continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion in combination with an anticancer drug. Cancer Res 1984; 44: Elias D, Detroz B, Debaene B, Damia E, Leclercq B, Rougier P, et al. Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis by intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia: reliable and unreliable concepts. Hepatogastroenterology 1994; 41: Zoetmulder FA. Cancer cell seeding during abdominal surgery: experimental studies. Cancer Treat Res 1996; 82: Jacquet P, Elias D, Sugarbaker PH. [Tumor implantation in cicatrization sites following surgery for digestive cancers]. J Chir (Paris) 1996; 133: Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, de Bree E, van Sloothen GW, van Tinteren H, Boot H, 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: Elias D, Lefevre JH, Chevalier J, Brouquet A, Marchal F, Classe JM, et al. Complete cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: Elias D, Gilly F, Boutitie F, Quenet F, Bereder JM, Mansvelt B, et al. Peritoneal Colorectal Carcinomatosis Treated With Surgery and Titre 19

22 Perioperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: Retrospective Analysis of 523 Patients From a Multicentric French Study. J Clin Oncol 2010: January. 15. Elias D, Benizri E, Pocard M, Ducreux M, Boige V, Lasser P. Treatment of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis and liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32: Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, Witkamp A, Boot H, van Slooten G, Zoetmulder FA. Long-term survival of peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12: da Silva RG, Sugarbaker PH. Analysis of prognostic factors in seventy patients having a complete cytoreduction plus perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203: Elias D, Raynard B, Farkhondeh F, Goere D, Rouquie D, Ciuchendea R, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2006; 30: Elias DM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis or liver metastases from colorectal cancer: similar standards for a curative surgery? Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11: Chua TC, Saxena A, Schellekens JF, Liauw W, Yan TD, Fransi S, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Outcomes of Cytoreductive Surgery and Perioperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy at a Single Tertiary Institution: Towards a New Perspective of This Treatment. Ann Surg 2010; 251: Sugarbaker PH. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for the prevention and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis and sarcomatosis. Semin Surg Oncol 1998; 14: Titre 20

23 22. Sugarbaker PH. Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg 1995; 221: Elias D, Sideris L, Baton O, Lasser P, Pocard M (2004) Traitement chirurgical a viseé curatrice des carcinoses peŕitoneáles. In: EMC Techniques chirurgicales - Appareil Digestif Bonastre J, De Baere T, Elias D, Evrard S, Rouanet P, Bazin C, et al. Cost of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of hepatic malignancies. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2007; 31: Elias D, Goere D, Di Pietrantonio D, Boige V, Malka D, Kohneh-Shahri N, et al. Results of systematic second-look surgery in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg 2008; 247: Titre 21