Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHassan, Sarahen
dc.contributor.authorDritsas, Sen
dc.contributor.authorO'Dwyer, Sarah Ten
dc.contributor.authorAziz, Omeren
dc.contributor.authorSutton, Paul Aen
dc.contributor.authorWang, Xen
dc.contributor.authorFish, Rebeccaen
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-14T10:28:27Z
dc.date.available2023-06-14T10:28:27Z
dc.date.issued2023en
dc.identifier.citationHassan S, Dritsas S, O'Dwyer ST, Aziz O, Sutton P, Wang X, et al. Open versus Closed technique for administration of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Morbidity and Mortality outcomes from a high-volume centre. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 2023 Apr 29. PubMed PMID: 37179147. Epub 2023/05/14. eng.en
dc.identifier.pmid37179147en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejso.2023.04.023en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/626309
dc.description.abstractBackground and aims: Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an established treatment in selected patients with peritoneal metastases, delivered in the UK in specialist centres. HIPEC can be administered via the open coliseum technique as first described by Sugarbaker (O-HIPEC) or using a closed technique (C-HIPEC). Data comparing the safety and outcomes of these different approaches is limited. This study aims to compare morbidity and mortality rates of O-HIPEC and C-HIPEC following CRS for peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer and appendiceal tumours. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing CRS with open (05/2019-04/2020) and closed (05/2020-04/2021) HIPEC were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Baseline data including primary pathology, HIPEC agent and major operative procedures were analysed using Chi-squared and Fishers exact tests to ensure comparability of groups. Primary outcomes were 30- and 60-day postoperative mortality and morbidity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, CTCAE). Secondary outcomes were length of critical care and overall hospital stay. In addition, morbidity and mortality were compared between HIPEC agents (mitomycin and oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil). Results: 99 patients (39.3%) and 153 patients (60.7%) underwent O-HIPEC, C-HIPEC respectively. Groups were well matched for baseline demographics, pathology, and HIPEC agent. In the O-HIPEC and C-HIPEC groups respectively, the incidence of 60-day complications (CTCAE 1-4) was 40.4% vs 39.3% (chi squared 0.94) and severe complications (CTCAE 3-4) 14% vs 13% (Fisher's exact p = 1) There was no perioperative mortality but one death in each group within the follow up period. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between those receiving mitomycin or oxaliplatin. Conclusion: Closed administration of HIPEC is safe with no difference in post-operative morbidity or mortality compared to open HIPEC administration. Differences in longer term oncological outcomes including overall survival and disease-free survival between open and closed HIPEC techniques are yet to be determined.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2023.04.023en
dc.titleOpen versus Closed technique for administration of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Morbidity and Mortality outcomes from a high-volume centreen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentColorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS FT, Manchester, UKen
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncologyen
dc.description.noteen]


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record