Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is associated with a significant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic benefit and can, alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy (bidirectional chemotherapy), be used for treating primary and secondary peritoneal surface malignancies. Due to the peritoneal-plasma barrier, high intraperitoneal drug concentration can be achieved by intraperitoneal chemotherapy, whereas systemic concentration remains low. Bidirectional chemotherapy may provide in addition adequate drug concentrations from the side of the subperitoneal space to the peritoneal tumour nodules. Major pharmacological problems of intraperitoneal chemotherapy are limited tissue penetration and poor homogeneity of drug distribution to the entire seroperitoneal surface. Significant pharmacological determinants of intraperitoneal chemotherapy are choice of drug, drug dosage, solution volume, carrier solution, intra-abdominal pressure, temperature, duration, mode of administration, extent of peritonectomy and interindividual variability. Drugs most commonly applied for intraperitoneal chemotherapy include mitomycin C, cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5-fluoruracil, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, doxorubicin, premetrexed and melphalan. The drugs and their doses that are used vary widely among centres. While the adequate drug choice for intraperitoneal and bidirectional chemotherapy is essential, randomized clinical trials to determine the most optimal drug or drug combination are lacking, and only eight retrospective comparative clinical studies are available. Further clinical pharmacological studies are required to determine the most effective drug regimen for intraperitoneal and bidirectional chemotherapy in various indications. In the future, reliable drug sensitivity testing and genetic profiling of peritoneal metastases will be needed for enabling patient-specific therapy.

SBA is a rare and unique malignancy, whose diagnostic approach and treatment are evolving, resulting in improved outcome.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.

Ovarian cancer represents worldwide the second most frequent and the most fatal gynecological malignancy, with approximately two thirds of the patients presenting with advanced disease. Cytoreductive surgery, primary or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for these patients. Despite the improvement in quality of cytoreductive surgery as well as development of novel drugs and chemotherapy regimens, still most women with ovarian cancer will ultimately develop recurrent disease and die of their disease. In contrast to the management of primary disease, the standard treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer remains a topic of debate. While platinum-based or second line systemic chemotherapy, depending on the time after last platinum treatment, is standard of care, the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery has been a controversial issue for the last decades. Potential outcome benefit must be also weighed against the risk of severe surgical morbidity, impairment of quality of life and costs. In platinum-resistant recurrent disease, i.e., relapse after less than 6 months from the last platinum-based chemotherapy for primary disease, secondary cytoreduction seems generally not to be indicated due to its aggressive biological behavior and the absence of effective systemic treatment. In this comprehensive review, the current role of cytoreductive surgery in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer is discussed thoroughly in view of the results of most recent randomized trials and a meta-analysis. There seems to be definitely a role for secondary cytoreductive surgery in selected patients with ovarian cancer recurrence in whom complete resection of macroscopic disease is feasible. However, its role should be continuously reviewed due to the changing systemic treatment of patients with ovarian cancer recurrence over time.

No abstract