Combined modality treatment of patients with stage IV gastric cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis

Markovich, V. A.; Тузиков, С. А.; Родионов, Е. О.; Попова, Н. О.; Цыганов, М. М.; Миллер, С. В.; Podolko, D. V.; Tsydenova, Irina A.; Ибрагимова, М. К.; Litviakov, N. V.

doi:10.21294/1814-4861-2023-22-1-24-34

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…В литерат уре описаны такие ос ложнения HIPEC, как несостоятельность анастомозов (от 1,7 % до 3,3 %), перфорация кишки (1,4-2,8 %), кишечная непроходимость (2,6-3,5 %), миелосупрессия (2,9-6,3 %) [20][21][22][23].…”

Section: гипертермическая внутрибрюшная химиотерапия (Hipec): методол...unclassified

HIPEC and PIPAC for gastric cancer: technique and comparison of efficacy. Literature review

Osminin,

Vetshev,

Phakadze

et al. 2023

Malignant Tumours

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: According to the World Health Organization (WHO) data, gastric cancer (GC) was the 5th most common cancer and the 4th leading cause of cancer death worldwide in 2020. Peritoneal metastases (PM) are associated with a poor prognosis and detected in 30 % of patients with locally advanced GC; the median overall survival in patients with PM is 3–6 months without any treatment and 6–12 months with the use of systemic chemotherapy. Delivery of appropriate chemotherapeutic drugs directly into the abdominal cavity increases the effectiveness of treatment without severe systemic side effects. Today, various forms of intra-abdominal chemotherapy of PM are used in the world.Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and aerosol intraperitoneal pressure chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the treatment of GC PM.Purposes: To review current domestic and foreign publications on HIPEC and PIPAC, to compare their efficacy.Materials and methods: Articles in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science databases were studied and analyzed for the key queries: “stomach cancer”, “carcinomatosis”, “peritoneal metastases”, “HIPEC”, “PIPAC”.Conclusions: The best results were achieved when using PIPAC as preoperative chemotherapy, followed by cytoreductive surgery in combination with HIPEC. Both procedures are promising and require further study with multicenter randomized prospective trials to assess their therapeutic potential.

show abstract

Section: гипертермическая внутрибрюшная химиотерапия (Hipec): методол...unclassified

HIPEC and PIPAC for gastric cancer: technique and comparison of efficacy. Literature review

Osminin,

Vetshev,

Phakadze

et al. 2023

Malignant Tumours

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Complicated gastric cancer and modern treatment approaches

Tarasov,

Yartsev,

Rogal

et al. 2024

Pirogov Rus. J. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Total neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX regimen for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach and cardioesophageal junction: interim results

Sedova,

Batov,

Kolomeytseva

et al. 2023

Issled. prakt. med. (Print)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To study the eﬃcacy and safety of total neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with the FOLFIRINOX regimen for locally advanced gastric (GC) and cardioesophageal junction (CEJ) cancer.Patients and methods. Patients with histologically conﬁrmed locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma and CEJ, clinical stage cT3 or higher and/or regional lymph node involvement (cN+), without evidence of distant metastasis were included in our open-label, single-centre, non-randomised study. In the FLOT control group, patients received 4 courses preoperatively and 4 postoperatively with follow-up. I In the FOLFIRINOX group 8 courses of chemotherapy were administered in neoadjuvant mode, followed by surgery and observation. The tumor regression grade was assessed in accordance with Becker, Mandard and G. A. Lavnikova scales.Results. The study included 136 patients, 119 of whom started treatment according to the protocol (ITT population). Fiﬅy-nine patients were enrolled into the FLOT group and 60 into the FOLFIRINOX group. One-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 67,5 % in the FLOT group and 90,4 % in the FOLFIRINOX group (p = 0,29). The estimated 2-year PFS in the FLOT group was 61,4 % [95 % CI, 48,4–77,9 %]. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were not reached. The incidence of events (progression or death) was lower in the FOLFIRINOX group (odds ratio [OR] 0,40 [95 % CI 0,16–0,97, p = 0,047]). Adverse prognostic factors regardless of treatment were lymphatic (L1), vascular (V1) and perineural invasion (Pn1), and regional lymph node involvement aﬅer chemotherapy (ypN+) [p = 0,046; p = 0,014; p = 0,0021; p = 0,04, respectively]. There was no correlation between pathological complete response and survival rates.Conclusion. Total neoadjuvant chemotherapy with the FOLFIRINOX regimen for locally advanced GC/ CEJ demonstrated comparable to the perioperative FLOT one-year PFS rate. No association was found between tumor regression grade and survival outcomes.

show abstract

Combined modality treatment of patients with stage IV gastric cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

HIPEC and PIPAC for gastric cancer: technique and comparison of efficacy. Literature review

HIPEC and PIPAC for gastric cancer: technique and comparison of efficacy. Literature review

Complicated gastric cancer and modern treatment approaches

Total neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX regimen for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach and cardioesophageal junction: interim results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About