4.7 Article

Outcomes in Peritoneal Dissemination from Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma of the Appendix Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 473-481

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-7007-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is standard treatment for peritoneal dissemination from appendiceal cancer (AC); however, its role in high-grade histopathologic subtypes (high-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei [HGMCP] and HGMCP with signet ring cells [HGMCP-S]) is controversial due to their aggressive behavior. This study analyzed clinical outcomes of high-grade AC after CRS/HIPEC. A prospective database of CRS/HIPEC procedures for HGMCP performed from 1998-2017 was reviewed. Perioperative variables and survival were analyzed. Eighty-six HGMCP and 65 HGMCP-S were identified. HGMCP had more positive tumor markers (TM) (CEA/CA-125/CA-19-9) than HGMCP-S (63% vs 40%, p = 0.005). HGMCP had higher Peritoneal Cancer Index (32 vs 26, p = 0.097) and was less likely to have positive lymph nodes (LN) than HGMCP-S (28% vs 69%, p = < 0.001). Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 84% and 83%, respectively. PFS at 3- and 5-years was 59% and 48% for HGMCP vs 31% and 14% for HGMCP-S. Median PFS was 4.3 and 1.6 years, respectively (p < 0.001). OS at 3- and 5-years was 84% and 64% in HGMCP vs 38% and 25% in HGMCP-S. Median OS was 7.5 and 2.2 years, respectively (p < 0.001). LN negative HGMCP-S had longer median PFS and OS than LN positive HGMCP-S (PFS: 3.4 vs 1.5 years, p = 0.03; OS: 5.6 vs 2.1 months, p = 0.021). The aggressive histology of HGMCP-S is associated with poor OS, has fewer abnormal TM, and is more likely to have positive LN. However, CRS/HIPEC can achieve a 5-year survival of 25%, which may improve to 51% with negative LN.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available