4.4 Article

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion in combined treatment of locally advanced and disseminated gastric cancer: Results of a single-centre retrospective study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTHERMIA
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 159-165

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2014.893451

关键词

Cytoreductive operation; gastric cancer; hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion; peritoneal carcinomatosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (GC) and/or peritoneal metastases have a poor prognosis despite systemic chemotherapy or palliative surgery. The aim of this retrospective comparative non-randomised study was to evaluate aggressive cytoreduction in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (HIPEC) as a novel treatment strategy for patients with intraperitoneal disseminated and locally advanced GC. Patients and methods: Forty-nine GC patients with serosal invasion (n = 19), limited peritoneal metastases (n = 20), or disseminated peritoneal metastases and tense ascites (n = 10) underwent combination therapy with HIPEC. Three matched control groups undergoing standard therapies were retrospectively identified. Results: Combination therapy for serosa-invasive GC reduced the level of metachronous peritoneal carcinomatosis and increased median survival from 12 months to 22.5 months (p = 0.001). The median and 1-year survival rates for intraperitoneal disseminated GC patients undergoing therapy with the use of HIPEC were 12 months and 68.8% compared with 8 months and 25%, respectively (p = 0.004) for control subgroup patients (palliative chemotherapy). The symptomatic use of HIPEC allows effective elimination of recurrent ascites in GC patients. Conclusion: HIPEC is a well-tolerated and effective method of adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer with high risk of intraperitoneal progression. Cytoreduction followed by HIPEC improves survival in patients with limited peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据