4.6 Article

Intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia and attempted cytoreductive surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 91, 期 6, 页码 747-754

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4473

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis is usually considered incurable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia (IPCH) following cytoreductive surgery in patients with colorectal carcinomatosis. Methods: Between January 1989 and August 2002, 53 patients (mean age 48.6 years) were treated by IPCH with mitomycin C. IPCH was performed in 34 patients following extensive cytoreductive surgery (more than two peritonectomy procedures). Five patients underwent two operations and one patient three operations. Results: Operative morbidity and mortality rates were 2 3 and 4 percent respectively. At a median follow-up of 59.5 months, the overall median survival was 12.8 months. The extent of carcinomatosis, completeness of cytoreduction and histological differentiation were significant prognostic indicators by univariate analysis. The median survival was 32.9 months for patients whose resection was classified as completeness of cancer resection (CCR) 0 (complete cytoreduction), 12.5 months for those whose operation was CCR-1 (diameter of residual nodules 5 mm or less) and 8.1 months for patients who had a CCR-2 resection (diameter of residual nodules more than 5 mm) (P < 0.001). Completeness of cytoreduction was the only significant independent predictor of survival by multivariate analysis. Conclusion: IPCH combined with cytoreductive surgery seems to be an effective therapy for carefully selected patients with carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer. This strategy was most effective in patients with carcinomatosis of limited tumour volume or when cytoreductive surgery allowed sufficient downstaging (residual turnout nodules smaller than 5 mm).

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

4.6
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