腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌的临床观察

目的:探讨腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌的疗效及不良反应。方法:将2005年5 月～2009年2 月收治的90例经病理学或细胞学确诊的Ⅲ～Ⅳ期卵巢癌患者采用信封法随机分为腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗组50例（治疗组）和单纯静脉化疗组40例（对照组）,治疗组采用顺铂腹腔热灌注联合紫杉醇静脉化疗,对照组采用紫杉醇联合顺铂静脉化疗,观察两组的肿瘤控制率、腹水控制率及不良反应。结果:两组的肿瘤控制率（CR+PR）分别为72% 和47.5% ,差异具有统计学意义（P=0.018）,两组的腹水控制率（CR+PR）分别为80% 和50% ,差异具有统计学意义（P=0.014）,两组Ⅲ～Ⅳ度不良反应发生率分别为38% 和40% ,差异无统计学意义（P=0.847）。 结论:腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌的疗效优于单纯静脉化疗,且不良反应能够耐受,值得临床推广。      

高精度持续循环腹腔热灌注化疗联合静脉化疗治疗卵巢癌的临床研究

目的：探讨高精度持续循环腹腔热灌注化疗（HIPEC）联合静脉化疗治疗卵巢癌的临床疗效。方法入组卵巢癌患者198例,分为2组,其中治疗组120例（HIPEC 联合紫杉醇＋奥沙利铂方案静脉化疗组）、对照组78例（紫杉醇＋奥沙利铂方案静脉化疗组）。观察2组患者的生存时间、病死率、复发率、生活质量及化疗毒副反应。结果治疗组患者术后1 a、2 a、3 a 病死率及复发率明显低于对照组,而平均生存时间高于对照组（P ＜005）。结论 HIPEC 联合静脉化疗能有效降低卵巢癌患者术后复发率及病死率,提高生活质量,延长其生存时间。     

腹腔灌注卡铂联合静脉化疗治疗复发性卵巢癌

近年我们行腹腔灌注卡铂联合静脉化疗治疗中晚期恶性卵巢癌25例,取得了一定疗效。材料和方法一　病例选择　所有病例都是经过手术切除后,病理证实的有复发、转移的恶性卵巢癌病人25例。临床分期参照1988年ＦＩＧＯ制定的卵巢恶性肿瘤分期标准确定。其中Ⅲａ1例,Ⅲｂ2例,Ⅲｃ5例,Ⅳ17例。年龄45—65岁,中位年龄为523岁;病程6月—72月,平均病程323月;病理为浆液性乳头状囊腺癌10例,粘液性囊腺癌5例,腺癌7例,颗粒细胞癌2例,透明细胞癌1例;盆腔转移15例,腹腔转移合并腹水20例,肝转移3例,脾转移1例,肺转移3例,左胸水3例,双侧胸水2例,左锁骨上窝淋…     

腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌的疗效观察

目的:探讨晚期卵巢癌行腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗的临床疗效及不良反应。方法:2008年12月-2012年12月收治 的100例晚期卵巢癌并大、中量腹腔积液患者采用信封法随机分为治疗组和对照组。治疗组60例,行腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗;对照组40例,行单纯的静脉化疗。治疗组采用顺铂腹腔热灌注联合紫杉醇静脉化疗,对照组采用紫杉醇联合顺铂 静脉化疗,观察两组的腹水控制率及不良反应。结果:治疗组的腹水控制率为78.3%,对照组为42.5%,差异具有统计学 意义（P＜0.01）。两组的不良反应比较无统计学差异（P＞0.05）。结论:腹腔热灌注联合静脉化疗可有效的控制卵巢 癌患者恶性腹腔积液,不良反应能够耐受。     

腹腔热灌注化疗联合静脉化疗治疗卵巢癌伴腹腔积液的临床观察

目的 观察腹腔热灌注化疗联合静脉化疗治疗卵巢癌伴腹腔积液的临床疗效.方法 采用回顾性调查方式,共42例卵巢癌伴腹腔积液患者分为热疗组和非热疗组.热疗组21例采用腹腔热灌注化疗 静脉化疗.非热疗组21例采用腹腔灌注化疗 静脉化疗,剂量与对照组相同.每组治疗均为3个周期.结果 患者经治疗后腹水均有不同程度的减轻,其中热疗组有效率80.95%,明显高于非热疗组的66.67%.结论 热疗联合化疗药物治疗卵巢癌伴腹腔积液具有协同作用,增强抗癌效应.     

腹腔小剂量化疗药热灌注联合深部热疗治疗老年晚期卵巢癌

0 　引言卵巢癌由于生长部位隐蔽,早期常无症状,诊断时往往已到晚期。老年患者则因为体弱、消瘦或伴有其他脏器疾病而失去手术机会。我院自2004 年5月～2007 年11 月采用腹腔小剂量化疗药热灌注联合深部热疗治疗不宜手术的老年人晚期卵巢癌并大量腹水患者3例,取得了满意的效果,现报告如下。     

晚期卵巢癌术后早期顺铂腹腔热灌注化疗临床研究

目的：评价卵巢癌术后早期腹腔热灌注化疗疗效。方法：将2002年1月-2005年12月我科收治晚期上皮性卵巢癌减瘤术后患者80例,随机单盲分成实验组40例（紫三醇联合卡铂方案静脉全身化疗联合腹腔热灌注顺铂化疗组）与对照组40例（紫三醇联合卡铂方案静脉全身化疗组）。分析两组生存率、复发情况及不良反应。结果：80例病人均完成全部6周期静脉全身化疗,实验组静脉全身化疗期间同期完成腹腔热灌注化疗6次。实验组患者术后3年生存率,5年生存率70%,55%,高于静脉全身化疗组42.5%,32.5%,不良反应可耐受。结论：术后早期腹腔热灌注化疗是晚期卵巢癌减瘤术后的有效辅助化疗,不良反应可耐受,可提高晚期卵巢癌病人的生存率和生活质量。     

紫杉醇腹腔灌注化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌临床研究

目的 探讨紫杉醇(PTX)腹腔灌注化疗联合顺铂(PDD)全身化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌患者的疗效和安全性.方法 2006年1月至2010年1月,给予33例TNMⅢ-Ⅳ期卵巢癌患者(Ⅲ期20例,Ⅳ期13例)PTX 60mg/m2 ip d1,5,10,PDD 40mg/m2 iv d1-2,每21天为1周期,共2-4个周期,每2周期评定疗效.结果 总有效率(RR,CR+PR)为78.79%,其中CR 60.61%、PR 18.18%.中位疾病进展时间(TTP)为22.3个月.2年生存率为81.82%.常见不良反应为骨髓抑制、腹痛、腹泻、胃肠道反应、脱发、口腔黏膜炎和肌肉关节痛等.结论 PTX 60mg/m2腹腔灌注d1,5,10联合PDD 40mg/m2静脉滴注d1,2方案治疗晚期卵巢癌疗效肯定,且不良反应可以耐受.     

晚期卵巢癌术后早期顺铂腹腔热灌注化疗临床研究

目的:评价卵巢癌术后早期腹腔热灌注化疗疗效。方法:将2002年1月-2005年12月我科收治晚期上皮性卵巢癌减瘤术后患者80例,随机单盲分成实验组40例(紫三醇联合卡铂方案静脉全身化疗联合腹腔热灌注顺铂化疗组)与对照组40例(紫三醇联合卡铂方案静脉全身化疗组)。分析两组生存率、复发情况及不良反应。结果:80例病人均完成全部6周期静脉全身化疗,实验组静脉全身化疗期间同期完成腹腔热灌注化疗6次。实验组患者术后3年生存率,5年生存率70%,55%,高于静脉全身化疗组42.5%,32.5%,不良反应可耐受。结论:术后早期腹腔热灌注化疗是晚期卵巢癌减瘤术后的有效辅助化疗,不良反应可耐受,可提高晚期卵巢癌病人的生存率和生活质量。     

The Role of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Ovarian Cancer

Overall outcomes for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remain relatively poor, and superior methods of treatment are needed. EOC is a peritoneal surface malignancy that is relatively sensitive to chemotherapy agents, making it a good target for i.p. chemotherapy. Because there is strong laboratory data demonstrating the ability of hyperthermia to increase the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents, the addition of hyperthermia to i.p. chemotherapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), makes theoretical sense. This article reviews the current literature and discusses the possible role for HIPEC in EOC at significant natural history time points: front line, at the time of interval debulking, in consolidation, and for recurrent disease. The conclusion is that much further research is needed but that HIPEC could sensibly be researched at all the natural history time points in EOC.     

顺铂和5-Fu腹腔化疗联合FOLFOX4方案静脉化疗治疗晚期胃癌疗效观察

目的观察腹腔化疗联合静脉化疗治疗晚期胃癌的临床疗效及毒副反应。方法39例晚期胃癌患者接受腹腔及静脉化疗,先予5-Fu＋DDP腹腔灌注化疗,继予FOLFOX4方案静脉化疗,14d为1周期,完成4周期后评价疗效。结果39例均可评价疗效。可测量病灶：CR3例（7．7％）,PR17例（43．6％）,NC11例（28．2％）,PD8例（20．5％）,客观有效率（CR＋PR）51,3％（20／39）。26例腹水疗效：CR7例（26．9％）,PR12例（46．2％）,NC4例（15．4％）,PD3例（11．5％）,有效率（CR＋PR）73．1％（19／26）。中位疾病进展时间6．1个月,中位生存期8．3个月,1年生存率35．9％。39例Ⅲ／Ⅳ度毒副反应中自细胞减少4例（10．3％）,恶心、呕吐2例（5．1％）,口腔黏膜炎1例（2．6％）。无治疗相关性死亡。结论腹腔化疗联合静脉化疗是治疗晚期胃癌的有效手段,毒副反应可以耐受。     

Effects of CytoReductive surgery plus hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus CytoReductive surgery for ovarian cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe effects of Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) and CytoReductive Surgery (CRS) for ovarian cancer patients remain controversial.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases to investigate Overall Survival (OS), Disease Free Survival (DFS) and adverse effects between HIPEC and CRS group. Results: In our overall analysis (13 studies), patients in the HIPEC group exhibited a significantly improved OS (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.76, P < 0.01) and DFS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.48–0.77, P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed improved OS (HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.40–0.83, P = 0.04) and DFS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.47–0.80, P < 0.01) for primary ovarian cancer in favour of HIPEC group. However, recurrent ovarian cancer patients who received HIPEC exhibited only significantly improved OS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.24–0.96, P < 0.01) but not DFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.33–1.08, P = 0.09). In addition, both significantly improved OS and DFS were also observed in patients who received HIPEC in the subgroups based on the following factors: studies published before 2015, studies with ≥100 total patients, a single drug used for HIPEC, 90-min HIPEC duration and a regimen of CRS plus HIPEC followed by chemotherapy. Moreover systematically reviewed toxicity, morbidity, mortality and long-term outcomes were tolerable after HIPEC.ConclusionsThe addition of HIPEC to CRS could significantly improve OS of ovarian cancer patients, albeit optimal drug regimen is not clear.     

腹腔静脉双途径化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌

采用卡铂腹腔内化疗及阿霉素和环磷酰胺的静脉内化疗方法，治疗１４例晚期卵巢癌，结果完全缓解５例，部分缓解７例，因疾病进展死亡２例，有效率达８５．７％。表明腹腔内及静脉内双途径化疗治疗晚期卵巢癌为一理想的治疗措施。     

静脉联合腹腔化疗治疗晚期胃肠肿瘤87例临床分析

目的　评价静脉联合腹腔化疗治疗对晚期胃肠肿瘤治疗效果和副作用。方法　对 1996年 3月至 2 0 0 0年 11月间 ,我科对采用吡喃阿霉素静推、羟基喜树碱静滴、5 -FU及顺铂腹腔灌注方法治疗 87例晚期胃肠肿瘤进行分析 ,总结其近期治疗效果。结果　本组 87例 ,总有效率为 5 2 9% (4 6/87) ,中位生存期为 15 7月 ,且毒副反应较轻。结论　静脉联合腹腔化疗是治疗晚期胃肠肿瘤的有效治疗手段 ,副反应轻 ,病人易于接受     

Misdiagnosis of appendiceal neoplasms as ovarian tumors: Impact of prior gynecologic surgery on definitive cytoreduction and HIPEC

BackgroundFemale patients with pelvic/adnexal masses often undergo gynecologic operations due to presumed ovarian origin. The diagnosis of an appendiceal tumor is often only made postoperatively after suboptimal cytoreduction has been performed. We hypothesized that an index gynecological procedure increases the morbidity of definitive cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) in patients with appendiceal mucinous tumors.MethodsA single-center retrospective review was performed to identify female patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal tumors from 2012 to 2020.ResultsDuring the 8-year period, CRS/HIPEC was performed in 36 female patients with appendiceal mucinous tumors. Eighteen patients (50.0%) had received a prior pelvic operation by gynecologists (PPO Group) for presumed ovarian origin before referral for definitive CRS/HIPEC. The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was higher in the PPO group (21 vs. 9, p = 0.04). The median number of days from gynecologic procedure to definitive CRS/HIPEC was 169 days. Compared to patients who did not undergo a prior gynecologic operation, those in the PPO group had higher intraoperative blood loss (650 vs 100 mL, p < 0.01) during CRS/HIPEC as well as longer length of stay (12 vs 8 days, p = 0.02) and higher overall morbidity (72.3% vs 33.3%, p = 0.02). After controlling for PCI, prior gynecologic operation increased risk of 30-day morbidity after definitive CRS/HIPEC (OR 11.6, p < 0.01).ConclusionA multi-disciplinary approach is needed for the primary evaluation of patients with pelvic masses of undetermined origin. A gynecological resection is associated with increased morbidity during definitive cytoreduction and HIPEC for appendiceal mucinous tumors.     

Health-related quality of life after interval cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with stage III ovarian cancer

IntroductionThe addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) improves recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with FIGO stage III ovarian cancer. We evaluated the effect of HIPEC on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the OVHIPEC trial.Materials and methodsOVHIPEC was a multicentre, open-label, randomized phase III trial for patients with stage III ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive interval CRS with or without HIPEC with cisplatin. HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, and the ovarian (QLQ-OV28) and colorectal cancer (QLQ-CR38) modules. HRQoL questionnaires were administered at baseline, after surgery, after end of treatment, and every three months thereafter. HRQoL was a secondary endpoint, with the prespecified focus on the QLQ-C30 summary score and symptom scores on fatigue, neuropathy and gastro-intestinal symptoms. HRQoL was analysed using linear and non-linear mixed effect models.ResultsIn total, 245 patients were randomized. One-hundred-ninety-seven patients (80%) completed at least one questionnaire. No significant difference over time in the QLQ-C30 summary scores was observed between the study arms (p-values for linear and non-linear growth: p > 0.133). The pattern over time for fatigue, neuropathy and gastro-intestinal symptoms did not significantly differ between treatment arms.ConclusionThe addition of HIPEC to interval CRS does not negatively impact HRQoL in patients with stage III ovarian cancer who are treated with interval CRS due to the extent of disease. These HRQoL results, together with the improvement in RFS and OS, support the viability of HIPEC as an important treatment option in this patient population.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT00426257.EudraCT number2006-003466-34.     

Then and now: cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), a historical perspective

The management of peritoneal carcinomatosis, once considered a condition with few therapeutic options, has undergone dramatic change with the advancement of surgical techniques and systemic cancer therapy. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) administration, in particular, has significantly impacted the prospect of improving outcomes for this debilitating presentation of malignancy in selected patients. This regional surgical therapy itself has undergone many stages of evolution through its original conception nearly a century ago. Progressive changes in this field have included refinements and ongoing standardization in technique, development of a common language to describe tumor burden and extent of resection, better selection of chemotherapeutics based on tumor histology, reduction of surgical morbidity and mortality, and an improved understanding of factors for appropriate patient selection, to list but a few examples. CRS/HIPEC continues to play an important role in the management of select patients with carcinomatosis of certain tumor histology and its role will no doubt continue to be redefined as new therapies emerge.     

Investigations on safety of hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with Mitomycin C

AIMS: Previous safety monitoring of hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with Mitomycin C (MMC) did not demonstrate any detectable safety hazard to the personnel. Nevertheless, those results have been discussed controversially because of the methodological problems employed in the evaluation of potential exposure. We re-evaluated possible safety hazards of HIPEC by applying different monitoring strategies. METHODS: We monitored air samples in the operation room during HIPEC. In addition, we measured MMC in plasma of the surgeon with a newly developed analytical method. All samples were analysed by HPLC-UV at 360nm. The permeability of the gloves was tested using two in vitro techniques: diffusion cells and a glass cell chamber. In-use and worst-case exposure scenarios were imitated for in vitro experiments. RESULTS: The analysis of the air samples (n=3) could not detect any MMC. We found no drug above the limit of detection (1microg MMC/L) in the plasma samples of the surgeons (n=5). A breakthrough of latex glove material was detected in only one (worst-case exposure scenario) of 40 diffusion cell experiments. CONCLUSIONS: Established methods of safety monitoring could not reveal any detectable risk on in-use exposure conditions. The wearing of doubled latex gloves should prevent the surgeon from dermal exposure to MMC during HIPEC.