预防性腹腔热灌注化疗治疗进展期结直肠癌的预后分析:一项倾向评分匹配分析
Prognostic Analysis of Prophylactic Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
摘要: 目的:探究对进展期结直肠癌(Colorectal Cancer, CRC)患者术后预防性腹腔热灌注化疗(Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy)的安全性、有效性以及对生存情况的影响。方法:回顾性分析2018至2020年于青岛大学附属医院接受根治性手术进展期结直肠癌患者的临床资料,其中HIPEC组135例,对照组165例,经过1:1比例进行倾向评分匹配(propensity score matching, PSM)后将252例患者按是否接受HIPEC干预分为两组:HIPEC组(n = 126)与对照组(n = 126)。对入组患者进行围术期安全性分析及术后长期随访。结果:HIPEC组总生存期为(36.25 ± 0.780)个月;对照组为(32.97 ± 1.065)个月,两组3年总生存率(83.3% vs. 73.8%)差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.044)。HIPEC组3年无复发生存率为85.7%,对照组为75.4%,组间差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.027)。两组术后严重并发症方面无明显统计学差异(P > 0.05)。血管侵犯、pT分期以及预防性HIPEC治疗是影响患者术后DFS的独立危险因素:血管侵犯(HR = 1.893, 95% CI 1.080~3.318, P = 0.026)与pT分期(HR = 2.439, 95% CI 1.385~4.295, P = 0.002)与复发风险显著相关。而预防性HIPEC可降低术后复发风险(HR = 0.465, 95% CI 0.258~0.835, P = 0.010)。结论:预防性腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)可以有效降低发生腹膜转移的风险并使进展期结直肠癌患者的生存获益,同时预防性HIPEC并未显著增加术后并发症的发生率,这说明预防性HIPEC是一种安全、可行的治疗手段,而血管侵犯和pT4分期是肿瘤复发的重要危险因素。
Abstract: Objective: To investigate the safety, efficacy, and impact on survival outcomes of prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) after surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from advanced CRC patients who underwent radical surgery at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from 2018 to 2020, including 135 cases in the HIPEC group and 165 cases in the control group. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), 252 patients were divided into two groups based on HIPEC intervention: the HIPEC group (n = 126) and the control group (n = 126). Perioperative safety analysis and long-term postoperative follow-up were conducted. Results: The overall survival (OS) was (36.25 ± 0.780) months in the HIPEC group versus (32.97 ± 1.065) months in the control group. The 3-year OS rates (83.3% vs. 73.8%) showed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.044). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate was 85.7% in the HIPEC group and 75.4% in the control group, with a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.027). No significant difference in severe postoperative complications was observed (P > 0.05). Vascular invasion, pT stage, and prophylactic HIPEC were independent risk factors for postoperative DFS: vascular invasion (HR = 1.893, 95% CI 1.080~3.318, P = 0.026) and pT stage (HR = 2.439, 95% CI 1.385~4.295, P = 0.002) significantly correlated with recurrence risk. Prophylactic HIPEC reduced recurrence risk (HR = 0.465, 95% CI 0.258~0.835, P = 0.010). Conclusion: Prophylactic HIPEC effectively reduces peritoneal metastasis risk and improves survival in advanced CRC patients without significantly increasing postoperative complications, demonstrating its safety and feasibility. Vascular invasion and pT4 stage are significant risk factors for tumor recurrence.
文章引用:袁安泰, 薛怡文. 预防性腹腔热灌注化疗治疗进展期结直肠癌的预后分析:一项倾向评分匹配分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(5): 709-719. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.1551426

1. 引言

结直肠癌(Colorectal Cancer, CRC)是消化系统最常见的恶性肿瘤之一。最新流行病学数据显示[1],该疾病在男性和女性群体中的发病率均位居第三位。针对亚洲人群的研究表明,根据2023年中国癌症统计报告[2],结直肠癌的发病率和死亡率在所有恶性肿瘤中分别位列第三和第五位。该肿瘤常见的远处转移部位包括肝脏、肺部和腹膜种植转移(Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, PC),其中以腹膜转移患者的预后最差、生存期最短[3]。临床数据显示[4],伴发腹膜转移的结直肠癌患者中位总生存期(Overall Survival, OS)仅为5~7个月。即便接受最佳全身化疗方案治疗,腹膜转移患者的OS也仅能达到16.3个月(95%置信区间[Confidence Interval, CI] 13.5~18.8) [5]

腹膜转移(PM)患者的常规治疗方案推荐系统性化疗。近年来,肿瘤细胞减灭术(CRS)联合腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)可能改善总生存期,为特定结直肠癌(CRC)伴局限性腹膜转移患者提供了潜在的治愈性治疗手段[6]。多项来自大型三级医院的回顾性研究显示,CRS联合HIPEC治疗可使腹膜转移患者的中位生存期延长至41个月以上[5] [7]-[10]。然而,COLOPEC研究[11]表明,针对T4期或穿孔性结肠癌患者实施30分钟奥沙利铂辅助HIPEC治疗,未能显著改善18个月的无腹膜转移生存率。PROPHYLOCHIP研究[12]则证实,对于原发结直肠癌伴局限性腹膜转移、卵巢转移灶切除或肿瘤穿孔的患者,系统性二次探查手术联合奥沙利铂-HIPEC相较于标准化疗方案,并未提升无病生存期。目前,相较于单纯系统性化疗或单独CRS [13],该联合治疗的生存获益仍存在争议。此外,部分专科医疗中心报告CRS联合HIPEC术后严重并发症发生率和死亡率分别高达30%~40%与3%~5% [14] [15],显著影响患者生存质量。值得注意的是,首项关于奥沙利铂预防性HIPEC的随机对照试验HIPECT4 [16]研究取得积极进展:临床晚期结肠癌患者接受根治性切除术后辅以奥沙利铂循环式HIPEC治疗,可显著提高局部区域控制率。当前临床实践中,如何实现腹膜转移的早期诊断与干预仍面临挑战,现有影像学技术尚无法及时检测微转移病灶[17]。因此,预防性HIPEC能否有效降低高危结直肠癌患者腹膜转移发生率,已成为亟待解决的重要临床课题。

本研究旨在明确预防性腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)能否改善晚期结直肠癌患者的生存预后或降低腹膜转移风险,同时评估其术后并发症发生率。研究结果将为延长晚期患者长期生存提供关键证据,这对临床医师制定个体化治疗方案具有重要指导价值——通过精准平衡治疗获益与手术风险,最终实现结直肠癌诊疗的优化决策。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 研究队列

本试验为单中心回顾性研究,研究拟纳入2018至2020年于青岛大学附属医院胃肠外科接受根治性手术的进展期结直肠癌患者,系统收集围手术期临床资料,并分析评估治疗策略对临床结局的影响。入组患者需满足以下纳入及排除标准:年龄18~75岁;无手术及化疗禁忌症;排除广泛腹腔粘连、严重出血、穿孔或梗阻表现者;术前临床分期为cT3-4N0/+M0。经倾向性评分匹配(PSM)后,将252例患者按照是否接受HIPEC干预分为两组:HIPEC组(n = 126)与对照组(n = 126)。

2.2. 数据收集

通过医院电子病历系统采集患者数据,涵盖性别、年龄、美国东部肿瘤协作组(ECOG)体能状态评分、营养风险筛查(NRS 2002)评分、术后病理T分期、N分期(依据AJCC第8版分期标准) [18]、肿瘤解剖定位、组织学类型、神经侵犯、血管侵犯、术后住院时长等。同时采用美国癌症联合委员会TNM分期系统评估淋巴结转移程度与肿瘤浸润深度。

本研究对HIPEC治疗组与对照组术后不良事件进行系统记录,主要监测指标包括贫血、低白蛋白血症、骨髓抑制、切口相关并发症、腹腔感染、肺部感染、术后出血、胃排空障碍、吻合口瘘、肠梗阻及电解质紊乱等。

本研究主要终点设定为无复发生存期(DFS),定义为从原发灶切除至首次复发、死亡或末次随访的时间。次要终点包括总生存期(OS)与安全性指标,其中OS定义为原发灶切除至死亡或末次随访的时间。术后随访包括电话及门诊随访,所有患者术后每3个月行腹腔增强CT及CEA/CA19-9检测,疑似复发者通过腹部增强CT或PET-CT进行确诊。末次随访时间截至2023年12月。

2.3. 治疗方法

腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)的实施严格遵循中国抗癌协会腹膜肿瘤专业委员会制定的《中国腹腔热灌注化疗临床应用技术规范》[17]。手术方式依据《中国结直肠癌诊疗规范(2020年版)》[18],严格实施结直肠癌根治术(病灶肠段切除联合区域淋巴结清扫),术中恪守肠系膜切除与无瘤操作原则。行HIPEC治疗前,均告知患者及家属相关方案,治疗效果及风险等问题,并签署HIPEC治疗知情同意书。

两组患者均接受腹腔镜下根治性结直肠癌切除术,完成后进行腹腔热灌注化疗:按操作规范放置4根灌注管(其中2根用于灌注,2根用于流出),分别经双侧腹壁置入双侧上腹肝肾隐窝、脾门脉和两侧盆底,连接HIPEC循环热灌注系统,设定43℃ ± 0.5℃恒温以400~600 ml/min的流速灌注60分钟,每次HIPEC灌注液总量为3000 ml,温度通过腹腔四个象限的热敏探头实时监测,维持43℃ ± 0.5℃,灌注期间每10分钟记录温度,波动超过±1℃时暂停调整。术后进行两次HIPEC治疗:第一次HIPEC在术后48小时内进行,第二次HIPEC与第一次的时间间隔应不小于24小时。化疗方案选用奥沙利铂,剂量根据体表面积计算(参照全身化疗指南[19],标准剂量为300毫克/平方米)。两组患者术后3个月内根据指南常规接受辅助全身化疗:FOLFOX方案(奥沙利铂 + 5-FU/亚叶酸钙)或XELOX方案(奥沙利铂 + 卡培他滨)至少6周期。

2.4. 统计学分析

本研究采用倾向性评分匹配(PSM)将基线数据作为协变量,HIPEC作为应变量,通过IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0软件实施1:1最邻近匹配法,设定卡钳值0.2,进而控制临床病理特征对选择偏倚的影响。为确保PSM的精确性,本研究将严格进行变量完整性核查:在患者入组后将符合纳排标准但基线资料缺失的患者排除在外,从而保证匹配变量无缺失。匹配后各组标准化差异均 < 10% (P > 0.050),提示基线特征均衡性良好。后续生存分析(包括单因素与多因素分析)结果具有可比性,证实PSM有效控制了混杂因素干扰。

符合正态分布且方差齐的计量资料以均数 ± 标准差表示,比较采用t检验不符合正态分布的计量资料采用Mann-Whitney U检验,生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法进行估计,组间比较使用log-rank检验。通过Cox比例风险模型计算风险比(HR)及其95%置信区间(95% CI),评估生存预后的独立预测因素。治疗相关毒性反应及并发症发生率的组间比较采用卡方检验或Fisher’s精确概率法。所有P值均为双侧检验,以P < 0.050为统计学显著性阈值。统计分析均基于SPSS 26.0软件完成。

3. 结果

3.1. 患者基线资料

患者的基线临床病理学特征见表1。根据既定入排标准,我们筛选出初始300例患者,其中HIPEC组135例,对照组165例,经过1:1比例进行倾向评分匹配(propensity score matching, PSM)来平衡两组间的混杂因素,成功匹配到126对患者,HIPEC组接受根治手术联合HIPEC治疗,对照组接受单纯根治手术。

经倾向性评分匹配(PSM)后两组基线特征如表2所示。PSM结果显示,HIPEC组与对照组在年龄(P = 0.607, Z = −2.873)、性别(P = 0.443, χ² = 1.584)、ECOG评分(P = 0.593, χ² = 0.737)、NRS2002营养评分(P = 0.204, χ² = 0.817)、病理T分期(P = 0.141, χ² = 0.531)、N分期(P = 0.460, χ² = 0.432)、肿瘤原发部位(P = 0.165, χ² = 2.800)、分化程度(P = 0.192, χ² = 2.187)、神经侵犯(P = 0.450, χ² = 0.054)、血管侵犯(P = 0.430, χ² = 2.043)及术后住院时间(P = 0.946, Z = −0.987)等变量均未见显著差异。

3.2. 不良事件

两组患者术后并发症发生率的比较详见表3。两组患者术后住院时间没有明显差异(P = 0.946),HIPEC组为6.60天,对照组为6.67天。HIPEC组39例患者出现低白蛋白血症,而对照组有21例,两组差异

Table 1. Baseline data of CRC patients before matching [n (%)]

1. 匹配前CRC患者基线资料[n (%)]

基线

HIPEC(n = 135)

对照组(n = 165)

P

年龄()

60.51 ± 10.159

61.27 ± 9.841

0.409

性别

0.216

81 (60.0)

108 (65.5)

54 (40.0)

57 (34.5)

ECOG评分

0.179

0-1

122 (90.4)

138 (83.6)

≥2

13 (9.6)

27 (16.4)

NRS2002评分

0.126

≤3

105 (77.8)

141 (85.5)

>3

30 (22.2)

24 (14.5)

pT分期

0.288

3

78 (57.8)

106 (64.2)

4a

36 (26.7)

35 (21.2)

4b

21 (15.5)

24 (14.6)

pN分期

0.866

pN0~N1

108 (80.0)

134 (81.2)

pN2

27 (20.0)

31 (18.8)

原发部位

0.397

右半结肠

43 (31.9)

52 (31.5)

左半结肠

21 (15.6)

21 (12.7)

乙状结肠

47 (34.7)

56 (33.9)

直肠

24 (17.8)

36 (21.9)

病理分型

0.200

腺癌

102 (75.6)

132 (80.0)

粘液腺癌/印戒细胞癌

33 (24.4)

33 (20.0)

分化程度

0.333

低分化

42 (31.1)

35 (21.2)

中/高分化

93 (68.9)

130 (78.8)

神经侵犯

0.209

70 (51.9)

95 (57.6)

65 (48.1)

70 (42.4)

血管侵犯

0.937

52 (38.5)

48 (29.1)

83 (61.5)

117 (70.9)

术后住院时间

7.58 ± 3.134

8.21 ± 3.690

0.052

Table 2. Baseline data of CRC patients after matching [n (%)]

2. 匹配后CRC患者基线资料[n (%)]

基线

HIPEC(n = 126)

对照组(n = 126)

P

年龄()

60.06 ± 10.119

60.73 ± 10.406

0.607

性别

0.443

72 (57.1)

78 (61.9)

54 (42.9)

48 (38.1)

ECOG评分

0.593

0~1

110 (87.3)

95 (75.4)

≥2

16 (12.7)

31 (24.6)

NRS2002评分

0.204

≤3

98 (77.8)

108 (85.7)

>3

28 (22.2)

18 (14.3)

pT分期

0.141

3

75 (59.5)

91 (72.2)

4a

33 (26.2)

18 (14.3)

4b

18 (14.3)

17 (13.5)

pN分期

0.460

pN0~N1

100 (79.4)

102 (81.0)

pN2

26 (20.6)

24 (19.0)

原发部位

0.165

右半结肠

38 (30.2)

36 (28.6)

左半结肠

20 (15.9)

13 (10.3)

乙状结肠

44 (34.9)

44 (34.9)

直肠

24 (19.0)

33 (26.2)

病理分型

0.201

腺癌

98 (77.8)

106 (84.1)

粘液腺癌/印戒细胞癌

28 (22.2)

20 (15.9)

分化程度

0.192

低分化

36 (28.6)

27 (21.4)

中/高分化

90 (71.4)

99 (78.6)

神经侵犯

0.450

66 (52.4)

72 (57.1)

60 (47.6)

54 (42.9)

血管侵犯

0.430

47 (37.3)

41 (32.5)

79 (62.7)

85 (67.5)

术后住院时间

6.60 ± 1.669

6.67 ± 1.828

0.946

Table 3. Comparison of postoperative complications [n (%)]

3. 两组患者术后并发症[n (%)]

并发症

HIPEC(n = 126)

对照组(n = 126)

P

贫血

22 (17.5)

24 (19.0)

0.744

低白蛋白血症

39 (31.0)

21 (16.7)

0.043

骨髓抑制

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

0.316

切口相关并发症

4 (3.2)

5 (4.0)

0.734

腹腔感染

0 (0.0)

1 (0.8)

0.316

肺部感染

5 (4.0)

6 (4.8)

0.758

术后出血

1 (0.8)

1 (0.8)

1.000

胃排空障碍

2 (1.6)

3 (2.4)

0.313

吻合口瘘

1 (0.8)

3 (2.4)

0.701

肠梗阻

3 (2.4)

4 (3.2)

0.408

电解质紊乱

2 (1.6)

4 (3.2)

0.651

具有统计学意义(P = 0.043),其余不良事件的发生率没有显著差异。

3.3. 生存结局

经倾向性评分匹配后,HIPEC组与对照组术后OS见图1,Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示HIPEC组OS为(36.25 ± 0.780)个月;对照组为(32.97 ± 1.065)个月,两组3年总生存率(83.3% vs. 73.8%)差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.044)。HIPEC组3年无进展生存率为85.7%,对照组为75.4%,组间差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.027) (图2)。

3.4. 预后的分层分析

本研究进一步开展复发相关风险因素的单变量与多变量回归分析(详见表4表5)。通过单因素和多因素COX回归分析结果显示,血管侵犯、pT分期以及预防性HIPEC治疗是影响患者术后DFS的独立

Figure 1. Comparison of survival curves of overall survival rate

1. 两组总生存率的生存曲线比较

Figure 2. Comparison of survival curves of disease-free survival rate

2. 两组无复发生存率的生存曲线比较

Table 4. Univariate analysis of the risk factors for recurrence

4. 两组患者术后PFS的单因素COX回归分析

因素

HR

95% CI

P

性别

1.018

0.573~1.809

0.950

年龄

0.966

0.551~1.693

0.903

NRS2002

1.525

0.820~2.834

0.182

病理分型

1.630

0.864~3.073

0.131

分化程度

1.199

0.645~2.229

0.566

血管侵犯

1.909

1.089~3.345

0.024

pT分期

2.207

1.260~3.865

0.006

pN分期

1.776

0.955~3.301

0.069

是否行HIPEC

0.527

0.295~0.9442

0.031

Table 5. Multivariate analysis of the risk factors for recurrence

5. 两组患者术后PFS的多因素COX回归分析

因素

HR

95% CI

P

血管侵犯

1.893

1.080~3.318

0.026

pT分期

2.439

1.385~4.295

0.002

是否行HIPEC

0.465

0.258~0.835

0.010

危险因素,血管侵犯(HR = 1.893, 95% CI 1.080~3.318, P = 0.026)与pT分期(HR = 2.439, 95% CI 1.385~4.295, P = 0.002)与复发风险显著相关。而预防性HIPEC可降低术后复发风险(HR = 0.465, 95% CI 0.258~0.835, P = 0.010)。

4. 讨论

结直肠癌(CRC)伴腹膜转移(PM)患者的无进展生存期(PFS)与总生存期(OS)普遍短于无腹膜受累患者[5],此类转移通常被视作终末期疾病,目前以姑息性全身治疗为主,但患者预后极差——其OS (16.3个月[95% CI 13.5~18.8])较肝转移(19.1个月[95% CI 18.3~19.8])或肺转移(24.6个月[95% CI 22.7~26.4])患者显著缩短[19] [20]。既往研究表明,肿瘤细胞减灭术(CRS)联合腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)治疗CRC腹膜转移患者疗效显著,可使中位生存期延长至41个月以上[5] [7]-[10],但术后严重并发症(3/4级)发生率约34%,30天死亡率达4% [15] [21],对患者生存质量及长期预后产生负面影响。

本研究发现进展期结直肠癌患者的复发转移与是否接受预防性腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)存在相关性。多因素分析证实,预防性HIPEC治疗是进展期结直肠癌患者无病生存期(DFS)的独立预测因子。研究数据表明,进展期患者接受预防性HIPEC治疗可改善DFS并降低腹膜转移风险。值得关注的是,HIPECT4研究[16]的部分结果与本结论形成印证:基于丝裂霉素C的HIPEC联合cT4期肿瘤根治性切除可提高局部区域控制率。同时,本试验HIPEC组仅0.8%患者发生吻合口瘘,未出现其他严重并发症,这与PROPHYLOCHIP研究[12]形成鲜明对比——后者二次探查手术组41%患者发生3/4级严重并发症,显著影响生存质量。

本研究进一步分析接受手术的患者预后,结果显示,HIPEC组术后腹膜转移率为4.7%,显著低于对照组的9.5%,因研究中所有患者均行腹腔镜下根治手术治疗,故该结果证实了腹腔镜手术联合预防性HIPEC治疗进展期结直肠癌具有可行性,且未因气腹效应增加腹膜种植扩散风险。Sugarbaker教授[22]的回顾性研究表明,接受腹腔镜或机器人结肠切除术的患者中,13例出现trocar孔转移,其中85%为T3/T4晚期病变。Hiroshi Nagata团队[23]发现,进展期结肠癌患者行腹腔镜切除术(LC)较开放手术(OC)具有更高腹膜转移风险,但针对进展期患者的研究显示LC与OC组间差异无统计学意义。值得注意的是,多项研究[24] [25]表明相较于开放手术,腹腔镜与机器人辅助手术治疗进展期肿瘤在肿瘤学结局与生存获益方面更具优势。因此,微创手术在进展期结直肠癌治疗中的价值仍需大规模前瞻性研究深入探讨。

患者筛选是影响HIPEC预防腹膜转移(PC)疗效的关键因素。针对进展期结直肠癌患者,D. Hompes团队[26]的研究显示II-III期患者术后3年PC发生率为13.2%,其中pT4亚组高达20%~36.7%。即使接受根治性手术联合规范辅助化疗,pT4期结直肠癌患者的3年无病生存率(DFS)仅为58%~61% [27],显著低于T1~T3期患者。一项回顾性对照研究[28]表明,在具有腹膜转移高危因素(T3/4期、黏液腺癌/印戒细胞癌)的结直肠癌患者中,接受手术联合HIPEC治疗的腹膜转移风险为4%,而未行HIPEC的对照组风险达28%。这提示精准筛选患者群体有助于提升HIPEC预防效能。前期研究[29]证实T分期是影响局部进展期胃癌患者接受预防性HIPEC预后的重要因素,然而目前鲜有研究系统阐明T分期与肿瘤负荷对结直肠癌HIPEC应用的指导价值。

本研究表明,预防性腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)可改善进展期结直肠癌患者的预后,且腹腔镜手术联合HIPEC治疗未增加腹膜转移风险,安全性可控。但本研究存在以下局限性:首先,作为非随机对照研究,患者选择偏倚可能影响结果准确性,尽管已采用倾向性评分匹配(PSM)降低混杂因素干扰;其次,HIPEC实施时机(术中或术后2天)与次数(1次或2次)的选择缺乏统一标准;再者,目前腹膜转移早期诊断仍依赖影像学检查,尚无法通过诊断性腹腔镜手术实现精准评估。未来需开展大规模前瞻性随机对照试验,以验证预防性HIPEC在高危结直肠癌患者中的确切疗效。

综合研究证据表明,血管侵犯和pT4分期是进展期结直肠癌患者肿瘤复发的重要危险因素,预防性腹腔热灌注化疗(HIPEC)可以有效降低发生腹膜转移的风险并显著改善了OS和DFS。同时预防性HIPEC并未显著增加术后并发症的发生率。我们期待未来可以出现更多的相关研究,明确预防性HIPEC的最佳适应症及筛选标准,从而为患者带来更好的生存获益。

NOTES

*共同第一作者。

#通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Wagle, N.S. and Jemal, A. (2023) Cancer Statistics, 2023. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 73, 17-48.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763
[2] (2023) Chinese Protocol of Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer (2023 Edition). Chinese Journal of Surgery, 61, 617-644.
[3] Jayne, D.G., Fook, S., Loi, C. and Seow-Choen, F. (2002) Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Colorectal Cancer. British Journal of Surgery, 89, 1545-1550.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02274.x
[4] Kerscher, A.G., Chua, T.C., Gasser, M., Maeder, U., Kunzmann, V., Isbert, C., et al. (2013) Impact of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis in the Disease History of Colorectal Cancer Management: A Longitudinal Experience of 2406 Patients over Two Decades. British Journal of Cancer, 108, 1432-1439.
https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.82
[5] Franko, J., Shi, Q., Meyers, J.P., Maughan, T.S., Adams, R.A., Seymour, M.T., et al. (2016) Prognosis of Patients with Peritoneal Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Given Systemic Therapy: An Analysis of Individual Patient Data from Prospective Randomised Trials from the Analysis and Research in Cancers of the Digestive System (ARCAD) Database. The Lancet Oncology, 17, 1709-1719.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30500-9
[6] Elias, D., Honoré, C., Dumont, F., Ducreux, M., Boige, V., Malka, D., et al. (2011) Results of Systematic Second-Look Surgery Plus HIPEC in Asymptomatic Patients Presenting a High Risk of Developing Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis. Annals of Surgery, 254, 289-293.
https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31822638f6
[7] Elias, D., Lefevre, J.H., Chevalier, J., Brouquet, A., Marchal, F., Classe, J., et al. (2009) Complete Cytoreductive Surgery plus Intraperitoneal Chemohyperthermia with Oxaliplatin for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Colorectal Origin. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27, 681-685.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.19.7160
[8] Quénet, F., Elias, D., Roca, L., Goéré, D., Ghouti, L., Pocard, M., et al. (2021) Cytoreductive Surgery plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy versus Cytoreductive Surgery Alone for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases (PRODIGE 7): A Multicentre, Randomised, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 22, 256-266.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30599-4
[9] Verwaal, V.J., Bruin, S., Boot, H., van Slooten, G. and van Tinteren, H. (2008) 8-Year Follow-Up of Randomized Trial: Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy versus Systemic Chemotherapy in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 15, 2426-2432.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9966-2
[10] Larentzakis, A., O'Dwyer, S.T., Becker, J., Shuweihdi, F., Aziz, O., Selvasekar, C.R., et al. (2019) Referral Pathways and Outcome of Patients with Colorectal Peritoneal Metastasis (CRPM). European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 45, 2310-2315.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.008
[11] Klaver, C.E.L., Wisselink, D.D., Punt, C.J.A., Snaebjornsson, P., Crezee, J., Aalbers, A.G.J., et al. (2019) Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): A Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomised Trial. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 4, 761-770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30239-0
[12] Goéré, D., Glehen, O., Quenet, F., Guilloit, J., Bereder, J., Lorimier, G., et al. (2020) Second-Look Surgery plus Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy versus Surveillance in Patients at High Risk of Developing Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases (PROPHYLOCHIP-PRODIGE 15): A Randomised, Phase 3 Study. The Lancet Oncology, 21, 1147-1154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30322-3
[13] Goéré, D., Souadka, A., Faron, M., Cloutier, A.S., Viana, B., Honoré, C., et al. (2015) Extent of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Attempt to Define a Threshold above Which HIPEC Does Not Offer Survival Benefit: A Comparative Study. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 22, 2958-2964.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4387-5
[14] Elias, D., Gilly, F., Boutitie, F., Quenet, F., Bereder, J., Mansvelt, B., et al. (2010) Peritoneal Colorectal Carcinomatosis Treated with Surgery and Perioperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: Retrospective Analysis of 523 Patients from a Multicentric French Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 63-68.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.23.9285
[15] Kuijpers, A.M.J., Mirck, B., Aalbers, A.G.J., Nienhuijs, S.W., de Hingh, I.H.J.T., Wiezer, M.J., et al. (2013) Cytoreduction and HIPEC in the Netherlands: Nationwide Long-Term Outcome Following the Dutch Protocol. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 20, 4224-4230.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3145-9
[16] Arjona-Sánchez, A. (2023) Efficacy, Safety, and Analysis Issues in a Study of Intraoperative Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Colon Cancer—Reply. JAMA Surgery, 158, 1358.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.3486
[17] Marin, D., Catalano, C., Baski, M., Di Martino, M., Geiger, D., Di Giorgio, A., et al. (2009) 64-Section Multi-Detector Row CT in the Preoperative Diagnosis of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Correlation with Histopathological Findings. Abdominal Imaging, 35, 694-700.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9464-9
[18] Amin, M.B., Greene, F.L., Edge, S.B., Compton, C.C., Gershenwald, J.E., Brookland, R.K., et al. (2017) The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to Build a Bridge from a Population‐Based to a More “Personalized” Approach to Cancer Staging. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 67, 93-99.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21388
[19] Benson, A.B., Venook, A.P., Adam, M., et al. (2024) Colon Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 22, e240029.
[20] Benson, A.B., Venook, A.P., Al-Hawary, M.M., Azad, N., Chen, Y., Ciombor, K.K., et al. (2022) Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 20, 1139-1167.
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2022.0051
[21] Glehen, O., Gilly, F.N., Boutitie, F., Bereder, J.M., Quenet, F., Sideris, L., et al. (2010) Toward Curative Treatment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Nonovarian Origin by Cytoreductive Surgery Combined with Perioperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Multi-Institutional Study of 1,290 Patients. Cancer, 116, 5608-5618.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25356
[22] Kwong, M.L.M., Sampah, M.E.S., Bello, B.L. and Sugarbaker, P.H. (2019) Port Site Metastases after Minimally Invasive Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 13 Patients. Surgical Oncology, 29, 20-24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.02.008
[23] Nagata, H., Kawai, K., Oba, K., Nozawa, H., Yamauchi, S., Sugihara, K., et al. (2022) Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Risk Factor for Postoperative Peritoneal Metastasis. Clinical Colorectal Cancer, 21, e205-e212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2022.05.003
[24] Parascandola, S.A., Horsey, M.L., Hota, S., Sparks, A.D., Tampo, M.M.T., Kim, G., et al. (2020) Surgical Resection of T4 Colon Cancers: An NCDB Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 15, 701-710.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01166-4
[25] Petrucciani, N., Martínez-Pérez, A., Bianchi, G., Memeo, R., Brunetti, F. and de’Angelis, N. (2018) The Use of Laparoscopy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Minerva Surgery, 73, 77-92.
https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4733.17.07568-x
[26] Hompes, D., Tiek, J., Wolthuis, A., Fieuws, S., Penninckx, F., Van Cutsem, E., et al. (2012) HIPEC in T4a Colon Cancer: A Defendable Treatment to Improve Oncologic Outcome? Annals of Oncology, 23, 3123-3129.
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds173
[27] Grothey, A., Sobrero, A.F., Shields, A.F., Yoshino, T., Paul, J., Taieb, J., et al. (2018) Duration of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 378, 1177-1188.
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1713709
[28] Sammartino, P., Sibio, S., Biacchi, D., Cardi, M., Mingazzini, P., Rosati, M.S., et al. (2014) Long-Term Results after Proactive Management for Locoregional Control in Patients with Colonic Cancer at High Risk of Peritoneal Metastases. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 29, 1081-1089.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1929-4
[29] Fan, B., Bu, Z., Zhang, J., Zong, X., Ji, X., Fu, T., et al. (2021) Phase II Trial of Prophylactic Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer after Curative Surgery. BMC Cancer, 21, Article No. 216.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-07925-2