Introduction: Gastric cancer is the fourth/fifth most common malignancy and the second/third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with only a quarter of patients achieving a 5-year survival rate. The treatment of gastric cancer, especially if advanced, often has poor results. It has been estimated that 15% - 50% or more of patients have peritoneal disease upon surgical exploration. Until the early 1990s, peritoneal metastasis was considered as terminal stage of the disease; in the late 1990s, selected patients with peritoneal metastasis were restaged and recategorized as local disease limited to the peritoneal cavity. Over the past two decades, the treatment of peritoneal involvement has transformed, and cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal therapy have drastically altered the natural course of several malignancies. Areas covered: We performed a review of studies avaiable on PubMed from January 1, 2014 to July 31, 2019 and the analysis of their reference citations. We describe the most current intraperitoneal chemotherapy opportunities in the treatment of gastric cancer: hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (LHIPEC), neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), LHIPEC + NIPS, extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL), early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Expert opinion: Comprehensive treatment consisting of CRS combined with perioperative intraperitoneal/systemic chemotherapy can, today, be considered an effective strategy to improve the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis.

The use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric malignancies

Macrì, Antonio
Primo
;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Introduction: Gastric cancer is the fourth/fifth most common malignancy and the second/third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with only a quarter of patients achieving a 5-year survival rate. The treatment of gastric cancer, especially if advanced, often has poor results. It has been estimated that 15% - 50% or more of patients have peritoneal disease upon surgical exploration. Until the early 1990s, peritoneal metastasis was considered as terminal stage of the disease; in the late 1990s, selected patients with peritoneal metastasis were restaged and recategorized as local disease limited to the peritoneal cavity. Over the past two decades, the treatment of peritoneal involvement has transformed, and cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal therapy have drastically altered the natural course of several malignancies. Areas covered: We performed a review of studies avaiable on PubMed from January 1, 2014 to July 31, 2019 and the analysis of their reference citations. We describe the most current intraperitoneal chemotherapy opportunities in the treatment of gastric cancer: hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (LHIPEC), neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), LHIPEC + NIPS, extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL), early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Expert opinion: Comprehensive treatment consisting of CRS combined with perioperative intraperitoneal/systemic chemotherapy can, today, be considered an effective strategy to improve the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis.
2019
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
3144710.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 6.18 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
6.18 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3144710
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 24
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact