Effect of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy on Cytoreductive Surgery in Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Peritoneal Metastases: The Phase III GASTRIPEC-I Trial

Beate Rau(Freie Universität Berlin), Hauke Lang(Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz), Alfred Koenigsrainer(Universitätsklinikum Tübingen), Ines Gockel(University Hospital Leipzig), Horst-Guenter Rau(Helios Amper-Klinikum Dachau), Hendrik Seeliger(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), C. Lerchenmueller(Praxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie), Daniel Reim(TUM Klinikum), Roger Wahba(University of Cologne), Martin K. Angele, Steffen Heeg(University of Freiburg), Tobias Keck(University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein), Arved Weimann(Klinikum St. Georg), Stefan A. Topp(St. Bonifatius Hospital), Pompiliu Piso(Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder), Andreas Brandl(Freie Universität Berlin), Silke Schuele(Jena University Hospital), Peter Jo(Universitätsmedizin Göttingen), Johann Pratschke(Freie Universität Berlin), Sandra Wegel(Freie Universität Berlin), Alexander Rehders(Düsseldorf University Hospital), Nicolas Moosmann(Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder), Jochen Gaedcke(Universitätsmedizin Göttingen), Volker Heinemann(LMU Klinikum), Evelyn Trips(University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus), Markus Loeffler(Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie), Peter M. Schlag(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Peter Thuss‐Patience(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin)
Journal of Clinical Oncology
October 31, 2023
Cited by 126Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

PURPOSE In patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), chemotherapy is the treatment of choice. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are still being debated. This randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter phase III trial (EudraCT 2006-006088-22; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02158988 ) explored the impact on overall survival (OS) of HIPEC after CRS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult patients with GC and histologically proven PM were randomly assigned (1:1) to perioperative chemotherapy and CRS alone (CRS-A) or CRS plus HIPEC (CRS + H). HIPEC comprised mitomycin C 15 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 in 5 L of saline perfused for 60 minutes at 42°C. The primary end point was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), other distant metastasis-free survival (MFS), and safety. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS Between March 2014 and June 2018, 105 patients were randomly assigned (53 patients to CRS-A and 52 patients to CRS + H). The trial stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment. In 55 patients, treatment stopped before CRS mainly due to disease progression/death. Median OS was the same for both groups (CRS + H, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 8.7 to 17.7] months v CRS-A, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 7.0 to 19.4] months; P = .1647). The PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 7.0) in the CRS-A group and 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.5; P = .047) in the CRS + H group. The CRS + H group showed better MFS (10.2 months [95% CI, 7.7 to 14.7] v CRS-A, 9.2 months [95% CI, 6.8 to 11.5]; P = .0286). The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups (CRS-A, 38.1% v CRS + H, 43.6%; P = .79). CONCLUSION This study showed no OS difference between CRS + H and CRS-A. PFS and MFS were significantly better in the CRS + H group, which needs further exploration. HIPEC did not increase AEs.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis