Evidence Hub

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis: A multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study

Zi-Ying Lei, Jia-Hong Wang, Zhi Li, Bao-Zhong Li, Jia-Li Luo, Xue-Jun Wang, Jin Wang, Ming-Chen Ba et al.

Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2020

663 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

Objective Systemic chemotherapy has limited efficacy in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) in gastric cancer (GC). Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has shown promising outcomes but remains controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HIPEC without CRS in GC patients with PM. Methods This retrospective propensity score-matched multicenter cohort study included GC patients with PM treated with either chemotherapy alone (Cx group) or with HIPEC combined with chemotherapy (HIPEC-Cx group) in four Chinese high-volume gastric medical centers between 2010 and 2017. The primary outcomes were median survival time (MST) and 3-year overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching was performed to compensate for controlling potential confounding effects and selection bias. Results Of 663 eligible patients, 498 were matched. The MST in the Cx and HIPEC-Cx groups was 10.8 and 15.9 months, respectively [hazard ratio (HR)=0.71, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.58−0.88; P=0.002]. The 3-year OS rate was 10.1% (95% CI, 5.4%−14.8%) and 18.4% (95% CI, 12.3%−24.5%) in the Cx and HIPEC-Cx groups, respectively (P=0.017). The complication rates were comparable. The time to first flatus and length of hospital stay for patients undergoing HIPEC combined with chemotherapy was longer than that of chemotherapy alone (4.6±2.4 dvs. 2.7±1.8 d, P<0.001; 14.2±5.8 dvs. 11.4±7.7 d, P<0.001),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 663 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free