Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Systematic Review of Current and Emerging Trends in Clinical and Translational Research

Koumpa, Foteini Stefania; Xylas, Diamantis; Konopka, Maciej; Galea, Dieter; Veselkov, Kirill; Antoniou, Anthony; Mehta, Akash; Mirnezami, Reza

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5180895

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 | Article ID 5180895 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5180895

Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Systematic Review of Current and Emerging Trends in Clinical and Translational Research

Foteini Stefania Koumpa,¹Diamantis Xylas,²Maciej Konopka,³Dieter Galea,⁴Kirill Veselkov,⁴Anthony Antoniou,⁵Akash Mehta,⁵and Reza Mirnezami^6,7

Academic Editor: Nicola Silvestris

Received30 Oct 2018

Accepted12 Feb 2019

Published01 Apr 2019

Abstract

Colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) are associated with abbreviated survival and significantly impaired quality of life. In patients with CPM, radical multimodality treatment consisting of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has demonstrated oncological superiority over systemic chemotherapy alone. In highly selected patients undergoing CRS + HIPEC, overall survival of over 60% has been reported in some series. These are patients in whom the disease burden is limited and where the diagnosis is made at an early stage in the disease course. Early diagnosis and a deeper understanding of the biological mechanisms that regulate CPM are critical to refining patient selection for radical treatment, personalising therapeutic approaches, enhancing prognostication, and ultimately improving long-term survivorship. In the present study, we outline three broad themes which represent critical future research targets in CPM: (1) enhanced radiological strategies for early detection and staging; (2) identification and validation of translational biomarkers for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic deployment; and (3) development of optimized approaches for surgical cytoreduction as well as more precise strategies for intraperitoneal drug selection and delivery. Herein, we provide a contemporary narrative review of the state of the art in these three areas. A systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines was undertaken on all English language studies published between 2007 and 2017. In vitro and animal model studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the sections pertaining to biomarkers and therapeutic optimisation, as these areas of research currently remain in the early stages of development. Acquired data were then divided into hierarchical thematic categories (imaging modalities, translational biomarkers (diagnostic/prognostic/therapeutic), and delivery techniques) and subcategories. An interactive sunburst figure is provided for intuitive interrogation of the CPM research landscape.

1. Introduction

Colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) are identified in 5-10% of patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection, and metachronous CPM occur in an estimated 20-50% of patients during follow-up [1–3]. Peritoneal dissemination is associated with abbreviated survival and significantly impaired quality of life. Survival for patients with CPM ranges from 5 months in untreated cases to an estimated 12-18 months with modern systemic chemotherapy (including biologicals) [1–6]. Several recent studies have shown substantially shorter survival with CPM as compared with nonperitoneal colorectal metastases [7]; this is likely owing to biological and histological differences as well as the relative chemoimpenetrability of the peritoneal cavity compared with visceral metastatic sites [7]. The diagnosis of CPM is often made at an advanced stage due to the lack of specific symptoms of peritoneal involvement and the low sensitivity of current imaging techniques. In select cases, the diagnosis of CPM is established at an earlier stage where multimodality treatment in the form of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) can be considered. The combination of CRS and HIPEC was popularized by Sugarbaker et al. in the early 1990s [8], and the oncological superiority of this approach over systemic chemotherapy in isolation has been confirmed by several recent phase II and III clinical trials [9].

Data synthesized from multicentre analyses report median overall survival rates of up to 63% in highly selected patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC [5, 10–13]. Concurrently, the reported 1-year mortality rate and recurrence rate after CRS and HIPEC are estimated to be 13% and 35%, respectively [14]. Several points of discussion emerge from these data; firstly, increased survival is possible in a select group of patients with CPM, and so more accurate modalities are needed with which to identify these patients early on in the disease course; secondly, up to one third of patients offered CRS and HIPEC relapse within 12 months, and therefore, more robust methods for identifying these patients prior to radical treatment should be developed—either with a view to avoiding radical surgery altogether or developing novel ways of modifying the risk of relapse/enhancing the therapeutic response. Beyond these aspects, further improvements in survival for patients with CPM will require a deeper understanding of the molecular processes that drive peritoneal spread and those that dictate peritoneal chemosensitivity. In addition, the techniques of CRS and HIPEC, including approaches to drug selection and drug delivery, have undergone only superficial modification since the original description proposed by Sugarbaker. Extrapolating further from these points, three definable areas emerge as critical future research targets in CPM: (1) enhanced strategies for early detection; (2) identification and validation of translational biomarkers for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic utility in CPM; and (3) development of optimized approaches for surgical treatment as well as more precise strategies for intraperitoneal drug selection and delivery. In the present article, we provide a contemporary narrative review of the state of the art in these three areas.

2. Methods

2.1. Identification of Studies

An electronic literature search was carried out using MEDLINE (November 2007 to November 2017), EMBASE (November 2007 to November 2017), CINAHL (November 2007 to November 2017), and the Cochrane Library databases. The following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and keywords were used: “colorectal,” “peritoneal,” “metastases,” “cytoreductive surgery,” “HIPEC,” and “intra-peritoneal chemotherapy.” The “related articles” function was used to broaden the search, and all abstracts, studies, and citations retrieved were scanned for subject relevance. The latest date of this search was November 2017. All potentially relevant publications were retrieved in full text and formally evaluated for study inclusion. Reference lists of all relevant publications were hand-searched for additional studies missed by the search strategy, and this method of cross-referencing was continued until no further relevant publications were identified.

2.2. Study Inclusion Criteria and Data Extraction

Study methodology was carried out in accordance with the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) recommendations for improving the standard of systematic reviews [15]. Studies that met the following predefined criteria were included in the review process: Language: only English language publications were included. Patient population: studies had to report outcome data specifically on the use/investigation of one or more of the following: (i) radiological/imaging approaches for diagnosis and staging of CPM; (ii) novel techniques for treatment of CPM including pharmacological and/or surgical approaches—novelty here was defined as any therapeutic approach described and evaluated beyond conventional CRS + HIPEC (defined as complete macroscopic resection of parietal and visceral peritoneal carcinomatosis combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy); and (iii) biomarkers for CPM diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. Studies reporting on in vitro or animal model data were considered eligible for inclusion for sections pertaining to novel technical approaches, translational biomarkers, and therapeutic optimisation. For imaging studies, included studies had to provide data on modality-specific sensitivity, specificity, or other metric representative of accuracy of the radiological technique employed. In the event that studies were found to provide data deemed admissible across more than one of these domains (e.g., a study providing data on outcomes for a radiological technique as well as data on therapeutic approach and/or biomarkers), then this data would be included separately under the relevant subheadings in the review process and results. Studies reporting data for CPM as well as peritoneal metastases of other origin(s) were excluded unless specific outcome data pertaining to CPM was disclosed by the authors. Type of intraperitoneal chemotherapy: studies reporting on all established and experimental methods of intraperitoneal chemotherapy were included. Previous treatment: studies reporting on previously treated patients with CPM were included. Where multiple studies describing the same patient population were identified, the most recent publication was used unless additional information was imparted by earlier work. In cases of doubt, authors were contacted for further information to ensure accuracy or for additional data. Figure 1 depicts the screening process for selection of potentially relevant studies. Two reviewers (SK and DX) independently extracted the following data from all eligible studies according to a predetermined protocol: first author, year of publication, study location, study type, study time frame, population characteristics, number of subjects, and biomarker investigated (where applicable); radiological/nonradiological technique for detection/surveillance (where applicable); intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration technique used (where applicable); and key findings.

2.3. Data Analysis and Data Representation

Data acquired via the outlined search strategy was divided into hierarchical thematic categories (imaging modalities, translational biomarkers (diagnostic/prognostic/therapeutic), and delivery techniques) and subcategories. To create a visually intuitive figure for assessment of the CPM research landscape, the number of publications within a given hierarchical category and subcategories has been displayed in the form of a sunburst visualization figure (Figure 2). In this plot, the “upper-level” broad hierarchical categories (imaging/biomarkers/delivery techniques) are represented by the inner figure arches that subsequently divide into more specific subcategories. The circumference of each arch indicates the proportion of publications belonging to a given category/subcategory relative to the rest of the publications in the same hierarchical level. The resulting plot was generated using the D3 JavaScript library.

3. Results

3.1. Imaging

3.1.1. Radiological Diagnosis and Staging of CPM

Predefined search criteria identified 19 studies evaluating different radiological modalities for detection and staging of CPM (Table 1) [16–34]. Six studies assessed the utility of computed tomography (CT) imaging in this context [19, 23, 31–34] with reported sensitivity and specificity ranging from 11-96% and 49-100%, respectively. The considerable variability in sensitivity with CT has been ascribed to between-study heterogeneity in terms of anatomical site of lesion(s) detected and lesion size [19, 22, 31, 32]. Studies where per-region analysis was performed indicate that areas where CT achieves highest sensitivity are the epigastrium (67-98%) [19, 32], the left upper quadrant (40-86%) [19, 32], and the pelvis (60-73%) [19, 32]. In contrast, regions where CT achieves the lowest sensitivity for lesion detection on CT were found to be the small bowel (8-71%) [19, 23, 32] and adjacent to the ligament of Treitz (20%) [23]. Subanalysis based on lesion size demonstrates a positive correlation between sensitivity of CT for lesion detection and lesion size, with sensitivity ranging from 11 to 70% for lesions under 0.5 cm in size, compared with 90-94% for lesions greater than 3 cm [19, 23, 31]. All three studies [19, 23, 31] used a similar oral and intravenous contrast protocol; however, differences in CT slice thickness, lesion size cut-off values, and lesion site(s) are likely to be responsible for the wide range in sensitivity (11-70% in the case of lesions under 0.5 cm).

In terms of estimation of CPM burden, Koh et al. found that the CT-defined peritoneal carcinomatosis index (CT-PCI) significantly underestimated the disease extent compared to surgical PCI (S-PCI; ) [19]. However, correlation analysis carried out in two other studies showed a favourable correlation between CT-PCI and S-PCI scores [31, 33]. A recent meta-analysis by Laghi et al. also reported a good correlation between CT-PCI and S-PCI, though the authors did note the potential for CT to underestimate PCI by 12-33% [25]. Several authors have shown that underestimation of PCI with CT is diminished somewhat when a PCI cut-off of 20 is employed [32, 33].

Four [16–18, 22] studies provided data on PET/CT for assessment of CPM. Liberale et al. [22] reported sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 88%, respectively, for detection of CPM using PET/CT. Four studies compared PET/CT to CT [20, 24, 28, 30] with two reporting significantly lower sensitivity with PET/CT compared to CT (82% vs. 91% [24]; 57% vs. 82% [30]). Conversely, a retrospective evaluation of 23 patients with CPM by Bamba et al. [20] demonstrated markedly improved detection accuracy with PET/CT compared to conventional CT (82.6 vs. 30% [20]). In terms of postsurgical surveillance of CPM, Choi et al. showed that PET/CT had higher sensitivity for detecting peritoneal recurrence compared to CT, both compared to histopathological confirmation (100% vs. 85.1%) [28]. In all of these studies, gold standards for confirming diagnosis of CPM and assessing PCI were defined as histological confirmation and surgical PCI estimation, respectively [16–18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30]. The wide variation in reported sensitivity and moreover the opposing findings reported by some authors regarding the role of PET is difficult to robustly account for. However, at least in part it is likely related to the fundamental fact that PET relies on changes in glucose metabolism, which can vary widely between tumours in a given study cohort; for example, mucinous and signet ring cell carcinomas will tend to exhibit relatively little ¹⁸F-FDG uptake compared to other histological subtypes.

No studies were identified reporting exclusively on MRI in CPM detection, though four [25–27, 29] were found that compared or combined MRI with alternative diagnostic imaging modalities. Brendle et al. [27] compared the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT, PET/MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI (MRI-DWI) and found that conventional MRI alone had inferior diagnostic accuracy compared to when combined with DWI or PET or when compared with CT (diagnostic accuracy of 46%, 47%, 57%, and 66%, respectively). It is interesting to note the very modest increment in diagnostic accuracy with MRI-DWI observed in this study, as there is growing interest in the role of this approach in peritoneal malignancy, which seems difficult to justify based on these findings. Two further studies compared the accuracy of MRI with PET/CT and conventional CT/multidetector CT (MDCT) [25, 26]. Satoh et al. [26] retrospectively evaluated imaging accuracy in patients with peritoneal metastases, of varying primary origins, including colorectal. The authors found that the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values of PET/CT was significantly better than those of MRI or MDCT. However, the meta-analysis performed by Laghi et al. [25], which represents the only pooled analysis of data, failed to show a significant overall difference between CT, MRI, and PET/CT. Nonetheless, the authors did note that when evaluating studies directly comparing CT to PET/CT, sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were higher than those of CT for detecting peritoneal metastasis (82% vs. 66% and 93% vs. 77%, respectively) [25]. It is likely that a combination of imaging approaches may offer the greatest diagnostic accuracy, and this was recently pointed out by Dohan et al. who found that the addition of MRI to CT for preoperative imaging led to a significant increase in diagnostic sensitivity (CT 54%, CT+MRI 81%; ) [29].

3.1.2. Intraoperative Imaging and Enhanced Laparoscopy

Staging laparoscopy plays an important role in CPM assessment as it allows direct visualization of the peritoneal surface, tissue biopsy, and PCI estimation. However, Thomassen et al., and a number of other authors, have suggested that open surgery yields significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared to laparoscopy for CPM [35]. In the present review, we identified 4 studies [22, 36–38] evaluating different techniques with which to enhance minimally invasive peritoneal lesion detection (Table 2). One study reported on the application of virtual chromoendoscopy using the Fuji Flexible spectral Imaging Color Enhancement (FICE) endoscopy system [38], and three studies described the use of fluorescence imaging approaches [36, 37, 39]. The FICE endoscopy system has ten different light wavelength patterns, or channels, which can be customised/reconfigured according to the intended application. In the study by Najah and colleagues [38], the use of the “Channel 2” FICE wavelength showed considerable superiority over standard laparoscopic visualization for detection of peritoneal nodules.

Fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green pigment and intraoperative infrared imaging (ICG-FI and NRIF) was described in 4 studies (Table 2) [36, 37, 39, 40]. Sensitivity for peritoneal lesion detection ranged from 72.4% to 96.9%, with reported specificity ranging from 60 to 100%. When compared with conventional visual inspection of the peritoneal surface, ICG-FI displayed superior diagnostic performance () and resulted in a higher median detected PCI score (10 vs. 7; ) [37]. However, Liberale et al. [39] importantly noted that this modality was ineffective for detecting mucinous lesions. One small study including 7 human participants [40] trialled a molecular fluorescent agent linked to a tumour target (bevacizumab conjugated to the near-infrared fluorescent dye IRDye 800CW that targets tumour VEGF-A) with reported sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 54%, respectively.

3.2. Delivery Techniques

Thirty-two studies were identified evaluating different techniques for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in CPM (Table 3) [41–72]. Sixteen of those studies looked at drug delivery techniques [41, 42, 44–46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58–60, 62, 67, 68], and 16 looked at novel pharmacological approaches for drug conveyance and therapeutic enhancement [43, 47, 48, 50, 53, 56, 57, 61, 63–66, 69].

3.2.1. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Nine studies were identified that evaluated HIPEC related morbidity, mortality, drug penetration, and distribution [46, 51, 52, 55, 59, 60, 62, 67, 68]. Two main HIPEC techniques are employed: the open abdomen (Coliseum) technique and the closed abdomen technique. One study provided data on the open technique [62], 3 reported modifications to the open technique [55, 60, 68], 3 compared the open to the closed approach [46, 52, 59], and 1 reported on outcomes of the closed technique in combination with early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) [51]. Finally, 1 paper described a safe, low-cost delivery method using cardiac bypass pumps as an alternative to the conventional HIPEC instillation circuit [67].

Morbidity and mortality for the open technique ranged from 43.5 to 55% and from 0 to 5.1%, respectively [52, 59, 62]. Spiliotis et al. demonstrated that a positive correlation between mortality and high PCI index, duration of surgery and blood loss, and morbidity was mainly due to pulmonary complications [62]. A number of studies have reported differences in morbidity and mortality with open versus closed delivery approaches [51, 52, 59], but these have not yielded conclusive results. The open technique has the advantage of achieving more even distribution of the chemoperfusate and additionally permits anastomosis of bowel after HIPEC delivery, mitigating the perceived risk this poses to anastomotic integrity. Disadvantages with the open approach include heat dissipation and the risk of personnel exposure to the chemotherapeutic agents. In contrast, the closed technique is associated with uneven drug distribution in the peritoneal cavity but eliminates surgical team cytotoxic drug exposure. The closed approach has also shown superior patient temperature and haemodynamic stability parameters compared with the open approach, perhaps making it a most appropriate choice for frail patients. Interestingly, Facy et al. looked at drug tissue penetration in open and closed techniques [46] and found drug penetration to be significantly higher in the open technique compared to the closed, both when using atmospheric and high intraabdominal pressures for the closed technique.

3.2.2. Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

PIPAC is performed using high CO₂ pressures (12 mmHg at 37^o) converting the intended drug, most commonly oxaliplatin, into an aerosol which is sprayed into the peritoneal cavity. Five studies reported data on PIPAC for CPM [41, 44, 49, 54, 58]. These studies present PIPAC results in the palliative setting, in patients with irresectable disease, extensive CPM, and/or those having previously undergone CRS and/or systemic chemotherapy, who were left with residual disease or developed disease recurrence at follow-up [41, 44, 49, 54, 58]. Treatment-associated morbidity ranged from 9.5% to 23%, the mortality from 0% to 6.8% [41, 44, 58]. Median survival post-PIPAC was 15.7 months [44]. PIPAC drug penetration and distribution was found to be 300 μm, mostly concentrated around the micropump, with low penetration in distant areas such as the stomach and subphrenic areas in a swine model [54]. Tumour response to PIPAC was insufficient when used without any additional chemotherapy regimes [58] but ranged from a PCI improvement of 50% to 88% when PIPAC was combined with systemic treatment [41, 44, 49, 58]. The toxicity of PIPAC was assessed by 2 papers and ranged from no renal or hepatic toxicity [58] to low toxicity in 42% of cases with good tumour response [44]. One study assessed the role of PIPAC in CPM for symptom management [41] where symptoms of pain, ascites, and bowel transit disorders resolved following three cycles of PIPAC in 63.3%, 60%, and 45.5%, respectively, with a 3-day median hospital stay.

3.2.3. Early Postoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (EPIC)

EPIC is administered post-CRS with 5 days of intraperitoneal drug infusion, commonly using mitomycin C and 5-FU. Two studies compared EPIC with HIPEC for CPM [42, 45]. In these studies, EPIC alone was not found to be superior to HIPEC with respect to mortality, morbidity, or cancer recurrence [45]. However, the HIPEC and EPIC combination was shown to achieve greater recurrence-free survival compared with HIPEC alone [42]. The results of the ongoing ICARUS multicentre study comparing outcomes with EPIC and HIPEC in terms of effectiveness and toxicity are eagerly awaited, and this represents the first RCT of its kind in this setting.

3.3. Novel Pharmacological Delivery Methods

Our literature review identified 16 studies describing novel pharmacological drug delivery techniques for intraperitoneal chemotherapy (Table 4). These studies can be divided into 3 subcategories: (i) linking drugs to hyaluronic acid (HA) bioconjugates [56, 61], (ii) drug delivery vessels [43, 47, 53, 57, 63], and (iii) hydrogels [48, 50, 64–66, 69]. No comparative study between delivery methods was identified in our literature search.

3.3.1. Linking Drugs to HA Bioconjugates

Two studies were identified describing the use of HA bioconjugates for enhanced IPEC delivery [56, 61]. Hyaluronic acid derivatives were used to increase tumour cell uptake of cytotoxic medication, shown to occur via CD44 receptor binding leading to endocytosis of the drug [56]. Linking the drug to HA led to greater tolerability and lower bone marrow toxicity compared to cytotoxic drug delivery in the free form [56, 61]. Furthermore, an HA-SN38 conjugate drug was shown to be more effective than the free drug by increasing tumour cell drug uptake and having 16 times greater antiproliferative activity in vitro and significantly smaller tumour burden and malignant ascites in vivo [61]. The authors suggest that the lower systemic toxicity of such formulations will allow their use in vulnerable patients and UGTA1 phenotype patients who are at high risk of bone marrow toxicity.

3.3.2. Drug Loading Vessels

Eight papers were identified exploring the use of drug-eluting beads (drug loading vessels that can prolong drug release) [53] and nanoparticles, nanoliposomes, microspheres, or micelles (which increase drug specificity by being internalized by tumour cells) [43, 47, 57, 63, 70–72]. Intraperitoneally placed doxorubicin and mitoxenone drug-eluting beads were shown to continuously release the drug in lower concentrations decreasing side effects and mortality [53] with a similar decline in tumour load compared to free drug. Similarly, drug-loaded microspheres were also shown to decrease tumour volume [47, 57]; doxorubicin microspheres (50-100 μm) were shown to significantly decrease tumour volume compared to blank microspheres and induce coagulative necrosis [57]. Docetaxel microspheres (45 μm) were also shown to significantly decrease CPM tissue Ki-67 markers and significantly increase median survival in animal models [47].

Nanoliposomes are self-assembling particles made of a lipid bilayer that encloses soluble drugs. Due to enhanced permeability and retention in tumour cells, nanoliposomes can achieve selective uptake by tumour cells, increasing antitumour efficacy whilst minimising collateral side effects [73]. In one study, it was found that drug delivery using IV 188Re-liposomes increased survival by 34% () and decreased tumour volume and ascites by 63.4% and 83.3%, respectively, at 7 days after treatment in mice () [70]. In 2007, a phase I study using PLC (doxorubicin encapsulated in liposomes) as part of the HIPEC regime in 29 patients found nanoliposomes to be well tolerated, resulting in a more favourable side effect profile and overall survival of 30.6 months [72].

Expansile nanoparticles (100 nm diameter) were also shown to significantly decrease tumour mass and disease severity score (DSS) compared to free drug and control, with no major systemic toxicities in a CPM mouse model [43]. Biodegradable micelles (25 nm diameter) were also identified as vessels for novel chemotherapeutic agents such as the antibacterial chetomin. Even when using this novel agent, drug micelle delivery significantly decreased tumour volume, tumour vessel length, and branching compared to the free drug in CPM [63]. The chetomin micelles were further used to create a hydrogel that significantly decreased tumour weight compared to micelles and free drug () in a CPM mouse model [63].

3.3.3. Linking Drug to Hydrogels

The potential of cytotoxic drugs imbedded in hydrogels was evaluated in six studies [48, 50, 64–66, 69]. All hydrogels used were mildly cytotoxic at very high concentrations but well tolerated otherwise in animal models. The hydrogels are combined with drug vessels making composite drug delivery systems. Two of the six studies used nanoparticles in hydrogel [48, 64], three used micelles in hydrogel [50, 65, 66], and one used biodegradable microspheres in hydrogel [69]. All hydrogel composites used were thermosensitive, enabling them to remain solid intraperitoneally and offer a slower release drug formulation [66]. They were found to significantly suppress cell growth in vitro [48, 64], increase tumour cell apoptosis [66], and decrease microvessel formation [66]. Four studies also showed that vessel and hydrogel composites significantly decreased tumour nodule weight and number [50, 65, 66, 69] compared with free drug delivery. In animal models, cancer-specific survival was shown to be significantly enhanced in the hydrogel group compared to the free intraperitoneal drug delivery [48, 50, 65, 66]. Furthermore, the combination of microspheres or micelles with a hydrogel was shown to be significantly superior in decreasing tumour weight and number compared to free drug and to the drug in the vessel [66, 69].

3.4. Biomarkers

Predefined search criteria identified 24 studies [74–97] evaluating the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of CPM (Table 5).

3.4.1. Diagnostic Biomarkers

Five studies [76, 83, 84, 89, 97] were identified assessing the value of CEA, CA125, and Ca19-9 as diagnostic biomarkers in CPM; evaluating their sensitivity and specificity for CPM diagnosis; and comparing them to conventional imaging.

Significantly higher levels of CA125 were detected in patients with CPM, with CA125 concentration positively correlating with CPM tumour volume [89]. Subanalysis based on primary lesion site showed that CA125 concentration differed amongst patients with CPM originating from left- versus right-sided colon primaries (). Interestingly, this study reported a similar trend for CEA, but only in female patients. In male patients, CEA levels increased with increasing stage of CRC according to UICC classification, but were not consistently raised in patients with isolated CPM. Huang et al. [89] found CA125 to have higher sensitivity in diagnosing CPM compared with CT imaging. This study again reported inferior diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity with CEA compared to CA125 [89]. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the study by Huang and colleagues is subject to several limitations. Firstly, they employed a CPM staging tool that is not widely used (PD score), and so the generalisability of the results is unclear. Secondly, the study lacks a gold standard on which to base diagnostic accuracy. They have compared CT with tumour marker profiling, and in the case of CPM, neither represent a valid benchmark.

Two studies [83, 97] were identified that evaluated the predictive value of CEA and Ca 19-9 (cut-off used 37.0 U/ml) in diagnosing synchronous peritoneal metastases in patients with CRC. Both demonstrated that elevated levels of Ca19-9 were significantly associated with the presence of CPM, whereas CEA did not retain its significant value in multivariate analysis. Lee et al. also found that intraperitoneal CEA levels were significantly correlated with recurrence and peritoneal metastasis, in patients with negative peritoneal cytology, allowing for a measurement of a marker that could aid in developing stratified follow-up regimens for early detection of CPM in high-risk patients [76].

3.4.2. Prognostic Biomarkers

Seven studies found CEA to be a prognostic marker of overall survival [76, 80, 81, 83, 87, 91, 92]. Cut-off thresholds for CEA showed marked variability between the different studies and ranged from to . Irrespective of these differences, all authors found that pre-op CEA levels greater than the assigned cut-off value were associated with poor prognosis, reduced overall survival (OS), and impaired disease-free survival.

Interestingly, Ozawa and colleagues [81] failed to demonstrate the prognostic value of CEA in multivariate analysis but found that preoperative CEA correlates with likelihood of complete cytoreduction (CR0).

The BRAF phenotype in association with CPM was evaluated by 3 studies [88, 90, 96]. Tumours with the BRAF mutation were more likely to present with peritoneal metastases and aggressive biology [98]. Sasaki et al. observed that BRAF V600E mutation was more prevalent in patients with CPM as compared to those without [90].

Bong et al. [91] and Ihemelandu et al. [95] evaluated the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and this marker was shown to be an independent prognostic factor of poor OS, in levels exceeding 200 and 300, respectively. Patients with a PLR of 150-300 had a median OS of 36 months, and those with a had an OS of 47 months. PLR was established to be a significant prognostic factor in predicting 5-year OS [72].

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) was found to be evaluated as a prognostic factor in 3 studies [87, 93, 94]. Chia et al. [87] showed that lower levels of intraperitoneal VEGF at the time of abdominal cavity exploration were associated with improved overall survival in patients with CPM. A similar finding was reported by de Cuba et al. [93] and Sluiter et al. [94] with both studies demonstrating a significant association between high tissue VEGF expression and reduced overall survival in CPM. Sluiter et al. [94] also identified epithelial and stromal VCAN expression as a potential marker of improved overall survival.

The latest study by Ubink et al. [99] showed the relationship between consensus molecular subtype (CMS) and occurrence of CPM. CMS4-positive tumours are more likely to present with peritoneal metastases. Furthermore, those cancers have been associated with a poorer response to anticancer drugs, such as oxaliplatin. However, to confirm its suspected resistance to oxaliplatin, further prospective studies should be conducted.

3.4.3. Therapeutic Biomarkers

Eight studies [74, 75, 78, 79, 86–88, 93] were identified evaluating biomarkers for therapeutic monitoring in CPM. Biomarkers evaluated were ERCC1, TS, VEGF, CTGF, and CRC gene expression.

ERCC1 and TS expression levels have shown some predictive relevance but no clear relationship with regards to response and resistance to 5FU and oxaliplatin containing therapeutic regimens [79]. One study showed in vitro chemosensitivity testing to be more effective in predicting clinical response to treatment than the aforementioned biomarkers [79]; however, the expression of these markers demonstrated a direct relationship with clinical response to 5FU and/or oxaliplatin-containing combinations.

Another study [86] demonstrated a significant correlation between high BRCA2 gene expression and BLM gene and protein expression with resistance to mitomycin C (MMC) therapy in peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Five studies [75, 78, 87, 88, 93] have proposed further research into targeted treatments that amplify or reduce biomarker expression or that intervene in pathways which have shown significant association with survival and response to treatment in peritoneal carcinomatosis. Varghese et al. [74] demonstrated distinct gene upregulation of IGF1, HIF1, TIMP2, mTOH, COH17, and MSLN in peritoneal metastasis compared to other metastatic sites, suggesting a role for these molecular targets in peritoneal dissemination of colorectal cancer and furthermore indicating a possible role for these targets in the development of peritoneal surface specific anticancer treatments.

Logan-Collins [75] et al. and de Cuba et al. [93] evaluated VEGF expression levels in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC and found that high VEGF expression was associated with poor overall survival following treatment, identifying VEGF as a promising treatment target and also a useful marker that could identify patients at risk of early treatment failure. Chia et al. [87] demonstrated that low preoperative intraperitoneal (IP) VEGF levels were associated with improved survival and suggest that bevacizumab, which selectively targets the VEGF receptor, could be selectively used in these patients to improve disease control.

Data in a study by Lin and colleagues [78] demonstrated that CTGF has a role in inhibiting colorectal cancer cell adhesion (a crucial step in peritoneal seeding), highlighting the potential to use CTGF for the development of targeted therapies that dampen cell adhesion and mitigate peritoneal seeding.

4. Discussion

Improving survival for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) will require advances in radiological assessment, identification and validation of translational biomarkers, and enhancements to surgical cytoreduction and intraperitoneal drug delivery. The aim of the present study was to provide a systematic overview of recent developments across these three broad research domains; acquired data have been integrated into a sunburst figure, offering a means of interactively evaluating the CPM research landscape. The data provided herein represent a streamlined overview of the available literature on CPM, and this is primarily due to strict methodological adherence to predefined criteria for study inclusion. Studies were only included if they provided quantitative data on performance of radiological techniques, outcome data on novel delivery/treatment methods, or where they investigated disease biomarkers. In addition, studies were only included where data on CPM were specifically provided.

In terms of radiological diagnosis and staging, there remains ongoing uncertainty regarding the optimal imaging modality/combination of modalities and the available literature is highly heterogeneous. Computed tomography is currently the most widely used approach due to its versatility and availability. However, as the studies presented in this review demonstrate, CT appears to consistently underestimate PCI compared with surgical findings and has poor sensitivity for plaque-like nodules and those measuring <0.5 cm [19]. Although MRI, and in particular diffusion-weighted MRI, has gained increasing attention in recent years, there remain practical limitations with this approach due to extended scan duration, patient-related contraindications, and limited capacity of MRI scanning facilities compared with CT. Therefore, at the present time, and despite the aforementioned limitations, CT is generally considered to represent the initial imaging technique of choice for evaluating patients with CPM. One way to offset some of the disadvantages of CT is to introduce formal standardisation of image reporting for peritoneal disease. The introduction of proforma-based reporting has had a significantly positive impact on decision-making in regards to multimodality therapy and operative planning in rectal cancer [104]. Evaluation of CPM extent and distribution would benefit from similar standardisation though this has yet to see widespread implementation. The PAUSE algorithm proposed by Chandramohan and colleagues offers an elegant solution designed to provide a common language for communicating imaging findings in CPM [105]. Briefly, the acronym incorporates: P (primary tumour and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), A (ascites and abdominal wall involvement), U (unfavourable sites of involvement), S (small bowel and mesenteric disease), and E (extraperitoneal metastases). Employing this approach should improve the accuracy of CT reporting in CPM, and widespread implementation will help to improve the consistency of data being accumulated in multinational CPM registries. Besides standardisation of reporting strategy, it is also important to try and firmly establish an optimal protocol for CT imaging of peritoneal disease, and there remains considerable variation in practice across institutions. It is, however, generally accepted that the use of positive or neutral oral contrast medium to opacify the small bowel is useful in evaluating involvement of small bowel and its associated mesentery. Our practice involves multidetector CT image acquisition at section thickness of 3 mm. Patients are given 750-1000 ml of water orally 15 minutes prior to the study, together with intravenous contrast administration. Arterial and venous phase image acquisition is then performed 30 and 60 seconds following contrast injection, respectively. Derived scans are evaluated in protocol-driven fashion in a dedicated complex colorectal cancer multidisciplinary meeting, using axial as well as multiplanar reconstructed images.

Adjunct techniques such as portal venous embolization and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) have revolutionised treatment options in colorectal cancer liver metastases and similar innovative approaches need to be developed for CPM in the future. With regards to technical advancements, PIPAC represents the most radical proposed departure from standard approaches to intraperitoneal chemotherapy. It is designed to generate an artificial pressure gradient enhancing tissue uptake and permitting homogeneous drug distribution within a closed and expanded abdominal cavity. Early experimental work has demonstrated favourable effects of delivering therapy under pressure of pneumoperitoneum, as this appears to counteract elevated intratumoural interstitial fluid pressures and thus enhances drug uptake. Though PIPAC has until now primarily been reserved for symptom control in the palliative setting, there is some emerging evidence to suggest that it can be utilized in the neoadjuvant setting, with the aim of downstaging disease and facilitating subsequent attempts at radical cytoreduction and HIPEC [49].

The data acquired from this review indicate that strategies for enhancing intraperitoneal cytotoxic effectiveness, via bioconjugation or other approach, remain primarily in the experimental phase of development. Most studies have used in vitro models or in vivo animal models. This branch of research in peritoneal malignancy needs urgently to make the transition into carefully designed prospective, ideally randomized, human studies.

In terms of biomarkers, although a growing number of studies are seeking to evaluate translational biomarkers in CPM, none beyond established tumour markers such as CEA, CA 19-9, and CA 125 have effectively made the transition to clinical use, and current evidence in the literature on the relative diagnostic and prognostic utility of these also seems somewhat contradictory. There is an urgent need to derive and validate biomarkers or biomarker panels capable of (1) defining risk of peritoneal relapse at the time of primary cancer diagnosis, (2) diagnosing disease at the early stages of peritoneal dissemination, and (3) identifying markers capable of predicting likely response to a given intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic agent. This level of translational discovery will call for allied initiatives between peritoneal malignancy institutions and biomolecular phenotyping laboratories, ideally within facilities capable of in vitro modelling as well as in vivo animal models, before initiation of human trials. Emerging disruptive technologies such as the iKnife [106] and the MasSpec Pen [107] offer the potential for real-time intraoperative phenotyping, and this perhaps holds the greatest promise in terms of realising the goal of personalised, “off-the-rack,” selection of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Simultaneously, developing a better basic understanding of what makes the peritoneum “tick” both in health and in disease should allow the development of more effective imaging biomarkers that selectively localise to the peritoneal surface and reveal disease location and volume more precisely. Moreover, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that regulate the peritoneum should allow the development of peritoneum-specific targeted therapies that overcome the conventional limitations posed to systemic agents by the plasma-peritoneum barrier. This in turn could improve the likelihood of converting inoperable CPM cases to operable, in the same way that this has been achieved for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

5. Conclusion

The present study provides a contemporary “snapshot” of the CPM research landscape and summarises current and emerging trends in practice and also highlights potential areas of unmet need. The combination of more precise radiological detection, optimized therapeutics and a deeper understanding of the biological basis for CPM will lead to improvements in survivorship comparable to those seen over the past few decades in colorectal cancer liver metastases. Tertiary referral units with expertise in peritoneal surface malignancy will likely serve as hubs of translational and clinical research in the future with efforts focused on addressing specific research objectives across the three domains outlined here. Clinical and research pathways for the CPM patients should run in parallel longitudinally to generate meaningful clinical, radiological, and molecular phenotyping data at all steps through the CPM patient journey (diagnosis → staging → treatment → prognostication → surveillance).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Foteini Stefania Koumpa and Diamantis Xylas contributed equally to this work.

Supplementary Materials

Interactive figure for visual interpretation of the CPM research landscape. The available data for the three main categories and their respective subcategories is represented in the form of a sunburst diagram. (Supplementary Materials)

References

D. Z. Chu, N. P. Lang, C. Thompson, P. K. Osteen, and K. C. Westbrook, “Peritioneal carcinomatosis in nongynecologic malignancy. A prospective study of prognostic factors,” Cancer, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 364–367, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Sadeghi, C. Arvieux, O. Glehen et al., “Peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-gynecologic malignancies: results of the EVOCAPE 1 multicentric prospective study,” Cancer, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 358–363, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. G. Jayne, S. Fook, C. Loi, and F. Seow-Choen, “Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer,” The British Journal of Surgery, vol. 89, no. 12, pp. 1545–1550, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Mohamed, T. Cecil, B. Moran, and P. Sugarbaker, “A new standard of care for the management of peritoneal surface malignancy,” Current Oncology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. e84–e96, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Elias, J. H. Lefevre, J. Chevalier et al., “Complete cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 681–685, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. H. Cashin, H. Mahteme, N. Spång et al., “Cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases: a randomised trial,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 53, pp. 155–162, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. L. B. Klaver, L. H. J. Simkens, V. E. P. P. Lemmens et al., “Outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with chemotherapy with and without targeted therapy,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 617–623, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. H. Sugarbaker, D. Landy, and R. Pascal, “Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colonic or appendiceal cystadenocarcinoma: rationale and results of treatment,” Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, vol. 354B, p. 70, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
V. J. Verwaal, S. van Ruth, E. de Bree et al., “Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 20, pp. 3737–3743, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Elias, F. Gilly, F. Boutitie et al., “Peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis treated with surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: retrospective analysis of 523 patients from a multicentric French study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 63–68, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Glehen, F. Kwiatkowski, P. H. Sugarbaker et al., “Cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 16, pp. 3284–3292, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. J. Kuijpers, B. Mirck, A. G. J. Aalbers et al., “Cytoreduction and HIPEC in the Netherlands: nationwide long-term outcome following the Dutch protocol,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 13, pp. 4224–4230, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Esquivel, A. M. Lowy, M. Markman et al., “The American Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ASPSM) Multiinstitution Evaluation of the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score (PSDSS) in 1,013 Patients with Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 13, pp. 4195–4201, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Simkens, K. P. Rovers, S. W. Nienhuijs, and I. H. de Hingh, “Patient selection for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for the treatment of peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer,” Cancer Management and Research, vol. 9, pp. 259–266, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, article e1000097, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Audollent, C. Eveno, A. Dohan et al., “Pitfalls and mimickers on (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: an analysis from 37 patients,” Journal of Visceral Surgery, vol. 152, no. 5, pp. 285–291, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Berthelot, O. Morel, S. Girault et al., “Use of FDG-PET/CT for peritoneal carcinomatosis before hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy,” Nuclear Medicine Communications, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Kim and S. W. Lee, “Diagnostic accuracy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 91, no. 1081, article 20170519, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Koh, T. D. Yan, D. Glenn, and D. L. Morris, “Evaluation of preoperative computed tomography in estimating peritoneal cancer index in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 327–333, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Bamba, M. Itabashi, and S. Kameoka, “Clinical use of PET/CT in peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer,” Hepato-Gastroenterology, vol. 59, no. 117, pp. 1408–1411, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Li, R. Yan, J. Lei, and C. Jiang, “Comparison of PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis,” Abdominal Imaging, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2660–2666, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Liberale, C. Lecocq, C. Garcia et al., “Accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: potential tool for evaluation of chemotherapeutic response,” Anticancer Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 929–934, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Marin, C. Catalano, M. Baski et al., “64-Section multi-detector row CT in the preoperative diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis: correlation with histopathological findings,” Abdominal Imaging, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 694–700, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Pasqual, S. Bertozzi, S. Bacchetti et al., “Preoperative assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients undergoing hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery,” Anticancer Research, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 2363–2368, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Laghi, D. Bellini, M. Rengo et al., “Diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting peritoneal metastases: systematic review and meta-analysis,” La Radiologia Medica, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Satoh, T. Ichikawa, U. Motosugi et al., “Diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination: comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced MDCT,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 196, no. 2, pp. 447–453, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Brendle, N. F. Schwenzer, H. Rempp et al., “Assessment of metastatic colorectal cancer with hybrid imaging: comparison of reading performance using different combinations of anatomical and functional imaging techniques in PET/MRI and PET/CT in a short case series,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 123–132, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. K. Choi, I. R. Yoo, H. L. Park et al., “Value of surveillance ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging studies,” Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 189–195, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Dohan, C. Hoeffel, P. Soyer et al., “Evaluation of the peritoneal carcinomatosis index with CT and MRI,” The British Journal of Surgery, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1244–1249, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Dromain, S. Leboulleux, A. Auperin et al., “Staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis: enhanced CT vs. PET/CT,” Abdominal Imaging, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 87–93, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. D. Duhr, W. Kenn, R. Kickuth et al., “Optimizing of preoperative computed tomography for diagnosis in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 171, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Esquivel, T. C. Chua, A. Stojadinovic et al., “Accuracy and clinical relevance of computed tomography scan interpretation of peritoneal cancer index in colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis: a multi-institutional study,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 565–570, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Flicek, A. Ashfaq, C. D. Johnson, C. Menias, S. Bagaria, and N. Wasif, “Correlation of radiologic with surgical peritoneal cancer index scores in patients with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and peritoneal carcinomatosis: how well can we predict resectability?” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 307–312, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Franiel, G. Diederichs, F. Engelken, T. Elgeti, J. Rost, and P. Rogalla, “Multi-detector CT in peritoneal carcinomatosis: diagnostic role of thin slices and multiplanar reconstructions,” Abdominal Imaging, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 49–54, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Thomassen, Y. R. B. M. van Gestel, A. G. J. Aalbers et al., “Peritoneal carcinomatosis is less frequently diagnosed during laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery in patients with colorectal cancer,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 511–514, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Barabino, J. P. Klein, J. Porcheron, A. Grichine, J. L. Coll, and M. Cottier, “Intraoperative near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green in colorectal carcinomatosis surgery: proof of concept,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1931–1937, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Lieto, A. Auricchio, F. Cardella et al., “Fluorescence-guided surgery in the combined treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: preliminary results and considerations,” World Journal of Surgery, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1154–1160, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Najah, R. Lo Dico, A. Dohan, L. Marry, C. Eveno, and M. Pocard, “A feasibility study of the use of computed virtual chromoendoscopy for laparoscopic evaluation of peritoneal metastases,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 743–751, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Liberale, S. Vankerckhove, M. G. Caldon et al., “Fluorescence imaging after indocyanine green injection for detection of peritoneal metastases in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a pilot study,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 264, no. 6, pp. 1110–1115, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Harlaar, M. Koller, S. J. de Jongh et al., “Molecular fluorescence-guided surgery of peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin: a single-centre feasibility study,” The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 283–290, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Alyami, J. Gagniere, O. Sgarbura et al., “Multicentric initial experience with the use of the pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the management of unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 2178–2183, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. C. Chua, W. Liauw, J. Zhao, and D. L. Morris, “Comparative analysis of perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy regimen in appendiceal and colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis,” International Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 439–446, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. L. Colson, R. Liu, E. B. Southard et al., “The performance of expansile nanoparticles in a murine model of peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Biomaterials, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 832–840, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Demtröder, W. Solass, J. Zieren, D. Strumberg, U. Giger-Pabst, and M.-A. Reymond, “Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin in colorectal peritoneal metastasis,” Colorectal Disease, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 364–371, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Elias, E. Benizri, D. di Pietrantonio, P. Menegon, D. Malka, and B. Raynard, “Comparison of two kinds of intraperitoneal chemotherapy following complete cytoreductive surgery of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 509–514, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Facy, C. Combier, M. Poussier et al., “High pressure does not counterbalance the advantages of open techniques over closed techniques during heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin,” Surgery, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 72–78, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Fan, Y. L. Wang, B. Han et al., “Docetaxel load biodegradable porous microspheres for the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, vol. 69, pp. 100–107, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Fan, A. Tong, X. Li et al., “Enhanced antitumor effects by docetaxel/LL37-loaded thermosensitive hydrogel nanoparticles in peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 10, pp. 7291–7305, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Girshally, C. Demtröder, N. Albayrak, J. Zieren, C. Tempfer, and M. A. Reymond, “Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as a neoadjuvant therapy before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 253, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gong, C. Wang, Y. J. Wang et al., “Efficient inhibition of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis by drug loaded micelles in thermosensitive hydrogel composites,” Nanoscale, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 3095–3104, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Gupta, S. Asif, J. Gandhi, S. Rajpurohit, and S. Singh, “Role of CRS and HIPEC in appendiceal and colorectal malignancies: Indian experience,” Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 126–130, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Halkia, A. Tsochrinis, D. T. Vassiliadou et al., “Peritoneal carcinomatosis: intraoperative parameters in open (coliseum) versus closed abdomen Hipec,” International Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 2015, Article ID 610597, 6 pages, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Keese, L. Gasimova, K. Schwenke et al., “Doxorubicin and mitoxantrone drug eluting beads for the treatment of experimental peritoneal carcinomatosis in colorectal cancer,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 124, no. 11, pp. 2701–2708, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Khosrawipour, T. Khosrawipour, A. J. P. Kern et al., “Distribution pattern and penetration depth of doxorubicin after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a postmortem swine model,” Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, vol. 142, no. 11, pp. 2275–2280, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lotti, M. Giulii Capponi, L. Campanati et al., “The onset of intra-abdominal adhesions during closed-abdomen hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 997–1002, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. M. Montagner, A. Merlo, G. Zuccolotto et al., “Peritoneal tumor carcinomatosis: pharmacological targeting with hyaluronan-based bioconjugates overcomes therapeutic indications of current drugs,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 11, article e112240, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Pascale, A. Fazel, J. Namur et al., “Laparoscopic subperitoneal injection of chemo-loaded particles lowers tumor growth on a rabbit model of peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Tumour Biology, vol. 39, no. 5, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Robella, M. Vaira, and M. De Simone, “Safety and feasibility of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) associated with systemic chemotherapy: an innovative approach to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 14, p. 128, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Rodríguez Silva, F. J. Moreno Ruiz, and I. Bellido Estévez, “Are there intra-operative hemodynamic differences between the Coliseum and closed HIPEC techniques in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis? A retrospective cohort study,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 51, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sanchez-Garcia, D. Padilla-Valverde, P. Villarejo-Campos, E. P. Garcia-Santos, and J. Martin-Fernandez, “Hyperthermic chemotherapy intra-abdominal laparoscopic approach: development of a laparoscopic model using CO₂ recirculation system and clinical translation in peritoneal carcinomatosis,” International Journal of Hyperthermia, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 684–689, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Serafino, M. Zonfrillo, F. Andreola et al., “CD44-targeting for antitumor drug delivery: a new SN-38-hyaluronan bioconjugate for locoregional treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Current Cancer Drug Targets, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 572–585, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Spiliotis, A. Rogdakis, A. Vaxevanidou, A. Datsis, G. Zacharis, and A. Christopoulou, “Morbidity and mortality of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Journal of B.U.ON, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 259–264, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Wu, G. Li, S. Deng et al., “Enhanced antitumor activity and mechanism of biodegradable polymeric micelles-encapsulated chetomin in both transgenic zebrafish and mouse models,” Nanoscale, vol. 6, no. 20, pp. 11940–11952, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Xu, H. Fan, L. Yin et al., “Thermosensitive hydrogel system assembled by PTX-loaded copolymer nanoparticles for sustained intraperitoneal chemotherapy of peritoneal carcinomatosis,” European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, vol. 104, pp. 251–259, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Yun, S. S. Wang, S. Xu et al., “Use of 5-fluorouracil loaded micelles and cisplatin in thermosensitive chitosan hydrogel as an efficient therapy against colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Macromolecular Bioscience, vol. 17, no. 4, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zhang, T. Cui, L. Liu et al., “Improving anti-tumor activity of curcumin by polymeric micelles in thermosensitive hydrogel system in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis model,” Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1173–1182, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Cravioto-Villanueva, M. Cavazos, P. Luna-Perez et al., “Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) delivered via a modified perfusion system for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin,” Surgery today, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 979–984, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lotti, M. G. Capponi, D. Piazzalunga et al., “Laparoscopic HIPEC: a bridge between open and closed-techniques,” J. Minim. Access Surg., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 86–89, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Liu, Q. Wu, X. Ma et al., “Camptothecine encapsulated composite drug delivery system for colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis therapy: biodegradable microsphere in thermosensitive hydrogel,” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 106, pp. 93–101, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. C. Tsai, C. H. Chang, L. C. Chen et al., “Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of 188Re-liposomes and their comparative therapeutic efficacy with 5-fluorouracil in C26 colonic peritoneal carcinomatosis mice,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 6, pp. 2607–2619, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Y. Lin, J. J. Li, C. H. Chang et al., “Evaluation of pharmacokinetics of 111In-labeled VNB-PEGylated liposomes after intraperitoneal and intravenous administration in a tumor/ascites mouse model,” Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 453–460, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. Harrison, M. Bryan, L. Pliner, and T. Saunders, “Phase I trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients undergoing cytoreduction for advanced intra-abdominal malignancy,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1407–1413, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Mayhew, M. Cimino, J. Klemperer, R. Lazo, J. Wiernikowski, and S. Arbuck, “Free and liposomal doxorubicin treatment of intraperitoneal colon 26 tumor: therapeutic and pharmacologic studies,” Selective Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 193–209, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Varghese, M. Burness, H. Xu, T. Beresnev, J. Pingpank, and H. R. Alexander, “Site-specific gene expression profiles and novel molecular prognostic factors in patients with lower gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma diffusely metastatic to liver or peritoneum,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 3460–3471, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Logan-Collins, A. M. Lowy, T. M. Robinson-Smith et al., “VEGF expression predicts survival in patients with peritoneal surface metastases from mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix and colon,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 738–744, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. K. Lee, D. H. Kim, D. L. Gorden et al., “Prognostic value of CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers combined with cytology from peritoneal fluid in colorectal cancer,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 861–870, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Gillern, T. C. Chua, A. Stojadinovic, and J. Esquivel, “KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis and its impact on outcome,” American Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 456–460, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Lin, C. C. Chang, R. J. C. Chen et al., “Connective tissue growth factor acts as a therapeutic agent and predictor for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 3077–3088, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Arienti, A. Tesei, G. M. Verdecchia et al., “Role of conventional chemosensitivity test and tissue biomarker expression in predicting response to treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colon cancer,” Clinical Colorectal Cancer, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 122–127, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. H. Cashin, W. Graf, P. Nygren, and H. Mahteme, “Patient selection for cytoreductive surgery in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis using serum tumor markers: an observational cohort study,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 256, no. 6, pp. 1078–1083, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ozawa, K. Kotake, H. Kobayashi, H. Kobayashi, and K. Sugihara, “Prognostic factors for peritoneal carcinomatosis originating from colorectal cancer: an analysis of 921 patients from a multi-institutional database,” Surgery Today, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1643–1650, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Tan, F. Liu, H. Liu, Y. Hu, D. Liu, and G. Li, “CTHRC1 is associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis in colorectal cancer: a new predictor for prognosis,” Medical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 1, p. 473, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Takakura, S. Ikeda, Y. Imaoka, T. Urushihara, and T. Itamoto, “An elevated preoperative serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level is a significant predictor for peritoneal dissemination and poor survival in colorectal cancer,” Colorectal Disease, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 417–425, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ahadi, S. Tehranian, B. Memar et al., “Diagnostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen in malignancy-related ascites: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Acta Gastroenterologica Belgica, vol. 77, pp. 418–424, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
E. A. Levine, D. G. Blazer III, M. K. Kim et al., “Gene expression profiling of peritoneal metastases from appendiceal and colon cancer demonstrates unique biologic signatures and predicts patient outcomes,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons, vol. 214, no. 4, pp. 599–606, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Kwakman, E. M. V. de Cuba, J. P. de Winter et al., “Tailoring heated intraperitoneal mitomycin C for peritoneal metastases originating from colorectal carcinoma: a translational approach to improve survival,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 851–856, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Chia, O. Glehen, N. Bakrin et al., “Intraperitoneal vascular endothelial growth factor: a prognostic factor and the potential for intraperitoneal bevacizumab use in peritoneal surface malignancies,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 22, Supplement 3, pp. 880–887, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. E. Green, T. T. Jayakrishnan, M. Hwang, S. G. Pappas, T. C. Gamblin, and K. K. Turaga, “Immunohistochemistry – microarray analysis of patients with peritoneal metastases of appendiceal or colorectal origin,” Frontiers in Surgery, vol. 1, p. 50, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Huang, J. K. Jiang, S. C. Chang, J. K. Lin, and S. H. Yang, “Serum CA125 concentration as a predictor of peritoneal dissemination of colorectal cancer in men and women,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 95, no. 47, p. e5177, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sasaki, T. Hamaguchi, Y. Yamada et al., “Value of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations and survival benefit from systemic chemotherapy in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 539–543, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. S. H. Bong, G. H. C. Tan, C. Chia, K. C. Soo, and M. C. C. Teo, “Preoperative platelet-lymphocyte ratio is an independent prognostic marker and superior to carcinoembryonic antigen in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy,” International Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 511–518, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. R. Huo, Y. Huang, W. Liauw, J. Zhao, and D. L. Morris, “Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), AFP, CA19-9 and CA125 for patients with colorectal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy,” Anticancer Research, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1041–1049, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
E. M. V. de Cuba, I. H. J. T. de Hingh, N. R. Sluiter et al., “Angiogenesis-related markers and prognosis after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1601–1608, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. R. Sluiter, E. M. V. de Cuba, R. Kwakman et al., “Versican and vascular endothelial growth factor expression levels in peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer are associated with survival after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy,” Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 297–307, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Ihemelandu, “Inflammation-based prognostic scores: utility in prognostication and patient selection for cytoreduction and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal metastasis of colonic origin,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 884–889, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Massalou, E. Benizri, A. Chevallier et al., “Peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer: novel clinical and molecular outcomes,” American Journal of Surgery, vol. 213, no. 2, pp. 377–387, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kaneko, S. Ishihara, K. Murono et al., “Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 predicts synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with colorectal cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 865–870, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Yokota, T. Ura, N. Shibata et al., “BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic factor in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 856–862, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Ubink, W. J. van Eden, P. Snaebjornsson et al., “Histopathological and molecular classification of colorectal cancer and corresponding peritoneal metastases,” The British Journal of Surgery, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. e204–e211, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Peter, I. Eltoum, and M. A. Eloubeidi, “EUS-guided FNA of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with unknown primary malignancy,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 1266–1270, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang, L. Gao, S. Tang et al., “A retrospective analysis on the diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy for peritoneal lesions,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 251, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. M. G. Caserta, R. Bertanha, and E. M. B. Pacheco, “Peritoneal carcinomatosis: diagnostic value of sonographically guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration,” Ultrasound Med. Biol, vol. 39, no. 5, p. S39, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R.-M. Carlos, R. Gugig, M. Valero et al., “1046 detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis by EUS fine-needle guided peritoneoscopy,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 83, no. 5, p. AB196, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Taylor, N. Mangat, I. R. Swift, and G. Brown, “Proforma-based reporting in rectal cancer,” Cancer imaging, vol. 10, no. 1A, pp. S142–S150, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chandramohan, A. Thrower, S. A. Smith, N. Shah, and B. Moran, “‘PAUSE’: a method for communicating radiological extent of peritoneal malignancy,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 72, no. 11, pp. 972–980, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Balog, L. Sasi-Szabo, J. Kinross et al., “Intraoperative tissue identification using rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 5, no. 194, article 194ra93, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhang, J. Rector, J. Q. Lin et al., “Nondestructive tissue analysis for ex vivo and in vivo cancer diagnosis using a handheld mass spectrometry system,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 9, no. 406, p. eaan3968, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2019 Foteini Stefania Koumpa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

6200

Downloads

1909

Citations