Colon and rectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: are we mixing apples with oranges? A propensity score-matched analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Carlo Vallicelli, Daniele Morezzi, Daniele Perrina, Paola Fugazzola, Jean Pinson, Gabriele Vigutto, Ahmed Ghaly, Jacopo Viganò, Matteo Tomasoni, Luca Ansaloni, Jean-Jacques Tuech, Fausto Catena
{"title":"Colon and rectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: are we mixing apples with oranges? A propensity score-matched analysis.","authors":"Carlo Vallicelli, Daniele Morezzi, Daniele Perrina, Paola Fugazzola, Jean Pinson, Gabriele Vigutto, Ahmed Ghaly, Jacopo Viganò, Matteo Tomasoni, Luca Ansaloni, Jean-Jacques Tuech, Fausto Catena","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02104-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rectal cancer is universally considered a different disease entity as compared to colon cancer, except when dealing with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), in which the two cancers are deemed as the same one. The present study aims to investigate the influence of primary tumor location (colon vs. rectum) on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Data from three referral centers undergoing CRS plus HIPEC for PC of colorectal origin were prospectively collected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to primary tumor location (colic vs. rectal). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model first on the total number of patients. Then, a propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbour method with a 1:1 ratio was performed. The study included 167 patients: 126 colic and 41 rectal PC. After propensity score matching, rectal primary tumor location was independently predictive of a lower DFS (HR 1.91; 95%CI 1.06-3.45; p = 0.031) but not of a lower OS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.73). Post-matching 3-year DFS rates were 49.2% (95%CI 34,3-70,5%) and 19.4% (95%CI 9,4-40,2%) for colic and rectal PC, respectively. The present study shows a significantly worse DFS for rectal cancer PC undergoing CRS and HIPEC compared to colon cancer PC, suggesting a possible need for dedicated pathways for rectal PC patients and posing a question for rectal PC to be considered as a unique disease entity.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02104-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rectal cancer is universally considered a different disease entity as compared to colon cancer, except when dealing with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), in which the two cancers are deemed as the same one. The present study aims to investigate the influence of primary tumor location (colon vs. rectum) on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Data from three referral centers undergoing CRS plus HIPEC for PC of colorectal origin were prospectively collected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to primary tumor location (colic vs. rectal). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model first on the total number of patients. Then, a propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbour method with a 1:1 ratio was performed. The study included 167 patients: 126 colic and 41 rectal PC. After propensity score matching, rectal primary tumor location was independently predictive of a lower DFS (HR 1.91; 95%CI 1.06-3.45; p = 0.031) but not of a lower OS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.73). Post-matching 3-year DFS rates were 49.2% (95%CI 34,3-70,5%) and 19.4% (95%CI 9,4-40,2%) for colic and rectal PC, respectively. The present study shows a significantly worse DFS for rectal cancer PC undergoing CRS and HIPEC compared to colon cancer PC, suggesting a possible need for dedicated pathways for rectal PC patients and posing a question for rectal PC to be considered as a unique disease entity.

结直肠腹膜癌:我们把苹果和橘子混在一起了吗?倾向评分匹配分析。
直肠癌被普遍认为是与结肠癌不同的疾病实体,但在处理结肠直肠腹膜癌(PC)时,这两种癌症被视为同一种癌症。本研究旨在探讨原发肿瘤位置(结肠与直肠)对接受细胞减少手术(CRS)和腹腔高温化疗(HIPEC)的结直肠腹膜转移患者的肿瘤预后的影响。前瞻性地收集了来自三个转诊中心的数据,这些中心接受CRS + HIPEC治疗结肠直肠癌。主要结局是根据原发肿瘤位置(结肠或直肠)的总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS)。首先使用Cox比例风险模型对患者总数进行单因素和多因素分析。然后,使用1:1比例的最近邻方法进行倾向评分匹配。该研究包括167例患者:126例绞痛和41例直肠PC。倾向评分匹配后,直肠原发肿瘤位置独立预测较低的DFS (HR 1.91;95%可信区间1.06 - -3.45;p = 0.031),但与较低的OS无关(HR 1.12;95%可信区间0.57 - -2.21;p = 0.73)。配对后3年结肠和直肠PC的DFS分别为49.2% (95%CI 34,3-70,5%)和19.4% (95%CI 9,4-40,2%)。本研究显示,与结肠癌PC相比,接受CRS和HIPEC的直肠癌PC的DFS明显更差,提示直肠PC患者可能需要专门的通路,并提出直肠PC是否被视为一种独特的疾病实体的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信