Gastric cancer is not a top-10 malignancy in the United States but represents one of the most common causes of cancer death worldwide. Biological differences between tumors from Eastern and Western countries add to the complexity of identifying standard-of-care therapy based on international trials. Systemic chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy all have proven efficacy in gastric adenocarcinoma; therefore, multidisciplinary treatment is paramount to treatment selection. Triplet chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer is now accepted and could represent a plateau of standard cytotoxic chemotherapy for localized disease. Classification of gastric cancer based on molecular subtypes is providing an opportunity for personalized therapy. Biomarkers, in particular microsatellite instability (MSI), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), tumor mutation burden, and Epstein-Barr virus, are increasingly driving systemic therapy approaches and allowing for the identification of populations most likely to benefit from immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Significant research opportunities remain for the less differentiated histologic subtypes of gastric adenocarcinoma and those without markers of immunotherapy activity.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21657

Current treatment and recent progress in gastric cancer.

Summary Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was introduced as a new treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases in November, 2011. Reports of its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy have encouraged centres worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a novel drug delivery technique. In this Review, we detail the technique and rationale of PIPAC and critically assess its evidence and potential indications. A systematic search was done to identify all relevant literature on PIPAC published between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2019. A total of 106 articles or reports on PIPAC were identified, and 45 clinical studies on 1810 PIPAC procedures in 838 patients were included for analysis. Repeated PIPAC delivery was feasible in 64% of patients with few intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications (3% for each in prospective studies). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events greater than grade 2) occurred after 12–15% of procedures, and commonly included bowel obstruction, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Repeated PIPAC did not have a negative effect on quality of life. Using PIPAC, an objective clinical response of 62–88% was reported for patients with ovarian cancer (median survival of 11–14 months), 50–91% for gastric cancer (median survival of 8–15 months), 71–86% for colorectal cancer (median survival of 16 months), and 67–75% (median survival of 27 months) for peritoneal mesothelioma. From our findings, PIPAC has been shown to be feasible and safe. Data on objective response and quality of life were encouraging. Therefore, PIPAC can be considered as a treatment option for refractory, isolated peritoneal metastasis of various origins. However, its use in further indications needs to be validated by prospective studies.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications

The therapeutic application of heat is very effective in cancer treatment Both hyperthermia, ie, heating to 39-45 °C to induce sensitization to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and thermal ablation, where temperatures beyond 50 °C destroy tumor cells directly are frequently applied in the clinic Achievement of an effective treatment requires high quality heating equipment, precise thermal dosimetry, and adequate quality assurance Several types of devices, antennas and heating or power delivery systems have been proposed and developed in recent decades These vary considerably in technique, heating depth, ability to focus, and in the size of the heating focus Clinically used heating techniques involve electromagnetic and ultrasonic heating, hyperthermic perfusion and conductive heating Depending on clinical objectives and available technology, thermal therapies can be subdivided into three broad categories: local, locoregional, or whole body heating Clinically used local heating techniques include interstitial hyperthermia and ablation, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), scanned focused ultrasound (SFUS), electroporation, nanoparticle heating, intraluminal heating and superficial heating Locoregional heating techniques include phased array systems, capacitive systems and isolated perfusion Whole body techniques focus on prevention of heat loss supplemented with energy deposition in the body, eg, by infrared radiation This review presents an overview of clinical hyperthermia and ablation devices used for local, locoregional, and whole body therapy Proven and experimental clinical applications of thermal ablation and hyperthermia are listed Methods for temperature measurement and the role of treatment planning to control treatments are discussed briefly, as well as future perspectives for heating technology for the treatment of tumors

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8672203/file/8672204.pdf

Heating technology for malignant tumors: a review

Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Importance Studies on the prognostic role of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) are currently not available. Objectives To evaluate outcomes after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC compared with CRS alone in patients with PMP. Design, setting, and participants This cohort study analyzed data from the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) registry, including 1924 patients with histologically confirmed PMP due to an appendiceal mucinous neoplasm. Eligible patients were treated with CRS with or without HIPEC from February 1, 1993, to December 31, 2017, and had complete information on the main prognostic factors and intraperitoneal treatments. Inverse probability treatment weights based on the propensity score for HIPEC treatment containing the main prognostic factors were applied to all models to balance comparisons between the CRS-HIPEC vs CRS-alone groups in the entire series and in the following subsets: optimal cytoreduction, suboptimal cytoreduction, high- and low-grade histologic findings, and different HIPEC drug regimens. Data were analyzed from March 1 to June 1, 2018. Interventions HIPEC including oxaliplatin plus combined fluorouracil-leucovorin, cisplatin plus mitomycin, mitomycin, and other oxaliplatin-based regimens. Main outcomes and measures Overall survival, severe morbidity (determined using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology for Adverse Events, version 3.0), return to operating room, and 30- and 90-day mortality. Differences in overall survival were compared using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models. A sensitivity analysis was based on the E-value from the results of the main Cox proportional hazards model. Differences in surgical outcomes were compared using weighted multivariable logistic models. Results Of the 1924 patients included in the analysis (997 [51.8%] men; median age, 56 [interquartile range extremes (IQRE), 45-65] years), 376 were in the CRS-alone group and 1548 in the CRS-HIPEC group. Patients with CRS alone were older (median age, 60 [IQRE, 48-70] vs 54 [IQRE, 44-63] years), had less lymph node involvement (14 [3.7%] vs 119 [7.7%]), received more preoperative systemic chemotherapy (198 [52.7%] vs 529 [34.2%]), and had higher proportions of high-grade disease (179 [47.6%] vs 492 [31.8%]) and suboptimal cytoreduction residual disease (grade 3, 175 [46.5%] vs 117 [7.6%]). HIPEC was not associated with a higher risk of worse surgical outcomes except with mitomycin, with higher odds of morbidity (1.99; 95% CI, 1.25-3.19; P = .004). HIPEC was associated with a significantly better overall survival in all subsets (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs], 0.60-0.68, with 95% CIs not crossing 1.00). The weighted 5-year overall survival was 57.8% (95% CI, 50.8%-65.7%) vs 46.2% (95% CI, 40.3%-52.8%) for CRS-HIPEC and CRS alone, respectively (weighted HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83; P Conclusions and relevance In this cohort study, HIPEC was associated with better overall survival when performed after CRS in PMP, generally without adverse effects on surgical outcomes.

The Role of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Pseudomyxoma Peritonei After Cytoreductive Surgery.

PURPOSEGastric cancer (GC) with peritoneal metastases (PMs) is a poor prognostic evolution. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) yields promising results, but the impact of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chem...

Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastases (CYTO-CHIP study): A Propensity Score Analysis.

A phase I dose-escalation study of oxaliplatin delivered via a laparoscopic approach using pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for advanced peritoneal metastases of gastrointestinal tract cancers.

Big-Renape Networks

Papers

Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastases (CYTO-CHIP study): A Propensity Score Analysis.

A phase I dose-escalation study of oxaliplatin delivered via a laparoscopic approach using pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for advanced peritoneal metastases of gastrointestinal tract cancers.