Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin as treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from the appendix and pseudomyxoma peritonei: a survival analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appendiceal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is rare and its long-term prognosis is poor. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of an aggressive treatment approach used in our institution for the last eight years. METHODS: Data from all patients with PC arising from the appendix were prospectively collected and analyzed. Treatment consisted of complete surgical cytoreduction (CRS), followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2) at 43°C over 30 minutes. Ronnett's histologic classification was used for tumor grading. RESULTS: Between February 2003 and April 2011, 78 patients underwent laparotomy with curative intent. The mean follow-up period was 33.7 months. A total of 58 patients received HIPEC, but 11 patients could not have CRS and received no HIPEC. Nine patients with a negative second-look surgery also received no HIPEC. The five-year overall survival for the entire cohort was 66.2%; 100% for the negative second-look patients, 77% for the HIPEC patients and 9% for the unresectable patients (P<0.0001). A total of 15 patients (25.9%) had isolated peritoneal recurrence, no patient had visceral recurrence only, and five patients (8.6%) had both. In regards to the five-year disease-free survival for the HIPEC patients, histologic grade (disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis 100%, peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis with intermediate features 40%, peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis 20%; p=0.0016) and completeness of cytoreduction (CCR-0 56%, CCR-1 24%; P=0.0172) were prognostic factors. There was one postoperative mortality. The major complication rate for patients treated with HIPEC was 40%, including intra-abdominal abcess (17%), hemorrhage (12%) and anastomotic leak (10%). One patient in the HIPEC group experienced temporary grade II neuropathy and grade III thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: This therapeutic approach seems both feasible and safe in selected patients. Recurrence is, however, frequent and represents a challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".