Morbidity associated with the use of oxaliplatin versus mitomycin C in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal or appendiceal origin: a multi-institutional comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The raw costs of mitomycin C (MMC) and oxaliplatin for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) differ substantially. We sought to compare the morbidity and toxicity profiles associated with the use of oxaliplatin and MMC in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of colorectal or appendiceal origin, to evaluate whether the costeffectiveness of these 2 agents should dictate drug choice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multi-institutional study of all patients with PC of colorectal or appendiceal origin treated with CRS-HIPEC using MMC or oxaliplatin from 2010 to 2015. Demographic, perioperative, morbidity, toxicity and cost data were compared between the 2 treatment groups and between cancer-origin subgroups. Results: Forty-two patients treated with MMC and 76 treated with oxaliplatin were included in the study. Baseline demographic and tumour characteristics were comparable in the 2 groups, except that the patients treated with MMC had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores. The MMC group had a higher rate of cancer of colorectal origin (76.2% v. 57.9%, p = 0.047) and longer operative times (553 v. 320 min, p < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients whose cancer was of colorectal origin, patients treated with MMC had a higher transfusion rate (50.0% v. 28.6%, p = 0.023) and lower postoperative baseline hemoglobin level (100 v. 119 g/L, p = 0.002) than those treated with oxaliplatin. There was no difference in hematologic toxicity scores after controlling for postoperative anemia. There was no difference in the rates of major complications and 90-day mortality. However, MMC was less costly than oxaliplatin ($724 v. $8928). Conclusion: MMC and oxaliplatin are both suitable agents for HIPEC and are associated with comparable morbidity and toxicity profiles, regardless of cancer origin. Thus, we propose that cost-effectiveness should ultimately dictate drug selection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".