Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy + early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy alone: assessment of survival outcomes for colorectal and high-grade appendiceal peritoneal carcinomatosis

• We studied survival in colorectal and high-grade appendiceal carcinomatosis.
• There was no survival difference between treatment with HIPEC + EPIC versus HIPEC alone.
• Greater morbidity is associated with the HIPEC + EPIC protocol.
• PCI was the only independent predictor of survival.
• We suggest the use of HIPEC alone after CRS in these patients.

BackgroundCytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have improved survival for colorectal and high-grade appendiceal carcinomatosis. We compared the overall and recurrence-free survival (OS and RFS) of patients treated with HIPEC with mitomycin c and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) with fluorouracil versus HIPEC alone using oxaliplatin and simultaneous IV infusion of fluorouracil.MethodsNinety-three patients with colorectal or high-grade appendiceal carcinomatosis were treated with CRS and HIPEC + EPIC or HIPEC alone. OS and RFS were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank testing.ResultsSurvival did not differ between HIPEC regimens. The 3-year OS and RFS rates were 50% and 21% for HIPEC + EPIC and 46% and 6% for HIPEC alone (P = .72 and P = .89, respectively). HIPEC + EPIC patients experienced more grade III/IV complications (43.2% vs 19.6%, P = .01).ConclusionsThere was no difference in OS and RFS between colorectal and high-grade appendiceal adenocarcinoma patients treated with CRS and HIPEC + EPIC versus HIPEC alone. However, HIPEC + EPIC patients suffered greater morbidity, making HIPEC alone the preferable regimen.