Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Imaged-guided liver stereotactic body radiotherapy using VMAT and real-time adaptive tumor gating. Concerns about technique and preliminary clinical results

BackgroundMotion management is a major challenge in abdominal SBRT. We present our study of SBRT for liver tumors using intrafraction motion review (IMR) allowing simultaneous KV information and MV delivery to synchronize the beam during gated RapidArc treatment.Materials and methodsBetween May 2012 and March 2015, 41 patients were treated by liver SBRT using gated RapidArc technique in a Varian Novalis Truebeam STx linear accelerator. PTV was created by expanding 5[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]mm from the ITV. Dose prescription ranged from 40 to 50[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]Gy in 5–10 fractions. The prescribed dose and fractionation were chosen depending on hepatic function and dosimetric results. Thirty-four patients with a minimal follow-up of six months were analyzed for local control and toxicity. Accuracy for tumor repositioning was evaluated for the first ten patients.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 13 months, the treatment was well tolerated and no patient presented RILD, perforation or gastrointestinal bleeding. Acute toxicity was found in 3 patients with G1 abdominal pain, 2 with G1 nausea, 10 with G1 asthenia and 1 with G2 asthenia. 6 patients presented asymptomatic transitory perturbation of liver enzymes.In-field local control was 90.3% with 7 complete responses, 14 partial responses and 7 stabilisations. 3 patients evolved “in field”. 12 patients had an intrahepatic progression “out of field”.Mean intrafraction deviation of fiducials in the craneo-caudal direction was 0.91[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]mm (0–6[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]mm).ConclusionThe clinical tolerance and oncological outcomes were favorable when using image-guided liver SBRT with real-time adaptive tumor gating

Perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases : A global propensity score matched study

Background: There is a paucity of studies evaluating perioperative systemic chemotherapy in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRCPM). The aim was to evaluate neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapy in CRCPM. Methods: Patients with CRCPM from 39 treatment centres globally from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2018, who underwent CRS+HIPEC were identified and stratified according to neoadjuvant/adjuvant use. Crude data analysis, propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox-proportional hazard modelling was performed. Findings: Of 2093 patients, 1613 were included in neoadjuvant crude evaluation with 708 in the PSM cohort (354 patients/arm). In the adjuvant evaluation, 1176 patients were included in the crude cohort with 778 in the PSM cohort (389 patients/arm). The median overall survival (OS) in the PSM cohort receiving no neoadjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy was 37.0 months (95% CI: 32.6-42.7) vs 34.7 months (95% CI: 31.2-38.8, HR 1.08 95% CI: 0.88-1.32, p = 0.46). The median OS in the PSM cohort receiving no adjuvant therapy vs adjuvant therapy was 37.0 months (95% CI: 32.9-41.8) vs 45.7 months (95% CI: 38.8-56.2, HR 0.79 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, p = 0.022). Recurrence-free survival did not differ in the neoadjuvant evaluation but differed in the adjuvant evaluation - HR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.87-1.25, p = 0.66) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70-0.98, p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard modelling in the crude cohorts showed hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI: 0.92-1.26, p = 0.37) for administering neoadjuvant therapy and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72-1.03, p = 0.095) for administering adjuvant therapy. Interpretation: Neoadjuvant therapy did not confer a benefit to patients undergoing CRS+HIPEC for CRCPM, whereas adjuvant therapy was associated with a benefit in this retrospective setting

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal cancer

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (pmCRC) in a large international data set of patients. Patients and Methods: Patients with pmCRC from 39 centres who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC between 1991 and 2018 were selected and compared for the HIPEC protocols received-oxaliplatin-HIPEC versus mitomycin-HIPEC. Following analysis of crude data, propensity-score matching (PSM) and Cox-proportional hazard modelling were performed. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and the HIPEC dose-response effects (high versus low dose, dose intensification and double drug protocols) on OS, RFS and 90-day morbidity. Furthermore, the impact of the treatment time period was assessed. Results: Of 2760 patients, 2093 patients were included. Median OS was 43 months (95% c.i. 41 to 46 months) with a median RFS of 12 months (95% c.i. 12 to 13 months). The oxaliplatin-HIPEC group had an OS of 47 months (95% c.i. 42 to 53 months) versus 39 months (95% c.i. 36 to 43 months) in the mitomycin-HIPEC group (P = 0.002), aHR 0.77, 95% c.i. 0.67 to 0.90, P &lt; 0.001. The OS benefit persisted after PSM of the oxaliplatin-HIPEC group and mitomycin-HIPEC group (48 months (95% c.i. 42 to 59 months) versus 40 months (95% c.i. 37 to 44 months)), P &lt; 0.001, aHR 0.78 (95% c.i. 0.65 to 0.94), P = 0.009. Similarly, matched RFS was significantly higher for oxaliplatin-HIPEC versus others (13 months (95% c.i. 12 to 15 months) versus 11 months (95% c.i. 10 to 12 months, P = 0.02)). High-dose mitomycin-HIPEC protocols had similar OS compared to oxaliplatin-HIPEC. HIPEC dose intensification within each protocol resulted in improved survival. Oxaliplatin + irinotecan-HIPEC resulted in the most improved OS (61 months (95% c.i. 51 to 101 months)). Ninety-day mortality in both crude and PSM analysis was worse for mitomycin-HIPEC. There was no change in treatment effect depending on the analysed time period. Conclusions: Oxaliplatin-based HIPEC provided better outcomes compared to mitomycin-based HIPEC. High-dose mitomycin-HIPEC was similar to oxaliplatin-HIPEC. The 90-day mortality difference favours the oxaliplatin-HIPEC group. A trend for dose-response between low- and high-dose HIPEC was reported

Half of Postoperative Deaths After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Could be Preventable A French Root Cause Analysis on 5562 Patients

International audienceObjective: To perform a retrospective root-cause analysis of postoperative death after CRS and HIPEC procedures. Background: The combination of CRS and HIPEC is an effective therapeutic strategy to treat peritoneal surface malignancies, however it is associated with significant postoperative mortality. Methods: All patients treated with a combination of CRS and HIPEC between January 2009 and December 2018 in 22 French centers and died in the hospital, were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative data of the 101 patients were collected by a local senior surgeon with a sole junior surgeon. Three independent experts investigated the typical root cause of death and provided conclusions on whether postoperative death was preventable (PREV group) or not (NON-PREV group). A typical root cause of preventable postoperative death was classified on a cause-and-effect diagram. Results: Of the 5562 CRS+HIPEC procedures performed, 101 in-hospital deaths (1.8%) were identified, of which a total of 18 patients of 70 years old and above and 20 patients with ASA score of 3. Etiology of peritoneal disease was mainly colorectal. A total of 54 patients (53%) were classified in the PREV group and 47 patients (47%) in the NON-PREV group. The results of the study show that in the PREV group, WHO performance status 1-2 was more frequent and the Median Peritoneal Cancer Index was higher compared with those of the NON-PREV group. The cause of death in the PREV group was classified as: (i) preoperatively for debatable indication (59%), (ii) intraoperatively (30%) and (iii) postoperatively in 17 patients (31%). A multifactorial cause of death was found in 11 patients (20%). Conclusion: More than half of the postoperative deaths after combined CRS and HIPEC may be preventable, mainly by following guidelines regarding preoperative selection of the patients and adequate intraoperative decisions