F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with CT in critically ill patients with suspected infection

Contains fulltext : 88623.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: To assess the value of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) combined with CT in critically ill patients suspected of having an infection. METHODS: FDG-PET CT scans requested for evaluation of a suspected infection or inflammatory process in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients were analyzed (blinded for the final clinical diagnosis) and compared with clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-five FDG-PET/CT scans performed in 33 ICU patients (28 adults and 5 children), median age 58 years (range 1 month-72 years), were analyzed. Twenty-one FDG-PET/CT scans were true positive. Three FDG-PET/CT scans were considered false positive, in one case leading to additional diagnostic procedures (specificity 79%). Additionally, 11 true negatives were found (sensitivity 100%), leading to an overall accuracy of 91%. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET/CT scanning is of additional value in the evaluation of suspected infection in critically ill patients in whom conventional diagnostics did not lead to a diagnosis. Apart from the high accuracy, in this study it appeared that, in addition to conventional diagnostic techniques that were routinely performed, a normal FDG-PET/CT ruled out important infections requiring prolonged antibiotic therapy or drainage. Since sensitivity is lower in highly metabolic active tissues (e.g., endocarditis, meningitis), the FDG-PET/CT scan is not suited to detect infections in these tissues.01 maart 201

Patient-reported outcomes during repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND: CRC-PIPAC prospectively assessed repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) as a palliative monotherapy (i.e., without concomitant systemic therapy in between subsequent procedures) for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during trial treatment. METHODS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial in two tertiary centers, patients with isolated unresectable CPM received 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m(2)). PROs (calculated from EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) were compared between baseline and 1 and 4 weeks after the first three procedures using linear mixed modeling with determination of clinical relevance (Cohen’s D ≥ 0.50) of statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent 59 procedures (median 3 [range 1–6]). Several PROs solely worsened 1 week after the first procedure (index value − 0.10, p < 0.001; physical functioning − 20, p < 0.001; role functioning − 27, p < 0.001; social functioning − 18, p < 0.001; C30 summary score − 16, p < 0.001; appetite loss + 15, p = 0.007; diarrhea + 15, p = 0.002; urinary frequency + 13, p = 0.004; flatulence + 13, p = 0.001). These PROs returned to baseline at subsequent time points. Other PROs worsened 1 week after the first procedure (fatigue + 23, p < 0.001; pain + 29, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 32, p < 0.001), second procedure (fatigue + 20, p < 0.001; pain + 21, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 20, p = 0.002), and third procedure (pain + 22, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 22, p = 0.002). Except for appetite loss, all changes were clinically relevant. All analyzed PROs returned to baseline 4 weeks after the third procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving repetitive PIPAC-OX monotherapy for unresectable CPM had clinically relevant but reversible worsening of several PROs, mainly 1 week after the first procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03246321; Netherlands trial register: NL6426. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08802-6

Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives: Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics. Methods: The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance). Results: Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m(2)) was endorsed by 20/ 22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m(2) (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of &gt;= 8/10. Conclusions: The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research

Concomitant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy for extensive peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin: protocol of the multicentre, open-label, phase I, dose-escalation INTERACT trial

INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has become standard of care for patients with peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin with a low/moderate abdominal disease load. In case of a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score >20, CRS-HIPEC is not considered to be beneficial. Patients with a PCI >20 are currently offered palliative systemic chemotherapy. Previous studies have shown that systemic chemotherapy is less effective against peritoneal metastases than it is against haematogenous spread of colorectal cancer. It is suggested that patients with peritoneal metastases may benefit from the addition of intraperitoneal chemotherapy to systemic chemotherapy. Aim of this study is to establish the maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan, added to standard of care systemic therapy for colorectal cancer. Secondary endpoints are to determine the safety and feasibility of this treatment and to establish the pharmacokinetic profile of intraperitoneally administered irinotecan. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This phase I, '3+3' dose-escalation, study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral centres. The study population consists of adult pa

Perioperative systemic therapy for resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: Sufficient evidence for its widespread use? A critical systematic review

Despite its widespread use, no randomised studies have investigated the value of perioperative systemic therapy as adjunct to cytoreduction and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases. This systematic review evaluated the available evidence, which consists of non-randomised studies only. A systematic search identified studies that investigated the influence of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or perioperative systemic therapy on overall survival (OS). The 11 included studies (n=1708) were clinically heterogeneous and subject to selection bias. Studies on neoadjuvant systemic therapy revealed OS benefit (n=3), no OS benefit (n=1), and superiority of chemotherapy with bevacizumab vs. chemotherapy (n=2). Studies on adjuvant systemic therapy showed no OS benefit (n=3). Studies on perioperative systemic therapy demonstrated OS benefit (n=1), and superiority of modern vs. conventional systemic therapy(n=1). Significant limitations of available evidence question the widespread use of perioperative systemic therapy in this setting, stress the need for randomised studies, and impede conclusions regarding optimal timing and regimens. Included studies may suggest a survival benefit of neoadjuvant systemic therap