Content uploaded by Aditi Bhatt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aditi Bhatt on Nov 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)
Methodology, Drugs and Bidirectional Chemotherapy
S. J. Valle
1
&N. A. Alzahrani
1,2
&W. Liauw
1,5
&P. H. Sugarbaker
3
&A. Bhatt
4
&
D. L. Morris
1
Received: 4 July 2015 /Accepted: 28 January 2016 /Published online: 5 February 2016
#Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2016
Abstract Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic in-
traperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined have been
recognized as standard of care for treatment of a subset of
patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). The aim of
CRS is to eliminate all macroscopic disease through a series
of visceral resections followed by targeting any residual mi-
croscopic disease with intraperitoneal chemotherapy, expos-
ing the peritoneal surfaces to a high concentration of chemo-
therapy with a lower systemic toxicity. Different regimes of
intraperitoneal chemotherapy include HIPEC, early postoper-
ative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) and bidirectional
chemotherapy. The efficacy and modality of treatment with
intraperitoneal chemotherapy is dependent on multiple factors
including the chosen cytotoxic agent and its pharmacokinetics
and pharmacodynamics. There is no standardized methodolo-
gy for intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration. This re-
view will discuss the pharmacological principles of the vari-
ous intraperitoneal chemotherapy techniques.
Keywords Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy
(HIPEC) .Methodology .Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) .
Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) .Bidirectional chemotherapy
Introduction
The finding of a peritoneal malignancy raises major therapeu-
tic concerns and is associated with a poor prognosis. Systemic
chemotherapy regimens in the past functioned as a palliative
approach and palliative surgery was offered only with the aim
of reducing the symptoms. In the early 1990’s, research began
into the development of a therapeutic approach for the treat-
ment of peritoneal surface malignancy. Since this time,
cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraperitoneal chemothera-
py (IPC) combined have been recognised as standard of care
for treatment of a subset of patients with peritoneal carcino-
matosis (PC) from pseudomyxoma peritonei, appendix ade-
nocarcinoma, colorectal cancer and mesothelioma and has
also showed promising results in selected patients with ovar-
ian and gastric cancer. Long-term survival has been achieved
in patients who have been treated with CRS followed by hy-
perthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Elias et al.
[1] analysed the results of combined CRS and perioperative
chemotherapy in 1290 patients with a variety of peritoneal
malignancies reporting an overall 5-year survival of 37 %.
CRS/HIPEC is a complex therapeutic modality. The aim of
CRS is to eliminate all macroscopic disease through a seriesof
visceral resections and standardized peritonectomy proce-
dures [2] followed by targeting any residual microscopic dis-
ease with IPC, providing a high intraperitoneal concentration
and with a lower systemic toxicity. Perioperative IPC includes
HIPEC, which is delivered after the surgical procedure in the
operating room and/or early post-operative intraperitoneal
chemotherapy (EPIC), given via a port in the post-surgical
*S. J. Valle
sarah.valle@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au
*D. L. Morris
david.morris@unsw.edu.au
1
Department of Surgery, University of New South Wales & St George
Hospital, Kogarah, Australia
2
College of Medicine, Al-Iman Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3
Center for Gastrointestinal Malignancies, MedStar Washington
Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA
4
Department of Surgical Oncology, Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, India
5
Cancer Care Centre, St George Hospital, Kogarah, Australia
Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159
DOI 10.1007/s13193-016-0498-0
setting on days 1 to 5. More recently, bidirectional chemother-
apy combining synchronous intraoperative intraperitoneal
oxaliplatin and systemic chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil
has been introduced, targeting both the peritoneal cavity and
subperitoneal blood vessels, and has shown long-term surviv-
al in patients with colorectal cancer and appendix adenocarci-
noma. Oncologists acknowledge that disease control may be
significantly improved when chemotherapy is administered
through the intraperitoneal route [3]. This is supported by ex-
tensive clinical and pharmacological research studies and un-
precedented therapeutic results have been reported [4–6]. The
efficacy and modality of treatment with IPC is dependent on
multiple factors including the chosen cytotoxic agent, pharma-
cokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Kusamura reported that
there are eight parameters which impact on pharmacokinetics
and the efficacy of HIPEC, which can be modified during
HIPEC. These are: the type of drugs, concentration of the drugs,
the combination of them, carrier solution, volume of the perfus-
ate, temperature, duration, and the technique of either open or
closed abdominal cavity [7].Thereisnostandardisedmethod
for the delivery of IPC, which varies according to the surgeon
and/or unit’s preference. Most peritoneal surface malignancy
treatment centres use HIPEC exclusively, some use EPIC only,
and others use both sequentially. In this review, the methodol-
ogy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of IPC, and the
benefits and risks associated with each technique are discussed.
Background
Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal
Chemotherapy
CRS is the complete surgical removal of all macroscopic peri-
toneal disease. CRS is composed of five visceral or parietal
peritonectomy procedures. The techniques of CRS have pre-
viously been described by Sugarbaker [8]. Clinical data
strongly support in univariate and multivariate analyses that
complete cytoreduction of nodules <2.5 mm is the single most
important prognostic factor. Systemic chemotherapy is mini-
mally effective even when combined with CRS [9]asperito-
neal metastases are largely resistant to low intraperitoneal con-
centrations and adequate concentrations cannot be achieved
safely using this method.
HIPEC is the most widely explored modality of treatment
post-CRS that has a consistent, clinically improved outcome. It
is a locoregional chemotherapy treatment, which is heated to
increase the penetration and cytotoxicity of the chemotherapy
on the tumour cells. HIPEC is most commonly delivered once
CRS has been completed and before any digestive reconstruc-
tion or diversion is made, to expose bowel resection lines to the
chemotherapy in an effort to minimize the chance of anasto-
motic recurrence. The rationale of HIPEC is to eliminate the
peritoneal surface of any residual microscopic disease.
Moderate hyperthermia above 41 °C has a direct anti-tumour
effect by augmenting the cytotoxicity of some chemotherapeu-
tic agents and increasing the penetration depth of the chemo-
therapy into tumour nodules. Constant hyperthermia is obtained
during HIPEC by providing a continuous circuit with a pump
and heat exchanger, and temperature monitoring. During the
procedure, temperature probes are placed at different sites of
the circuit and intraperitoneal cavity; the heat generator, inflow
and outflow drains, bladder, liver and mesentery [10].
For various reasons, CRS and HIPEC must be performed at
the same time. Surgery without HIPEC can lead to fibrin en-
trapment of microscopic intraabdominal residual disease caus-
ing the peritoneal malignancy to recur rapidly and even prog-
ress. If patients undergo HIPEC post surgical recovery, adhe-
sions create barriers with a non-uniform drug distribution that
may lead to treatment failure.
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Drugs
Most centres have used mitomycin C as the HIPEC drug of
choice in patients with PC of colorectal and appendiceal ori-
gin, and in a subset of patients with mesothelioma. The most
widely applied doses range from 12.5 mg/m
2
to 35 mg/m
2
over 90 min [11]. The AUC ratio of mitomycin C is 23.5.
Van der Speeten et al. [12] found that after 90 min, 71 % of
the drug had left the peritoneal space, which indicates that
29 % was discarded with the removal of the peritoneal fluid.
Patients thatpresent with pseudomyxomaperitonei and a large
volume of mucinous ascites will have an expanded peritoneal
diffusion surface. A more rapid clearance of mitomycin C
from the peritoneal space and higher plasma AUC is expected,
with an increase in the incidence of bone marrow toxicity.
Oxaliplatin and irinotecan have more recently been explored
as HIPEC in PC from colorectal and appendix adenocarcino-
ma. Oxaliplatin is a third generation platinum complex with
AUC ratio between 16 and 25 [13]. As oxaliplatin can only be
administered in a 5 % dextrose solution, hyperglycaemia and
hyponatremia should be expected during the perfusion [14].
Irinotecan is a camptothecin analogue that interacts with topo-
isomerase I-DNA complex and prevents resealing of single
strand DNA breaks [11]. Pharmacokinetics suggest a benefi-
cial pharmacologic profile at 42.5 to 43 °C during 30 min of
HIPEC. The standard doses for oxaliplatin and irinotecan are
reportedtovarybetween360to460mg/m2and360to
400 mg/m2 respectively [15]. Cisplatin HIPEC has been used
in mesothelioma, ovarian and gastric cancer with an AUC
ration of 7.8 [16]. Cisplatin is a platinum salt, which has
shown improved survival when combined with CRS, however
is associated with increased toxicity and complications [17],
which has resulted in slow acceptance of this treatment mo-
dality within the scientific community. Cisplatin HIPEC is
associated with an increased incidence of nephrotoxicity,
Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159 153
which is found in 5–15 % of patients [18]. Saline diuresis and
a urine output of greater than 1 mL/kg/hr are necessary to
reduce the risk of nephrotoxicity. Many questions remain un-
answered in the treatment of gastric and ovarian cancer, in-
cluding the timing of drug delivery, hyperthermia and the
optimal choice of chemotherapeutic agent. As a result, the
regimens of IPC administration vary amongst institutions for
both gastric and ovarian cancers.
There is no standardised HIPEC dosimetry for the treat-
ment of patients with PC.
Early Postoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy is delivered
via a catheter or subcutaneous port placed through the abdom-
inal wall upon completion of CRS in the area at greatest risk of
recurrence. An outflow drain is inserted. EPIC is given in
patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei and in some units, pa-
tients with colorectal cancer, and can be applied with or with-
out HIPEC. It is administered on postoperative days 1 to 5
prior to wound healing, but can be initiated immediately post-
operatively or delayed, due to surgical complication or patient
condition. EPIC does not involve hyperthermia. EPIC has the
advantage of administering multiple cycles of chemotherapy
over a 24-h period, with a 23-h dwell time. However, as the
chemotherapeutic agents persist in the peritoneal cavity, there
is a greater risk of systemic absorption and adverse effects
[19]. The peritoneal surface tissues are repeatedly exposed to
the cytotoxic drug, which increases the benefit of its cell
cycle-specific activity [11]. The most common drug used in
this technique is 5-fluorouracil (5FU), which has a high first-
pass effect after portal absorption [20].Jacquetetal.[20]re-
ported an AUC ratio of >400 when studying the pharmacoki-
netics of intraperitoneal 5FU. It is a small molecule that moves
rapidly out of the peritoneal fluid into the plasma. Regardless of
the rapid metabolism of the drug in the liver and at other sites in
the body compartment, a large AUC ratio of peritoneal fluid to
plasma was maintained. An increased risk of infection has been
reported in patients who have received EPIC [19]. In a large
multi-institutional retrospective study, EPIC was found to sig-
nificantly increase the rate of postoperative complications in
504 patients with colorectal PC treated with CRS/IPC [21].
Elias et al. compared two groups of patients with colorectal
carcinomatosis where one was treated with EPIC using 5FU
and mitomycin C and the other with HIPEC using oxaliplatin
43 °C. Morbidity, mortality, recurrence rate and overall survival
favoured the HIPEC group [19,22].
Bidirectional Chemotherapy
Many current centre protocols advocate bidirectional chemo-
therapy. It is a two compartmental approach to the treatment of
PC that requires a simultaneous intraoperative intravenous
plus intraperitoneal chemotherapy infusion to obtain a bidirec-
tional fluid gradient in peritoneal tumour cells [11]. Timing is
critical to the success of the chemotherapy in relation to the
surgical procedure. Elias first reported this therapy and sug-
gested perioperative intravenous 5FU and leucovorin in con-
junction with oxaliplatin based HIPEC for colorectal cancer
[23]. Earlier in-vivo and in-vitro studies suggested that these
two drugs induced a synergic effect [24,25]. The AUC ratio of
peritoneal fluid to plasma was found to be 2.3 [23].
VanderSpeeten[26] reported on the pharmacology of 5FU
400 mg/m
2
, as a bidirectional protocol, administered by a drip
intravenous infusion in 250 mL 5 % dextrose and water, over
7.5 min. Leucovorin 20 mg/m
2
was simultaneously adminis-
tered through a separate line. Combined doxorubicin 15 mg/
m
2
and mitomycin C 15 mg/m
2
HIPEC was also infused si-
multaneously in 1.5 L/m
2
of 1.5 % dextrose at 41.5 °C. 5FU
levels were obtained from blood and peritoneal fluid at 15 min
intervals for 90 min. It rapidly circulated within the plasma
through both the arterial and venous systems to equilibrate
within the body tissue, including the large peritoneal and
subperitoneal surfaces of both the abdomen and pelvis. The
large volume of peritoneal fluid became saturated by 5FU
within approximately 20 min. High levels of 5FU persist in
the peritoneal fluid as the drug leaves the peritoneal space by
back diffusion through the peritoneal and subperitoneal tis-
sues [11]. 5FU penetrated into the heated tumour nodules even
though it was administered as a normothermic intravenous
solution. Heat targeting is achieved by modulating the timing
of intravenous chemotherapy [27]. The amount of 5FU pres-
ent in the tumour nodule is governed by both pharmacokinetic
(dose, duration, route of administration, volume, carrier solu-
tion and pressure) and non-pharmacokinetic (tumour size,
density, vascularity, interstitial fluid pressure, binding) vari-
ables [26]. By acting synergistically, this study showed that
bidirectional chemotherapy is pharmacokinetically beneficial
and yields a high tumour drug concentration and that intrave-
nous drugs can be targeted to the peritoneal surface if admin-
istered simultaneously with a large volume of intraperitoneal
chemotherapy solution.
Our unit follows the French bidirectional protocol in colo-
rectal and appendix cancers and it is widely used in both
French and German centres [23]. The innovation of a simulta-
neous treatment of CRS plus perioperative intraperitoneal che-
motherapy may be responsible for the current successes in
treating some PC patients, considering previous failures [11].
Intravenous ifosfamide has also been given for ovarian and
gastric cancers. It shows true heat synergy, with 5- to 10-times
the duration of tumour control with 41.5 °C heat compared to
normal temperatures [28]. Its anti-cancer effects only occur
after it is metabolised in the liver and red blood cells to form
4-hydroxyifosfamide [26]. It is an unstable metabolite and
only exists for few minutes within the plasma or red blood
cell but has demonstrated excellent results when combined
154 Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159
with intraperitoneal cisplatin. It can be concluded that the
cytotoxic effects of normothermic ifosfamide are maximised
on heated peritoneal surfaces while the adverse effects of this
agent would not occur at other sites within the body [11].
Neoadjuvant Intraperitoneal and Systemic
Chemotherapy (NIPS)
NIPS is an intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy reg-
imen given as an option for reducing the tumour load prior to
CRS and therefore may even facilitate definitive CRS [28].
Radiological and clinical responses with NIPS have been re-
ported by several groups [28–30]. However, disadvantages
include non-uniform intraperitoneal drug distribution due to
adhesions and it is also associated with an increased morbidity
and mortality on further surgical intervention as extensive
fibrosis can also occur, which can interfere with surgical
judgement [31]. NIPS is a promising approach that may be
of benefit in the management of peritoneal metastases from
gastric cancer [28].
Pharmacokinetics
Drug diffusion into tissue depends on tissue structure and drug
properties [23]. The pharmacologic rationale behind IPC con-
sists of dose intensification determined by the peritoneal plas-
ma barrier. The peritoneum is a three dimensional organ cov-
ering the abdominopelvic organs and the abdominal wall. The
peritoneum consists of a monolayer of mesothelial cells sup-
ported by a basement membrane and five layers of connective
tissue, which together accounts for a total thickness of 90um.
The accepted function of the peritoneum is to reduce friction
between intraabdominal organs and the abdominal wall by
producing a solution of glycosaminoglycan’s and phospho-
lipids [11]. It is of major importance in the host defence
against intraabdominal infections. The plasma-peritoneal bar-
rier inhibits attainment of effective intraperitoneal concentra-
tions with systemic chemotherapy administration, however
HIPEC uses this barrier in favour of the ability to maintain
localised therapeutic drug concentration levels [32].
Dedrick studied the pharmacokinetics of IPC and found
that hydrophilic cytotoxic drugs can maintain a significant
concentration gradient along the peritoneal plasma barrier;
with high intraperitoneal concentrations when added in the
abdominal cavity in large volumes [33], however is limited
by the restrictive penetration depth in tumour tissue of approx-
imately 1-3 mm. He stated that the peritoneal clearance of the
drug is inversely proportional to the square root of its molec-
ular weight [34] and stated the peritoneal permeability to a
certain drug is lower than the same drug’splasmaclearance
[35]. The two compartments, peritoneum and blood, are sep-
arated by a semipermeable membrane that allows a high peri-
toneal drug concentration, optimising its effect on the
intraperitoneal target and at the same time limiting drug pas-
sage into the plasma stream, which causes treatment toxicity
[23]. Following intraperitoneal delivery of the cytotoxic drug,
high regional concentrations can be achieved even whilst
keeping systemic concentrations low. The concentration dif-
ferential is in part due to the slow movement of the drug from
the peritoneal cavity into the plasma [36]. The peritoneal plas-
ma barrier maintains continuous high concentration gradient
of chemotherapeutic drug between the peritoneal cavity and
the plasma compartment [32]. Extensive removal of the peri-
toneum during CRS does not seem to affect the pharmacoki-
netics of intraperitoneal chemotherapy [37] in the transport of
chemotherapeutic agents from the peritoneal cavity to the
plasma compartment. Additionally, the blood drainage of the
peritoneal surface is by the portal vein. This, in theory, pro-
vides a first-pass effect exposing hepatic micrometastases to
cytotoxic drugs, presenting additional means of therapy [38].
After intraperitoneal administration, dose intensification re-
sults in a higher concentration of chemotherapy in the perito-
neal cavity than in the plasma. After cytoreduction, this con-
centration difference increases the possibility of exposing re-
sidual tumour cells to high doses of chemotherapeutic agents
with reduced systemic concentrations and lower systemic tox-
icity. This advantage is expressed by the area under the curve
(AUC) ratios of intraperitoneal versus plasma exposure (Table
1). High intraperitoneal concentration does not automatically
confer greater efficacy and penetration of the drug [11].
D
ifferentdrugregimenshavebeenusedovertheyearsfor
HIPEC. The choice primarily depends on suitability for ad-
ministration with hyperthermia and its known activity against
the disease being treated. Multiple single drug and drug
Tab le 1 Molecular weight and AUC ratios of intraperitoneal to
systemic exposure of chemotherapeutic agents used to treat peritoneal
metastases [11]
Drug Molecular Weight AUC Ratio
5-Fluououracil 130.08 250
Carboplatin 371.25 10
Cisplatin 300.10 7.8
Docetaxel 861.90 552
Doxorubicin 579.99 230
Etoposide 588.58 65
Floxuridine 246.20 75
Gemcitabine 299.50 500
Irinotecan 677.19 N/A
Melphalan 305.20 93
Mitomycin C 334.30 23.5
Mitoxantrone 517.41 115–255
Oxaliplatin 397.30 16
Paclitaxel 853.90 1000
Pemetrexed 597.49 40.8
Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159 155
combinations are currently in use. The carrier solution also
plays an important role in the clearance of the drug from the
peritoneal cavity to plasma. The chemical aspect of the carrier
however is not the sole factor that impacts on pharmacokinet-
ics and penetration ability. Factors such as concentration and
volume should be taken into consideration [7].
The ideal carrier solution should provide enhanced expo-
sure of the peritoneal surface, prolonged high intraperitoneal
volume, slow clearance from the peritoneal cavity and ab-
sence of adverse effects to peritoneal membranes [11]. This
improves both the distribution of the drug and efficacy of the
treatment. The carrier solution of 1.5 % dextrose isotonic peri-
toneal dialysis solution is the most widely used, however
some groups use normal saline or 5 % dextrose in water
[34], dependent on the type of chemotherapy agent. Body
surface area is an accurate predictor of drug metabolism and
is useful to estimate systemic drug toxicity. The accuracy in-
creases if the volume of the chemotherapy solution is deter-
mined by the body surface area [11]. Most researchers calcu-
late both drug dose and carrier solution volume based on body
surface area (mg/m
2
). Common perfusate volumes are 1.5 L/
m
2
or 2 L/m
2
[39,40]. The total volume of intraperitoneal
chemotherapy can vary widely between individuals and gen-
der difference in peritoneal surface area can affect absorption
characteristics. Females have a 10 % larger peritoneal surface
in proportion to body size than males [11]. The entire surface
of the abdominopelvic cavity should be targeted; therefore
different HIPEC techniques result in a wide variety of perfus-
ate volumes. Regulation of both the drug dose and carrier
solution volume based on the patient’s body surface area and
HIPEC delivery technique (open or closed) is necessary [41].
The cytotoxic effect is also relative to the duration of
exposure. In most reported studies, intraperitoneal drug
half-life is 90 min or less. Gardner modelled the dose-
response curves and their dependency on exposure time,
and according to this model a plateau in tumour cell kill
will be reached, after which prolonged exposure time of-
fers no further cytotoxic advantage [11]. Intraperitoneal
treatment length should be dependent on systemic expo-
sure and bone marrow toxicity. There is clinical data dem-
onstrating safety with different schemes established on an
empirical basis which includes a temperature of 41 °C
during 90 min and 43 °C for 30 to 40 min [15].
Pharmacodynamics
The basis for the use of hyperthermia in the treatment of peri-
toneal malignancy is multifactorial. An abundance of evi-
dence exists to support that hyperthermia has a direct anti-
tumour effect by enhancing the cellular uptake of cytotoxic
drugs, increasing membrane permeability and membrane
transport [42]. Synergism between various cytotoxic drugs
and hyperthermia starts at a temperature of 39 °C, but is
stronger at higher temperatures and as reported on in-vivo
studies on culture cells at temperatures of 45 °C, limited by
clinical tolerance [7]. Therefore, it is accepted that the moder-
ate hyperthermia level of 41 to 43 °C is optimal and selective-
ly induces cytotoxicity of malignant cells due to impaired
DNA repair, protein denaturation, and inhibition of oxidative
metabolism in the microenvironment of malignant cells,
which leads to increased acidity, lysosomal activation, and
increased apoptotic cell death [11] and inhibition of
angiogenesis.
Applying hyperthermia augments the specificity of a
subset of chemotherapeutic agents. Hyperthermia may also
increase the penetration of the chemotherapeutic agent into
the tissue and tumour nodules. Jacquet reported that tissue
penetration of doxorubicin is enhanced when a chemother-
apy solution is administered intraperitoneally at 43 °C [4]
as well as temperature dependent increases in drug action
inhibition of repair mechanisms [34]. Piche et al. showed
that increasing the temperature of oxaliplatin HIPEC even
reduces systemic toxicity [43]. The only study addressing
thermo-tolerance was performed in an animal (murine)
model. It was concluded that 44 °C during 30 min was
the maximum well-tolerated temperature [7]. Based on
Elias’experience, to obtain a minimum of 42 °C in the
out-drains, it is necessary to have between 44 and 45 °C
in the in-drains [39]. Uncontrolled hyperthermia can result
in acute and late systemic side effects. During HIPEC,
heat is applied locoregionally and the body’scoretemper-
ature is controlled by an anaesthetics team by applying ice
packs in the neck and groin regions.
In locoregional therapy, the drug passes from the periphery
to reach the tumour centre and so a major influential factor is
the interstitium and interstitial fluid pressure. Interstitial pres-
sure in tumours is usually increased [23]. Leunig et al. report-
ed that heat induced a dose-dependent reduction in the inter-
stitial pressure, therefore increasing the ability of the drug to
penetrate into the tissues [44]. Animal models show an in-
creased accumulation and anti-tumour effect of intraperitoneal
cisplatin, oxaliplatin and doxorubicin when abdominal pres-
sure was increased. This is however limited by respiratory and
haemodynamic tolerance [45].
Perfusion Techniques
There are various methods for intraperitoneal administration
of HIPEC. There is no standardised methodology or consen-
sus for a superior method as there are advantages and disad-
vantages to each.
In the closed abdomen technique, inflow and outflow
lines are placed through separate incisions and afterwards,
the abdominal wall is closed before the delivery of
HIPEC. There has been no increased risk of anastomotic
recurrence or gastrointestinal fistula reported by centres
156 Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159
that perform the closure prior to HIPEC [46]. The major
advantage of the closed technique is the ability to rapidly
achieve and maintain hyperthermia, as there is minimal
heat loss from a closed abdomen. It has also been studied
that the closed technique increases intraperitoneal pressure,
which is reported to enhance the penetrative ability of the
chemotherapy. However, deficiencies have been noted in
the distribution of methylene blue dye with the closed
technique, which may cause a higher frequency of com-
plications and non-uniform treatment [19].
The non-uniform distribution of HIPEC in the closed tech-
nique prompted the development of the open method, which
allows for the manual distribution of heat and the cytotoxic
solution [8]. This method, or ‘Coliseum technique’, involves
the skin edges of the abdominal incision being suspended
from a Thompson or Bookwalter retractor by a running suture
to create an open space in the abdominal cavity. A plastic sheet
is incorporated into this suture with a small opening in the
centre to allow for the surgeon’s hand to access the abdomen
and pelvis for manipulation during chemotherapy, usually
with one inflow and two outflow catheters. Temperature
probes are placed near the inflow catheters. Smoke evacuators
are placed to guard against any potential cytotoxic aerosol
contamination. Yonemura et al. introduced a ‘peritoneal ac-
cess device’to achieve optimal peritoneal expansion.
According to this technique, larger volumes of perfusion fluid
can be added allowing the small bowel to float in the cavity
expander [47]. A major advantage of these open techniques is
the creation of controlled distribution of heat and the cytotoxic
drugs however, disadvantages are also heat loss and possible
drug leakage, increasing potential exposure to theatre staff
[48].
Halkia et al. found that there were no statistically signifi-
cant differences observed in abdominal temperature, core tem-
perature, central venous pressure, heart rate, systolic blood
pressure and urinary output along with morbidity and mortal-
ity by adopting either open or closed technique [49]. A com-
parative study conducted on an animal model identified that
good thermal homogeneity was reached with both techniques,
however better chemotherapeutic absorption and tissue uptake
were achieved with the open technique [50]. Elias et al. [10]
performed a prospective phase II trial investigating seven
techniques in 32 patients. They found that the closed tech-
nique restricted the volume of the perfusion, decreased spatial
diffusion of the chemotherapy, and resulted in lack of thermal
homogeneity. The peritoneal cavity expander allowed imme-
diate thermal homogeneity but this technique isolated the ab-
dominal wall from the chemotherapy. The coliseum method
was identified as the best technique in terms of thermal homo-
geneity and spatial diffusion. Excessive heating of normal
tissue that can exacerbate post-operative ileus and increase
the incidence of post-operative perforation or gastrointestinal
fistula formation may be avoided when using the open
technique [51]. Stuart et al. evaluated the safety of operating
theatre personnel during the open technique and reported that
all assessments were found to be in compliance with
established safety standards [52]. The consensus statement
issued by the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group
International, after the meeting in Milan, 2006, reached the
conclusion that the best technique for HIPEC delivery is via
the open method [7].
Laparoscopic HIPEC has been successfully administered
in palliating patients with malignant ascites from peritoneal
metastases. It has shown to provide treatment benefits
greater than conventional methods including diuretics, re-
peated paracentesis and systemic chemotherapy with a
complete and definitive resolution of the ascites was ob-
served in up to 94 % of patients [53,54,55]. Some
centres have also performed curative intent laparoscopic
CRS/HIPEC in selected patients with limited PC.
Esquivel et al. concluded that the laparoscopic procedure
was feasible and safe in patients with an appendiceal ma-
lignancy, a low tumour volume and no small bowel in-
volvement [56]. A longer follow-up period would be ben-
eficial to evaluate its long-term efficacy. Laparoscopic
CRS/HIPEC is not yet accepted as a standard of care
method as this procedure reduces the ability of assessing
all abdominopelvic areas and any prior surgical procedure
creates difficulty with adhesions, therefore tumour implants
can be missed promoting early recurrence, however it has
shown promising results in the palliative treatment of ma-
lignant ascites.
There are a variety of hyperthermic perfusion pumps
available internationally and some units deliver HIPEC
via a modified cardiac bypass/perfusion machine and dis-
posable cardiac lines, which is operated by a cardiac per-
fusionist. Automated pumps, specifically designed for in-
traoperative chemotherapy, are now being used in many
centres. These are portable, temperature regulated perfu-
sion pumps that continually monitor the infusion process
and all control systems. There has been no review to date
on the comparison of each of the commercially available
perfusion machines.
Conclusion
CRS and IPC combined are recognised as standard of care
for treatment of a subset of patients with PC. There is no
standardised method for the choice of drug or the delivery
of IPC however a significant improvement in disease con-
trol is seen when chemotherapy is administered through
the intraperitoneal route following CRS. The pharmacoki-
netic and pharmacodynamic data provides a strong phar-
macologic rationale for using perioperative chemotherapy
to treat patients with peritoneal surface malignancy.
Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159 157
References
1. Elias D, Glehen O, Gilly F, et al. (2008). Carcinose peritoneles
d’origine digestive et primitive. In: Rapport du 110eme congress
de l’AFC. Arnette: Wolters Kluwer France.
2. Sugarbaker PH (2003) Peritonectomy procedures. Surg Oncol Clin
NAm12:703–727
3. Trimble EL, Thompson S, Christian MC, Minasian L (2008)
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for women with ovarian cancer. The
Oncologist 13(4):403–409
4. Yan TD, Welch L, Black D, et al. (2007) A systematic review on the
efficacy of cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative in-
traperitoneal chemotherapy for diffuse malignancy peritoneal me-
sothelioma. Ann Oncol 18:827–834
5. Yan TD, Black D, Savady R, (2006) et al. A systematic review on
the efficacy of cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative
intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from
colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol;24:4011–4019.
6. Yonemura Y, Bando E, Kawamura T, et al. (2007) Cytoreduction
and intraperitoneal chemotherapy for carcinomatosis from gastric
cancer. Cancer Treat Res 134:357–373
7. Kusamura S, Elias D, Baratti D, (2008) et al. Drugs, carrier solu-
tions and temperature in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemothera-
py. J Surg Oncol;98:247–252.
8. Sugarbaker PH (1995) Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg 221:
29–42
9. De Bree E, Tsiftsis DD (2007) Principles of perioperative intraper-
itoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Recent Results
Cancer Res 169:39–51
10. Elias D, Antoun S, Goharin A, (2001) et al. Research on the best
chemohyperthermia technique of treatment of peritoneal carcino-
matosis after complete resection. Int J Surg Investig;1:431–439.
11. Deraco M, Glehen O, Helm CW, Morris DL, Van der Speeten K
(2013) Sugarbaker PH. In: Cytoreductive surgery and perioperative
chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy. Textbook and vid-
eo atlas. Cine-med, Canada
12. Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA, Caillot JL, (2011) et al. Changes
induced by surgical and clinical factors in the pharmacology of
intraperitoneal mitomycin C in 145 patients with peritoneal carci-
nomatosis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol;68:147–156.
13. Elias D, Lefevre JH, Chevalier J, (2009) et al. Complete
cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal chemohypethermia with
oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. J Clin
Oncol;27:681–685.
14. De Somer F, Ceelen W, Delanghe J, et al. (2008) Severe
hyponatremia, hyperglycemia and hyperlactatemia are associated
with intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion
with oxaliplatin. Perit Dial Int 28:61–66
15. Dedrick RL (1985) Theoretical and experimental bases of intraper-
itoneal chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 12(3):1–6
16. Yan TD, Black D, Sugarbaker PH, et al. (2007) A systematic review
and metaanalysis of the randomised controlled trials on adjuvant
intraperitoneal chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer. Ann
Surg Oncol 14:2702–2713
17. Markman M, Bundy BN, Alberts DS, et al. (2001) Phase III trial of
standard dose intravenous cisplatin plus paclitaxel versus moderate-
ly high-dose carboplatin followed by intravenous paclitaxel and
intraperitoneal cisplatin in small-volume stage III ovarian carcino-
ma: an intergroup study of the Gynecologic Oncology Group,
Southwestern Oncology Group, and Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 19:1001–1007
18. Hayes-Jordan A, Owusu-Agyemang P,Green H (2012) Anaesthetic
management and renal function in paediatric patients undergoing
cytoreductive surgery with continuous hyperthermic intraperitoneal
chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cisplatin. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2652–
2656
19. Glehen O, Cotte E, Kusamura S, et al. (2008) Hyperthemic intra-
peritoneal chemotherapy: nomenclature and modalities of perfu-
sion. J Surg Oncol 98:242–246
20. Jacquet P, Averbach A, Stephens AD, et al. (1998) Heated intraop-
erative intraperitoneal mitomycin C and early postoperative intra-
peritoneal 5-flurouracil: pharmacokinetic studies. Oncology 55:
130–138
21. Glehen O, Sugarbaker PH, Elias D, et al. (2004) Cytoreductive
surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy
for the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal
cancer. A multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol 22:3284–3292
22. Elias D, Benizri E, Di Pietrantonio D, et al. (2007) Comparison of
two kinds of intraperitoneal chemotherapy following complete
cytoreductive surgery of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann
Surg Oncol 14:509–514
23. Sammartino P, Accarpio F, Cornal T, et al. (2015) Cytoreduction
and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) com-
bined. In: Di Georgio A & Pinto E. Treatment of peritoneal surface
malignancies: updates in surgery. Pg 107–127.
24. Mathe G, Kidani Y, Seglguchi M, et al. (1989) Oxalato-platinum or
I-OHP, a third generation platinum complex: an experimental and
clinical appraisal and preliminary comparison with cisplatinum and
carboplatinum. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy. 43:237–250
25. De Gramont A, Tournigand C, Louvet C, et al. (1997) Oxaliplatin,
folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) in pretreated patients
with metastatic advanced cancer the GERCOD. La Revuede
Medecine Interne/Fondee Par La Societe Nationale Francaisede
Medecine Interne 18:769–775
26. Van der Speeten K, Stuart OA, Mahteme H, Sugarbaker PH (2010)
Pharmacology of perioperative 5-fluorouracil. J Surg Oncol 102(7):
730–735
27. Jacquet P, Averbach AM, Stuart OA, Chang D, Sugarbaker PH
(1998) Hyperthermic intraperitoneal doxorubicin: pharmacokinet-
ics, metabolism and tissue distribution in a rat model. Cancer
Chemother Pharmacol 41:147–154
28. Yonemura Y, Bandou E, Sawa T, et al. (2006) Neoadjuvant treat-
ment of gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination. Eur J Surg
Oncol 32:661–665
29. Sugarbaker PH (1996) Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from
colon or appendiceal cancer with induction intraperitoneal chemo-
therapy. Cancer Treat Res 82:317–325
30. Zylberberg B, Dormont D, Janklewicz S, et al. (2001) Response to
neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and intravenous immunochemotherapy
followed by interval secondary cytoreduction in stage IIIC ovarian
cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 22:40–45
31. Esquivel J, Vidal-Jove J, Steves MA, et al. (1993) Morbidity and
mortality of cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemothera-
py. Surgery 113:631–636
32. Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH (1996) Peritoneal-plasma barrier. Cancer
Treat Res 82:53–63
33. Jones RB, Myers CE, Guarino AM, et al. (1978) High volume
intraperitoneal chemotherapy (Bbelly bath^) for ovarian cancer.
pharmacologic basis and early results. Cancer Chemother
Pharmacol 1:161–166
34. MacArthur KM, Nicholl MB (2013) Principles and innovations in
peritoneal surface malignancy treatment. World J Oncol 4(3):129–
136
35. Dedrick RL, Myers CE, Bungay PM, et al. (1978) Pharmacokinetic
rationale for peritoneal drug administration in the treatment of ovar-
ian cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 62:1–11
36. Gonzalez-Moreno S, Gonzalez-Bayon LA, Ortega-Perez G (2010)
Hyperthemic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: rationale and tech-
nique. WJGO 2(2):68–75
158 Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159
37. Pillai K, Akhter J, Chua T, Morris DL (2014) A formulation for in
situ lysis of mucin secreted in pseudomyxoma peritonei. Int J
Cancer 134:478–486
38. Speyer JL, Sugarbaker PH, Collins JM, et al. (1981) Portal levels
and hepatic clearance of 5-fluorouracil after intraperitoneal admin-
istration in humans. Cancer Res 41:1916–1922
39. Elias D, Bonnay M, Puizillou JM, et al. (2002) Heated intraopera-
tive intraperitoneal oxaliplatin after complete resection of peritoneal
carcinomatosis: pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution. Ann
Oncol 13:267–272
40. Sugarbaker PH, Mora JT, Carmignani P, et al. (2005) Update on
chemotherapeutic agents utilized for perioperative intraperitoneal
chemotherapy. Oncologist 10:112–122
41. Keshaviah P, Emerson PF, Vonesh EF, et al. (1994) Relationship
between body size, fill volume and mass transfer area coefficient in
peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1820–1826
42. Sticca RP, Dach BW (2003) Rationale for hyperthermia with intra-
operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy agents. Surg Oncol Clin N
Am 12(3):689–701
43. Piche N, Leblond FA, Sideris L, et al. (2001) Rationale for heating
oxaliplatin for the intraperitoneal treatment of peritoneal carcino-
matosis. A study of the effect of heat on intraperitoneal oxaliplatin
using a murine model. Ann. Surg. 254:138–144
44. Leunig M, Goetz AE, Dellian M, et al. (1992) Interstitial fluid
pressure in solid tumours following hyperthermia: possible corre-
lation with therapeutic response. Cancer Res 52:487–490
45. Esquis P, Consolo D, Magnin G, et al. (2006) High intraabdominal
pressure enhances the penetration and antitumor effect of intraper-
itoneal cisplatin on experimental carcinomatosis. Ann Surg 244:
106–112
46. Glehen O, Osinsky D, Cotte E, et al. (2003) Intraperitoneal
chemohyperthemia using a closed abdominal procedure and
cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomato-
sis: morbidity and mortality analysis of 216 consecutive proce-
dures. Ann Surg Oncol 10:863–869
47. Yonemura Y, Fujimura T, Fushida S, et al. (1991) Hyperthermo-
chemotherapy combined with cytoreductive surgery for the
treatment of gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination. World J
Surg 15:530–536
48. Gonzalez-Bayon L, Gonzalez-Moreno S, Ortega-Perez G (2006)
Safety considerations for operating room personnel during hyper-
thermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy perfusion. Eur
J Surg Oncol 32:619–624
49. Halkia E, Tsochrinis A, Vassiliadou DT, et al. (2015) Peritoneal
carcinomatosis: intraoperative parameters in open (coliseum) ver-
sus closed abdomen HIPEC. Int J Surg Oncol 610597
50. Ortega-Deballon O, Facy O, Jambet S, et al. (2010) Which method
to deliver hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with
oxaliplatin? An experimental comparison of open and closed tech-
niques. Ann Surg Oncol 17(7):1957–1963
51. Stephens AD, Alderman R, Chang D, et al. (1999) Morbidity and
mortality analysis of 200 treatments with cytoreductive surgery and
hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy using the coliseum
technique. Ann Surg Oncol 6:790–796
52. Stuart O, Stephens AD, Welch L, et al. (2002) Safety monitoring of
the coliseum technique for heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy
with mitomycin C. Ann Surg Oncol 9:186–191
53. Garofalo A, Valle M, Garcia J, et al. (2006) Laparoscopic intraper-
itoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy for palliation of debilitating
malignant ascites. EJSO 32:682–685
54. Valle M, Van der Speeten K, Garofalo A (2009) Laparoscopic hy-
perthermic intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) in
the management of refractory malignant ascites: a multi-
institutional retrospective analysis in 52 patients. J Surg Oncol
100:331–334
55. Valle SJ, Alzahrani N, Alzahrani S, Liauw W, Morris DL (2015)
Laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)
for refractory malignant ascites in patients unsuitable for
cytoreductive surgery. Int J Surg 23:176–180
56. Esquivel J, Averbach A, Chua TC (2011) Laparoscopic
cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemother-
apy in patients with limited peritoneal surface malignancies: feasi-
bility, morbidity and outcome in an early experience. Ann Surg
253:764–768
Indian J Surg Oncol (June 2016) 7(2):152–159 159