Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 2300–2308 | Cite as

Prognostic Value of Circulating Tumor Markers in Patients with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

  • Dario Baratti
  • Shigeki Kusamura
  • Antonia Martinetti
  • Ettore Seregni
  • Barbara Laterza
  • Daniela G. Oliva
  • Marcello Deraco
Thoracic Oncology

Abstract

Background

Encouraging results have been recently reported in selected patients affected by pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The selection factors predicting clinical outcome are still a matter of clinical investigation. We assessed the prognostic reliability of serum tumor markers in a large series of patients with PMP undergoing CRS and HIPEC.

Methods

Sixty-two patients with PMP were operated on at a single institution with the intent of performing adequate CRS (residual tumor nodules ≤2.5mm) and HIPEC. Baseline and serial marker measurements were prospectively collected and tested by multivariate analysis with respect to adequate cytoreduction, overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival, along with the following variables: age, sex, performance status, prior surgical score, histological subtype, prior systemic chemotherapy, disease extent, completeness of cytoreduction.

Results

Baseline diagnostic sensitivity was 72.6% for CEA, 58.1% for CA19.9, 58.7% for CA125, 36.1% for CA15.3. Fifty-three patients underwent adequate CRS and HIPEC; gross residual tumor was left after surgery in nine. Adequate CRS was performed in 19/27 patients with elevated and in 19/19 with normal baseline CA125 (P = .0140). The other markers were unable to predict the completeness of CRS by univariate analysis. Baseline elevated CA19.9 was an independent predictor of reduced PFS; inadequate CRS and aggressive histology were independent prognostic factors for both reduced OS and PFS.

Conclusion

Normal CA125 correlated to the likelihood to achieve adequate CRS, which is a significant prognostic factor for PMP. Increased baseline CA19.9 was an independent predictor of worse PFS after CRS and HIPEC.

Keywords

Pseudomyxoma peritonei Serum tumor markers Peritonectomy Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy HIPEC CA125 CA19.9 

References

  1. 1.
    Sugarbaker PH. Pseudomyxoma peritonei: a cancer whose biology is characterized by a redistribution phenomenon. Ann Surg 1994; 219:109–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sugarbaker PH. New standard of care for appendiceal epithelial neoplasms and pseudomyxoma peritonei syndrome? Lancet Oncol 2006; 7:69–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ronnett BM, Shmookler BM, Diener-West M, et al. Immunohistochemical evidence supporting the appendiceal origin of pseudomyxoma peritonei in women. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1997; 16:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gough DB, Donohue JH, Schutt AJ, et al. Pseudomyxoma peritonei. Long-term patient survival with an aggressive regional approach. Ann Surg 1994; 219:112–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fernandez RN, Daly JM. Pseudomyxoma peritonei. Arch Surg 1980; 115:409–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sugarbaker PH. Cytoreductive surgery and intra-peritoneal chemotherapy with peritoneal spread of cystadenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg 1991; 561(Suppl.):75–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart JH, Shen P, Levine EA. Intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy for peritoneal surface malignancy: current status and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:765–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugarbaker PH. Results of treatment of 385 patients with peritoneal surface spread of appendiceal malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6:727–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Witkamp AJ, de Bree E, Kaag MM, et al. Extensive surgical cytoreduction and intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei. Br J Surg 2001; 88:458–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deraco M, Baratti D, Inglese MG, et al. Peritonectomy and intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion (IPHP): a strategy that has confirmed its efficacy in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:393–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bagshawe KD, Rustin GJ. Circulating tumour markers. In Peckham M, Pinedo H, Veronesi U (Eds). Oxford Textbook of Oncology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995:412–20Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Ruth S, Hart AA, Bonfrer JM, et al. Prognostic value of baseline and serial carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19.9 measurements in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei treated with cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9:961–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carmignani CP, Hampton R, Sugarbaker CE, et al. Utility of CEA and CA 19-9 tumor markers in diagnosis and prognostic assessment of mucinous epithelial cancers of the appendix. J Surg Oncol 2004; 87:162–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alexander-Sefre F, Chandrakumaran K, Banerjee S, et al. Elevated tumour markers prior to complete tumour removal in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei predict early recurrence. Colorectal Dis 2005; 7:382–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and Response Criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5:649–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacquet P, Jelinek JS, Chang D, et al. Abdominal computed tomographic scan in the selection of patients with mucinous peritoneal carcinomatosis for cytoreductive surgery. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 181:530–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugarbaker PH. Peritonectomy procedures. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 2003; 12:703–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ronnett BM, Zahn CM, Kurman RJ, et al. Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis and peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis. A clinicopathologic analysis of 109 cases with emphasis on distinguishing pathologic features, sites of origin, prognosis and relationship to pesudomixoma peritonei. Am J Surg Pathol 1995; 19:1390–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esquivel JE, Sugarbaker PH. Elective surgery in recurrent colon cancer with peritoneal seeding: when to and when not to. Cancer Ther 1998; 1:321–5Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jaquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Current methodologies for clinical assessment of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 1996; 15:49–58Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Soc 1958; 53:457–81Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cox DR. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 1972; 34:187–220Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacquet P, Stephens AD, Averbach DM, et al. Analysis of morbidity and mortality in 60 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancer 1996; 77:2622–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glehen O, Osinsky D, Cotte E, et al. Intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia using a closed abdominal procedure and cytoreductive surgery for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: morbidity and mortality analysis of 216 consecutive procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:863–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kusamura S, Younan R, Baratti D, et al. Cytoreductive surgery followed by intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion in the treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies: analysis of morbidity and mortality in 209 cases treated with closed abdomen technique. Cancer 2006; 106:1144–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verwaal VJ, van Tinteren H, Ruth SV, et al. Toxicity of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol 2004; 85:61–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barlow TS, Przybylski M, Schilder JM, et al. The utility of presurgical CA125 to predict optimal tumor cytoreduction of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16:496–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fehm T, Jager W, Kramer S, et al. Prognostic significance of serum HER2 and CA 15-3 at the time of diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2004; 24:1987–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Landen S, Bertrand C, Maddern GJ, et al. Appendiceal mucoceles and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 175:401–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nasr MF, Kemp GM, Given PT Jr. Pseudomyxoma peritonei: treatment with intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1993; 14:213–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Esquivel J, Sugarbaker PH. Second-look surgery in patients with peritoneal dissemination from appendiceal malignancy: analysis of prognostic factors in 98 patients. Ann Surg 2001; 234:198–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choi MY, Lee KM, Chung JK, et al. Correlation between serum CEA level and metabolic volume as determined by FDG PET in postoperative patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2005; 19:123–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dario Baratti
    • 1
  • Shigeki Kusamura
    • 1
  • Antonia Martinetti
    • 2
  • Ettore Seregni
    • 2
  • Barbara Laterza
    • 1
  • Daniela G. Oliva
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marcello Deraco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryNational Cancer InstituteMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineNational Cancer InstituteMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations