Determinants of Long-Term Survival versus Early Failure After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Comparative Analysis of Two Extreme Phenotypes
In brief
High tumor burden predicts early death after CRS-HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases
In a single-center cohort, patients with a peritoneal cancer index of 14 or higher were about six times more likely to die within six months after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, while low tumor burden, complete cytoreduction (94% vs 79%) and no major complications marked survivors beyond three years. The findings stress rigorous patient selection and the goal of complete, uncomplicated resection.
- Journal
- Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (Q1)
- Published
- 9 September 2026
- Study design
- Retrospective cohort
- Evidence level
- Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
- Authors
- Nurhilal Kızıltoprak, Ecenur Dural, Berke Manoğlu, Hülya Ellidokuz, Selman Sökmen
- PMID
- 42716462
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.gassur.2026.102583
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Gastrointestinal and Colorectal Surgery (paper of the day, 15 September 2026): Determinants of long‑term survival after CRS‑HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and perioperative chemotherapy can render colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRC-PM) a curative-intent disease in selected patients. However, the factors that separate long-term survivors from patients who fail early have rarely been examined by direct comparison. We compared the two extreme outcome phenotypes. METHODS: In a single-center, retrospective, comparative cohort (2007-2025), consecutive patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC for CRC-PM were identified. Long survivors (overall survival [OS] ≥36 months; n=47) and early-failure patients (OS ≤6 months; n=61) were compared directly (n=108); the early-failure group was defined by overall survival ≤6 months. Univariable comparison and multivariable binary logistic regression were used for the two-phenotype comparison; time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier and Cox) modelling was restricted to the full cohort (n=244) to avoid conditioning on the outcome. Analyses were performed in SPSS v29. RESULTS: High PCI (≥14) was independently associated with early-failure group membership, and ostomy formation was also associated with early failure, most likely as a surrogate for rectal/pelvic disease (logistic regression: OR 6.21 and 5.38, respectively). In the full cohort, high PCI (HR 2.64; 95% CI 1.25-5.55) was independently associated with shorter survival, as was ostomy formation (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.28-5.66), though the latter is most likely a surrogate for rectal/pelvic disease. Compared with early-failure patients, long survivors had lower tumor burden, more frequent complete cytoreduction (93.6% vs 78.7%), a numerically but not significantly higher rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (66.0% vs 49.2%; p=0.081), no grade ≥III complications, and no anastomotic leak (0% vs 11.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Low peritoneal tumor burden, complete cytoreduction, and an uncomplicated postoperative course distinguish long-term survivors, whereas high peritoneal tumor burden marks early failure; ostomy formation is associated with early failure but most likely as a surrogate for rectal/pelvic disease rather than an independent factor. These findings reinforce the central role of patient selection and complete cytoreduction, which is best regarded not as demolition surgery but as surgical architecture. SYNOPSIS: In this comparative cohort of patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases, high peritoneal tumor burden distinguished early failure from long-term survival, and ostomy formation was associated with early failure (most likely as a surrogate for rectal/pelvic disease), whereas low PCI, complete cytoreduction, and an uncomplicated postoperative course characterized long survivors.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.