Background: Gastric cancer has a poor prognosis and involves metastasis to the peritoneum in over 40% of patients. The optimal treatment modalities have not been established for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (GC/PC). Although studies have reported favourable prognostic factors, these have yet to be incorporated into treatment guidelines. Hence, our review aims to appraise the latest diagnostic and treatment developments in managing GC/PC. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) in GC/PC. A meta-analysis of studies reporting on overall survival (OS) in HIPEC and comparing the extent of cytoreduction as a prognostic factor was also carried out. Results: The database search yielded a total of 2297 studies. Seventeen studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Eight studies reported the short-term OS at 1 year as the primary outcome measure, and our analysis showed a significantly higher OS for the HIPEC/CRS cohort compared to the CRS cohort (pooled OR = 0.53; p = 0.0005). This effect persisted longer term at five years as well (pooled OR = 0.52; p < 0.0001). HIPEC and CRS also showed a longer median OS compared to CRS (pooled SMD = 0.61; p < 0.00001). Three studies reporting on PIPAC demonstrated a pooled OS of 10.3 (2.2) months. Prognostic factors for longer OS include a more complete cytoreduction (pooled OR = 5.35; p < 0.00001), which correlated with a peritoneal carcinomatosis index below 7. Conclusions: Novel treatment strategies, such as HIPEC and PIPAC, are promising in the management of GC/PC. Further work is necessary to define their role within the treatment algorithm and identify relevant prognostic factors that will assist patient selection.

Esophago-gastric malignancies are associated with a high recurrence rate; yet there is a lack of evidence to inform guidelines for the standardization and structure of postoperative surveillance after curatively intended treatment. This study aimed to capture the variation in postoperative surveillance strategies across the UK and Ireland, and enquire the opinions and beliefs around surveillance from practicing clinicians. A web-based survey consisting of 40 questions was sent to surgeons or allied health professionals performing or involved in surgical care for esophago-gastric cancers at high-volume centers in the UK. Respondents from each center completed the survey on what best represented their center. The first section of the survey evaluated the timing and components of follow-ups, and their variation between centers. The second section evaluated respondents perspective on how surveillance can be structured. Thirty-five respondents from 27 centers consisting 28 consultants, 6 senior trainees and 1 specialist nurse had completed the questionnaire; 45.7% of responders arranged clinical follow-up at 2–4 weeks. Twenty responders had a specific postoperative surveillance protocol for their patients. Of these, 31.4% had a standardized protocol for all patients, while 25.7% tailored it to patient needs. Patient preference, comorbidities and chance of recurrence were considered as major factors for necessitating more intense surveillance than currently practiced. There is a significant variation in how patients are monitored after surgery between centers in the UK. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to both survival outcomes and quality of life of patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of different postoperative surveillance strategies.