Daniele Biacchi

Prof. Dr. Daniele Biacchi


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

30Years (1997-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
8 July 2008 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AGAngelo Di Giorgio
Angelo Di Giorgio
ENEnzo Naticchioni
Enzo Naticchioni
DBDaniele Biacchi
Daniele Biacchi
SSSimone Sibio
Simone Sibio
FAFabio Accarpio
Fabio Accarpio
PSPaolo Sammartino
Paolo Sammartino
BACKGROUND.: Because of scarce data from larger series and nonhomogeneous selection criteria, further information is needed on peritonectomy with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in managing patients with ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis.METHODS.: In an open, prospective, single‐center nonrandomized phase 2 study conducted from November 2000 to April 2007, 47 patients with primary advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer and diffuse peritoneal carcinomatosis were enrolled; 22 underwent primary and 25 secondary cytoreduction plus immediate HIPEC followed by systemic chemotherapy.RESULTS.: The overall mean Sugarbaker peritoneal cancer index was 14.9 (range, 6–28). A mean of 6 surgical procedures were required per patient (range, 4–10). In 87.3% of the patients debulking achieved optimal cytoreduction (Sugarbaker completeness of cytoreduction [CC] score 0–1), whereas in 12.7% it left macroscopic residual disease (CC‐2 or CC‐3). Major complications developed in 21.3% of the patients and the in‐hospital mortality rate was 4.2%. The mean overall survival was 30.4 months, median survival was 24 months, and mean disease‐free survival was 27.4 months. Five‐year survival was 16.7%. Univariate (log‐rank test and analysis of variance) and multivariate analyses (Cox proportional‐hazard model) identified the CC score as the main factor capable of independently influencing survival.CONCLUSIONS.: Peritonectomy procedures combined with HIPEC offer promising long‐term survival in patients with diffuse peritoneal ovarian carcinomatosis. They achieve high adequate primary and secondary surgical cytoreduction rates with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

19 September 2016 in La radiologia medica
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ALAndrea Laghi
Andrea Laghi
DBDavide Bellini
Davide Bellini
Marco RengoMarco Rengo
Marco Rengo
FAFabio Accarpio
Fabio Accarpio
Damiano CarusoDamiano Caruso
Damiano Caruso
PSPaolo Sammartino
Paolo Sammartino

9 February 2023 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Andrea Di GiorgioAndrea Di Giorgio
Andrea Di Giorgio
AMAntonio Macri
Antonio Macri
Federica FerracciFederica Ferracci
Federica Ferracci
MRManuela Robella
Manuela Robella
MVMario Visaloco
Mario Visaloco
MVMarco Vaira
Marco Vaira
Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper–Pearson exact CIs in all instances. Results: A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3–4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61–0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I2 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%. Conclusions: PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.

28 November 2016 in Annals of Surgical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AGAngelo Di Giorgio
Angelo Di Giorgio
Pierandrea De IacoPierandrea De Iaco
Pierandrea De Iaco
MSMichele De Simone
Michele De Simone
AGAlfredo Garofalo
Alfredo Garofalo
GSGiovanni Scambia
Giovanni Scambia
PSPaolo Sammartino
Paolo Sammartino
Purpose The aim of this study was to help with the process of selecting patients with advanced ovarian cancer to undergo cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy...

8 May 2012 in Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PSPaolo Sammartino
Paolo Sammartino
SSSimone Sibio
Simone Sibio
DBDaniele Biacchi
Daniele Biacchi
MCMaurizio Cardi
Maurizio Cardi
FAFabio Accarpio
Fabio Accarpio
AGAngelo Di Giorgio
Angelo Di Giorgio
The study compared the outcome in patients with advanced colonic cancer at high risk of peritoneal metastases (mucinous or signet-ring cell) without peritoneal or systemic spread, treated with standard colectomy or a more aggressive combined surgical approach. The study included patients with colonic cancer with clinical T3/T4, any N, M0, and mucinous or signet ring cell histology. The 25 patients in the experimental group underwent hemicolectomy, omentectomy, bilateral adnexectomy, hepatic round ligament resection, and appendectomy, followed by HIPEC. The control group comprised 50 patients treated with standard surgical resection during the same period in the same hospital by different surgical teams. Outcome data, morbidity, peritoneal recurrence rate, and overall, and disease-free survival, were compared. Peritoneal recurrence developed in 4% of patients in the experimental group and 22% of controls without increasing morbidity (𝑃<0.05). Actuarial overall survival curves disclosed no significant differences, whereas actuarial disease-free survival curves showed a significant difference between groups (36.8 versus 21.9 months, 𝑃<0.01). A more aggressive preventive surgical approach combined with HIPEC reduces the incidence of peritoneal recurrence in patients with advanced mucinous colonic cancer and also significantly increases disease-free survival compared with a homogeneous control group treated with a standard surgical approach without increasing morbidity.

1 July 2014 in International Journal of Colorectal Disease
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PSPaolo Sammartino
Paolo Sammartino
SSSimone Sibio
Simone Sibio
DBDaniele Biacchi
Daniele Biacchi
MCM. Cardi
M. Cardi
PMP. Mingazzini
P. Mingazzini
AGAngelo Di Giorgio
Angelo Di Giorgio