Background: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. Methods: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0–10 or 11–20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician’s discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. Discussion: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov/NCT02758951, NTR/NTR6301, ISRCTN/ISRCTN15977568, EudraCT/2016–001865-99.

Survival after potentially curative treatment of gastric cancer remains low, mostly due to peritoneal recurrence. This descriptive review gives an overview of available comparative studies concerning prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with gastric cancer with neither clinically evident metastases nor positive peritoneal cytology who undergo potentially curative gastrectomy. After searching the PubMed, Embase, CDSR, CENTRAL and ASCO meeting library, a total of 11 studies were included comparing surgery plus prophylactic HIPEC versus surgery alone (SA): three randomised controlled trials and eight non-randomised comparative studies, involving 1145 patients. Risk of bias was high in most of the studies. Morbidity after prophylactic HIPEC was 17–60% compared to 25–43% after SA. Overall survival was 32–35 months after prophylactic HIPEC and 22–28 months after SA. The 5-year survival rates were 39–87% after prophylactic HIPEC and 17–61% after SA, which was statistically significant in three studies. Peritoneal recurrence occurred in 7–27% in the HIPEC group, compared to 14–45% after SA. This review tends to demonstrate that prophylactic HIPEC for gastric cancer can be performed safely, may prevent peritoneal recurrence and may prolong survival. However, studies were heterogeneous and outdated, which emphasizes the need for well-designed trials conducted according to current standards.

Initial staging of gastric cancer consists of computed tomography (CT) and gastroscopy. In locally advanced (cT3–4) gastric cancer, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with CT (FDG-PET/CT or PET) and staging laparoscopy (SL) may have a role in staging, but evidence is scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of PET and SL in addition to initial staging in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. This prospective observational cohort study will include all patients with a surgically resectable, advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (cT3–4b, N0–3, M0), that are scheduled for treatment with curative intent after initial staging with gastroscopy and CT. The modalities to be investigated in this study is the addition of PET and SL. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients in whom the PET or SL lead to a change in treatment strategy. Secondary outcome parameters are: diagnostic performance, morbidity and mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of these additional diagnostic modalities. The study recently started in August 2017 with a duration of 36 months. At least 239 patients need to be included in this study to demonstrate that the diagnostic modalities are break-even. Based on the annual number of gastrectomies in the participating centers, it is estimated that approximately 543 patients are included in this study. In this study, it is hypothesized that performing PET and SL for locally advanced gastric adenocarcinomas results in a change of treatment strategy in 27% of patients and an annual cost-reduction in the Netherlands of €916.438 in this patient group by reducing futile treatment. The results of this study may be applicable to all countries with comparable treatment algorithms and health care systems. NCT03208621 . This trial was registered prospectively on June 30, 2017.

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare in Western populations and data about treatment and outcomes are scarce. This study aims to analyze survival and identify opportunities for improvement using population-based data from a low-incidence country. GBC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 with GBC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were grouped according to time period (2005–2009/2010–2016) and disease stage. Trends in treatment and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. In total 1834 patients were included: 661 (36%) patients with resected, 278 (15%) with non-resected non-metastatic, and 895 (49%) with metastatic GBC. Use of radical versus simple cholecystectomy (12% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) in early (pT1b/T2) GBC increased. More patients with metastatic GBC received chemotherapy (11% vs. 29%, p < 0.001). OS improved from 4.8 months (2005–2009) to 6.1 months (2010–2016) (p = 0.012). Median OS increased over time (2005–2009 vs. 2010–2016) in resected (19.4 to 26.8 months, p = 0.038) and metastatic (2.3 vs. 3.4 months, p = 0.001) GBC but not in unresected, non-metastatic GBC. In early GBC, patients with radical cholecystectomy had a median OS of 76.7 compared to 18.4 months for simple cholecystectomy (p < 0.001). Palliative chemotherapy showed superior (p < 0.001) survival in metastatic (7.3 versus 2.1 months) and non-resected non-metastatic (7.7 versus 3.5 months) GBC. In conclusion, survival of GBC remains poor. Radical surgery and palliative chemotherapy appear to improve prognosis but remain under-utilized.

Prediction models are only sparsely available for metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Because treatment in this setting is often preference-based, decision-making with the aid of a prediction model is wanted. The aim of this study is to construct a prediction model, called SOURCE, for the overall survival in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Data from patients with metastatic oesophageal (n = 8010) or gastric (n = 4763) cancer diagnosed during 2005–2015 were retrieved from the nationwide Netherlands cancer registry. A multivariate Cox regression model was created to predict overall survival for various treatments. Predictor selection was performed via the Akaike Information Criterion and a Delphi consensus among experts in palliative oesophagogastric cancer. Validation was performed according to a temporal internal-external scheme. The predictive quality was assessed with the concordance-index (c-index) and calibration. The model c-indices showed consistent discriminative ability during validation: 0.71 for oesophageal cancer and 0.68 for gastric cancer. The calibration showed an average slope of 1.0 and intercept of 0.0 for both tumour locations, indicating a close agreement between predicted and observed survival. With a fair c-index and good calibration, SOURCE provides a solid foundation for further investigation in clinical practice to determine its added value in shared decision making.