Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 22, 2026

Isolated Hepatic Perfusion as a Treatment for Liver Metastases of Uveal Melanoma
Published on: January 25, 2015
Efficacy analysis of prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric
Zhijie Gong1,2, Liping Zhou3, Yinghao He1,2
1Second Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Maoming People's Hospital, Maoming, China.
Purpose:
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (P-HIPEC) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC) after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Additionally, it explores how the frequency and timing of P-HIPEC influence treatment outcomes.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 227 patients with locally AGC who underwent laparoscopic surgery at Maoming People's Hospital from January 2016 to December 2022. Patients were stratified into the HIPEC group (n=101) and the non-HIPEC group (n=126), based on whether they received postoperative P-HIPEC. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for baseline characteristics, facilitating a comparative analysis of survival outcomes, postoperative complications and recurrence patterns. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors. Furthermore, the impact of varying P-HIPEC frequencies and initiation timings was evaluated.
Results:
No significant differences in overall survival (OS) or postoperative complication rates were observed between the two groups in the original and PSM cohorts. But the disease-free survival (DFS) of the HIPEC group was significantly higher than that of the non-HIPEC group (HR 0.569; 95% CI 0.362-0.894; p = 0.013) in the PSM cohort, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year DFS rates showing notable improvement (77.9% vs. 69.7%, 60.1% vs. 43.0%, and 46.2% vs. 25.5%). The incidence of isolated peritoneal metastasis (PM) was significantly lower in the HIPEC group (5.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.039). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified P-HIPEC as an independent protective factor for DFS. Further analysis indicated that neither the number of P-HIPEC sessions had a significant impact on OS (p = 0.388) or DFS (p = 0.735), nor did the timing of P-HIPEC initiation affect OS (p = 0.620) or DFS (p = 0.488). Likewise, different P-HIPEC frequencies or initiation timings had no significant impact on postoperative complication rates or recurrence patterns.
Conclusion:
P-HIPEC effectively reduces the risk of postoperative PM and improves DFS in patients with locally AGC without increasing postoperative complications. However, it does not significantly impact OS. Additionally, variations in the frequency and timing of P-HIPEC initiation do not significantly affect survival outcomes, postoperative complications, or recurrence patterns.
More Related Videos
09:02Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion PHP with Melphalan as a Treatment for Unresectable Metastases Confined to the Liver
Published on: July 31, 2016
10:28Gene Regulation and Targeted Therapy in Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis: Radiological Findings from Dual Energy CT and PET/CT
Published on: January 22, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists
Gastritis III: Clinical Manifestations and Management
Clinical manifestations of acute gastritis
The patient with acute gastritis may have a rapid onset of symptoms, such as epigastric pain or discomfort, dyspepsia, anorexia, hiccups, or nausea and vomiting, which can last from a few hours to a few days. Erosive or hemorrhagic gastritis may cause bleeding, which may manifest as blood in vomit or as...
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.