Victor J Verwaal1, Beate Rau2, Faek Jamali3, François Noël Gilly4, Ignace de Hingh5, Heikki Takala6, Ingvar Syk7, Jorg Pelz8, Jurgen Mulsow9, Kurt van der Speeten10, Kusamura Shigeki11, Lene H Iversen1, Faheez Mohamed12, Olivier Glehen4, Rami Younan13, Roman Yarema14, Santiago Gonzalez-Moreno15, Sarah O'Dwyer16, Yukata Yonemura17, Paul Sugarbaker18. 1. a Aarhus Universitet Hospital, Department of Surgery , Aarhus , Denmark. 2. b Charite Campus Mitte, Surgery , Berlin , Germany. 3. c American University of Beirut , Beirut , Lebanon. 4. d Universitet Lyon Sud, Surgery , Lyon , France. 5. e Catharina Ziekenhuis, Surgical Oncology , Eindhoven , the Netherlands. 6. f Oulu University Hospital , Oulu , Finland. 7. g Lunds Universitet Institutionen for kliniska vetenskaper Malmo , Sweden. 8. h Zentrum fur Operative Medizin , Wurtzburg , Germany. 9. i Mater Misericordiae University Hospital , Dublin , Ireland. 10. j ZOL , Genk , Belgium. 11. k Instituto tumori , Milano , Italy. 12. l Department of Surgery, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital , Basingstoke , UK. 13. m Clinique Agatha, Surgery , Montreal , Canada. 14. n Lviv National Medical Univercity , Lviv , Ukraine. 15. o Anderson Cancer Center Espania , Madrid , Spain. 16. p Christie NHS Foundation Trust , Manchester , UK. 17. q NPO Organization to Support Peritoneal Dissemination Treatment , Osaka , Japan. 18. r Washington Hospital Centre , Washington , USA.
Abstract
AIM: The treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies ranges from palliative care to full cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, HIPEC. Ongoing monitoring of patient recruitment and volume is usually carried out through dedicated registries. With multiple registries available worldwide, we sought to investigate the nature, extent and value of existing worldwide CRS and HIPEC registries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent out to all known major treatment centres. The questionnaire covers: general purpose of the registry; inclusion criteria in the registry; the date the registry was first established; volume of patients in the registry and description of the data fields in the registries. Finally, the population size of the catchment area of the registry was collected. RESULTS: Twenty-seven questionnaires where returned. National databases are established in northwest European countries. There are five international general databases. Most database collect data on patients who have undergone an attempt to CRS and HIPEC. Two registries collect data on all patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis regardless the treatment. Most registries are primarily used for tracking outcomes and complications. When correlating the number of cases of CRS and HIPEC that are performed to the catchment area of the various registry, a large variation in the number of performed procedures related to the overall population was noted, ranging from 1.3 to 57 patients/million year with an average of 15 patients/1 million year. CONCLUSIONS: CRS and HIPEC is a well-established treatment for peritoneal surface malignancies worldwide. However, the coverage as well as the registration of treatment procedures differs widely. The most striking difference is the proportion of HIPEC procedures per capita which ranges from 1.3 to 57 patients per million. This suggests either a difference in patient selection, lack of access to HIPEC centres or lack of appropriate data collection.
AIM: The treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies ranges from palliative care to full cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, HIPEC. Ongoing monitoring of patient recruitment and volume is usually carried out through dedicated registries. With multiple registries available worldwide, we sought to investigate the nature, extent and value of existing worldwide CRS and HIPEC registries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent out to all known major treatment centres. The questionnaire covers: general purpose of the registry; inclusion criteria in the registry; the date the registry was first established; volume of patients in the registry and description of the data fields in the registries. Finally, the population size of the catchment area of the registry was collected. RESULTS: Twenty-seven questionnaires where returned. National databases are established in northwest European countries. There are five international general databases. Most database collect data on patients who have undergone an attempt to CRS and HIPEC. Two registries collect data on all patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis regardless the treatment. Most registries are primarily used for tracking outcomes and complications. When correlating the number of cases of CRS and HIPEC that are performed to the catchment area of the various registry, a large variation in the number of performed procedures related to the overall population was noted, ranging from 1.3 to 57 patients/million year with an average of 15 patients/1 million year. CONCLUSIONS:CRS and HIPEC is a well-established treatment for peritoneal surface malignancies worldwide. However, the coverage as well as the registration of treatment procedures differs widely. The most striking difference is the proportion of HIPEC procedures per capita which ranges from 1.3 to 57 patients per million. This suggests either a difference in patient selection, lack of access to HIPEC centres or lack of appropriate data collection.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIPEC; peritoneal surface malignancy; registration study
Authors: Beate Rau; Andreas Brandl; Pompiliu Piso; Jörg Pelz; Peter Busch; Cedric Demtröder; Silke Schüle; Hans-Jürgen Schlitt; Marc Roitman; Jürgen Tepel; Udo Sulkowski; Faik Uzunoglu; Michael Hünerbein; Rüdiger Hörbelt; Michael Ströhlein; Stefan Beckert; Ingmar Königsrainer; Alfred Königsrainer Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Sissel Ravn; Christian F Christiansen; Rikke H Hagemann-Madsen; Victor J Verwaal; Lene H Iversen Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 4.790