Next Article in Journal
The Influence of the Normal Mammary Microenvironment on Breast Cancer Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Repeated Cytoreduction Combined with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Selected Patients Affected by Peritoneal Metastases: Italian PSM Oncoteam Evidence
Previous Article in Journal
At What Point Are Long-Term (>5 Years) Survivors of APL Safe? A Study from the SEER Database
Previous Article in Special Issue
Diagnostic and Therapeutic Pathway of Advanced Ovarian Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/cancers15030570
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program for Patients with Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with or without HIPEC: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

by
Manuela Robella
1,*,
Marco Tonello
2,
Paola Berchialla
3,
Veronica Sciannameo
3,
Alba Maria Ilari Civit
1,
Antonio Sommariva
2,
Cinzia Sassaroli
4,
Andrea Di Giorgio
5,
Roberta Gelmini
6,
Valentina Ghirardi
7,
Franco Roviello
8,
Fabio Carboni
9,
Piero Vincenzo Lippolis
10,
Shigeki Kusamura
11 and
Marco Vaira
1
1
Unit of Surgical Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, 10060 Torino, Italy
2
Advanced Surgical Oncology Unit, Surgical Oncology of the Esophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, 35128 Padova, Italy
3
Center for Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health (C-BEPH), Deptartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10124 Torino, Italy
4
Abdominal Oncology Department, Fondazione Giovanni Pascale, IRCCS, 80131 Naples, Italy
5
Surgical Unit of Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
6
SC Chirurgia Generale d’Urgenza ed Oncologica, AOU Policlinico di Modena, 41125 Modena, Italy
7
UOC Ovarian Carcinoma Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy
8
Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
9
Peritoneal Tumours Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy
10
General and Peritoneal Surgery, Hospital University Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy
11
Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Unit, Fondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(3), 570; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030570
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 2 January 2023 / Accepted: 9 January 2023 / Published: 17 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (PSM): The SICO (Italian Society of Surgical Oncology) PSM—Oncoteam Experience, Result Analysis, and Studies’ Purpose)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Cytoreductive surgery and Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) represent a promising treatment strategy for the management of selected cases of peritoneal cancer, but it’s still burdened by significant morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. Herein, the review of the impact of ERAS program on length of stay, postoperative complications and readmission rate in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery with or without HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancies.

Abstract

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program refers to a multimodal intervention to reduce the length of stay and postoperative complications; it has been effective in different kinds of major surgery including colorectal, gynaecologic and gastric cancer surgery. Its impact in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies is still unclear. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the effect of ERAS after cytoreductive surgery with or without HIPEC for peritoneal metastases. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Database were searched from January 2010 and December 2021. Single and double-cohort studies about ERAS application in the treatment of peritoneal cancer were considered. Outcomes included the postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity and mortality rates and the early readmission rate. Twenty-four studies involving 5131 patients were considered, 7 about ERAS in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) + HIPEC and 17 about cytoreductive alone; the case histories of two Italian referral centers in the management of peritoneal cancer were included. ERAS adoption reduced the LOS (−3.17, 95% CrI −4.68 to −1.69 in CRS + HIPEC and −1.65, 95% CrI −2.32 to –1.06 in CRS alone in the meta-analysis including 6 and 17 studies respectively. Non negligible lower postoperative morbidity was also in the meta-analysis including the case histories of two Italian referral centers. Implementation of an ERAS protocol may reduce LOS, postoperative complications after CRS with or without HIPEC compared to conventional recovery.

1. Introduction

Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) are both a consequence of different primary tumors, synchronous or metachronous, and the clinical presentation of primitive peritoneal neoplasms. Despite significant recent advances in the management of peritoneal metastases, this diagnosis still is frequently linked to a poor prognosis. The unfavourable outcome is often accompanied by clinical symptoms that dramatically impact on quality of life and represent a real challenge for the managing health care provider.
Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) eventually associated with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for highly selected patients with PSM.
The cytoreductive surgical approach focuses on the removal of the primary tumor, of the peritoneal area interested by the disease (peritonectomy) often associated with multivisceral resection (omentectomy, oophorectomy, bowel resection, spleen and/or gallbladder removal) in order to obtain no residual disease. Following CRS, a peritoneal lavage with chemotherapeutic agents is typically performed within the abdominal cavity for 30–90 min at a temperature of 41–42 °C to treat remaining microscopic peritoneal disease, achieving high peritoneal concentrations with limited systemic absorption [1].
Despite its efficacy, CRS-HIPEC is a complex and technically challenging procedure with potential high morbidity and mortality [2,3], which makes patient selection and institutional experience essential for optimal treatment and prevention of adverse events [4]. Moreover, postoperative complications after CRS-HIPEC are independent prognostic factors on survival [5].
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based multimodal approach developed in order to facilitate earlier recovery after surgery and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation. The key elements of ERAS program include patient and family education and counseling, patient optimization prior to admission, minimal fasting (light meal up to six hours before surgery, carbohydrate beverage two hours before anesthesia), multimodal analgesia with appropriate use of opioids, nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, early nutrition and mobilization [6].
ERAS program has been applied to numerous surgical fields, first and foremost colorectal cancer surgery, reporting a decrease in postoperative complication rates, a shortening in hospital lengths of stay and consequently, a costs reduction. Furthermore, in the last decades ERAS protocol obtained similar benefits in other multiple types of digestive and major surgical procedures [7,8]. Despite this worldwide diffusion and the release of ERAS Society Guidelines specific to CRS with or without HIPEC, the adoption in this field is still disappointingly low. On the basis of these considerations an updated specialistic review of the literature is needed to assess the real applicability, safety and efficacy of ERAS in peritoneal surface malignancies management.
The goal of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of ERAS program on LOS, readmission rate, postoperative complications and reoperation rate evaluating the influence of ERAS elements on postoperative recovery and the compliance to this pathway.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

Inclusion criteria: retrospective and prospective cohort studies, case-control and randomized control studies comparing ERAS program adoption with standard perioperative care for CRS associated or not with HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancies of different origin were considered for inclusion. The unpublished experience of two Italian institutes that currently apply the ERAS protocol in this setting were included in the analysis.
Exclusion criteria: we excluded abstracts, letters to editor, study protocol, non-English language papers, case reports. Studies which enrolled a population of patients undergoing gynaecological surgery solely for benign indications or for basic pelvic surgery were excluded.

2.2. Data Source and Extraction

Literature search, study design, data extraction and analysis were performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements [9] (Figure 1).
The search for scientific papers contained the following combinations of keywords “hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy” or “HIPEC” and “enhanced recovery after surgery” or “ERAS” and “cytoreductive surgery” or “peritoneal carcinomatosis” and “ERAS” or “enhanced recovery after surgery” without any language filter. The search for articles was carried out using the following databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Database.
The search was limited to studies published from inception to December 2021.
Only reports on ERAS + CRS or ERAS + HIPEC + CRS were retained. All studies of interest were obtained as full-text articles. All publications related to ERAS and CRS + HIPEC, including clinical reports and systematic and narrative reviews, were considered to retrieve the maximum number of publications.
The abstracts of the selected papers were analysed to identify those meeting the inclusion criteria. Papers that did not have any of the study outcomes, did not address ERAS protocol, did not undergo CRS with or without HIPEC, were excluded.
The references for all included papers, review articles, commentaries, and editorials on this topic were also reviewed to identify other studies of interest that were missed during the primary search. Pertinent references and electronic links were hand-searched, and cross-referencing was done for selected articles.
Outcome of interest were LOS, readmission rate, complication rate according to Clavien-Dindo classification, reoperation rates and mortality.
The data extraction was carried out independently by two study investigators. All the articles were collected to extract the most pertinent information from the studies, for instance publication year, study type, sample size, mean age, gender, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) or Aletti score, primary tumor, HIPEC drugs, mean operative time and ERAS protocol application.
Quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized intervention tool ROBINS-I. Publication bias was assess using Egger’s test. The systematic review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The protocol has not been registered.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

In the main analysis, for each outcome we performed an arm-based Bayesian Meta-Analysis (BMA) [10], which uses data from each treatment arm to describe population-averaged effect size, allowing to include both two and single-arm studies. Studies that did not report the outcome were excluded from the meta-analysis.
We applied a hierarchical Bayesian model assuming heterogeneity of variances of the random effects. We assigned an inverse Wishart prior to the unstructured variance-covariance matrix. For binary outcomes we selected a logit link function. We set the shape and scale parameters of inverse gamma priors for variance of random effects both to 0.001, which is the default value. Then, we constructed three Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains, and we set the number of iterations for adaptation in MCMC algorithm to 5000 (the default value). We run 200,000 iterations in each MCMC, and we used 100,000 iterations as burn-in period and we set the thinning rate to 1. We used the Gelman-Rubin convergence diagnostics to assess the convergence of the MCMC models, which was considered adequate if a value less than 1.05 was reached [11].
Then, we conducted a sensitivity analysis through an Individual Bayesian Meta-Analysis (IBMA), which allows analyzing both two-arms aggregated data and two-arms individual-level data. The prior distributions for the intercept and for the treatment effects were normal with a scale parameter of 10. The prior distribution of heterogeneity was half-normal, with a scale of 2.5. We constructed four MCMC chains, and as in the main analysis, we set the number of iterations for adaptation in MCMC algorithm to 5000, we ran 200,000 iterations in each chain, and we used 100,000 iterations as burn-in, with a thinning rate of 1. For both the analyses, the treatment effects of continuous outcomes were expressed in terms of median difference values and 95% credibility intervals (95% CrI) of the posterior distributions. For binary outcomes, Odds Ratios (OR) were expressed in terms of median values and 95% CrI of the posterior distributions.
To help with interpretation, we reported the probability of direction (pd), which is the probability that an effect goes in a particular direction [12]. So, for example, if the estimated OR is <1, the pd is the proportion of the posterior distribution with values <1. The pd is strongly correlated with the p-value and can be used to draw parallels and give some reference to readers non-familiar with Bayesian statistics [13]. The threshold beyond which the effect is considered as non-negligible is 0.975.
We used the R software version 4.1.2 [14] and more in detail the R packages pcnetmeta [15] for the BMA and multinma [16] for the IBMA.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

A total of 8391 articles, reports and clinical studies on cytoreductive surgery with or without HIPEC were identified. After removing duplicates, 6891 abstracts were evaluated and screened for eligibility: 24 studies involving 5131 patients were included in the final analysis of the systematic review and meta-analysis: 7 were selected for CRS + HIPEC and 17 for CRS alone.
We must notice that the studies concerning CRS alone turned out to be focused purely on gynaecological surgery: we must underline that they have been carefully selected in order to include only papers concerning CRS for peritoneal cancer, excluding those relating to simple procedures such as annessiectomy and/or hysterectomy.
In the CRS + HIPEC group a total of 743 patients were included, with 434 treated according to the ERAS pathway and 309 with standard recovery. Six studies were case-control and only one was a retrospective single cohort analysis.
In the CRS group, all the included studies compared patients treated according to the ERAS program to standard management. In the study published by Kalogera [17], three populations were considered separately: cytoreduction, staging, and vaginal surgery: for consistency with the inclusion criteria of our study, only patients submitted to CRS were included in our analysis.
The detailed characteristics of the populations and surgery of the included papers are reported in Table 1 and Table 2.
Data regarding LOS, postoperative complications and readmission rate are summarized in Table 3.

3.2. Postoperative Length of Stay

Six studies in the CRS + HIPEC group (n = 587) and 17 studies in the CRS group (n = 4388) reported postoperative LOS. Compared to standard recovery, patients included in the ERAS pathway had shorter LOS by −3.17 days (95% CrI −4.68 to −1.69) and −1.65 days (95% CrI −2.32 to −1.06), respectively. Probability of direction (pd) smaller than 0.95 did not show a strong association between ERAS and LOS in IBMA (Table 4).

3.3. Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality Rate

IBMA showed a non-negligible reduction in postoperative major complications in both CRS + HIPEC (OR = 0.48, 95% CrI 0.22, 0.98 with pd = 0.98) and CRS alone (OR = 0.58, 95% CrI 0.32, 0.94 with pd = 0.98). Similarly, a non-negligible reduction in complication is observed in the IBMA for both CRS + HIPEC with 1 study with aggregated level data and the 2 IPD studies (OR = 0.31, 95% CrI 0.10, 0.89 with pd = 0.99) and CRS alone with 10 studies with aggregated level data and the 2 IPD studies (OR = 0.56, 95% CrI 0.44, 0.71 with pd = 0.99).
No strong association was observed between ERAS and reduction of reoperation rates in 3 papers about CRS + HIPEC and 6 about CRS alone.
Only two studies about HIPEC and 10 studies about CRS alone evaluated the postoperative mortality: negligible difference between the two groups was detected, even considering two-arms individual level data (Table 4).

3.4. Readmission Rate

Data on readmission were reported by 4 studies about HIPEC and by all the studies about CRS alone: pooled analysis demonstrated negligible difference in the risk of early readmission) in both groups treated with ERAS program (Table 4).
The aforementioned data are summarized in Table 4.
The risk of bias for each study is reported in Figure 2 and showed not particular concerns, ranging from low to moderate in the majority of the studies. For those studies presenting serious concerns, the major issue identified was related to confounding due to not adjusted statistical analysis.

4. Discussion

The key principle of the ERAS protocol is to standardize and optimize perioperative patients care in order to reduce the bodily stress reactions caused by injury, associated with adverse outcomes. The program includes pre-operative counselling and nutritional screening, avoidance of perioperative fasting and carbohydrate loading up to 2 h preoperatively, standardized anaesthetic and analgesic regimens (epidural and non-opioid analgesia), controlled perioperative fluid management, early feeding and mobilization.
The effects of ERAS have been extensively investigated in standard surgical settings, including colorectal and gynecological surgery [41,42]. Its application is slowly spreading even to more complex and particular interventions such as those for peritoneal metastases [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,38,39,40] and guidelines for perioperative care in CRS with or without HIPEC have recently been published by the ERAS Society detailing the benefits of each item of the pathway [43,44].
This is the first meta-analysis concerning the application of the ERAS program focused on patients suffering from peritoneal disease of various origins and subjected to heterogeneous surgical procedures. Moreover, it differs from previous reviews in its rigorous evaluation of the included studies considering only populations submitted to cytoreductive surgery with or without HIPEC for peritoneal malignancies. Considering that reporting of ERAS for CRS and especially for CRS and HIPEC are minimal, we also included the unpublished experiences of two referral centers in the treatment of PSM.
In this meta-analysis the application of the ERAS program was associated with a significant reduction in the LOS and lower postoperative morbidity and mortality rates compared to the standard management.
This analysis confirmed the results obtained in other types of surgery including colorectal, upper gastrointestinal or gynecologic cancer. Furthermore, these data agreed with the results of two previous smaller meta-analyses that separately evaluated ERAS in CRS and in CRS + HIPEC, demonstrating a reduction of LOS, complications and costs without increasing rates of reoperation and mortality [42,45].
As already reported in previous studies, this meta-analysis revealed the heterogeneous components of the ERAS protocol and its different application and implementations across trials [46,47] (Table 5).
Full compliance is difficult to reach, especially considering the heterogeneity of pathology and surgical procedures. We should moreover consider that surgical management of peritoneal surface malignancies with CRS +/− HIPEC is an aggressive approach, often requiring multiple visceral resections in patients with advanced disease submitted in most cases to several lines of systemic chemotherapy. This procedure is characterized by long periods of extreme surface exposure, which may result in a significant loss of fluids and proteins and a decrease of the intravascular volume; these effects can be even more evident if the procedure is followed by perfusion with intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) at 42 °C. In this setting ERAS items are sometimes not practical: for example, patients submitted to an extended gastric surgery necessitate the use of NGT and take longer to return to oral nutrition. As well, in some cases it’s not possible to perform epidural anaesthesia. These necessary deviations from the ERAS program partly justify the heterogeneity of compliance to the protocol across the different studies. While compliance to preoperative and intraoperative items is high, the adhesion to intraoperative and postoperative recommendations decreases [48].
Preoperative counseling, nutritional supplement, avoidance of bowel preparation and carbohydrate loading are ERAS recommendations adopted in almost all studies.
Another essential component of ERAS program is multimodal pain management: poorly controlled postoperative pain may cause delay recovery and prolong the LOS: in this meta-analysis the multimodal analgesia opioid sparing is adopted in 22 out of 24 centers.
Although goal fluid therapy is one of the mainstays of the ERAS program [49,50,51], concerns about HIPEC-induced nephrotoxicity and the replacement of large-volume ascites led to a liberal fluid management. In some studies, the fluid restriction was associated with a higher percentage of major postoperative complications [52] while in other analyses it’s linked to a shorter LOS and lower postoperative morbidity rate without increasing the rate of acute kidney injury or renal dysfunction [53]. In spite of the fact that certain agents utilized for HIPEC as cisplatin are linked to a greater risk of renal injury, in this meta-analysis no difference in terms of postoperative complications are related to the chemotherapic drug used; moreover, in the study published by White [23], cisplatin administration was strongly associated with acute kidney injury before ERAS but not afterward. In this meta-analysis the goal-fluid therapy was adopted in 19 centers out of 24. Considering the peculiar surgical setting we cannot ignore the difficult applicability, at least in a standard manner, of this ERAS item: surgical times are heterogeneous (in any case longer than a standard colorectal surgery), procedures are in most cases performed through a laparotomic approach resulting in significant hydro-electrolytic loss; lastly, the thermal damage of the electro-evaporation of the peritoneum causes massive loss of oncotic proteins.
The routine replacement of abdominal drainages after surgery is still a hotly debated topic: in most cases, especially if HIPEC is performed, they are used to prevent the formation of intraabdominal collections after extensive and aggressive CRS [24].
In the postoperative management, the ERAS program recommends the early mobilization and the early introduction of oral feeding. Although it’s proved that the oral feeding is the best way to stimulate peristalsis, some concerns are due to the high rate of postoperative ileus secondary to the heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy and the impossibility to start early the oral nutrition if multiple gastrointestinal resection were performed. The mechanism by which ERAS program itself decreases the rate of postoperative ileus is multifactorial: drink clear fluids up to two hours prior to the procedure helps preventing dehydration before surgery, decreasing narcotic use reduces the effect on bowel motility; moreover, goal directed fluid therapy decreases ileus rates secondary to bowel edema [54]. In the pooled analysis 21 out of 24 Institutions adopted the resumption of feeding by mouth by the second postoperative day.
Although compliance with the program has been shown to be crucial to achieve optimal care for the surgical patients in different specialties [29,55,56,57,58], even when a patient does not fully comply with all the items (due to the heterogeneous surgical procedures) consistent benefits from the implementation of the standard management have been reported. A dose-response relationship between compliance and LOS and postoperative morbidity rate reduction has been described, while a poor compliance to ERAS elements is an independent predictor of early readmission [28,59,60].
Improvements in postoperative recovery may be especially meaningful in this oncological patient population: in fact, ERAS remained the strongest predictor of timely resumption of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy [36] because patients maintain their normal physiology postoperatively and recover faster from surgery.
Strength of this meta-analysis is the heterogeneous population affected by peritoneal surface malignancies of different origins, submitted to various surgical procedures: this improves the applicability of the ERAS program and its generalizability even outside of gynaecological surgery.
Limitation of this meta-analysis is the lack of randomized controlled trials; almost all the studies are based on non-randomized historical cohorts, but we should think that randomized trials of ERAS would not be ethically feasible considering the growing breadth of evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS.

5. Conclusions

Due to the historic high morbidity and mortality associated with CRS especially if combined with HIPEC, surgeons are often hesitant to implement a full ERAS program compared to more conservative management.
This meta-analysis supported the idea that in selected patients affected by peritoneal surface malignancies submitted to CRS with or without HIPEC, the implementation of ERAS protocol is safe and feasible and may offer significant improvements in outcomes. The compliance to the program is a crucial element to obtain shorter postoperative hospitalization, reduce postoperative complications without increasing readmissions rates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R., P.B. and V.S.; methodology, M.R. and P.B.; software, V.S.; validation, M.V., S.K., A.S. and A.D.G.; formal analysis, P.B., V.S., M.R. and C.S.; investigation, A.M.I.C. and M.R.; resources, M.T., V.G., F.C. and C.S.; data curation, M.R., M.T. and A.M.I.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.; writing—review and editing, M.R., M.T., A.S. and P.B.; visualization, R.G.; F.R., P.V.L. and S.K.; supervision, M.R. and A.S.; project administration, M.R.; funding acquisition, M.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was funded by The AIRC program Ref. 24285—Title: Pseudomyxoma peritonei: Building a European multicentric cohort to accelerate new therapeutic perspectives.

Data Availability Statement

Data and code for analysis are available upon request to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rout, S.; Renehan, A.; Parkinson, M.F.; Saunders, M.P.; Fulford, P.E.; Wilson, M.S.; O’Dwyer, S.T. Treatments and Outcomes of Peritoneal Surface Tumors Through a Centralized National Service (United Kingdom). Dis. Colon Rectum 2009, 52, 1705–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Schmidt, U.; Dahlke, M.; Klempnauer, J.; Schlitt, H.; Piso, P. Perioperative morbidity and quality of life in long-term survivors following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2005, 31, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Newton, A.D.; Bartlett, E.K.; Karakousis, G.C. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A review of factors contributing to morbidity and mortality. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2016, 7, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Levine, E.A.; Stewart, J.H.; Shen, P.; Russell, G.B.; Loggie, B.L.; Votanopoulos, K.I. Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Surface Malignancy: Experience with 1000 Patients. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2013, 218, 573–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Spiliotis, J.; Halkia, E.; de Bree, E. Treatment of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy—Current Perspectives. Curr. Oncol. 2016, 23, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mortensen, K.; Nilsson, M.; Slim, K.; Schäfer, M.; Mariette, C.; Braga, M.; Carli, F.; Demartines, N.; Griffin, S.M.; Lassen, K.; et al. Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 101, 1209–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. The ERAS Compliance Group. The Impact of Enhanced Recovery Protocol Compliance on Elective Colorectal Cancer Resection: Results from an International Registry. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 1153–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wijk, L.; Udumyan, R.; Pache, B.; Altman, A.D.; Williams, L.L.; Elias, K.M.; McGee, J.; Wells, T.; Gramlich, L.; Holcomb, K.; et al. International validation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society guidelines on enhanced recovery for gynecologic surgery. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, 237.e1–237.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hong, H.; Chu, H.; Zhang, J.; Carlin, B.P. A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Res. Synth. Methods 2015, 7, 6–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hoffman, M.D. The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2014, 15, 1593–1623. [Google Scholar]
  12. Makowski, D.; Ben-Shachar, M.S.; Chen, S.H.A.; Lüdecke, D. Indices of Effect Existence and Significance in the Bayesian Framework. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Makowski, D.; Ben-Shachar, M.; Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: Describing Effects and their Uncertainty, Existence and Significance within the Bayesian Framework. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  15. Lin, L.; Zhang, J.; Hodges, J.S.; Chu, H. Performing Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2017, 80, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Phillippo, D.M. multinma: Network Meta-Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Data in Stan, R Package Version 0.4.1; GitHub: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2022. [CrossRef]
  17. Kalogera, E.; Bakkum-Gamez, J.N.; Jankowski, C.J.; Trabuco, E.; Lovely, J.K.; Dhanorker, S.; Grubbs, P.L.; Weaver, A.L.; Haas, L.R.; Borah, B.J.; et al. Enhanced Recovery in Gynecologic Surgery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 122, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kay, A.H.; Venn, M.; Urban, R.; Gray, H.J.; Goff, B. Postoperative narcotic use in patients with ovarian cancer on an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 156, 624–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ferrari, F.; Forte, S.; Sbalzer, N.; Zizioli, V.; Mauri, M.; Maggi, C.; Sartori, E.; Odicino, F. Validation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in gynecologic surgery: An Italian randomized study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 223, 543.e1–543.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Azhar, H.; Hafeez, M.H.; Ahmed, S.Z. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) versus Traditional Care in Patients Hospitalized for Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. Arch. Surg. Res. 2022, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reuter, S.; Woelber, L.; Trepte, C.C.; Perez, D.; Zapf, A.; Cevirme, S.; Mueller, V.; Schmalfeldt, B.; Jaeger, A. The impact of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways with regard to perioperative outcome in patients with ovarian cancer. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2021, 306, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Webb, C.; Day, R.; Velazco, C.S.; Pockaj, B.A.; Gray, R.J.; Stucky, C.-C.; Young-Fadok, T.; Wasif, N. Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 27, 303–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mendivil, A.A.; Busch, J.R.; Richards, D.C.; Vittori, H.; Goldstein, B.H. The Impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program on Patients Treated for Gynecologic Cancer in the Community Hospital Setting. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2018, 28, 581–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sánchez-Iglesias, J.L.; Carbonell-Socias, M.; Pérez-Benavente, M.A.; Clua, S.M.; Manrique-Muñoz, S.; Gorriz, M.G.; Burgos-Peláez, R.; Gurrutxaga, H.S.; Serrano, M.P.; Gutiérrez-Barceló, M.D.P.; et al. PROFAST: A randomised trial implementing enhanced recovery after surgery for highcomplexity advanced ovarian cancer surgery. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 136, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lu, P.W.; Fields, A.C.; Shabat, G.; Bleday, R.; Goldberg, J.E.; Irani, J.; Stopfkuchen-Evans, M.; Melnitchouk, N. Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program: A Feasibility Study. J. Surg. Res. 2019, 247, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. White, B.; Dahdaleh, F.; Naffouje, S.A.; Kothari, N.; Berg, J.; Wiemann, W.; Salti, G.I. Impact of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 5265–5272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cascales-Campos, P.; Sánchez-Fuentes, P.; Gil, J.; Gil, E.; López-López, V.; Gomez-Hidalgo, N.R.; Fuentes, D.; Parrilla, P. Effectiveness and failures of a fast track protocol after cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 25, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siddharthan, R.; Dewey, E.; Billingsley, K.; Gilbert, E.; Tsikitis, V.L. Feasibility and benefits of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotharpy: A single institution experience. Am. J. Surg. 2019, 219, 1073–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tankou, J.I.; Foley, O.; Falzone, M.; Kalyanaraman, R.; Elias, K.M. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols improve time to return to intended oncology treatment following interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced gynecologic cancers. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2021, 31, 1145–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marx, C.; Rasmussen, T.; Jakobsen, D.H.; Ottosen, C.; Lundvall, L.; Ottesen, B.; Callesen, T.; Kehlet, H. The effect of accelerated rehabilitation on recovery after surgery for ovarian malignancy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2006, 85, 488–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gerardi, M.A.; Santillan, A.; Meisner, B.; Zahurak, M.L.; Montes, T.P.D.; Giuntoli, R.L.; Bristow, R.E. A clinical pathway for patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery with rectosigmoid colectomy for advanced ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers. Gynecol. Oncol. 2008, 108, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Myriokefalitaki, E.; Smith, M.; Ahmed, A.S. Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynaecological oncology. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015, 294, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Modesitt, S.C.; Sarosiek, B.M.; Trowbridge, E.R.; Redick, D.L.; Shah, P.M.; Thiele, R.; Tiouririne, M.; Hedrick, T.L. Enhanced Recovery Implementation in Major Gynecologic Surgeries. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 128, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Pache, B.; Jurt, J.; Grass, F.; Hübner, M.; Demartines, N.; Mathevet, P.; Achtari, C. Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery program in gynecology: Are all items of equal importance? Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2019, 29, 810–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bisch, S.; Wells, T.; Gramlich, L.; Faris, P.; Wang, X.; Tran, D.; Thanh, N.; Glaze, S.; Chu, P.; Ghatage, P.; et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology: System-wide implementation and audit leads to improved value and patient outcomes. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 151, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boitano, T.K.; Smith, H.J.; Rushton, T.; Johnston, M.C.; Lawson, P.; Leath, C.A.; Xhaja, A.; Guthrie, M.P.; Straughn, J.M. Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol on gastrointestinal function in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 151, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Agarwal, R.; Rajanbabu, A.; V, N.P.V.; Goel, G.; Madhusudanan, L.; G, U.U. A prospective study evaluating the impact of implementing the ERAS protocol on patients undergoing surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2019, 29, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bergstrom, J.E.; Scott, M.E.; Alimi, Y.; Yen, T.-T.; Hobson, D.; Machado, K.K.; Tanner, E.J.; Fader, A.N.; Temkin, S.M.; Wethington, S.; et al. Narcotics reduction, quality and safety in gynecologic oncology surgery in the first year of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol implementation. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018, 149, 554–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Meyer, L.A.; Lasala, J.; Iniesta, M.D.; Nick, A.M.; Munsell, M.F.; Shi, Q.; Wang, X.S.; Cain, K.E.; Lu, K.H.; Ramirez, P.T. Effect of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Program on Opioid Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 132, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bernard, L.; McGinnis, J.M.; Su, J.; Alyafi, M.; Palmer, D.; Potts, L.; Nancekivell, K.; Thomas, H.; Kokus, H.; Eiriksson, L.R.; et al. Thirty-day outcomes after gynecologic oncology surgery: A single-center experience of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2020, 100, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Duzgun, O. Evaluation of Enhanced Recovery after Following a Surgical Protocol for Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis. Med. Arch. 2019, 73, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Martin, R.C.; Marshall, B.M.; Philips, P.; Egger, M.; McMasters, K.M.; Scoggins, C.R. Enhanced recovery after surgery is safe for cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Am. J. Surg. 2020, 220, 1428–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bisch, S.; Jago, C.; Kalogera, E.; Ganshorn, H.; Meyer, L.; Ramirez, P.; Dowdy, S.; Nelson, G. Outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 161, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hübner, M.; Kusamura, S.; Villeneuve, L.; Al-Niaimi, A.; Alyami, M.; Balonov, K.; Bell, J.; Bristow, R.; Guiral, D.C.; Fagotti, A.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations—Part I: Preoperative and intraoperative management. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2020, 46, 2292–2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hübner, M.; Kusamura, S.; Villeneuve, L.; Al-Niaimi, A.; Alyami, M.; Balonov, K.; Bell, J.; Bristow, R.; Guiral, D.C.; Fagotti, A.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations—Part II: Postoperative management and special considerations. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2020, 46, 2311–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mao, F.; Huang, Z. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Surg. 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Małczak, P.; Pisarska-Adamczyk, M.; Piotr, M.; Wysocki, M.; Budzyński, A.; Pędziwiatr, M. Enhanced Recovery after Bariatric Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes. Surg. 2016, 27, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Zhuang, C.-L.; Ye, X.-Z.; Zhang, X.-D.; Chen, B.-C.; Yu, Z. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs Versus Traditional Care for Colorectal Surgery. Dis. Colon Rectum 2013, 56, 667–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Maessen, J.; Dejong, C.H.C.; Hausel, J.; Nygren, J.; Lassen, K.; Andersen, J.; Kessels, A.G.H.; Revhaug, A.; Kehlet, H.; Ljungqvist, O.; et al. A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br. J. Surg. 2007, 94, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Noblett, S.E.; Snowden, C.P.; Shenton, B.K.; Horgan, A.F. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br. J. Surg. 2006, 93, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wakeling, H.G.; McFall, M.R.; Jenkins, C.S.; Woods, W.G.A.; Miles, W.F.A.; Barclay, G.R.; Fleming, S.C. Intraoperative oesophageal Doppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay after major bowel surgery. Br. J. Anaesth. 2005, 95, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Conway, D.H.; Mayall, R.; Abdul-Latif, M.S.; Gilligan, S.; Tackaberry, C. Randomised controlled trial investigating the influence of intravenous fluid titration using oesophageal Doppler monitoring during bowel surgery*. Anaesthesia 2002, 57, 845–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Garijo, M.E.C.; Blanco, A.S.; Gonzalez, J.T.; Casado, A.M.; de Moya, J.I.M.; Vidal, G.Y.; Rodriguez, A.F.; García, C.M.; Muoz-Casares, F.C.; Ruiz, J.P. Fluid administration in cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Neither too much nor too little. Braz. J. Anesthesiol. 2021, 72, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hendrix, R.J.; Damle, A.; Williams, C.; Harris, A.; Spanakis, S.; Lambert, D.H.; Lambert, L.A. Restrictive Intraoperative Fluid Therapy is Associated with Decreased Morbidity and Length of Stay Following Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemoperfusion. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 26, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Varadhan, K.K.; Lobo, D.N. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of intravenous fluid therapy in major elective open abdominal surgery: Getting the balance right. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2010, 69, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Wijk, L.; Franzen, K.; Ljungqvist, O.; Nilsson, K. Implementing a structured Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces length of stay after abdominal hysterectomy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2014, 93, 749–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jurt, J.; Slieker, J.; Frauche, P.; Addor, V.; Sola, J.; Demartines, N.; Hubner, M. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Can We Rely on the Key Factors or Do We Need the Bel Ensemble? World J. Surg. 2017, 41, 2464–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cakir, H.; van Stijn, M.F.M.; Cardozo, A.M.F.L.; Langenhorst, B.L.A.M.; Schreurs, W.H.; van der Ploeg, T.J.; Bemelman, W.A.; Houdijk, A.P.J. Adherence to Enhanced Recovery after Surgery and length of stay after colonic resection. Color. Dis. 2013, 15, 1019–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gustafsson, U.O.; Hausel, J.; Thorell, A.; Ljungqvist, O.; Soop, M.; Nygren, J. Adherence to the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol and Outcomes after Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Arch. Surg. 2011, 146, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Francis, N.K.; Mason, J.; Salib, E.; Allanby, L.; Messenger, D.; Allison, A.S.; Smart, N.; Ockrim, J.B. Factors predicting 30-day readmission after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery programme. Color. Dis. 2015, 17, O148–O154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 00570 g001 550
Figure 1. Study Flow Chart.
Figure 1. Study Flow Chart.
Cancers 15 00570 g001
Cancers 15 00570 g002 550
Figure 2. Risk of bias of the studies: traffic light plot.
Figure 2. Risk of bias of the studies: traffic light plot.
Cancers 15 00570 g002
Table
Table 1. Details of included studies about CRS + HIPEC.
Table 1. Details of included studies about CRS + HIPEC.
StudySample SizeMean Age (Years)Female (%)PCIPrimary TumorHIPEC DrugMean Operative Time (min)
ERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControl
Duzgun 2019 [18]624057.356.158.157.512.812.4CRC 26
OC 11
STS 8
GC 5
Other 12		CRC 20
OC 8
STS 6
GC 5
Other 11		NRNR472395
Martin 2020 [19]2010551.7 *58.7 *12433 *5.5 *PMP 9
CRC 8
GC 1
PP 1
Other 1		PMP 7
CRC 4
GC 3
PP 7
Other 10		CDDP 1
IRI 2
MMC 11
OXA 6		CDDP/DXR 3
CDDP 2
IRI 1
MMC 55
OXA/IRI 11
OXA 27
Other 6		270 *300 *
Siddhartan 2020 [20]151660 *57 *NRNR3 *6 *NRNRMMCMMC418 *452 *
Webb 2020 [21]814954.456.039431211.5PMP 47
CRC 18
MPM 7
OC 2
GC 5
Other 2		PMP 26
CRC 14
MPM 4
OC 3
GC 0
Other 2		CDDP
MMC		CDDP
MMC		390390
Lu 2020 [22]20115047124313.510PMP 12
CRC 4
Other 4		PMP 7
CRC 4
MMCMMC347391
White 2021 [23]808856.556.762.5%63.6%13.213.6NRNRCDDP 23.8% MMC 76.2%CDDP 26.1%
MMC 73.9%		370360
Cascales Campos 2016 [24]156 57 * 148 (94.9%) 8
(0–32)		 OC 113
CRC18
PMP 13
STS 5
Other 5		 OC: Paclitaxel/CDDP
PMP and CRC: MMC
Sarcomas: CDDP + DXR		 300 *
Veneto Institute of Oncology33 62.3 22 (66.6%)
 15.4 OC 12
CRC 7
MPM 3
PMP 5
STS 2
Other 4		 CDDP 10
MMC 1
CDDP + MMC 15
CDDP + DXR 7		 558.2
Candiolo Cancer Institute28 58.57 18 (64.28%) 11,2 OC 4
CRC 9
MPM 1
PMP 13
PP 1		 CDDP 7
MMC 3
CDDP + MMC 18		 341.4
CRC = Colorectal Cancer; OC = Ovarian Cancer; GC = Gastric Cancer; PMP = Pseudo Myxoma Peritonei; MPM = Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma; PP = Primary Peritoneal cancer; STS = Soft Tissue Sarcoma; CDDP = cisplatin; MMC = mytomicin C; OXA = oxaliplatin; DXR = doxorubicin; * = median.
Table
Table 2. Details of included studies about CRS.
Table 2. Details of included studies about CRS.
StudySample SizeMean Age (Years)Female (%)Aletti ScorePrimary TumorOperative Time (min)
ERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControl
Marx, 2006 [25]697261 *62 *69 (100%)72 (100%)NRNROC 61OC 62134 *122 *
Gerardi, 2008 [26]1945625819 (100%)45 (100%)NRNROC 19OC 45NRNR
Kalogera, 2013 [17]817864.365.181 (100%)78 (100%)NRNRGyn 100%Gyn 100%227278
Myriokefalitaki, 2016 [27]999961.661.099 (100%)99 (100%)High 46High 58Gyn 100%Gyn 100%NRNR
Modesitt, 2016 [28]13621151.851.1136 (100%)211 (100%)NRNRGyn 100%Gyn 100%228222
Bisch, 2018 [29]36715257 *61 *367 (100%)152 (100%)Low 253
Med/High 114		Low 94
Med/High 58		OC
EC
Benign		OC
EC
Benign		NRNR
Agarwal, 2018 [30]454553 *58 *45 (100%)45 (100%)NRNROC 45OC 45229219
Boitano, 2018 [31]17919755.957.8179 (100%)197 (100%)Low 124
Mod 46
High 9		Low 144
Mod 47
High 6		OC 62
Uterine 20
Cervix 4
Others 93		OC 59
Uterine 40
Cervix 6
Others 92		NRNR
Meyer, 2018 [32]533745858533 (100%)74 (100%)NRNRAdv. OC 288Adv. OC 48216 *236 *
Bergstrom, 2018 [33]10915855.251.7109 (100%)158 (100%)NRNRAdv. OC 54Adv. OC 41285238
Bernard, 2020 [34]18744158.660.3187 (100%)441 (100%)NRNROC 129
Uterine 36
Cervix 22		OC 335
Uterine 101
Cervix 5		145 *121 *
Sanchez-Iglesias, 2020 [35]504957.857.250 (100%)49 (100%)Low 11
Med 16
High 23		Low 6
Med 17
High 26		OC 48
Others 2		OC 47
Others 2		288287
Tankou, 2021 [36]128150NRNR128 (100%)150 (100%)Low 90
Med28
High 10		Low 114
Med 33
High 3		OC/PP 120
Uterine 8		OC/PP 150
Uterine 0		NRNR
Ferrari, 2020 [37]838556.554.983 (100%)85 (100%)NRNRAdv. OC 24Adv. OC 25139160
Mendivil 2018 [38]869163.8756.0186 (100%)91 (100%)NRNRGyn 100%Gyn 100%NRNR
Kay, 2020 [39]944263.160.194 (100%)42 (100%)NRNROC 100%OC 100%NRNR
Reuter, 2021 [40]478765 *60 *47 (100%)87 (100%)NRNROC 100%OC 100%303 ± 91306 ± 103
Veneto Institute of Oncology33 66.87 30 (90.9%) PCI 12.24 OC 24
CRC 2
PMP 1
Other 6		 363.63
Candiolo Cancer Institute33 61 26 (78.7%) PCI 12.5 OC 17
CRC10
PMP 6		 244
CRC = ColoRectal Cancer; OC = Ovarian Cancer; GC = Gastric Cancer; PMP = PseudoMyxoma Peritonei; MPM = Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma; PP = Primary Peritoneal cancer; * = median.
Table
Table 3. Details of outcomes of the included studies.
Table 3. Details of outcomes of the included studies.
StudyArmsSample Size
N		LOS
Mean (Days)		LOS
(SD)		Readmission
N		Reoperation
N		Complications
N		Major complic.
N		Death
N
ControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERASControlERAS
CRS + HIPECP.A Cascales Campos 2016 [24]1 156 14 48 21
Duzgun 2019 [18]240621074.501,10 221494133
Webb 2020 [21]2498110.306.908.90571365 1212
Siddharthan 2020 [20]216151172.3816.30 43
Lu 2020 [22]21120962.961.8531 11
Martin 2020 [19]21052011928.9616.3019671
White 2021 [23]28880107.904.506.401213 3419191
CRSMarx 2006 [25]27269654521.507293231718420
Gerardi 2008 [26]2451911.408.701817154 2612
Kalogera, 2013 [17]2788110.706.5011.403.501421 5651161711
Myriokefalitaki, 2016 [27]299997.204.305.682.7865 27304210
Modesitt, 2016 [28]2211136320.740.74137128529 20
Bisch 2018 [29]21523676.404.507.505.901022 81133 02
Boitano 2018 [31]219717942.902.401.902118
Bergstrom 2018 [33]215810955.502.962.961513 3215
Meyer 2018 [32]274533436.75141070412 01
Mendivil 2018 [38]291868.044.887.194.2342
Agarwal 2019 [30]245456410.404.4451 1711
Sanchez-Iglesias 2020 [35]24950973.702.961035435308922
Ferrari 2020 [37]28583745.182.2254 281581
Bernard 2020 [34]24411874.703.803.803.203597510730 20
Kay, 2020 [39]242946.74.2 39
Tankou, 2021 [36]2150128431.480.74131420 10
Reuter, 2021 [40]2874713113.72.22187 461492
Table
Table 4. Bayesian Meta-analyses on aggregated data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) results.
Table 4. Bayesian Meta-analyses on aggregated data (AD) and individual participant data (IPD) results.
OutcomeTreatmentBMA
AD 2 Arms + AD 1 Arms
Median (95% CrI)		pdIBMA
AD 2 Arms + IPD
Median (95% CrI)		pdNo AD
Studies with
2 Arms		No AD
Studies with
1 Arm		No IPD
Studies
2 Arms
Hospital stay (days)HIPEC + ERAS vs. HIPEC−3.17 (−4.68, −1.69)0.99−3.00 (−7.84, 1.55)0.90602
CRS + ERAS vs. CRS−1.65 (−2.32, −1.06)0.99−1.28 (−3.01, 0.39)0.931702
Major complicationsHIPEC + ERAS vs. HIPEC0.53 (0.18, 1.59)0.880.48 (0.22, 0.98)0.98512
CRS + ERAS vs. CRS0.70 (0.33, 1.52)0.830.58 (0.32, 0.94)0.98802
ReoperationHIPEC + ERAS vs. HIPEC0.63 (0.09, 4.48)0.690.58 (0.15, 2.07)0.82302
CRS + ERAS vs. CRS0.65 (0.17, 2.54)0.740.67 (0.27, 1.64)0.83602
ReadmissionHIPEC + ERAS vs. HIPEC0.84 (0.23, 2.84)0.621.16 (0.63, 2.08)0.69412
CRS + ERAS vs. CRS0.79 (0.48, 1.28)0.840.84 (0.64, 1.09)0.921702
ComplicationsHIPEC + ERAS vs. HIPEC0.57 (0.05, 7.31)0.700.31 (0.10, 0.89)0.99112
CRS + ERAS vs. CRS0.61 (0.37, 1.01)0.950.56 (0.44, 0.71)0.991002
DeathHIPEC + ERAS vs. HIPEC0.23 (0.02, 3.40)0.870.15 (0.01, 1.76)0.94202
CRS + ERAS vs. CRS0.49 (0.08, 3.25)0.790.43 (0.05, 1.96)0.881002
BMA = Bayesian Meta-Analysis; IBMA = Individual Bayesian Meta-Analysis; AD = Aggregated level Data; IPD = Individual Participant Data; 95% CrI = 95% Credible Interval; pd = Probability of Direction.
Table
Table 5. ERAS elements in the included studies.
Table 5. ERAS elements in the included studies.
StudyPreoperative Information/
Counseling		Nutritional SupplementNo Bowel PreparationCarbohydrate
Loading		Multimodal
Analgesia		PONV ManagementGoal
Directed Fluid
Therapy		Avoidance Abdominal DrainsAvoidance NGTEarly NGT Removal (<24 h)Early UC Removal (<24 h)Time to Fluid Intake (<24 h)Early Solid Intake (<48 h)Early Mobilization/
Deambulation
CRS + HIPECCascales Campos, 2016 [24] x x x xxx
Duzgun, 2019 [18]xxx x x xxxxxx
Webb, 2020 [21] x x xxx x
Siddhartan, 2020 [20]xx xx x xxxxxx
Lu, 2020 [22]xx xx x xxxx
Martin, 2020 [19]xx xxx xxxxx
White, 2021 [23]xx xxxxxxxxxx
Candiolo Cancer Institutexxx xxx xxxxx
Veneto Institute of Oncologyx x xx xxxxx
CRSMarx, 2006 [25] x xx x xxxx
Gerardi, 2008 [26] x x x
Kalogera, 2013 [17] xxxxx xx x x
Myriokefalitak, 2016 [27]xxxxxxxxx xxxx
Modesitt, 2016 [28]x xx xxx
Bisch, 2018 [29]xxxx x xx xxxx
Boitano, 2018 [31]x xxx xxx xxxx
Bergstrom, 2018 [33]x xxxxxxx xxxx
Meyer 2018 [32]x x xxxxx xxxx
Mendivil, 2018 [38]x xxxxx xxx
Agarwal, 2019 [30]xxxxxxxxx xxxx
Sanchez- Iglesias, 2020 [35]xxxxxxxxx xx x
Ferrari, 2020 [37]xxxxxxxxx xxxx
Bernard, 2020 [34]xxxx xxxx xxxx
Kay, 2020 [39] xxxx xx xxx
Tankou, 2021 [36]x xxx x xxx
Reuter, 2021 [40]x xxxx x x
Candiolo Cancer
Institute		xxx xxx xxxxx
Veneto Institute of Oncologyx x xx xxxxx
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Robella, M.; Tonello, M.; Berchialla, P.; Sciannameo, V.; Ilari Civit, A.M.; Sommariva, A.; Sassaroli, C.; Di Giorgio, A.; Gelmini, R.; Ghirardi, V.; et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program for Patients with Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with or without HIPEC: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2023, 15, 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030570

AMA Style

Robella M, Tonello M, Berchialla P, Sciannameo V, Ilari Civit AM, Sommariva A, Sassaroli C, Di Giorgio A, Gelmini R, Ghirardi V, et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program for Patients with Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with or without HIPEC: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2023; 15(3):570. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030570

Chicago/Turabian Style

Robella, Manuela, Marco Tonello, Paola Berchialla, Veronica Sciannameo, Alba Maria Ilari Civit, Antonio Sommariva, Cinzia Sassaroli, Andrea Di Giorgio, Roberta Gelmini, Valentina Ghirardi, and et al. 2023. "Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program for Patients with Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with or without HIPEC: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis" Cancers 15, no. 3: 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030570

APA Style

Robella, M., Tonello, M., Berchialla, P., Sciannameo, V., Ilari Civit, A. M., Sommariva, A., Sassaroli, C., Di Giorgio, A., Gelmini, R., Ghirardi, V., Roviello, F., Carboni, F., Lippolis, P. V., Kusamura, S., & Vaira, M. (2023). Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program for Patients with Peritoneal Surface Malignancies Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with or without HIPEC: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 15(3), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030570

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop