scholarly journals Photodynamic Diagnosis and Therapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Emerging Perspectives

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2491
Author(s):  
Si Xu ◽  
Anne-Laure Bulin ◽  
Amandine Hurbin ◽  
Hélène Elleaume ◽  
Jean-Luc Coll ◽  
...  

Peritoneal carcinomatosis occurs frequently in patients with advanced stage gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers. The wide-spread peritoneal micrometastases indicate a poor outlook, as the tumors are difficult to diagnose and challenging to completely eradicate with cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapeutics. Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) and therapy (PDT), modalities that use photosensitizers for fluorescence detection or photochemical treatment of cancer, are promising theranostic approaches for peritoneal carcinomatosis. This review discusses the leading clinical trials, identifies the major challenges, and presents potential solutions to advance the use of PDD and PDT for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. While PDD for fluorescence-guided surgery is practically feasible and has achieved clinical success, large randomized trials are required to better evaluate the survival benefits. Although PDT is feasible and combines well with clinically used chemotherapeutics, poor tumor specificity has been associated with severe morbidity. The major challenges for both modalities are to increase the tumor specificity of the photosensitizers, to efficiently treat peritoneal microtumors regardless of their phenotypes, and to improve the ability of the excitation light to reach the cancer tissues. Substantial progress has been achieved in (1) the development of targeted photosensitizers and nanocarriers to improve tumor selectivity, (2) the design of biomodulation strategies to reduce treatment heterogeneity, and (3) the development of novel light application strategies. The use of X-ray-activated PDT during whole abdomen radiotherapy may also be considered to overcome the limited tissue penetration of light. Integrated approaches that take advantage of PDD, cytoreductive surgery, chemotherapies, PDT, and potentially radiotherapy, are likely to achieve the most effective improvement in the management of peritoneal carcinomatosis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1487-E1494
Author(s):  
Veeravich Jaruvongvanich ◽  
FNU Chesta ◽  
Anushka Baruah ◽  
Meher Oberoi ◽  
Daniel Adamo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Management of malignant gastrointestinal obstruction (MGIO) is more challenging in the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Outcomes data to guide the management of MGIO with PC are lacking. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and adverse events between endoscopic and surgical palliation and identify predictors of stent success in patients with MGIO with PC. Patients and methods Consecutive inpatients with MGIO with PC between 2000 and 2018 who underwent palliative surgery or enteral stenting were included. Clinical success was defined as relief of obstructive symptoms. Results Fifty-seven patients with enteral stenting and 40 with palliative surgery were compared. The two groups did not differ in rates of technical success, 30-day mortality, or recurrence. Clinical success from a single intervention (63.2 % versus 95 %), luminal patency duration (27 days vs. 145 days), and survival length (148 days vs. 336 days) favored palliative surgery (all P < 0.05) but the patients in the surgery group had a trend toward better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status. The rate of adverse events (AEs) (10.5 % vs. 50 %), the severity of AEs, and length of hospital stay (4.5 days vs. 9 days) favored enteral stenting (P < 0.05). The need for more than one stent was associated with a higher likelihood of stent failure. Conclusions Our study suggests that enteral stenting is safer and associated with a shorter hospital stay than palliative surgery, although unlike other MGIOs, clinical success is lower in MGIO with PC. Identification of the right candidates and potential predictors of clinical success in ECOG-matched large-scale studies is needed to validate these results.


2021 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-312
Author(s):  
María del Pilar Gutiérrez Delgado ◽  
Joaquín Carrasco Campos ◽  
Santiago Mera Velasco ◽  
Julio Santoyo Santoyo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document