Real-world effectiveness and safety of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer
Abstract
Background
Both hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP) have shown survival benefits in ovarian cancer (OC), but direct comparisons between the two perfusion modalities are lacking. This study aimed to compare effectiveness and safety between HIPEC and conventional IP in OC.
Methods
This retrospective real-world study analyzed 606 patients with stages II-IV OC who received HIPEC or IP following cytoreductive surgery between 2013 and 2024. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events were secondary endpoints. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate result robustness and subgroup analyses to explore potential effect modification.
Results
After a median follow-up of 26 months, disease progression occurred in 40.6% of patients in the HIPEC group and 55.0% in the IP group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; P = .103). Mortality rates were 13.2% and 22.5%, respectively (HR 0.83; P = .434), showing no significant differences in progression and survival between the two groups. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested a trend toward improved progression-free outcomes with HIPEC, particularly among patients with BRCA wild-type or BRCA1-mutated tumors and early postoperative perfusion. Hypoalbuminemia was the most common event in both groups (HIPEC 27.2%; IP 15.6%). HIPEC group had more abdominal distension and wound dehiscence, whereas IP patients experienced nausea and rash more frequently.
Conclusions
HIPEC did not significantly improve survival over conventional IP in the overall population, but showed greater benefit in specific subgroups, underscoring the importance of individualized intraperitoneal chemotherapy strategies in OC.