OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic cancer with peritoneal metastasis presents a challenging prognosis, with limited effective treatment options available. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as a treatment strategy for this patient group.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer who underwent CRS + HIPEC treatment at Beijing Shijitan Hospital from March 2017 to December 2023. The study focused on assessing clinical features, the incidence of sever adverse events (SAEs), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: A total of 10 patients were enrolled in this study. The median OS was 24.2 months, suggesting an improvement over traditional therapies. While SAEs were noted, including two cases of severe complications necessitating additional surgical interventions, no perioperative fatalities were recorded. The overall survival time for patients with CC0/1 was not significantly different from that of patients with CC2/3, and no prognostic predictors were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CRS and HIPEC appears to be a viable and promising treatment modality for patients with peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic cancer, offering an improved survival rate with manageable safety concerns. Further research is needed to refine patient selection criteria and to explore the long-term benefits of this approach.

The clinical consequences of perioperative albumin extravasation accompanying major abdominal surgery remain underexplored. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Parameters of albumin kinetics, including serum albumin concentration decrease (∆Alb) and extravasated albumin level (Albshift), were assessed from surgery until postoperative day (POD) 3. Logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with major complications. The association of albumin kinetics with major complications was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Serum albumin levels decreased during surgery and subsequently increased. Of the 121 analyzed patients, 25 (21%) developed major complications. The ∆Alb and Albshift during surgery and on POD 3 were greater in patients who developed major complications than in those who did not (12 ± 12 vs. 6 ± 14, p = 0.032, and 127.5 (71.9) vs. 48.5 (44.9), p < 0.001, respectively). Perioperative ∆Alb and Albshift were associated with major complications. The areas under the ROC curve of Albshift during the 3 days post-surgery and Albshift on POD 3 were 0.843 and 0.910, respectively. Albshift during the 3 days post-surgery and Albshift on POD 3 were correlated with complications (p < 0.05). In conclusion, perioperative albumin loss was associated with major complications in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC. Albshift was associated with serious complications.

The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is a novel nutritional index that integrates the serum albumin level, peripheral blood lymphocyte count, and total cholesterol level. This retrospective study explores its prognostic significance in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). We included 436 patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC, categorized into low (0-3) and high (4-12) CONUT score groups, and performed logistic regression analysis to predict one-year mortality and postoperative morbidity. Our findings revealed that high CONUT scores correlate with increased one-year mortality (47.1% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (39.2% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) compared to low CONUT scores. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed high CONUT scores as independent predictors of one-year mortality (odds ratio: 2.253, 95% CI: 1.014-5.005, p = 0.046) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio: 2.201, 95% CI: 1.066-4.547, p = 0.033). These results underscore the CONUT score\'s effectiveness as an independent marker for evaluating risks associated with CRS-HIPEC, emphasizing its potential to improve risk stratification.

Peritoneal sarcomatosis is a rare malignant disease with a poor prognosis, secondary to peritoneal dissemination of abdominopelvic soft tissue sarcomas. Its rarity, together with the characteristic histological heterogeneity and the historically poor response to systemic treatments, has prevented the establishment of widely accepted treatment criteria with curative intent. In this sense, radical cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with peritonectomy procedures and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), widely used in peritoneal carcinomatosis with excellent results, have not had the same evolutionary development in patients with peritoneal sarcomatosis. A multidisciplinary working group of experts in sarcomas and peritoneal oncological surgery established a series of recommendations based on current scientific evidence for the management of peritoneal sarcomatosis, taking into account the different histological subgroups of abdominopelvic sarcomas that can cause it depending on their origin: retroperitoneal sarcomas, uterine sarcomas, and visceral/peritoneal sarcomas of GIST (gastrointestinal stromal tumor) and non-GIST origin. This article shows the results of sarcoma experts\' voting on the recommendations presented during the I Ibero-American Consensus on the Management of Peritoneal Sarcomatosis, which took place during the recent celebration of the III Hispanic-Portuguese Meeting for Updates on the Treatment of Sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy reportedly improve the prognosis of patients with metachronous peritoneal metastases. However, the types of peritoneal metastases indicated for cytoreductive surgery remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to clarify the category of cases for which cytoreductive surgery would be effective and report the prognosis associated with cytoreductive surgery for metachronous peritoneal metastases.
METHODS: This study included 52 consecutive patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for metachronous peritoneal metastases caused by colorectal cancer between January 2005 and December 2018 and fulfilled the selection criteria. The median follow-up period was 54.9 months. Relapse-free survival was calculated as the time from cytoreductive surgery of metachronous peritoneal metastases to recurrence. Overall survival was defined as the time from cytoreductive surgery of metachronous peritoneal metastases to death or the end of the follow-up period.
RESULTS: The 5-year relapse-free survival rate was 30.0% and the 5-year overall survival rate was 72.3%. None of the patients underwent hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The analysis indicated no potential risk factors for 5-year relapse-free survival. However, for 5-year overall survival, the multivariate analysis revealed that time to diagnosis of metachronous peritoneal metastases of < 2 years after primary surgery (hazard ratio = 4.1, 95% confidence interval = 2.0-8.6, p = 0.0002) and number of metachronous peritoneal metastases ≥ 3 (hazard ratio = 9.8, 95% confidence interval = 2.3-42.3, p = 0.002) as independent factors associated with a poor prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Long intervals of more than 2 years after primary surgery and 2 or less metachronous peritoneal metastases were good selection criteria for cytoreductive surgery for metachronous peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer presenting with peritoneal metastasis is notably associated with diminished survival prospects. The use of cytoreductive surgery in conjunction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been shown to increase survival rates in these patients. Despite these advancements, debates persist regarding the magnitude of survival improvement attributed to this treatment modality. The present investigation examined survival outcomes following HIPEC in individuals diagnosed with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis, and it took a comparative analysis of patients exhibiting positive and negative cytological findings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of HIPEC on survival in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis and positive or negative cytology.
METHODS: Between April 2013 and March 2020, 84 patients with advanced gastric cancer treated at our institution were categorized into three cohorts: HIPEC (20 patients with peritoneal metastasis), cytology-positive (23 patients without peritoneal nodules but with positive wash cytology), and cytology-negative (41 patients with advanced gastric cancer, no peritoneal nodules, and negative wash cytology). The HIPEC cohort underwent gastrectomy with HIPEC, while the cytology-positive and cytology-negative groups received gastrectomy alone. The demographic, pathological, and survival data of the groups were compared.
RESULTS: The HIPEC cohort-predominantly younger females-exhibited relatively extended surgical durations and high blood loss. Nevertheless, the complication rates were consistent across all three groups. Median survival in the HIPEC group was 20.00 ± 4.89 months, with 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year overall survival rates of 73.90%, 28.70%, and 9.60%, respectively. These figures paralleled the survival rates of the cytology-positive group (52.20% at 1 year, 28.50% at 2 years, and 19.00% at 3 years). Notably, 47% of patients experienced peritoneal recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: HIPEC may offer a modest improvement in short-term survival for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis, mirroring the outcomes in cytology-positive patients. However, peritoneal recurrence remained high.

Multimodal treatment in peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal neoplasms may improve overall survival (OS). In this study, we reported our experience in using cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal neoplasms. The first aim was to evaluate the overall survival of these patients. Furthermore, using the results of the Prodige 7 Trial and incorporating them with the entropy balance statistical tool, we generated a pseudopopulation on which to test the use of CRS alone. We performed a retrospective analysis based on a prospective database of all 55 patients treated with CRS + HIPEC between March 2004 and January 2023. The median OS was 47 months, with 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates of 90.8%, 58.7% and 42.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the data in the pseudogroup generated with entropy balance. This finding confirms the critical role of complete cytoreduction in achieving the best OS for patients with PM. PCI > 6 seems to be the most important prognostic factor influencing OS. At present, CRS + HIPEC seems to be the therapeutic strategy that guarantees the best results in terms of OS for patients with relatively low PCI and in whom a CCS ≤ 1 can be achieved.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a major treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CPC). The aim was to determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC for CPC and factors associated with long-term survival (LTS).
METHODS: consecutive CPC patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC at a HIPEC center between 2007 and 2021 were included. Actual survival was calculated, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with OS, DFS and LTS.
RESULTS: there were 125 patients with CPC who underwent primary CRS-HIPEC, with mean age of 54.5 years. Median follow-up was 31 months. Average intraoperative PCI was 11, and complete cytoreduction (CC-0) was achieved in 96.8%. Median OS was 41.6 months (6-196). The 2-year and 5-year OS were 68% and 24.8%, respectively, and the 2-year DFS was 28.8%. Factors associated with worse OS included pre-HIPEC systemic therapy, synchronous extraperitoneal metastasis, and PCI ≥ 20 (p < 0.05). Progression prior to CRS-HIPEC was associated with worse DFS (p < 0.05). Lower PCI, fewer complications, lower recurrence and longer DFS were associated with LTS (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: CRS and HIPEC improve OS in CPC patients but they have high disease recurrence. Outcomes depend on preoperative therapy response, extraperitoneal metastasis, and peritoneal disease burden.

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is an indolent malignant syndrome. The standard treatment for PMP is cytoreductive surgery combined with intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC). However, the high recurrence rate and latent clinical symptoms and signs are major obstacles to further improving clinical outcomes. Moreover, patients in advanced stages receive little benefit from CRS + HIPEC due to widespread intraperitoneal metastases. Another challenge in PMP treatment involves the progressive sclerosis of PMP cell-secreted mucus, which is often increased due to activating mutations in the gene coding for guanine nucleotide-binding protein alpha subunit (GNAS). Consequently, the development of other PMP therapies is urgently needed. Several immune-related therapies have shown promise, including the use of bacterium-derived non-specific immunogenic agents, radio-immunotherapeutic agents, and tumor cell-derived neoantigens, but a well-recognized immunotherapy has not been established. In this review the roles of GNAS mutations in the promotion of mucin secretion and disease development are discussed. In addition, the immunologic features of the PMP microenvironment and immune-associated treatments are discussed to summarize the current understanding of key features of the disease and to facilitate the development of immunotherapies.

Introduction and objective: The approach to patients with advanced or metastatic high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has evolved over time with the advent of new therapies and multimodal strategies. The objective of this consensus of experts is to generate national recommendations for the profiling and management of advanced or metastatic high-grade OEC, defined as stages III and IV of the “The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification at the time of diagnosis to base on the literature review that included international evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Material and methods: Eleven panelists (oncologists and gynecological oncologists) answered 8 questions about the profiling and management of advanced or metastatic ovarian epithelial carcinoma. The panelists were chosen for their academic profile and influence in national health institutions. Guidelines from the “ESMO Standardized Operating Procedures Consensus Conference” were used to develop the consensus. It was agreed that the level of agreement to accept a recommendation should be ≥ 80%. The document was peer reviewed. Results: Eight general recommendations are made, which are presented into five domains. Some of these recommendations are subdivided into specific recommendations. Initial treatment Recommendation 1.1 Complete primary cytoreduction (PCS) surgery is suggested as the initial therapy of choice for patients with high-grade or metastatic EOC, which should ideally be carried out in centers with experience, followed by adjuvant therapy. 1.2 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreduction surgery (ICS) is suggested in those who are unlikely to achieve a complete cytoreduction in PCS either due to unresectable metastatic disease or who present unresectability criteria (imaging, laparoscopic and/or by laparotomy) and that have been defined by a gynecological oncologist and patients with poor functional status and comorbidities according to the criteria of the multidisciplinary team (clinical oncology, gynecological oncology, radiology, etc.). Recommendation 2. In patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), in stage III locally advanced or metastatic, who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and achieved a complete or partial response (cytoreduction with tumor residue < 2.5 mm), the use of Hyperthermic IntraPeritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) could be considered as an alternative to standard platinum-based adjuvant intravenous chemotherapy during interval cytoreductive surgery, after discussion in a multidisciplinary tumor board, at a center experienced in treating this type of patients. Use of genetic testing. Recommendation 3. It is suggested at the time of diagnosis to offer molecular genetic testing to all patients with high-grade advanced or metastatic EOC regardless of family history. Recommendation 4. It is suggested to offer genetic counseling, by qualified personnel, to all patients with high-grade advanced or metastatic EOC who are ordered genetic testing. Recommendation 5. It is suggested that all patients with advanced or metastatic high-grade EOC undergo a germ panel that includes the Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes 1/2 genes (BRCA 1/2) and the other susceptibility genes according to with institutional protocols and the availability of genetic testing panels; If it is negative, then somatic testing should be performed that includes the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, regardless of family history. Adjuvant Therapy Recommendation 6. 6.1. It is suggested that all patients with advanced stage III/IV EOC, with PSC of (0-2), got adjuvant intravenous chemotherapy as standard treatment within six weeks after Prc. It is suggested paclitaxel/carboplatin. Recommendation 6.2. It is suggested to use standard chemotherapy base on platinum plus Bevacizumab as adjuvant chemotherapy to patients with high-risk disease (EOC stage IV or stage III with suboptimal tumor cytoreduction), following by bevacizumab as maintenance. The use of bevacizumab as maintenance therapy is not recommended if bevacizumab was not included in the first line of treatment. We suggested the dose used in GOG-0218 and ICON7 trials. Recommendation 6.3 It is suggested combined intravenous/intraperitoneal chemotherapy only for selected patients, with optimal cytoreduction (residual lesions < 1 cm), especially those without residual disease (R0) and who are evaluated in a multidisciplinary meeting. It is not considered standard treatment. Recommendation 6.4. 6.4.1 It is suggested to use Poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors such as olaparib or niraparib as maintenance after receiving first-line chemotherapy in patients with stage III/IV BRCA1/2 positive EOC who received platinumbased chemotherapy and obtained complete response/partial response (CR/PR), 6.4.2 It is suggested to use olaparib alone or in combination with bevacizumab or niraparib in patients with stage III/IV BRCA1/2 positive EOC who received platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and achieved CR/PR. 6.4.3 It is suggested to use niraparibin patients with stage III/IV BRCA1/2 negative or unknown EOC who received platinum-based chemotherapy and achieved CR/PR. 6.4.4 It is suggested to use bevacizumab or olaparib plus bevacizumab in patients with EOC stage III/IV BRCA1/2 negative or unknown (HRD positive) who received platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab and obtained CR/PR. Treatment of disease relapse Recommendation 7. Secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy is suggested for selected patients with high-grade advanced EOC in first relapse, platinum-sensitive (platinum-free interval ≥ 6 months), positive “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie – AGO” score or “I-model” positive (< 4.7) with a potential resection to R0 in centers with access to optimal surgical and postoperative support. Note: Platinum-free interval and AGO score have only been developed as positive predictors of complete resection and not to exclude patients from surgery. Recommendation 8. 8.1 For patients with relapse advanced high-grade EOC platinum-sensitive, the following is suggested: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy: carboplatin/liposomal doxorubicin or carboplatin/paclitaxel or carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel or carboplatin/docetaxel or carboplatin/gemcitabine) for six cycles. If combination therapy is not tolerated, give carboplatin or cisplatin alone. Combination chemotherapy (carboplatin/gemcitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel or carboplatin/doxorubicin liposomal) plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab as maintenance (until progression or toxicity). Recommendation 8.2 For patients with relapsed advanced high-grade EOC platinum-resistant, it is suggested: Sequential treatment with chemotherapy, preferably with a non-platinum single agent (weekly paclitaxel or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or docetaxel or oral etoposide or gemcitabine or trabectidine or, topotecan). Weekly paclitaxel or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan could be administrate with or without bevacizumab. Other agents are considered potentially active (capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, pemetrexed, vinorelbine, cyclophosphamide) could be recommended for later lines. Hormone receptor-positive patients who do not tolerate or have no response to cytotoxic regimens may receive hormone therapy with tamoxifen or other agents, including aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole) or leuprolide acetate, or megestrol acetate. Patients with a performance score ≥ 3 should be considered only for best supportive care. Recommendation 8.3 Maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors: It is suggested in patients with relapse advanced high-grade EOC stage III/IV BRCA1/2 (positive, negative or unknown) who have received two or more lines of platinum-based chemotherapy and have achieved CR/PR, use olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib. Niraparib could be useful in BRCA 1/2 +/-/unknown patients, as rucaparib, however, the latter does not yet have approval from the regulatory office in Colombia. Conclusions: It is expected that the recommendations issued in this consensus will contribute to improving clinical care, oncological impact, and quality of life of these women.
Introducción y objetivo: el abordaje de pacientes con cáncer epitelial de ovario (CEO) de alto grado avanzado o metastásico ha ido evolucionando a través del tiempo con el advenimiento de nuevas terapias y estrategias multimodales. El objetivo de este consenso de expertos es generar recomendaciones nacionales para el perfilamiento y manejo del CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico, definido como estadios III y IV de la clasificación de la Federación Internacional de Ginecología y Obstetricia (FIGO) al momento del diagnóstico, a partir de la revisión de la literatura que incluyó guías de práctica clínica (GPC) internacionales basadas en la evidencia. Materiales y métodos: once panelistas (oncólogos y ginecólogos oncólogos) respondieron ocho preguntas sobre el perfilamiento y manejo del carcinoma epitelial de ovario avanzado o metastásico. Los panelistas fueron escogidos por su perfil académico e influencia en instituciones de salud nacionales. Para el desarrollo del consenso se utilizaron los lineamientos de la “Conferencia de consenso de procedimientos operativos estandarizados de ESMO”. Se definió que el nivel de acuerdo para aceptar una recomendación debía ser ≥ 80%. El documento fue revisado por pares. Resultados: Se hacen 8 recomendaciones generales, presentadas en cinco dominios; algunas de ellas se subdividen en recomendaciones específicas. Tratamiento inicial Recomendación 1 1.1. Como terapia inicial de elección para pacientes con CEO de alto grado o metastásico se sugiere la cirugía de citorreducción primaria (Cpr) completa que, idealmente, debe realizarse en centros con experiencia, seguida de terapia adyuvante. 1.2. Se sugiere quimioterapia neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía de citorreducción de intervalo (Cint) en quienes sea improbable alcanzar una citorreducción completa en la Cpr, bien sea por enfermedad metastásica no resecable o que presenten criterios de irresecabilidad (imagenológicos, laparoscópicos o por laparotomía) que hayan sido definidos por un ginecólogo oncólogo. También en pacientes con un pobre estado funcional y comorbilidades de acuerdo con el criterio del equipo multidisciplinario (oncología clínica, ginecología oncológica, radiología, etc.). Recomendación 2. En pacientes con CEO de alto grado, en estadio III localmente avanzado o metastásico, que recibieron quimioterapia neoadyuvante y alcanzaron respuesta completa o parcial (citorreducción con residuo tumoral < 2,5 mm), se podría evaluar el uso de la quimioterapia intraperitoneal hipertérmica (Hyperthermic IntraPeritoneal Chemotherapy - HIPEC) como alternativa a la quimioterapia IV adyuvante estándar basada en platinos durante la Cint, previa discusión en junta multidisciplinaria, en un centro de experiencia en este tipo de pacientes. Uso de pruebas genéticas Recomendación 3. Al momento del diagnóstico, se sugiere ofrecer testeo molecular genético a toda paciente con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico, independientemente de la historia familiar. Recomendación 4. Se sugiere ofrecer asesoramiento genético, por parte de personal calificado, a toda paciente con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico a quien se le ordene un testeo genético. Recomendación 5. Se sugiere que a toda paciente con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico se le realice panel germinal que incluya los genes de susceptibilidad al cáncer de mama 1/2 (BRCA 1/2) y los otros genes de susceptibilidad de acuerdo con los protocolos institucionales y la disponibilidad de paneles de testeo genético; si es negativo entonces se debería realizar testeo somático que incluya el estatus de deficiencia de la recombinación homóloga (homologous recombination deficiency - HRD), independientemente de la historia familiar. Terapia adyuvante Recomendación 6 6.1. Se sugiere que a toda paciente con CEO estadios III/IV avanzado o metastásico, con estatus de desempeño (performance score care - PSC) de 0-2 se le administre como tratamiento estándar quimioterapia intravenosa (IV) adyuvante dentro de las seis semanas posteriores a la Cpr. Se sugiere administrar paclitaxel/carboplatino. 6.2. Se sugiere utilizar quimioterapia estándar basada en platino más bevacizumab como adyuvancia en pacientes con enfermedad de alto riesgo (CEO estadios IV o III con citorreducción tumoral subóptima), continuando con bevacizumab como mantenimiento. No se recomienda el uso de bevacizumab como terapia de mantenimiento si no se incluyó en la primera línea de tratamiento. Se sugiere seguir los esquemas de los estudios Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (GOG-0218) e International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON7). 6.3. Se sugiere la quimioterapia combinada IV/intraperitoneal (IP) solo para pacientes seleccionadas, con una citorreducción óptima (lesiones residuales < 1 cm), en especial aquellas sin enfermedad residual (R0) y que sean evaluadas en junta multidisciplinaria. La quimioterapia combinada IV/IP no se considera como tratamiento estándar. 6.4. 6.4.1. Se sugiere utilizar inhibidores de poli(ADP-ribosa) polimerasa (PARP) tales como olaparib o niraparib como mantenimiento después de recibir una primera línea de quimioterapia en pacientes con CEO estadios III/IV BRCA1/2 positivo que recibieron quimioterapia basada en platino y obtuvieron respuesta completa/respuesta parcial (RC/RP). 6.4.2. Se sugiere utilizar olaparib solo o en combinación con bevacizumab o niraparib en pacientes con CEO estadios III/IV BRCA1/2 positivo que recibieron quimioterapia basada en platino más bevacizumab y obtuvieron RC/RP. 6.4.3. Se sugiere utilizar niraparib en pacientes con CEO estadio III/IV BRCA1/2 negativo o desconocido que recibieron quimioterapia basada en platino y obtuvieron RC/RP. 6.4.4. Se sugiere utilizar bevacizumab u olaparib más bevacizumab en pacientes con CEO estadios III/IV BRCA1/2 negativo o desconocido (HRD positivo) que recibieron quimioterapia basada en platino más bevacizumab y obtuvieron RC/RP. Tratamiento de la recaída de la enfermedad Recomendación 7. Se sugiere la realización de la cirugía de citorreducción secundaria (Csec), seguida de quimioterapia, a pacientes seleccionadas con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico en primera recaída, platino-sensibles (intervalo libre de platinos ≥ 6 meses), puntuación Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) positiva o Integrate model (I-Model) positivo (< 4,7), y con una potencial resección a R0, en centros con acceso a soporte quirúrgico y posoperatorio óptimo. Nota: el intervalo libre de tratamiento con platinos y la puntuación AGO solo se han desarrollado como predictores positivos de resección completa y no para excluir a las pacientes de la cirugía. Recomendación 8 8.1. Para pacientes con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico en recaída platino-sensibles se sugiere: Quimioterapia combinada basada en platino: carboplatino/doxorrubicina liposomal o carboplatino/paclitaxel o carboplatino/ nab-paclitaxel o carboplatino/docetaxel o carboplatino/gemcitabina, por seis ciclos. Si no se tolera la terapia combinada, dar carboplatino o cisplatino solo. Quimioterapia combinada: carboplatino/gemcitabina o carboplatino/paclitaxel o carboplatino/doxorubicina liposomal, más bevacizumab, seguida de bevacizumab como mantenimiento (hasta progresión o toxicidad). 8.2. Para pacientes con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico en recaída, platino-resistentes, se sugiere: Tratamiento secuencial con quimioterapia, preferiblemente con un agente único que no sea un platino (paclitaxel semanal o doxorrubicina liposomal pegilada o docetaxel o etopósido oral o gemcitabina o trabectidina o topotecan). El paclitaxel semanal o la doxorrubicina liposomal pegilada o el topotecan pueden ser administrados con o sin bevacizumab. Existen otros agentes que se consideran potencialmente act ivos (capecitabina, ciclofosfamida, ifosfamida, irinotecán, oxaliplatino, pemetrexed, vinorelbina, ciclofosfamida), que se podrían recomendar para líneas posteriores. Las pacientes con receptores hormonales positivos que no toleran o no tienen respuesta a los regímenes citotóxicos pueden recibir terapia hormonal con tamoxifeno u otros agentes, incluidos los inhibidores de la aromatasa (anastrozol y letrozol) o acetato de leuprolide o acetato de megestrol. Pacientes con PSC ≥ 3 deberían ser consideradas solo para el mejor cuidado de soporte. 8.3. Terapia de mantenimiento con inhibidores PARP. Para pacientes con CEO de alto grado avanzado o metastásico en recaída estadios III/IV BRCA1/2 (positivo, negativo o desconocido), que hayan recibido dos o más líneas de quimioterapia basada en platino y hayan alcanzado RC/RP, se sugiere utilizar olaparib, niraparib o rucaparib. El niraparib podría ser útil en pacientes BRCA 1/2 +/-/desconocido, al igual que el rucaparib, sin embargo, este último no tiene aún aprobación del ente regulador en Colombia. Conclusiones: se espera que las recomendaciones emitidas en este consenso contribuyan a mejorar la atención clínica, el impacto oncológico y la calidad de vida de estas mujeres.