Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0294018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294018

Efficacy of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: A phase I and III open label randomized controlled registry-based clinical trial protocol

Lana Ghanipour 1,2,*, Gabriella Jansson Palmer 3, Per J Nilsson 3, Caroline Nordenvall 3, Jan-Erik Frödin 4, Elinor Bexe Lindskog 5, Dan Asplund 5, Torbjörn Swartling 5, Wilhelm Graf 1,2, Helgi Birgisson 1,2, Ingvar Syk 6, Victor Verwaal 6, Jenny Brändstedt 6, Peter H Cashin 1,2
Editor: Fabrizio D’Acapito7
PMCID: PMC10911585  PMID: 38437211

Abstract

Standard treatment for patient with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer is cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). In recent years, the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC has been challenged. An intensified HIPEC (oxaliplatin+irinotecan) in combination with early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) has shown increased recurrence-free survival in retrospective studies. The aim of this trial is to develop a new HIPEC/EPIC regimen and evaluate its effect on morbidity, oncological outcome, and quality-of-life (QoL). This study is designed as a combined phase I/III multicenter randomized trial (RCT) of patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer eligible for CRS-HIPEC. An initial phase I dose escalation study, designed as a 3+3 stepwise escalation, will determine the maximum tolerable dose of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) as 1-day EPIC, enrolling a total of 15–30 patients in 5 dose levels. In the phase III efficacy study, patients are randomly assigned intraoperatively to either the standard treatment with oxaliplatin HIPEC (control arm) or oxaliplatin/irinotecan-HIPEC in combination with single dose of 1-day 5-FU EPIC (experimental arm). 5-FU is administered intraoperatively after CRS-HIPEC and closure of the abdomen. The primary endpoint is 12-month recurrence-free survival. Secondary endpoints include 5-year overall survival, 5-year recurrence-free survival (registry based), postoperative complications, and QoL up to 3 years after study treatment. This phase I/III trial aims to identify a more effective treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases by combination of HIPEC and EPIC.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (CRCPM) is now routinely treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The PRODIGE 7 trial, has however cast doubt on the efficacy of the 30-minute single-drug oxaliplatin HIPEC for CRCPM [1,2]. Due to several methodological limitations in the PRODIGE 7 study, the role and effect of HIPEC raises many questions and incentivizes the need for further research. However, there are randomized trials with proof of concept from both gastric cancer and ovarian cancer showing that HIPEC provides a survival benefit for patients treated with CRS [3,4]. Thus, it seems clinically relevant and meaningful to continue the search for a HIPEC regimen that is effective in colorectal cancer. In two recent studies, a disease-free survival benefit in favor of oxaliplatin/irinotecan HIPEC vs single drug oxaliplatin HIPEC was demonstrated [5,6]. Moreover, several studies have investigated intensified HIPEC treatment using two drugs and also by adding early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) [714]. Several trials have failed to prove any benefit of oxaliplatin based HIPEC, leading to several reviews questioning the place for oxaliplatin in HIPEC [15,16]. It can be argued that a 30-minute single-drug oxaliplatin HIPEC might be insufficient in preventing peritoneal relapse or increasing overall survival. Thus, the purpose of this clinical phase I and III trial is to develop and evaluate a new intensified HIPEC regimen based on a combination of HIPEC and EPIC.

Materials and methods

Basic design and setting

This clinical trial is divided into two parts—phase I and III. The phase I trial will determine the maximum tolerated dose of a single 5-Fluorouracil dose administered as early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) following an intensified HIPEC, by the combination of oxaliplatin and irinotecan. It will be designed as a 3 + 3 dose titration study, with dose escalation in five steps, up to 850 mg/m2.

The phase III part will randomize patients to either the current Swedish standard treatment of single-drug oxaliplatin HIPEC (460 mg/m2) vs. intensified oxaliplatin (360 mg/m2) and irinotecan (360 mg/m2) HIPEC combined with 1 day of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) EPIC. The dose of 5-FU will be established following the results of the phase- I trial. The intraabdominal treatment is preceded by intravenous bolus injection of 5-FU (400 mg/m2) and calcium folinate (60 mg/m2) both in the standard and the experimental treatment arm. The trial will be conducted in all four HIPEC centers performing HIPEC treatment in Sweden. International centers are still pending. The primary endpoint of the phase III trial is the 12-month recurrence-free survival.

Sample size and inclusion and exclusion criteria

The sample size of the phase I study will be 15–30 patients depending on how many of the five dose levels require 6 patients. Regarding the phase III study, the power calculation was based on an alpha of 5% and beta of 80% and an expected 12-month recurrence free survival benefit from 50% till 66%, giving 147 patients needed in each arm. With 10% loss to follow up, 163 patients in each arm will be needed. Hence, in total, 326 patients are to be included which will define the sample size. An interim analysis is planned in the phase III part after 140 patients (70 in each arm) have been included.

SUBJECT INCLUSION CRITERIA

  1. Provision of written informed consent prior to any study specific procedures.

  2. ECOG Performance Status Score 0,1 or 2 alternatively Karnofsky 60–100.

  3. Adequate kidney, liver, bone marrow function according to laboratory tests. The laboratory test needs to be normal according to reference values or within +/- 20% of the highest respective lowest value.

  4. For females of childbearing potential, a negative pregnancy test must be documented.

  5. ≥ 18 years old and <75 years old.

  6. Colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases with or without liver metastases. The liver metastases must to have been removed prior to CRS-HIPEC or synchronously with the CRS-HIPEC. Only patients requiring non-complex liver resections of not more than 3 metastases are eligible.

  7. All patients deemed eligible for CRS and HIPEC according to clinical routine.

SUBJECT EXCLUSION CRITERIA

  1. Previous severe toxicity/allergic reactions to systemic chemotherapy agents oxaliplatin or irinotecan or 5-FU.

  2. Unable to tolerate intensified HIPEC treatment due to comorbidity.

  3. Metastasis other than peritoneum or liver.

  4. Need for complex liver-perenchymal sparing surgery or hemihepatectomy procedures.

  5. Previous CRS or HIPEC.

  6. Pregnant or lactating (nursing) women.

  7. Active infections requiring antibiotics.

  8. Active liver disease with positive serology for active hepatitis B, C, or known HIV.

  9. Concurrent administration of any cancer therapy other than planned study treatment within 4 weeks prior to and up to 4 weeks after study treatment.

  10. Incomplete cytoreduction defined as completeness of cytoreduction score 1–3.

  11. Histopathology of other origin than colorectal cancer.

Design details phase I

In the dose escalation phase I trial (Table 1), the titration groups (consisting of 3 or 6 patients) are followed for 30 days postoperatively after which the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) will determine whether to increase the 5-FU dose for the following group of patients or not.

Table 1. Dose escalation of 5-FU 24-hour EPIC for each titration level and concomitant treatment where irinotecan is also an investigational drug (the other drugs are non-investigational and given to both groups in the randomized part of the trial).

Level Non-investigational
Oxaliplatin
Investigational
Irinotecan
Investigational
5-FU
24-hour EPIC
Non-investigational
5-FU
bolus
Non-investigational
Calcium folinate
-1 360 mg/m2 360 mg/m 2 250 mg/m 2 400 mg/m2 60mg/m2
0 360 mg/m2 360 mg/m 2 400 mg/m 2 400 mg/m2 60mg/m2
1 360 mg/m2 360 mg/m 2 550 mg/m 2 400 mg/m2 60mg/m2
2 360 mg/m2 360 mg/m 2 700 mg/m 2 400 mg/m2 60mg/m2
3 360 mg/m2 360 mg/m 2 850 mg/m 2 400 mg/m2 60mg/m2

A maximum of 33% Clavien Dindo grade 3b-5 complications defines the limit of tolerance. All patients will be reviewed at each of the dose levels by the DMC prior to allowing the next group of patients to advance to the following level. The toxicity follow-up is 30 days if no incidents occur. If the postoperative rehabilitation is slower or incidents occur, the follow-up period may be extended by the site Principal Investigator or Co-investigator.

If none or one of the first three patients at a dose level has a grade 3b-4b complication the DMC will review the data and permit the start of the next level. If more than one patient experiences a grade 3b-4b complication another three patients will be included at the same dose level before the DMC will review the data. A frequency of grade 3b-4b morbidity in ≤1 of 3 or ≤2 of 6 patients may result in a recommendation by the DMC to proceed to the next dose level and this defines the dose-limiting toxicity. A higher frequency of grade 3b-4b complications means the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) has been passed, and the dosage used in the efficacy study will be the nearest underlying dose level. Any grade 5 event pauses all inclusion for review. Depending on cause, the trial may continue after DMC review.

Design phase III

To study efficacy in the phase III part, an open label randomized clinical trial will commence after the DMC has determined the maximum tolerated dose of 5-FU EPIC. Treatments used in the trial are outlined below. The randomization will be intraoperatively at a 1:1 ratio. Cytoreductive procedures will be the same in both arms. The trial allows for dose reduction at the surgeon’s or the oncologist discretion; either full dose is given, or a 25% dose reduction as defined below.

Arm A (HIPEC) Standard treatment (normal dose- (25% dose level reduction))

  • Oxaliplatin– 460 mg/m2 (HIPEC); (350 mg/m2).

  • 5-FU– 400 mg/m2 IV bolus (Intraop)–(300 mg/m2).

  • Calcium folinate 60 mg/m2 IV (Intraop).

  • Granulocyte colony stimulating factor given postoperative only when indicated by neutrophil count drop below reference value.

Arm B (HIPEC + EPIC) Experimental treatment (25% dose reduction)

  • Oxaliplatin– 360 mg/m2 (HIPEC)–(270 mg/m2).

  • Irinotecan– 360 mg/m2 (HIPEC)–(270 mg/m2).

  • 5-FU– 400 mg/m2 IV bolus (Intraop)– (300 mg/m2).

  • Calcium folinate– 60 mg/m2 IV (Intraop).

  • 5-FU– 250–850 mg/m2 (190–640 mg/m2) IP, diluted in 400ml of 9% saline for a day (End of procedure).
    • ○ The EPIC treatment is administered in the operating theatre after the abdomen is completely closed. The dose will be divided equally into 2 injections of 200ml and given through two separate abdominal drains. The drains may be flushed with 20ml saline solution to prevent retention of 5-FU in the drain catheter. Afterwards, all drains are clamped and kept so for a day to evaluate remaining fluid from the abdominal cavity, drains are opened the day after end of the procedure.
  • Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF–e.g. filgrastim 5μg/kg/day) is administered prophylactically on postoperative day 4 to 8 (5 days). If the neutrophil count is below reference value after 5 days of prophylactic treatment, the treatment may continue until the count is normalized, as clinically indicated. If leucocytosis occurs, the prophylactic treatment can be terminated earlier than after 5 days.

G-CSF may be administered as needed before or after the prophylactic period if an early or late neutropenia is detected.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of the phase I part is complications according to Clavien-Dindo grading, whereas the primary outome of the phase III part is 12-month recurrence-free survival. Type of recurrences (peritoneum, liver, lung or lymph-nodes) will be recorded. Normal work-up and baseline variables will be collected as well as relevant surgical variables. Besides morbidity and recurrence-free survival, overall survival and quality of life will be followed up according to national guidelines.

Follow up

Standard follow up after CRS-HIPEC will be performed with contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal CT scans every 6 months for 2 years and then annually until 5 years. Regular laboratory blood test with tumour markers (CEA, CA19-9 and CA 125) will be assessed according to standard clinical routine, as above schedule.

European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) QLQ-30, QLQ-CR29 and STO22 will be used to evaluate quality of life. Questionnaires are sent out at baseline and postoperatively at 3, 12, and 36 months. All patients are included in the quality-of-life registry as part of the clinical quality assurance follow up, unless they specifically have requested not to be included.

Data management

The Swedish National HIPEC registry, established 2012, is a quality registry that includes data of preoperative work-up, surgical and oncological outcome in patients with peritoneal metastases.

All patients are registered preoperatively in the Swedish National HIPEC registry, at the preoperative outpatient clinic visit, when informed consent will be retrieved.

Data input will be reviewed by the monitors. Incomplete data, will be listed in a data clarification form to be sent to respective site to resolve inconsistencies and missing information. A copy will be returned to the sponsor. A complementary eCRF part will be added to the HIPEC registry to collect the remaining necessary information for the trial.

Statistical analyses

For the phase I study part, no advanced statistical analyses are necessary. For the phase III part of the study, the interim safety analysis after 140 included patients will evaluate morbidity according to Clavien-Dindo (CD) grading. The study will be terminated if occurrence of morbidity exceeding 3 in the CD scale, in 40% or more of included patients. Furthermore, an overall survival analysis (minimum of 12 months follow-up) will be performed in the interim analysis in order to assess whether overall survival may be used as primary endpoint or not. There will be a minimum of 12 months follow-up.

The primary analysis for the phase III part will be a multivariable Cox regression analysis with 12-months recurrence free survival as endpoint including the following parameters: treatment arm, age, PCI-score (continuous variable), use of systemic perioperative chemotherapy, liver metastases resection, colon or rectal primary, and lymph-node metastasized primary tumor. The definition of recurrence free survival includes time from surgery to the date of any causes of death, intra- or extra-abdominal relapses, except for any second primary CRCs nor primary non-CRC. The primary analysis can commence once all patients have been observed for a minimum of 12 months. Further secondary analysis will include a multivariable logistical regression analysis with 12-month recurrence free survival as endpoint. A Fisher’s exact test for 12-months recurrence free survival between the arms, a Kaplan-Meier curve with two-tailed log rank test between the arms with recurrence free survival up to 5 years as endpoint (i.e. time to recurrence) will be performed. The same analyses above may be run against peritoneal recurrence-free survival as secondary analyses as well.

If the interim analysis results demonstrate that overall survival is attainable as primary endpoint, a new statistical analysis will be set up after a renewed sample size calculation. Further analyses of secondary endpoints have been defined in the protocol.

Block randomization was chosen as the method of randomization. Patients with no liver metastases were randomized with center stratification and PCI stratification (1–10 vs 11+) with a block size of 6. Patients with liver metastases were randomized nationally with stratification of only PCI (1–10 vs 11+) also with a block size of 6.

Ethical considerations

The study will be conducted in accordance with the protocol, applicable regulatory requirements, Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki as adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly in Helsinki, Finland, in 1964 and subsequent versions.

The main ethical considerations in this research project are related to the balance of procedural morbidity/mortality and efficacy/benefit. CRS and HIPEC treatment is associated to a high risk for complications, thus it is important to monitor that the morbidity does not lead to increased severe postoperative morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, it is important that morbidity does not lead to increased long-term functional impairment. Out of 9 previous studies on EPIC, 3 studies indicated that there may be increased morbidity (but none for mortality) [7]. The other 6 studies showed no difference. It is not anticipated that this study will lead to a general increase in morbidity or mortality. However, this intensified HIPEC arm has not been followed up in a prospective systematic way. Neither has the maximum tolerated dose for a day 5-FU been determined. Therefore, this trial will begin as a phase I study that moves into a randomized open-label phase III study. In the interim analysis after half the patients in phase III part have been included, the morbidity results will be reviewed by the DMC before finishing the phase III step.

One specific morbidity that has been raised concerning intensified HIPEC treatment is neutropenia [11]. This is a specific complication that most likely will be increased with the intensified treatment. However, a recent study [8] investigating the specific effects of neutropenia showed that other serious side-effects were not increased nor mortality. Unexpectedly, neutropenia was a positive prognostic factor. Moreover, the effects of neutropenia are temporary and mitigated relatively easily with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. Lastly, to monitor the patient’s perspective on the side-effect/benefit balance, a quality-of-life part of the trial will be included to follow-up health-related quality-of-life. As seen in the safety review from an earlier study [7], the morbidity of adding EPIC treatment to HIPEC is uncertain. This will alleviate potential increased risks with adding EPIC treatment to HIPEC. Considering the significant risk of relapse for this disease, the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

This trial is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority, Dnr:2022-04332-02.

Timeline

This phase I and III trial started with its’ first inclusion in May of 2021 and is planned to be completed by 2025-12-31.

Discussion

The EFFIPEC trial program aims at increasing the survival in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases, by a new intensified HIPEC and EPIC regimen. In view of results reported from gastric and ovarian cancer, it stands to reason that there is hope for an effective HIPEC treatment for colorectal peritoneal metastases. The HIPEC treatment to be tested is designed to address two previous problems. First, the issue of chemotherapy resistance which may cause a reduced efficacy particularly in patients previously treated with oxaliplatin- based chemotherapy [17]. However, as seen in a recent publication, combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan might decrease risk of receiving a HIPEC treatment to which the patient’s tumor is resistant [18]. Secondly, the problem of short exposure to chemotherapy has been rectified with the addition of 1-day EPIC. This EPIC dose will be dose titrated to maximize the impact of the longer exposure time in the abdomen.

There is a need for a new global standard for HIPEC treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases. The results of the PRODIGE 7, COLOPEC, and Prophylochip trials have left us in a conundrum [1,15,16]. What is the actual current standard treatment? Some may say that CRS only is the standard, whereas more commonly, many centers have switched to mitomycin C despite lacking evidence [6].

There is one recently published trial demonstrating a locoregional effect from mitomycin C, the Spanish RCT HIPECT4, which aims to determine the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant HIPEC treatment with Mitomycin C in locally advanced primary colon cancer (cT4) without presence of peritoneal disease. The results of the trail, presented as abstract, have shown a significantly improved 3- years locoregional control rate of 97% in the HIPEC group vs 87% in the control group. However, no difference in DFS and OS were observed between the groups [19].

This trial has some limitations. The peritoneal surface oncology national guidelines do not recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy primarily (other than in downstaging attempts), thus most patients will probably get upfront CRS with HIPEC. This may affect the generalizability of the results since many centers worldwide administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy as part of the standard treatment. However, as recently reported, it appears that neoadjuvant treatment does not have any clear benefit in this setting [20]. Furthermore, all four HIPEC centers in Sweden are joining this trial endeavor. As there is a difference in surgical volume, there may be a question of surgical experience between the HIPEC centers. However, yearly reports from the HIPEC registry and elaborated guidelines have consistently shown similar outcomes between the centers. Every other week the centers have a joint multidisciplinary conference to discuss the eligibility of certain cases on a national level. This has helped homogenize the selection process over time.

In conclusion, this is an important trial to complete as it may provide much needed answers as to the role of HIPEC in combination with CRS. We aim to establish a new global standardized HIPEC/EPIC regimen for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

pone.0294018.s001.docx (202.4KB, docx)
S2 File

(DOCX)

pone.0294018.s002.docx (14.5KB, docx)
S3 File

(DOCX)

pone.0294018.s003.docx (16.2KB, docx)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

Complete funding has been achieved through the Swedish Research Council. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors have received any salary from the funder.

References

  • 1.Quénet F, Elias D, Roca L, Goéré D, Ghouti L, Pocard, et al. UNICANCER-GI Group and BIG Renape Group. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021. Feb;22(2):256–266. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30599-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cashin P, Sugarbaker PH. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal and appendiceal peritoneal metastases: lessons learned from PRODIGE 7. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021. Apr;12(Suppl 1):S120–S128.’ doi: 10.21037/jgo-2020-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.van Driel WJ, Koole SN, Sikorska K, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, Schreuder HWR, Hermans RHM, et al. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018. Jan 18;378(3):230–240. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708618 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yang XJ, Huang CQ, Suo T, Mei LJ, Yang GL, Cheng FL, et al. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy improves survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastric cancer: final results of a phase III randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(6):1575–1581. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1631-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Frühling P, Ghanipour L, Dranichnikov P, Enblad M, Birgisson H, Cashin PH. Oxaliplatin-based Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Single Drug Versus Multiple Drug Treatment for Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: An Observational Cohort Study. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021. Apr;12(2):516–526. doi: 10.21037/jgo-20-494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fisher Oliver M., Brown Chris, Esquivel Jesus, Larsen Stein G., Liauw Winston, Alzahrani Nayef A., et al. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer. BJS Open. 2023. Submitted with revision. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Soucisse ML, Liauw W, Hicks G, Morris DL. Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for lower gastrointestinal neoplasms with peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review and critical analysis. Pleura Peritoneum. 2019;4(3):20190007. doi: 10.1515/pp-2019-0007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cashin PH, Ghanipour L, Enblad M, Morris DL. Neutropenia in colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: An observational cohort study. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020;12(5): 549–558. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i5.549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.EORTC Quality of life group. https://qol.eortc.
  • 10.Cashin PH, Mahteme H, Graf W, Karlsson H, Larsson R, Nygren P. Activity ex vivo of cytotoxic drugs in patient samples of peritoneal carcinomatosis with special focus on colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:435. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Quenet F, Goéré D, Mehta SS, Roca L, Dumont F, Hessissen M, et al. Results of two bi-institutional prospective studies using intraperitoneal oxaliplatin with or without irinotecan during HIPEC after cytoreductive surgery for colorectal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(2):294–301. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182263933 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lam JY, McConnell YJ, Rivard JD, Temple WJ, Mack LA. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy + early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy alone: assessment of survival outcomes for colorectal and high-grade appendiceal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Am J Surg 2015;210:424–30. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Huang Y, Alzahrani NA, Liauw W, Soudy H, Alzahrani AM, Morris DL. Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy is associated with survival benefit for appendiceal adenocarcinoma with peritoneal dissemination. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(12):2292–2298. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Elias D, Raynard B, Bonnay M, Pocard M. Heated intra-operative intraperitoneal oxaliplatin alone and in combination with intraperitoneal irinotecan: Pharmacologic studies. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006. Aug;32(6):607–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Klaver CEL, Wisselink DD, Punt CJA, Snaebjornsson P, Crezee J, Aalbers AGJ, et al. COLOPEC collaborators group. Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced colon cancer (COLOPEC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. Oct;4(10):761–770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Goéré D, Glehen O, Quenet F, Guilloit JM, Bereder JM, Lorimier G, et al. BIG-RENAPE group. Second-look surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus surveillance in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases (PROPHYLOCHIP-PRODIGE 15): a randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020. Sep;21(9):1147–1154. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30322-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nagourney RA, Evans S, Tran PH, Nagourney AJ, Sugarbaker PH. Colorectal cancer cells from patients treated with FOLFOX or CAPOX are resistant to oxaliplatin. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021. Apr;47(4):738–742. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cashin PH, Söderström M, Blom K, Artursson S, Andersson C, Larsson R, et al. Ex vivo assessment of chemotherapy sensitivity of colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases. Br J Surg. 2023. Mar 15:znad066. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Arjona-Sanchez A, Cano-Osuna M.T, Gutierrez A, Segura J.J, Perez E, Concepcion V, et al. 3140 Adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in locally advanced colon cancer (HIPECT4): A randomized thase III study. Ann Oncol 2022. Sept 33 (7):680. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cashin PH, Esquivel J, Larsen SG, Liauw W, Alzahrani NA, Morris DL et al. Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI); Nordic Peritoneal Oncology Group (NPOG); American Society for Peritoneal Surface Malignancy (ASPSM); BIG-RENAPE Groups. Perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases: A global propensity score matched study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022. Nov 24;55:101746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Fabrizio D'Acapito

14 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-17095Efficacy of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: a phase I and III open label randomized controlled registry-based clinical trialPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghanipour,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

I thank the authors for the opportunity to evaluate their research protocol, which I personally considered very interesting.

I believe that the reviewers did an excellent job of identifying weaknesses in the protocol, providing the appropriate guidance so that the authors could revise and strengthen an already well-done paper.

Reviewer 1 has electively addressed the clinical issue, and I think the answers to his questions are important to make the research proposal interesting to those who are involved in the clinical pathway of patients with peritoneal metastases.

Reviewer 2 asked statistical questions: the answers may strengthen the value of the research

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 28 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fabrizio D'Acapito, Ph.D,M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Complete funding has been achieved through the Swedish research council.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

Additional Editor Comments:

I thank the authors for the opportunity to evaluate their research protocol, which I personally considered very interesting.

I believe that the reviewers did an excellent job of identifying weaknesses in the protocol, providing the appropriate guidance so that the authors could revise and strengthen an already well-done paper.

Reviewer 1 has electively addressed the clinical issue, and I think the answers to his questions are important to make the research proposal interesting to those who are involved in the clinical pathway of patients with peritoneal metastases.

Reviewer 2 asked statistical questions: the answers may strengthen the value of the research

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have read with interest the manuscript entitled: Efficacy of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: a phase I and III open label randomized controlled registry-based clinical trial. However, some issues must be solved before considering for publication even in a study protocol:

- The standard treatment for colorectal peritoneal metastases is not CRS and HIPEC. Authors cannot include as standard arm HIPEC with Ox 460 mg/m2, even when this treatment did not demonstrate benefit but an increasement of morbidity.

- The phase I study has been well designed.

- Phase III trial must be revised. As I referred before the CRS and HIPEC is not the standard treatment for peritoneal metastases. Maybe authors could include the cytoreduction for the management of these, but no HIPEC.

- Systemic chemotherapy must be specified.

- The use of immunotherapy must be included in analysis.

- RAS/RAF mutations must be included, even for stratification.

- The primary endpoint must be better defined. Is recurrence free survival different of disease free survival. Time to recurrence (any) or death (any cause) in months.

- Authors have established a 50% DFS at 12 months in the control arm, what have been the references for this data?. They want to increase DFS from 50% up to 66% in only 12 months when the most of recurrences appear at 18-24 months after treatment. Have authors calculated how many events they will need to get this difference at 12 months?

- Authors must explain better the follow up of the patients, since the primary endpoint is at 12 months, only two CT scans will be planned 6 months each to detect early recurrences. Will PET scan or liver MRI or biopsy or tumor marker raising be considered to define recurrences?.

- The primary endpoint comparison must be using Log-rank test and KM curves for survival endpoints. Cox regression must be planned using more risk factors that could modified the results as tumor location, RAS/RAF mutations, MMI, systemic chemo, use of antiEGFR or anti-VEGF.

- Authors have explained why patients with peritoneal metastases and liver metastases do not receive systemic chemo as neoadjuvant.

- Type of recurrence must be recorded.

- QoL questionaries at 36 months are not needed. The addition of EPIC could modify the QoL in the early postoperative, I have doubts about any impact in QoL more than one month.

- Mitomycin C has demonstrated efficacy in recent published HIPECT4 trial, it must be discussed.

Reviewer #2: The authors present the protocol for their phase I/phase III study of a HIPEC/EPIC regimen in patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer that is being conducted in Sweden. The study is reasonably described, although there are some details missing and some places that would benefit from clarification. Specifically, the protocol manuscript will be strengthened if the authors consider the following points.

1. If the loss to follow-up is 10%, the actual sample size will be slightly smaller than what their power calculation suggests is needed (90% of 163 is 146-147 patients not 148).

2. Are there accepted levels of kidney, liver, and bone marrow function based on lab tests? To provide a replicable protocol, authors should detail what is being measured and what "adequate levels" mean.

3. In the statistical analysis section, authors define a stopping rule for the phase III study based on an interim analysis as a score (on the CD scale) higher than 3 in 40% of included patients - should this be 40% or more of patients?

4. They further state that an overall survival analysis will be performed as part of the interim analysis - how much follow-up will there be on these patients when the interim analysis is conducted?

5. Authors describe a logistic regression as a secondary analysis for the Phase III study, though it is not clear what this will add to the primary analysis that uses Cox regression.

6. Authors also mention a Fisher's exact test and a Kaplan-Meier curve with the log-rank test - are these considered secondary analyses? These seem more descriptive than anything else. (also note that the sentence describing this in the manuscript is an incomplete sentence and should be edited).

7. It is not clear why authors would consider changing the primary outcome after the interim analysis. What criteria will be used to make this determination? Why change the outcome?

8. What is the justification for using different block randomization strategies for those with and without liver metastases?

9. A minor edit - in the Timeline section, authors say "Maj" for when the study began - I'm assuming this should be "May".

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 4;19(3):e0294018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294018.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Sep 2023

Thank you for your comments.

Our answers are presented below.

1. The standard treatment for colorectal peritoneal metastases is not CRS and HIPEC. Authors cannot include as standard arm HIPEC with Ox 460 mg/m2, even when this treatment did not demonstrate benefit but an increasement of morbidity.

a. This is a statement that can be challenged, and there are different opinions regarding the truth in this statement. Since 2003, the Swedish standard treatment has been CRS and HIPEC with oxaliplatin. One single study, with several limitations, has not been considered enough to change standard praxis in Sweden. The PRODIGE 7 study made a great effort to answer the question regarding the benefit of HIPEC. However, it had some significant issues that have been brought up in several communications and although the space here does not allow a full critique, a few issues deserve being pointed out. The 1-year recurrence free survival difference was 46% in the no-HIPEC arm and 59% in the HIPEC arm, yielding a p-value of 0.06 in the limited size population included in PRODIGE 7. Furthermore, several subgroups did show a difference. Namely, the PCI 10-15 group and the no-preoperative chemotherapy group (only 13% did not receive preoperative chemotherapy).

b. To include a no-HIPEC arm was debated greatly within the Swedish Peritoneal Oncology Group. Having no-HIPEC as standard would imply a change to preoperative chemotherapy (as in PRODIGE 7) and we have found no solid evidence for such an approach. In Sweden, upfront CRS+HIPEC is that standard of care, with good results, and there is not a long-time gap between planning for surgery and surgery in itself. Hence, there has been no need for neoadjuvant treatment while waiting for surgery. Changing the whole algorithm to include preoperative chemotherapy as standard of care would take convincing the medical oncologist community about its (unproven) benefit. No RCT have been conducted and the retrospective studies are suboptimal, and most have not shown any benefit at all.

c. We were unable to change the Swedish standard of care. Thus, to this day, the standard of care is upfront CRS+HIPEC using oxaliplatin 460mg/m2. We did consider changing to mitomycin C. However, a really large study is currently finishing a third review with 2000 patients from 39 HIPEC centers comparing oxaliplatin HIPEC with mitomycin HIPEC in the colorectal cancer setting and oxaliplatin performs better in all subgroups.

d. Long answer to this question since it is so central to this trial. We kept the oxaliplatin 30 min HIPEC as the control arm because upfront CRS+HIPEC with this regimen is currently the Swedish standard of care still. We did discuss this again at a recent study committee meeting due to this review. However, the consensus was to keep the design unchanged.

2. The phase I study has been well designed.

a. Thank you for this encouraging comment.

3. Phase III trial must be revised. As I referred before the CRS and HIPEC is not the standard treatment for peritoneal metastases. Maybe authors could include the cytoreduction for the management of these, but no HIPEC.

a. Same comment as above – please see the extensive response to comment 1.

4. Systemic chemotherapy must be specified.

a. Since, preoperative chemotherapy is not standard of care. This is not specified. Some patients will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy for downstaging. However, the use of this is limited and conversion therapy is therefore not specified.

b. Adjuvant chemotherapy is given according to national guidelines and standard of care in Sweden. Basically, it entails giving adjuvant therapy if the primary tumor indicates adjuvant therapy in the synchronous setting. In Sweden, we do not in general give adjuvant therapy to metachronous peritoneal metastases. The standard of care has not been included in the protocol, but since most of the patients receive their adjuvant therapy outside a study center, it was not feasible to require treatment outside the Swedish standard of care.

5. The use of immunotherapy must be included in analysis.

a. The use of immunotherapy prior to CRS and HIPEC will be registered. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of the trial to follow up all chemo/immunotherapy given unto death. The primary endpoint is time to first recurrence and so treatments given after first recurrence will not affect the primary endpoint at all. Thus, all chemotherapy administered prior to CRS+HIPEC and given as adjuvant chemotherapy will be recorded for full exploratory analysis.

6. RAS/RAF mutations must be included, even for stratification.

a. We will be collecting RAS/RAF mutations as well as MMR status. However, we will not include this status in randomization stratifications. Statisticians differ on whether stratifications are good or not. Some very essential stratifications may be reasonable. We have chosen treatment center, presence of liver metastases and PCI for stratification. Adding molecular biomarkers to this will overcrowd the stratification.

7. The primary endpoint must be better defined. Is recurrence free survival different of disease free survival. Time to recurrence (any) or death (any cause) in months.

a. The difference between DFS and RFS is small. We have added the definition of RFS to the trial for clarity: “The consensus definition of RFS includes all causes of death, anastomotic relapse and metastatic relapse as an event, but not second primary CRCs nor second primary non-CRC.” The difference compared to DFS is that second primary CRC is regarded as an event.

8. Authors have established a 50% DFS at 12 months in the control arm, what have been the references for this data? They want to increase DFS from 50% up to 66% in only 12 months when the most of recurrences appear at 18-24 months after treatment. Have authors calculated how many events they will need to get this difference at 12 months?

a. The median time to recurrence is 12 months not 18-24 months. In the PRODIGE 7 study with a similar design, the median DFS was 11 for CRS without HIPEC and 13 with CRS and HIPEC. In fact, these figures are very consistent in many studies. Overall, it appears that approximately 50% of patients recur within 12 months, an observation that has remained unaltered over 20 years. The RCT by Verwaal et al. from 2003 had a median PFS of 12.6 months. The projected or estimated 66% RFS rate was derived from an unpublished cohort where there was a small subgroup having received the combination oxaliplatin + irinotecan + early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC). However, this cohort has now been published: Cashin PH, Esquivel J, Larsen SG, Liauw W, Alzahrani NA, Morris DL, Kepenekian V, Sourrouille I, Dumont F, Tuech JJ, Ceribelli C, Doussot B, Sgarbura O, Quenet F, Glehen O, Fisher OM; Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI); Nordic Peritoneal Oncology Group (NPOG); American Society for Peritoneal Surface Malignancy (ASPSM); BIG-RENAPE Groups. Perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases: A global propensity score matched study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Nov 24;55:101746.

Additionally, a second report investigating different HIPEC regimens in this 2000 patient cohort is under review in BJS Open currently. We have calculated the simple size to be able to prove a difference in RFS between 50% and 66%, i.e., a 16% increase in recurrence free survival at 12 months.

9. Authors must explain better the follow up of the patients, since the primary endpoint is at 12 months, only two CT scans will be planned 6 months each to detect early recurrences. Will PET scan or liver MRI or biopsy or tumor marker raising be considered to define recurrences?

a. We will be evaluating recurrences according to RECIST criteria where definitions of new lesions are clarified. There will be 2 CT scans available for this analysis. However, in practice we know that these patients are commonly scanned more often than at 6 and 12 months. This is due to many reasons related to complications or adjuvant therapy use or serum tumor marker increases. However, all patients will be follow-up up at a minimum of 6 months and 12 months.

b. As explain above, RECIST criteria (please refer to RECISTS 1.1 guidelines) allow for PET scan and MRI to aid in determining if a new lesion is considered a recurrence. Biopsy is not included in the protocol and neither is serum tumor markers. However, if taken outside the regular intervals, an elevated tumor marker will be followed by a CT scan. Still, it is the CT scan date that is used for recurrence free survival.

10. The primary endpoint comparison must be using Log-rank test and KM curves for survival endpoints. Cox regression must be planned using more risk factors that could modified the results as tumor location, RAS/RAF mutations, MMI, systemic chemo, use of antiEGFR or anti-VEGF.

a. Log-rank and KM generally requires much longer follow-up and overall survival analyses require MANY more patients to prove a difference.

b. The purpose of this trial is a “proof of concept”. The aim is to investigate an intensified HIPEC schedule with regards to efficacy on RFS and toxicity. The trial design will not be able to show any potential OS gains. But, in all truth, this is what we need to be aiming for in the future-larger collaborations over several countries.

11. Authors have explained why patients with peritoneal metastases and liver metastases do not receive systemic chemo as neoadjuvant.

a. The inclusions of only 3 small technically uncomplicated liver metastases are allowed. In accordance with, e.g. ESMO guidelines, neoadjuvant therapy is not mandatory in this situation and its use is currently low, and declining, in Sweden. Hence, this trial protocol allows for a pragmatic approach with high acceptance in the oncological and HPB surgery communities in Sweden.

12. Type of recurrence must be recorded.

a. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and agree that this is important. This parameter is already included in the eCRF forms, and we have added this into the manuscript.

13. QoL questionaries at 36 months are not needed. The addition of EPIC could modify the QoL in the early postoperative, I have doubts about any impact in QoL more than one month.

a. It is true that it is not reasonable to think that the difference in HIPEC regimen in this trial will affect QoL after 3 years. However, the QoL is part of a long-term follow-up of all of our HIPEC patients including other diagnoses (i.e. pseudomyxoma peritonei). So, these patients will be included in this follow-up since it is part of our clinical routine. We have opted to keep them in this routine to make it easier.

14. Mitomycin C has demonstrated efficacy in recent published HIPECT4 trial, it must be discussed.

a. We have added a short discussion concerning this trial. Please see the discussion section. It is a positive trial, also using the same locoregional endpoint as this current trial. The indication is of course different, but still relevant to include in this discussion.

Reviewer 2

1. If the loss to follow-up is 10%, the actual sample size will be slightly smaller than what their power calculation suggests is needed (90% of 163 is 146-147 patients not 148).

a. Thank you for this help. We will adjust this in the manuscript

2. Are there accepted levels of kidney, liver, and bone marrow function based on lab tests? To provide a replicable protocol, authors should detail what is being measured and what "adequate levels" mean.

a. Thank you for this comment. We have added a short clarification. “Lab test needs to be normal according to lab reference values or within +/- 20% of the highest respective lowest value.

3. In the statistical analysis section, authors define a stopping rule for the phase III study based on an interim analysis as a score (on the CD scale) higher than 3 in 40% of included patients - should this be 40% or more of patients?

a. Yes, it should be 40% or more. This has been adjusted.

4. They further state that an overall survival analysis will be performed as part of the interim analysis - how much follow-up will there be on these patients when the interim analysis is conducted?

a. Thank you for this comment. We have missed to define this clearly. We have decided to define a minimum of 12 months follow-up. This has been added to the manuscript.

5. Authors describe a logistic regression as a secondary analysis for the Phase III study, though it is not clear what this will add to the primary analysis that uses Cox regression.

a. This is a correct remark from the reviewer and the logistic regression does not add anything. In a previous protocol version logistical regression was first defined but since it seemed inappropriate this was incorporated. However, logistic regression has not been removed from the current protocol version.

6. Authors also mention a Fisher's exact test and a Kaplan-Meier curve with the log-rank test - are these considered secondary analyses? These seem more descriptive than anything else. (also note that the sentence describing this in the manuscript is an incomplete sentence and should be edited).

a. Correct, these are secondary analyses as written that are in some ways more descriptive. The sentence has been edited “A Fisher’s exact test for 12-months recurrence free survival between the arms, a Kaplan-Meier curve with two-tailed log rank test between the arms with recurrence free survival up to 5 years as endpoint (i.e. time to recurrence) will be performed.”

7. It is not clear why authors would consider changing the primary outcome after the interim analysis. What criteria will be used to make this determination? Why change the outcome?

a. We are inclined to agree that it may wishfully thinking. However, it is probably not reasonable to expect overall survival, which is the stronger endpoint, to be achievable with this trial size. The idea is to leave a possibility, however small, to increase the trial size in case it appears reasonable to achieve overall survival difference by a modest increase in sample size.

8. What is the justification for using different block randomization strategies for those with and without liver metastases?

a. The combined treatment of liver and peritoneal metastases is less common. The original idea was to discuss these patients in a national conference to keep the indications strict in this smaller subset. Thus, it was a “national” inclusion situation for patients with liver engagement whereby randomization of these patients follow a separate track.

9. A minor edit - in the Timeline section, authors say "Maj" for when the study began - I'm assuming this should be "May".

a. Thank you for this comment. This has been adjusted.

With best regards

Lana Ghanipour

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review response - EFFIPEC.docx

pone.0294018.s004.docx (25.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Fabrizio D'Acapito

25 Oct 2023

Efficacy of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer: a phase I and III open label randomized controlled registry-based clinical trial protocol

PONE-D-23-17095R1

Dear Dr. Ghanipour,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fabrizio D'Acapito, Ph.D,M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I congratulate the authors on the quality of their paper.

I believe that all the annotations made by the reviewers were properly evaluated and adequately included in the revision of the article.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors thoughtfully addressed all of my earlier concerns, so I have nothing further to add to the review.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Fabrizio D'Acapito

13 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-17095R1

Efficacy of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer: a phase I and III open label randomized controlled registry-based clinical trial protocol

Dear Dr. Ghanipour:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fabrizio D'Acapito

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    pone.0294018.s001.docx (202.4KB, docx)
    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    pone.0294018.s002.docx (14.5KB, docx)
    S3 File

    (DOCX)

    pone.0294018.s003.docx (16.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review response - EFFIPEC.docx

    pone.0294018.s004.docx (25.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES