Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy plus SOX chemotherapy versus SOX chemotherapy alone in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis: a phase II randomized clinical trial

Introduction

In 2020, gastric cancer (GC) ranked fifth in incidence and fourth in mortality globally (1). Later in 2022, GC ranked third in both incidence and mortality in China (2). Peritoneal metastasis (PM) appears to be the most common pattern of metastasis or recurrence in patients with GC and is discovered in 10–30% of patients with GC (3). Furthermore, more than 50% of patients with GC develop PM after radical resection (4). The prognosis of GC with PM (GCPM) is exceedingly poor, with a median survival of just 3–9 months (4,5).

GCPM still lacks an internationally recognized standard treatment program that provides a significant curative effect, and systemic chemotherapy remains the recommended program in guidelines and consensus documents. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has shown promising outcomes in GCPM, but several studies have reported that satisfactory CRS is a highly challenging surgery with problematic perioperative mortality and morbidity, limiting its use in the treatment of GCPM (6-8).

HIPEC combined with chemotherapy has been reported to confer a statistically significant survival benefit for patients with GCPM (3), and S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) is recommended as one of the standard regimens for advanced GC according to the relevant guidelines (9,10). Therefore, we conducted a randomized trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of HIPEC with paclitaxel plus SOX in the treatment of GCPM. We present this article in accordance with the CONSORT reporting checklist (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-807/rc).

Methods

Study design

This single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (GPHCM) in China. The study protocol was approved by the ethical committee of GPHCM (No. Z2017-077-01). The study purpose and procedures were explained to all participants in detail on an information sheet, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).

Participants

Eligibility criteria included pathologically proven primary gastric adenocarcinoma, clinically proven PM according to laparoscopy, an age 18–80 years, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of I–III. Meanwhile, the exclusion criteria included pregnant or breast-feeding women; severe mental illness; preoperative imaging or intraoperative exploration revealing distant blood, liver, lung, or brain metastases; history of other malignancies within 5 year; history of unstable angina or myocardial infarction within 6 months; history of cerebral infarction or cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months; history of sustained systemic corticosteroid treatment within 1 month; emergency operation due to complications (bleeding, perforation, or obstruction) caused by the primary tumor; predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) <50% in pulmonary function testing; and a peritoneal nodule pathologically proven to not be metastasis.

Procedures

Patients with advanced GC underwent a laparoscopic exploration. If PM was found without other distant metastasis, then the patient was assigned a random number. The patients allocated to the HIPEC group were implanted with four catheters in the abdominal cavity (two inflow tubes were placed in the upper abdomen, and two outflow tubes were placed in the lower abdomen), while those allocated to the SOX group did not undergo catheterization.

In the SOX group, patients were treated with systemic chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 and S-1 40–60 mg twice a day orally on days 1–14 in a 3-week cycle) the day after the laparoscopic exploration. In the HIPEC group, HIPEC was carried out for 60 minutes with paclitaxel (75 mg/m² intraperitoneally on day 1 and 50 mg/m² on days 2–3) in 1 L of physiologic saline maintained at 43 ℃ and was conducted on days 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Systemic chemotherapy was then administered within 1 month after the laparoscopic exploration, with those in the SOX group receiving the chemotherapy regimen.

After three courses of SOX chemotherapy were completed, the curative effect was evaluated. Those who reached the standard of conversion surgery were treated with R0 resection, and subsequently, SOX chemotherapy was continued for a total of 6–8 cycles. Patients without progression after chemotherapy were administered S-1 single-agent maintenance therapy for 1 year. If patients progressed during the treatment, a new treatment plan was formulated after multidisciplinary team discussion according to the patient’s condition, and follow-up continued until the endpoint event occurred.

Outcome measurements

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as the time from the laparoscopic exploration surgery to disease progression or the last follow-up. Progressive disease was assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (8). The secondary endpoints were 1-year survival rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. The last follow-up date for the study was October 1, 2022. Adverse events were graded based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.

Sample size

The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of HIPEC in terms of PFS. On the basis of the results of previous studies (11,12), we expected a median PFS of 6.2 and 4.0 months in the HIPEC group and SOX group, respectively. Assuming a two-sided P value of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80%, a target sample size of 60 patients was calculated.

Randomization and blinding

Sixty random numbers were generated with an online random number generator and maintained by a third party. The generated random numbers were arranged from 1 to 60 in the order in which they appeared. The patients assigned even numbers were allocated to the HIPEC group, and those with odd numbers were allocated to the SOX group. The assessor and statistician were blinded to the treatment allocation throughout data collection and analysis.

Statistical analyses

Quantitative data with a normal distribution and a homogeneity are expressed as the mean and standard deviation and were compared with the t-test. Quantitative data with a nonnormal distribution of measurement are expressed as the median and interquartile range (IQR) and were analyzed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Differences in categorical data between groups were determined with the Chi-squared test or the Fisher exact test. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The efficacy analyses were performed using the full analysis set (FAS) and included all randomly assigned eligible patients who received the allocated treatment. Post-hoc subgroup analyses of PFS and OS were also performed in terms of the amount of ascites and the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) to assess the consistency of the effect across subgroups. Safety analyses were performed using the safety set (SS), defined as patients without protocol violations and containing actual data with safety indicators. Data management and statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS software version 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value <0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results

Patient characteristics

Between August 2017 and September 2020, we enrolled 60 patients in the GPHCM. Among these, one patient was excluded due to the presence of endometriosis as opposed to PM. Two patients (one in each group) were lost to follow-up, and no valid data were available, so they were excluded from the analysis. Consequently, the FAS for the primary efficacy analysis comprised 57 patients. One patient in each group lacked essential safety data, and four patients in the SOX group did not receive SOX chemotherapy, so the SS comprised 53 patients. Figure 1 shows the trial profile at the analysis cutoff date (October 1, 2022). The median follow-up period for censored patient cases was 26 months (IQR, 23.5–48.5 months). A comparison of characteristics between the two groups of patients is provided in Table 1. There was no difference between the two groups regarding the typical risk factors for survival, including age, male sex, body mass index, ECOG performance status, clinical T and N stages, or PCI, confirming that the groups were well matched.

Figure 1 Trial profile at the primary analysis cutoff date.

Survival

Survival analysis revealed that patients in the SOX group had a significantly higher median PFS than did those in the HIPEC group (SOX: median 8.5 months, IQR, 3.8−21.8 months; HIPEC: median 6.1 months, IQR, 3.3−10.8 months; P=0.004). Furthermore, the median OS in the SOX group was significantly higher than that in the HIPEC group (SOX: median 13.0 months, IQR, 6.3−16.6 months; HIPEC: median 10.0 months, IQR, 5.2−24.0 months; P=0.02) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Primary analysis of the progression-free survival (A) and the overall survival (B). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HIPEC, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; SOX, S-1 and oxaliplatin.

Subgroup analysis revealed that among patients with GCPM and PCI ≤6 or ascites <1,000 mL, the median PFS and OS in the SOX group were significantly higher than those in the HIPEC group. However, among patients with GCPM and PCI >6 or ascites ≥1,000 mL, the median PFS and OS in HIPEC group were slightly higher, but not significantly so (Table 2).

The 1-year survival rate was 37.9% in HIPEC group and 50.0% in the SOX group, but this did not represent a statistically significant difference (P>0.05). However, in the subgroup analysis, HIPEC demonstrated promising outcomes in patients with GCPM and PCI >6, with a higher rate of 1-year survival (42.1% vs. 33.3%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05).

After being treated either by systemic chemotherapy combined with HIPEC or systemic chemotherapy alone, 15 patients (6 in the HIPEC group and 9 in SOX group) were successfully converted to R0 resection. The median PFS of patients converted to surgery was significantly longer (median 16 months; IQR, 12.8–43.0 months) than that of patients without surgery (median 5.8 months; IQR, 3.0–8.8 months) (P<0.001) and the median OS was also significantly longer in patients with surgery (median 23 months; IQR, 16.6–44.5 months) than in those without (median 8.7 months; IQR, 3.3–14.0 months) (P<0.001). However, no patients with GCPM and a PCI >6 in the SOX group were successfully converted to surgical treatment; meanwhile, 3 patients with PCI >6 in the HIPEC group were successfully converted to surgical treatment.

Safety

The most common adverse events in both groups were leukopenia, anemia, hyponatremia, anorexia and fatigue, and there were no significant differences between the groups (Table 3). No serious adverse events related to the protocol treatment occurred in any patients.

Discussion

This randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of HIPEC with paclitaxel plus SOX in the treatment of GCPM. The results found that the median PFS and OS in SOX group were significantly higher than those in HIPEC group. However, subgroup analysis revealed that HIPEC may confer benefit for patients with GCPM and a PCI >6 or ascites ≥1,000 mL. No serious adverse events related to the protocol treatment occurred in any patients.

The median survival of patients with GCPM has been reported to be 3−9 months, even when the disease is treated by standard systemic chemotherapy (4,13-15). Therefore, PM is often considered incurable in patients with GC, and thus prognosis of the disease is poor. The current therapies for GCPM include palliative chemotherapy and supportive care, but these have limited efficacy (3,16). Given that only a small fraction of the systemically administered drug is delivered to the peritoneum, intraperitoneal chemotherapy appears to be reasonable to approach for treating PM directly and by extension, for treating GCPM. First, under this approach, high concentration of chemotherapeutic drugs in the abdominal cavity is in full contact with scattered tumor tissues and free tumor cells. Second, intraperitoneal infusion chemotherapy provides a long duration of drug action. Third, intraperitoneal chemotherapy drugs mainly enter the liver through the portal vein system and are metabolized by the liver, and so the chemotherapy drugs maintain a higher concentration in the abdominal cavity, portal vein, and liver, while the concentration of chemotherapy drugs in the systemic circulation is limited, which can reduce the systemic adverse reactions of chemotherapy drugs. Indeed, studies have confirmed that intraperitoneal chemotherapy provides survival benefits for patients with GCPM (17-19). Finally, in HIPEC, normal tissue cells can continuously tolerate temperature of 47 ℃ for up to 1 hour, while malignant tumor cells can only tolerate a temperature of 43 ℃ for 1 hour (20).

The expected median PFS of 6.2 months in the HIPEC group was not reached, with the actual median PFS being 6.1 months, which is not in line with the results of previous studies (3,21,22) in which HIPEC was found to improve survival for GCPM. A retrospective propensity score-matched multicenter cohort study performed by Lei et al. aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HIPEC in patients with GCPM. The results indicated that patients receiving HIPEC combined chemotherapy had a significantly higher median OS and 3-year OS rate than did those receiving chemotherapy alone (median OS: 15.9 vs. 10.8 months; 3-year OS rate: 18.4% vs. 10.1%) (3). Moreover, the results revealed that performing palliative gastrectomy with HIPEC and chemotherapy was associated with the highest survival (median OS: 20.8 months; 3-year OS rate: 27.0%). Rihuete Caro et al. also found that CRS combined with HIPEC provided improved survival in patients with GCPM, reporting a median OS of 16 months and a 3-year OS rate of 21.3% (21). Moreover, the median OS for patients with PCI ≤6 was 19 months, while that in patients with PCI >6 was 12 months. In a study performed by Rau et al., CRS and HIPEC was found to improve survival in select patients with GCPM, with a median OS of 13 months and a 5-year survival rate of 6%. They additionally reported that in patients with a PCI of 0–6, 7–15, or 16–39, the median OS differed significantly (18 vs. 12 vs. 5 months, respectively) (22).

There are three possible explanations that may account for the inconsistency in the data. First, GC is a systemic disease, and PM is the local manifestation of GC. Systemic chemotherapy is still the standard treatment for GCPM, but in our study, patients in HIPEC group received systemic chemotherapy about 1 month later than did those in the SOX group. Second, the earliest form of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for GC is HIPEC after CRS. Although the Clinical Practice Guidelines state that CRS combined with HIPEC has the application value for GCPM (23), Brandl et al. found that long-term survival and cure were possible only in those with complete cytoreduction and a low PCI (24). However, as reported in the CYTO-CHIP (Cytoreductive Surgery with or without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases) study, among others, satisfactory CRS is a highly challenging surgery and has unclear perioperative mortality and morbidity outcomes, which limits its use in the treatment of those with GCPM (6-8,25). In our study, the patients did not undergo CRS before HIPEC treatment. Finally, HIPEC kills tumor cells through hyperthermia, chemotherapy, a synergistic effect of hyperthermia and chemotherapy, and continuous mechanical flushing. The main effect of HIPEC may be accomplished via the mechanical flushing of free cancer cells in the abdominal cavity and the PMs. Therefore, when ascites were minimal or PCI was low, the effect of HIPEC was highly apparent.

The biology of PM from GC is relatively aggressive, with a median recurrence-free survival of 6.5–7.4 months (25-27). Peritoneal dissemination is usually considered oncologically unresectable. An earlier study found that sufficient tumor reduction could enable a subsequent radical gastrectomy in one-third of patients with initially unresectable GC (28). A study conducted by Bismuth et al. also showed that the resection of previously unresectable metastases became possible in up to 16% of patients after chemotherapy, and this new approach could significantly prolong survival for patients (29). Moreover, cases of long-term survival for after conversion surgery for stage IV have been reported (30). These results indicate that the most effective means to improving the long-term survival of those with advanced GC remains surgery based on R0 resection. Therefore, improving the rate of conversion to surgery for with advanced patients in GC may be a critical goal for surgical oncologists. In our study, the median PFS and OS of patients that were converted to surgery were significantly longer than those in patients without surgery. However, patients with a PCI >6 successfully received conversion surgery only when they were treated by systemic chemotherapy combined with HIPEC, which indicates that these patients may benefit from HIPEC.

Our study had several limitations which should be addressed. First, we employed a single-center design with a small sample size. Second, we conducted a randomized controlled trial, patients in the HIPEC group had more severe ascites and a higher PCI; however, these were not significantly different. Finally, double blinding in the study was not possible. However, data collection was performed by an individual who was blinded to the randomization, and the primary endpoint was PFS, and thus the risk of bias in our study was likely low.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study failed to show the statistical superiority of HIPEC combined with systemic chemotherapy. However, HIPEC with paclitaxel plus SOX may have a benefit for select patients with GCPM, and thus further research is warranted.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients who were willing to participate in this trial and all of the involved surgeons, residents, and nurses.

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the CONSORT reporting checklist. Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-807/rc

Trial Protocol: Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-807/tp

Data Sharing Statement: Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-807/dss

Peer Review File: Available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-807/prf

Funding: This study was supported by Double First-Class and High-level University Discipline Collaborative Innovation Team Project of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (grant No. 2021xk48 to W.W.) and The Supporting Scientific Research Funds of The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (grant No. 09005647001 to W.W.). The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the writing of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-807/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study protocol was approved by the ethical committee of GPHCM (No. Z2017-077-01). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013).

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Xia C, Dong X, Li H, et al. Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: pro-files, trends, and determinants. Chin Med J (Engl) 2022;135:584-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Lei Z, Wang J, Li Z, et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis: A multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study. Chin J Cancer Res 2020;32:794-803. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Yu P, Huang X, Huang L, et al. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) plus systemic chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy alone in locally ad-vanced gastric cancer after D2 radical resection: a randomized-controlled study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023;149:11491-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Okabe H, Hata H, Hosogi H, et al. A Phase 2 Study of Induction Chemotherapy Using Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and S-1 for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis (KUGC06). Ann Surg Oncol 2019;26:1779-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Bonnot PE, Piessen G, Kepenekian V, et al. Cytoreductive Surgery With or Without Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastases (CYTO-CHIP study): A Propensity Score Analysis. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:2028-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Li Y, Zhou YF, Liang H, et al. Chinese expert consensus on cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal malignancies. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:6906-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Xia X, Li C, Yan M, et al. Who will benefit from noncurative resection in patients with gastric cancer with single peritoneal metastasis? Am Surg 2014;80:124-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer 2021;24:1-21.
10. Wang FH, Zhang XT, Li YF, et al. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO): Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer, 2021. Cancer Commun (Lond) 2021;41:747-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Mi DH, Li Z, Yang KH, et al. Surgery combined with intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IHIC) for gastric cancer: a systematic review and me-ta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Hyperthermia 2013;29:156-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Thomassen I, van Gestel YR, van Ramshorst B, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin: a population-based study on incidence, survival and risk factors. Int J Cancer 2014;134:622-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Wagner AD, Syn NL, Moehler M, et al. Chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;8:CD004064. [PubMed]
14. Seshadri RA, Glehen O. The Role of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer. Indian J Surg Oncol 2016;7:198-207. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Fan B, Bu Z, Zhang J, et al. Phase II trial of prophylactic hyperthermic intraperito-neal chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer after curative surgery. BMC Cancer 2021;21:216. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Almhanna K, et al. Gastric Cancer, Version 3.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016;14:1286-312. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Yang S, Feng R, Pan ZC, et al. A Comparison of Intravenous plus Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy with Intravenous Chemotherapy Alone for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Sci Rep 2015;5:12538. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Harada K, Yamashita K, Iwatsuki M, et al. Intraperitoneal therapy for gastric cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2022;15:43-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Yu Z, Tu H, Qiu S, et al. Multidisciplinary treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Access Surg 2023;19:335-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Garofalo A, Valle M, Garcia J, et al. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy for palliation of debilitating malignant ascites. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32:682-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Rihuete Caro C, Manzanedo I, Pereira F, et al. Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018;44:1805-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Rau B, Brandl A, Piso P, et al. Peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer: results from the German database. Gastric Cancer 2020;23:11-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Muro K, Van Cutsem E, Narita Y, et al. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS. Ann Oncol 2019;30:19-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Brandl A, Yonemura Y, Glehen O, et al. Long term survival in patients with perito-neal metastasised gastric cancer treated with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC: A mul-ti-institutional cohort from PSOGI. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47:172-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Tu L, Zhang W, Ni L, et al. Study of SOX combined with intraperitoneal high-dose paclitaxel in gastric cancer with synchronous peritoneal metastasis: A phase II single-arm clinical trial. Cancer Med 2023;12:4161-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Rau B, Lang H, Koenigsrainer A, et al. Effect of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy on Cytoreductive Surgery in Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Peritoneal Metastases: The Phase III GASTRIPEC-I Trial. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:146-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Green BL, Blumenthaler AN, Gamble LA, et al. Cytoreduction and HIPEC for Gastric Carcinomatosis: Multi-institutional Analysis of Two Phase II Clinical Trials. Ann Surg Oncol 2023;30:1852-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Nakajima T, Ota K, Ishihara S, et al. Combined intensive chemotherapy and radical surgery for incurable gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:203-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Bismuth H, Adam R. Reduction of nonresectable liver metastasis from colorectal cancer after oxaliplatin chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 1998;25:40-6. [PubMed]
30. Yamaguchi K, Yoshida K, Tanahashi T, et al. The long-term survival of stage IV gastric cancer patients with conversion therapy. Gastric Cancer 2018;21:315-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]