PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 28, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Underutilization of CRS, HIPEC & PIPAC in peritoneal mesothelioma across a German nationwide cohort

VMVeronika MüllerMHMatthias HornungJWJens Werner

Key Points

  • The study aims to analyze the epidemiology and treatment practices for peritoneal mesothelioma in Germany.
  • Utilized a nationwide database from the German Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System.
  • Examined patient data by age, sex, treatment types (HIPEC, PIPAC, peritonectomy), and hospital characteristics.
  • Reviewed data for 3394 peritoneal mesothelioma patients from 2019 to 2024.
  • Analyzed the Patient Clinical Complexity Level (PCCL) and ICU stay rates.
  • Only 9% of patients received HIPEC treatment, and 15% underwent peritonectomy.
  • PIPAC was performed in 5% of cases, indicating underutilization of surgical options.
  • 20% of patients received any form of surgical therapy, revealing a discrepancy with guideline recommendations.
  • The average annual incidence of peritoneal mesothelioma was 0.68 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Abstract

This retrospective cohort study utilizes a nationwide database to provide information about the epidemiology and surgical treatment practices of peritoneal mesothelioma in Germany over the years 2019 to 2024. Data collected by the German Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) was examined by age, sex, treatment with HIPEC, PIPAC, or peritonectomy, ICU stay, type of hospital, and duration of stay. Additionally, the Patient Clinical Complexity Level (PCCL) - ranging from 0 to 6 - was analyzed. In total 3394 patients with peritoneal mesothelioma were recorded during the years 2019 to 2024 in Germany, with an average annual incidence of 0.68 per 100,000 inhabitants. The mean duration of hospital stay was 9 days. The median PCCL was 1. The median patient age group was 65 to 74. 16% of patients had an ICU stay. Most patients were treated at maximum care hospitals with over 1000 beds. Only 9% of patients received HIPEC treatment. 15% received some form of peritonectomy. PIPAC was performed on only 5% of the patients. In total, considering that patients can be coded with multiple procedures, 20% of all patients received surgical therapy. It was demonstrated that only a small percentage of patients received HIPEC, CRS, or PIPAC. This shows a grave discrepancy between guideline-recommendations and actual clinical practice. Potential reasons could be a lack of consideration of these procedures or misleading economic incentives. Ultimately, the findings highlight the need for increased awareness of peritoneal mesothelioma and underscore the importance to address the aforementioned observed discrepancy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Müller et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a286240a974eb0d3c00e98https://doi.org/10.5283/epub.78756
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Underutilization of CRS, HIPEC & PIPAC in peritoneal mesothelioma across a German nationwide cohort2026
  2. 2Analysis of Treatment Strategies and Outcomes in Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Insights From a Multi-Center Study2024 · 7 citations
  3. 3Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM).2026
  4. 4PIPAC for Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Current Insights and Future Directions2026
  5. 5Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC: A 10-year single-center retrospective cohort study2025 · 1 citations