Systematic review of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis

Efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive cancer with unfavorable prognosis despite the therapeutic interventions. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy has recently shown potential outcomes in the presence of peritoneal metastases. However, a consensus is still lacking on different methods for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. A variety of drugs and doses via three types of intraperitoneal chemotherapy have been studied. The prognosis and treatment strategies for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will be significantly influenced by peritoneal dissemination and resectability of the macroscopic disease. Normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC) has been used for the treatment of peritoneal metastases of pancreatic carcinomas. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is often combined with systemic therapies or surgical procedures which may lead to favorable combination therapies such as cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a relatively new approach that provides a homogenous and deep penetration of the chemotherapy into the peritoneum by producing aerosols. The present study aims to review the literature for recent evidence on intraperitoneal chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.

Efficacy and safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in ovarian cancer: a systematic review of current evidence

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a recent approach for intraperitoneal chemotherapy with promising results for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. A systematic review was conducted to assess current evidence on the efficacy and outcomes of PIPAC in patients affected by ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to December 2023. Studies reporting data on patients with OC treated with PIPAC were included in the qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies and six clinical trials with 932 patients who underwent PIPAC treatment were identified. The reported first access failure was 4.9%. 89.8% of patients underwent one, 60.7% two and 40% received three or more PIPAC cycles. Pathological tumour response was objectivated in 13 studies. Intra-operative complications were reported in 11% of women and post-operative events in 11.5% with a 0.82% of procedure-related mortality. Quality of life scores have been consistently stable or improved during the treatment time. The percentage of OC patients who became amenable for cytoreductive surgery due to the good response after PIPAC treatment for palliative purposes is reported to be 2.3%.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that PIPAC is safe and effective for palliative purposes, with a good pathological tumour response and quality of life. Future prospective studies would be needed to explore the role of this treatment in different stages of the disease, investigating a paradigm shift towards the use of PIPAC with curative intent for women who are not eligible for primary cytoreductive surgery.

First-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: A single-arm phase II trial (CRC-PIPAC-II)

BACKGROUND

Palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic precipitation oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has never been prospectively investigated in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The CRC-PIPAC-II study aimed to assess safety, feasibility and efficacy of such bidirectional therapy.

METHODS

This two-center, single-arm, phase II trial enrolled chemotherapy-naïve patients to undergo three treatment cycles, consisting of systemic therapy (CAPOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or FOLFOXIRI, all with bevacizumab) and oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC (92 mg/m2) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2). Primary outcome were major treatment-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included minor events, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Twenty patients completed 52 treatment cycles. Fifteen major events occurred in 7 patients (35 %): 5 events (33 %) related to systemic therapy; 5 (33 %) related to ePIPAC; and 5 (33 %) were biochemical events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. All patients experienced minor events, mostly abdominal pain, nausea and peripheral sensory neuropathy. After treatment, radiological, pathological, cytological, and biochemical response was observed in 0 %, 88 %, 38 %, and 31 % of patients respectively. Curative surgery was achieved in one patient. Median PFS was 10.0 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.0-13.0) and median OS was 17.5 months (95 % CI 13.0-not reached).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining palliative systemic therapy with oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC in patients with unresectable CPM was feasible and showed an acceptable safety profile. Treatment-induced response and survival are promising, yet further research is required to determine the additional value of ePIPAC to systemic therapy.

New insights in the management of pseudomyxoma peritonei

While a rare entity, peritoneal pseudomyxoma treatment evolves. Decision-making criteria improve with imaging development and exploratory laparoscopy. Surgery remains at the core of the therapeutic strategy whatever disease progression. Complete cytoreduction plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is standard of care. Iterative cytoreduction or debulking is sometimes justified. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy modalities change with early postoperative HIPEC or pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. Systemic or local treatment such as new chemo/immuno-therapies or BromAc should improve outcomes. Expertise and multicentric cooperation are more than ever needed.

Modified scoring system for the quantitative assessment of histological regression in peritoneal carcinomatosis after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: A pilot study

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is one of the leading causes of death in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Newer locoregional treatment concepts include pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), the regional application of pressurized chemotherapeutic agents to the abdominal cavity, which is usually performed every 4 to 8 weeks. One of the main challenges of PIPAC therapy remains the objective assessment of treatment response. The present study describes a new scoring system to histologically assess the regression of peritoneal cancer following PIPAC therapy, quantitative assessment of histological regression in peritoneal carcinomatosis (QARP). Peritoneal biopsies from 27 patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC were obtained and processed in a standardized fashion. Biopsies were scored according to the QARP grading system. The five-tiered system was graded as follows, Grade 0, no residual tumor cells with regressive changes present; grade 1, 1-25% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with regressive changes present; grade 2, 26-50% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with regressive changes present; grade 3, 51-75% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with few regressive changes; grade 4, >75% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with minimal or no regressive changes. Based on the new grading system, the study cohort was divided into QARP responders and QARP non-responders following PIPAC treatment. Higher QARP scores were significantly correlated with higher PCI scores (r=0.32; P=0.007). However, no difference in overall survival was detected between QARP responders and QARP non-responders. Further studies are required to ascertain the reproducibility and prognostic significance of QARP.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Safety-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); p < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; p = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; p < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions: PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.

Outcome of patients with peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

There are few data on Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in women with primary unresectable or recurrent platinum-resistant peritoneal metastasis (PM) from ovarian cancer (OC). We evaluated survival, histological and cytological response, Quality of Life (QoL) and toxicity after PIPAC C/D in these patients.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and -OPC2 studies. The histological response was evaluated by the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). QoL questionnaires were collected at baseline and after third PIPAC or 60 days. Adverse events were collected until 30 days after the last PIPAC. Demographic and survival data were analysed based on intention to treat. Response, QoL and toxicity were analysed per protocol (≥1 PIPAC).

Results

Twenty-nine patients were included. Five patients (17 %) were non-accessible at PIPAC 1. One patient was excluded due to liver metastases at PIPAC 1. Thus, 23 patients had 76 PIPACs (median 2, range 1-12). Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95 % CI 4.4-10.3) from PIPAC 1. Biopsy data were available for 22 patients, and seven (32 %) patients had a major/complete histological response (PRGS≤2) at PIPAC 3. No cytological conversions were registered. Symptoms and function scores worsened, while emotional scores improved. Three patients had severe adverse reactions (two ileus, one pulmonary embolism); no life-threatening reactions or treatment-related mortality was observed.

Conclusions

PIPAC C/D was feasible and induced histological regression in a substantial proportion of patients with platinum-resistant PM from OC. Larger studies are needed to evaluate impact on survival.

Review on treatment of pleural metastasis and malignant pleural effusion with Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC)

Background

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common and debilitating condition seen in advanced cancer disease, and life-expectancy is short. Symptoms include pain and severe shortness of breath. Current first-line treatment options include pleural drainage using catheters as well as pleurodesis. However, these treatment modalities are often inefficient and patients need repeated procedures. Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC) is a minimally invasive procedure, where antineoplastic agents are nebulized under pressure into the pleural space.

Content

We present the preliminary safety, feasibility, and response assessment data for PITAC based on a comprehensive literature review.

Summary

Five retrospective studies reported data on 38 PITACs in 21 patients. Data were heterogeneous and incomplete on several important aspects such as procedure, safety, local effect and long-term outcomes. PITAC seems technically feasible with a low risk of complications and may provide some reduction in MPE in selected cases.

Outlook

PITAC seems feasible, but prospective phase I and II studies are needed to define safety, indications, and efficacy.

Standardizing eligibility and patient selection for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Delphi consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure for minimally invasive drug administration in patients with peritoneal metastasis. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of uniformity in treatment protocols and standardization of this practice. This study aimed to reach a consensus on eligibility, patient selection, and choice of chemotherapy for PIPAC.

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. A steering group formulated a list of baseline statements, addressing the objectives. The steering group consisted of seven expert surgical and medical oncologists. Available evidence and published key opinions were critically reviewed. An international expert panel scored those statements on a 4-point Likert scale. The statements were submitted electronically and anonymously. Consensus was reached if the agreement rate was ≥75%. A minimum Cronbach's alpha of >0.8 was set.

RESULTS

Forty-five (45/58; 77.6%) experts participated and completed all rounds. Experts were digestive surgeons (n = 28), surgical oncologists (n = 7), gynecologists (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 4), and one clinical researcher. Their assessment of 81 preliminary statements in the first round resulted in 41 consolidated statements. In round two, consensus was reached on 40 statements (40/41; 97.6%) with a consensus of ≥80% for each individual statement. In the third round, 40 statements were unanimously approved as definitive. The choice of first- and second-line chemotherapy remained controversial and could not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This International Delphi study provides practical guidance on eligibility and patient selection for PIPAC. Ongoing trial data and long-term results that could contribute to the further standardization of PIPAC are eagerly awaited.

UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (NCT03868228)

Objectives

This is the first UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases. This trial aimed to assess the impact of PIPAC in combination with standard of care systemic treatment on: progression free survival (PFS); quality of life (QoL); and short-term complications. In addition, this trial set out to demonstrate that PIPAC can be performed safely in operating theatres within a National Health Service (NHS) setting.

Methods

Single-centre clinical trial with prospective data collection for patients undergoing 8-weekly PIPAC with oxaliplatin at 92 mg/m2 from January 2019 till January 2022. Progression free survival was assessed using peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) by CT scans and laparoscopy. Quality of life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Adverse events were recorded using CTCAE.

Results

Five patients underwent a total of ten PIPAC administrations (median 2, range 1-4). Median PFS was 6.0 months. QoL was maintained across repeat PIPAC procedures but a decrease in social functioning and increased fatigue were evident. Three incidences of grade 3 adverse events occurred but PIPAC was well tolerated.

Conclusions

The presented data demonstrates that PIPAC is feasible and can be safely delivered within the NHS for patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases, but caution must also be exercised given a risk of adverse events. Systemic chemotherapy can be safely administered at a different unit to the PIPAC procedure if both groups have clear lines of communication and timely data sharing.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

PIPAC consists in delivering normothermic chemotherapy solution directly into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. Currently PIPAC is considered as a palliative treatment for patients suffering from non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. We performed a SR to assess tolerance and response of this novel method among patient with OC.

METHODS

We searched electronic database PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials.gov. We only included clinical studies reporting PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 4 studies. In 3 studies all patients were pretreated with cytoreductive surgery, in 1 study surgery was performed in 8/34 (23 %) patients. Mean PCI at first PIPAC procedure ranged from 16.3 to 19.6. All studies reported the proportion of patients with ascites at the first PIPAC with a pooled rate of 48,3 %. Pooled rate of CTCAE Grade 3 toxicity calculated on the total number of PIPAC was 6 % and Grade 4 was 0.9 %. One study reported two cases of small bowel perforation related or potentially related to PIPAC. On study reported a cumulative survival after 400 days of 62 % and a mean actuarial survival time of all patients who underwent PIPAC of 442 days. In another study the mean time to progression was 144 days (95 % CI 122-168 days).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin appear to have a good safety profile with low toxicity and encouraging trend in terms of overall survival.

What is long-term survival in patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer? A study of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

A definition of long-term survival (LTS) in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), pancreatic cancer (PC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is lacking. We aimed to define LTS and investigate characteristics and treatment response in patients who reached LTS in data from two prospective trials.

Methods

Retrospective study of patients with GC-, PC-, or CRC-PM from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies. The definition of LTS was based on published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. LTS was defined at the time point where 25 % of the patients were alive in these studies. Histology based response was evaluated by the mean Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) using biopsies obtained prior to PIPAC 3, and defined by a mean PRGS of ≤2.0 or a decrease of mean PRGS of ≥1, compared to baseline.

Results

LTS was defined at 21 (GC), 15 (PC), and 24 (CRC) months. Fifty-one (47.2 %) patients (nine GC, 17 PC, 25 CRC) reached LTS calculated from the date of PM diagnosis. All but one received palliative chemotherapy before PIPAC, and 37 % received bidirectional treatment. More than 90 % of the LTS patients had response according to PRGS. The mOS from PIPAC 1 was 23.3, 12.4, and 28.5 months for GC, PC, and CRC LTS patients.

Conclusions

Patients with PM from GC, PC, and CRC treated with systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC can reach LTS and most show histological response. Causality must be further investigated.

Reasons for stopping Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A retrospective study to improve future patient selection

To improve the prognosis and maintain quality of life in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM), a novel treatment has been introduced-pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The majority of teams propose at least 3 PIPAC procedures. However, for many patients PIPAC is stopped after only one or two procedures. The aim of this study was to identify the reasons for stopping PIPAC after only one or two procedures and to establish a profile of poor candidates. This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all patients who underwent PIPAC in three French expert centers between 2015 and 2021. A total of 268 PIPAC procedures were performed in 89 patients. Of them, 48.3% of patients underwent fewer than three procedures: 28.1% had one, 20.2% two and 51.7% three or more PIPAC procedures. The main reason for stopping PIPAC, regardless of the number of procedures, was disease progression, in 55.8% of cases. Other reasons for stopping PIPAC were non-access to the abdominal cavity (7.9%), conversion to cytoreductive surgery (13.5%), post-PIPAC adverse events (7.9%), patients' wishes (10.1%) and death (2.2%). In univariate analysis, patients who received fewer than three PIPACs less frequently had chemotherapy beforehand (91% vs 100%, p = 0.05), less frequently had bimodal treatment (70% vs 87%, p = 0.04), had more ascites (median 80 ml vs 50 ml, p = 0.05) and more frequently had carcinomatosic ascites (48.8% vs 23.9%, p < 0.01). Performing PIPAC alone in chemotherapy-naïve patients with ascites should be avoided.

CO2-Driven Nebulization of pH-Sensitive Supramolecular Polymers for Intraperitoneal Hydrogel Formation and the Treatment of Peritoneal Metastasis

Because peritoneal metastasis (PM) from ovarian cancer is characterized by non-specific symptoms, it is often diagnosed at advanced stages. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) can be considered a promising drug delivery method for unresectable PM. Currently, the efficacy of intraperitoneal (IP) drug delivery is limited by the off-label use of IV chemotherapeutic solutions, which are rapidly cleared from the IP cavity. Hence, this research aimed to improve PM treatment by evaluating a nanoparticle-loaded, pH-switchable supramolecular polymer hydrogel as a controlled release drug delivery system that can be IP nebulized. Moreover, a multidirectional nozzle was developed to allow nebulization of viscous materials such as hydrogels and to reach an even IP gel deposition. We demonstrated that acidification of the nebulized hydrogelator solution by carbon dioxide, used to inflate the IP cavity during laparoscopic surgery, stimulated the in situ gelation, which prolonged the IP hydrogel retention. In vitro experiments indicated that paclitaxel nanocrystals were gradually released from the hydrogel depot formed, which sustained the cytotoxicity of the formulation for 10 days. Finally, after aerosolization of this material in a xenograft model of PM, tumor progression could successfully be delayed, while the overall survival time was significantly increased compared to non-treated animals.

Evaluation of the Effect of an Intraperitoneal Cytostatic-Loaded Supramolecular Hydrogel on Intestinal Anastomotic Healing in an Animal Model

The prognosis of colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases is very poor. Intraperitoneal drug delivery systems, like supramolecular hydrogels, are being developed to improve local delivery and intraperitoneal residence time of a cytostatic such as mitomycin C (MMC). In this study, we evaluate the effect of intraperitoneal hydrogel administration on anastomotic healing. Forty-two healthy Wistar rats received a colonic end-to-end anastomosis, after which 6 animals received an intraperitoneal injection with saline, 18 with unloaded hydrogel and 18 with MMC-loaded hydrogel. After 7 days, animals were euthanized, and the anastomotic adhesion and leakage score were measured as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were bursting pressure, histological anastomosis evaluation and body weight changes. Twenty-two rats completed the follow-up period (saline: n = 6, unloaded hydrogel: n = 10, MMC-loaded hydrogel: n = 6) and were included in the analysis. A trend towards significance was found for anastomotic leakage score between the rats receiving saline and unloaded hydrogel after multiple-comparison correction (p = 0.020, α = 0.0167). No significant differences were found for all other outcomes. The main reason for drop-out in this study was intestinal blood loss. Although the preliminary results suggest that MMC-loaded or unloaded hydrogel does not influence anastomotic healing, the intestinal blood loss observed in a considerable number of animals receiving unloaded and MMC-loaded hydrogel implies that the injection of the hydrogel under the studied conditions is not safe in the current rodent model and warrants further optimalisation of the hydrogel.

Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients

Introduction

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the primary cause of mortality in women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Our study assessed pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as treatment for peritoneal surface metastases (PSM) from recurrent or progressive OC and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors.

Material and methods

This retrospective cohort study, conducted across 18 international centers, analyzed the clinical practices of patients receiving palliative treatment for PSM from OC who underwent PIPAC. All patients were initially treated appropriately outside any clinical trial setting. Feasibility, safety, and morbidity were evaluated along with objective endpoints of oncological response. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic factors for OS and PFS.

Results

From 2015-2020, 234 consecutive patients were studied, from which 192 patients were included and stratified by platinum sensitivity for analysis. Patients with early recurrence, within one postoperative month, were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding platinum sensitivity (platinum sensitive (PS) and resistant (PR)), but chemotherapy frequency differed, as did PCI before PIPAC. Median PCI decreased in both groups after three cycles of PIPAC (PS 16 vs. 12, p < 0.001; PR 24 vs. 20, p = 0.009). Overall morbidity was 22%, with few severe complications (4-8%) or mortality (0-3%). Higher pathological response and longer OS (22 vs. 11m, p = 0.012) and PFS (12 vs. 7m, p = 0.033) were observed in the PS group. Multivariate analysis (OS/PFS) identified ascites (HR 4.02, p < 0.001/5.22, p < 0.001), positive cytology at first PIPAC (HR 3.91, p = 0.002/1.96, p = 0.035), and ≥ 3 PIPACs (HR 0.30, p = 0.002/0.48, p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors of overall survival/progression-free survival.

Conclusions

With low morbidity and mortality rates, PIPAC is a safe option for palliative treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Promising results were observed after 3 PIPAC, which did improve the peritoneal burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of PIPAC as an independent prognostic factor.

Anatomical Targeting of Anticancer Drugs to Solid Tumors Using Specific Administration Routes: Review

Despite remarkable recent progress in developing anti-cancer agents, outcomes of patients with solid tumors remain unsatisfactory. In general, anti-cancer drugs are systemically administered through peripheral veins and delivered throughout the body. The major problem with systemic chemotherapy is insufficient uptake of intravenous (IV) drugs by targeted tumor tissue. Although dose escalation and treatment intensification have been attempted in order to increase regional concentrations of anti-tumor drugs, these approaches have produced only marginal benefits in terms of patient outcomes, while often damaging healthy organs. To overcome this problem, local administration of anti-cancer agents can yield markedly higher drug concentrations in tumor tissue with less systemic toxicity. This strategy is most commonly used for liver and brain tumors, as well as pleural or peritoneal malignancies. Although the concept is theoretically reasonable, survival benefits are still limited. This review summarizes clinical results and problems and discusses future directions of regional cancer therapy with local administration of chemotherapeutants.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, reasons for interrupting treatment: a systematic review of the literature

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) gives encouraging results in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The current recommendations require at least 3 sessions of PIPAC. However, some patients do not complete the full treatment course and stop after only 1 or 2 procedures, hence the limited benefit. A literature review was performed, with search terms including "PIPAC" and "pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy."

Content

Only articles describing the causes for premature termination of the PIPAC treatment were analysed. The systematic search identified 26 published clinical articles related to PIPAC and reporting causes for stopping PIPAC.

Summary

The series range from 11 to 144 patients, with a total of 1352 patients treated with PIPAC for various tumours. A total of 3088 PIPAC treatments were performed. The median number of PIPAC treatments per patient was 2.1, the median PCI score at the time of the first PIPAC was 19 and the number of patients who did not complete the recommended 3 sessions of PIPAC was 714 (52.8%). Disease progression was the main reason for early termination of the PIPAC treatment (49.1%). The other causes were death, patients' wishes, adverse events, conversion to curative cytoreductive surgery and other medical reasons (embolism, pulmonary infection, etc…).

Outlook

Further investigations are necessary to better understand the causes for interrupting PIPAC treatment and also improving the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from PIPAC.

The role of cytology in patients undergoing pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis

Objectives

Cytology of ascites or peritoneal washing is a routine part of staging of peritoneal metastases (PM). We aim to determine value of cytology in patients undergoing pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Methods

Single-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients having PIPAC for PM of different primary between January 2015 and January 2020.

Results

A total of 75 patients (median 63 years (IQR 51-70), 67 % female) underwent a total of 144 PIPAC. At PIPAC 1 59 % patients had positive and 41 % patients had negative cytology. Patients with negative and positive cytology only differed in terms of symptoms of ascites (16% vs. 39 % respectively, p=0.04), median ascites volume (100 vs. 0 mL, p=0.01) and median PCI (9 vs. 19, p<0.01). Among 20 patients who completed 3 PIPACs (per protocol), cytology changed in one from positive to negative, and in two from negative to positive. Median overall survival was 30.9 months in the per protocol group and 12.9 months in patients having <3 PIPACs (=0.519).

Conclusions

Positive cytology under PIPAC treatment is more frequently encountered in patients with higher PCI and symptomatic ascites. Cytoversion was rarely observed and cytology status had no impact on treatment decisions in this cohort.

Localized chemotherapy approaches and advanced drug delivery strategies: a step forward in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a common outcome of epithelial ovarian carcinoma and is the leading cause of death for these patients. Tumor location, extent, peculiarities of the microenvironment, and the development of drug resistance are the main challenges that need to be addressed to improve therapeutic outcome. The development of new procedures such as HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy) and PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) have enabled locoregional delivery of chemotherapeutics, while the increasingly efficient design and development of advanced drug delivery micro and nanosystems are helping to promote tumor targeting and penetration and to reduce the side effects associated with systemic chemotherapy administration. The possibility of combining drug-loaded carriers with delivery via HIPEC and PIPAC represents a powerful tool to improve treatment efficacy, and this possibility has recently begun to be explored. This review will discuss the latest advances in the treatment of PC derived from ovarian cancer, with a focus on the potential of PIPAC and nanoparticles in terms of their application to develop new therapeutic strategies and future prospects.

Application and progress of palliative therapy in advanced gastric carcinomas

Gastric carcinomas have high morbidity and mortality. It produces no noticeable symptoms in the early stage while causing complex complications in its advanced stage, making treatment difficult. Palliative therapy aims to relieve the symptoms of cancer patients and focuses on improving their quality of life. At present, five palliative therapies for advanced gastric carcinomas are offered: resection, gastrojejunostomy, stenting, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. In recent years, palliative therapy has been used in the clinical treatment of advanced gastric carcinomas and related complications because of its efficacy in gastric outlet obstruction and gastric bleeding. In the future, multimodal and interdisciplinary palliative therapies can be applied to control general symptoms to improve patients’ condition, prolong their lifespan and improve their quality of life.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM): a prospective single-center registry study

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new, palliative approach for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs). Its main goals are to control symptoms and ascites. For this experimental procedure, treatment efficacy and patient safety need to be closely monitored.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry study for patients with PSMs. Cisplatin (C) (7.5 mg/m² body surface) and doxorubicin (D) (1.5 mg/m²) were administered laparoscopically via PIPAC.

RESULTS

Between November 2015 and June 2020, we recorded data from 108 patients and 230 scheduled procedures. Tumor burden, patient fitness, quality of life, operating time and in-hospital stay remained stable over consecutive procedures. We recorded 21 non-access situations and 14 intraoperative complications (11 intestinal injuries, and three aspirations while inducing anesthesia). Three or more previous abdominal surgeries or cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) were risk factors for non-access and intestinal injuries (χ², p ≤ 0.01). Five Grade IV and three Grade V postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) occurred. Median overall survival was 264 days (interquartile range 108-586). Therapies were primarily discontinued because of death (34%), progressive (26%), or regressive (16%) disease.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is effective in stabilizing PSMs and retaining quality of life in selected patients. Earlier abdominal surgeries and CRS with HIPEC should be considered when determining the indication for PIPAC. Randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate PIPAC's therapeutic benefits compared to systemic chemotherapy (sCHT) alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03100708 (April 2017).

10 Years of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper-Pearson exact CIs in all instances.

RESULTS

A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3-4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61-0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I² 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.

Response Evaluation in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis Treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed therapy emerged as a treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) a decade ago. The response assessment of PIPAC is not uniform. This narrative review describes non-invasive and invasive methods for response evaluation of PIPAC and summarizes their current status. PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible publications, and data were reported on an intention-to-treat basis. The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) showed a response in 18-58% of patients after two PIPACs. Five studies showed a cytological response in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid in 6-15% of the patients. The proportion of patients with malignant cytology decreased between the first and third PIPAC. A computed tomography showed stable or regressive disease following PIPAC in 15-78% of patients. The peritoneal cancer index was mainly used as a demographic variable, but prospective studies reported a response to treatment in 57-72% of patients. The role of serum biomarkers of cancer or inflammation in the selection of candidates for and responders to PIPAC is not fully evaluated. In conclusion, response evaluation after PIPAC in patients with PM remains difficult, but PRGS seems to be the most promising response evaluation modality.

Treatment of Peritoneal Metastasis with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: Results from the Prospective PIPAC-OPC2 Study

BACKGROUND

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a local treatment for peritoneal metastasis (PM). Prospective data are scarce and evaluation of treatment response remains difficult. This study evaluated the use of the Peritoneal Regression Grading score (PRGS) and its prognostic value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, controlled phase II trial in patients with PM from gastrointestinal, gynaecological, hepatopancreatobiliary, primary peritoneal, or unknown primary cancer. Patients in performance status 0-1, with a non-obstructed gastrointestinal tract, and a maximum of one extraperitoneal metastasis were eligible. Colorectal or appendiceal PM had PIPAC with oxaliplatin, other primaries had PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Biopsies were taken at each PIPAC and evaluated using the PRGS. Quality-of-life questionnaires were reported at baseline and after three PIPACs.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients were treated with 336 PIPACs (median 3, range 1-12). One hundred patients had prior palliative chemotherapy and 45 patients received bidirectional treatment. Complete or major histological response to treatment (PRGS 1-2) was observed in 38 patients (61%) who had three PIPACs, which was the only independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis. The median overall survival (mOS) from PIPAC 1 was 10 months, while patients with PM from gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer had a mOS of 7.4, 16.7, and 8.2 months, respectively. Global health scores were significantly reduced, but patients were less fatigued, nauseated, constipated, and had better appetite after three PIPACs.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC with oxaliplatin or cisplatin and doxorubicin was able to induce a major or complete histological response during three PIPACs, which may provide significant prognostic information, both at baseline and after treatment.

Nab-PIPAC: a phase IB study protocol of intraperitoneal cisplatin and nab-paclitaxel administered by pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the treatment of advanced malignancies confined to the peritoneal cavity

INTRODUCTION

Intraperitoneal dissemination is a major problem resulting in very poor prognosis and a rapid marked deterioration in the quality of life of patients. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emergent laparoscopic procedure aiming to maximise local efficacy and to reduce systemic side effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Nab-PIPAC, a bicentre open-label phase IB, aims to evaluate safety of nab-paclitaxel and cisplatin association using in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of gastric, pancreatic or ovarian origin as ≥1 prior line of systemic therapy. Using a 3+3 design, sequential intraperitoneal laparoscopic application of nab-paclitaxel (7.5, 15, 25, 37.5, 52.5 and 70 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) through a nebuliser to a high-pressure injector at ambient temperature with a maximal upstream pressure of 300 psi. Treatment maintained for 30 min at a pressure of 12 mm Hg and repeated4-6 weeks intervals for three courses total.A total of 6-36 patients are expected, accrual is ongoing. Results are expected in 2024.The primary objective of Nab-PIPAC trial is to assess tolerability and safety of nab-paclitaxel and cisplatin combination administered intraperitoneally by PIPAC in patients with PC of gastric, pancreatic or ovarian origin. This study will determine maximum tolerated dose and provide pharmacokinetic data.

ETHIC AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committees of Geneva and Vaud (CCER-2018-01327). The study findings will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and research meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04000906.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: A systematic review by the PIPAC UK collaborative

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases (GCPM) carries a poor prognosis. Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy (PIPAC) offers pharmacokinetic advantages over intravenous therapy, resulting in higher chemotherapy concentrations in peritoneal deposits, and potentially reduced systemic absorption/toxicity. This review evaluates efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life (QOL) of PIPAC for GCPM.

METHODS

Following registration with PROSPERO (CRD42021281500), MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases, in accordance with PRISMA standards RESULTS: Across 18 included reports representing 751 patients with GCPM (4 prospective, 11 retrospective, 3 abstracts, no phase III studies), median overall survival (mOS) was 8 - 19.1 months, 1-year OS 49.8-77.9%, complete response (PRGS1) 0-35% and partial response (PRGS2/3) 0-83.3%. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was 0.7-25% and 0-4.1% respectively. Three studies assessing QOL reported no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC may offer promising survival benefits, toxicity, and QOL for GCPM.

Treatment Response After Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastases of Colorectal Originf

The objective of this study is to analyze oncological outcomes of patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) of colorectal origin treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Background

PIPAC has been demonstrated to be a feasible and safe novel treatment for patients with PM of various origins. Only small series reports on survival after PIPAC by disease entity.

Methods

International retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with PM of colorectal origin. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), radiological response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), histological response (peritoneal regression grading score [PRGS]: complete response: 1-4: no response), change of peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and symptom control.

Results

Seventeen eligible centers compiled 256 non-selected patients (mean age 61 [50.6-69.2], 43% female) and 606 procedures. Sixty-three percent were treated after 2 lines of chemotherapy, median PCI at PIPAC1 was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-27). Median OS was 19.00 months (IQR = 12.9-29.8) from diagnosis and 9.4 months (IQR = 4.5-16.8) from PIPAC1. One hundred and four of 256 patients (40.6%) had ≥3 procedures (per protocol [pp]) with the following outcomes at PIPAC3: RECIST: 59.3% partial response/stable, 40.7% progression; mean PRGS: 2.1 ± 0.9. Median PCI was 21 (IQR = 15-29) at baseline and 20 (IQR = 12-27) at PIPAC3 (P = 0.02). Fifty-six (54%) and 48 (46%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (P = 0.267). Median OS for the pp cohort was 11.9 months (IQR = 10.7-15.0) from PIPAC1. Independent predictors for survival were radiological response (HR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.6-5.7) and no symptoms (HR = 4.5, 95% CI = 2.2-9.1) at PIPAC3.

Conclusions

Objective treatment response and encouraging survival were demonstrated after PIPAC for colorectal PM. Prospective registry data and comparative studies are now needed in to confirm these data.

Assessment of Treatment Response after Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Appendiceal Peritoneal Metastases

Background The aim of this study was to analyse survival and surrogates for oncological response after PIPAC for appendiceal tumours. Methods This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with appendiceal peritoneal metastases (PM) treated in experienced PIPAC centers. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) from the date of diagnosis of PM and from the start of PIPAC. Predefined secondary outcome included radiological response (RECIST criteria), repeat laparoscopy and peritoneal cancer index (PCI), histological response assessed by the Peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS) and clinical response. Results Final analysis included 77 consecutive patients (208 PIPAC procedures) from 15 centres. Median OS was 30 months (23.00-46.00) from time of diagnosis and 19 months (13.00-28.00) from start of PIPAC. 35/77 patients (45%) had ≥3 procedures (pp: per protocol). Objective response at PIPAC3 was as follows: RECIST: complete response 4 (11.4%), 11 (31.4%) partial/stable; mean PRGS at PIPAC3: 1.8 ± 0.9. Median PCI: 21 (IQR 18-27) vs. 22 (IQR 17-28) at baseline (p = 0.59); 21 (60%) and 18 (51%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (p = 0.873). Median OS in the pp cohort was 22.00 months (19.00-NA) from 1st PIPAC. Conclusion Patients with PM of appendiceal origin had objective treatment response after PIPAC and encouraging survival curves call for further prospective evaluation.

Comprehensive Treatment Algorithms of the Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group for Peritoneal Cancer of Gastrointestinal Origin

Peritoneal cancer (PC) is a dire finding, yet in selected patients, long-term survival is possible. Complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) together with combination immunochemotherapy is essential to achieve cure. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are increasingly added to the multimodal treatment. The Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group (SPCG) is an interdisciplinary group of expert clinicians. It has developed comprehensive treatment algorithms for patients with PC from pseudomyxoma peritonei, peritoneal mesothelioma, gastric, and colorectal origin. They include multimodal neoadjuvant treatment, surgical resection, and palliative care. The indication for and results of CRS HIPEC and PIPAC are discussed in light of the current literature. Institutional volume and clinical expertise required to achieve best outcomes are underlined, while inclusion of patients considered for CRS HIPEC and PIPAC in a clinical registry is strongly advised. The present recommendations are in line with current international guidelines and provide the first comprehensive treatment proposal for patients with PC including intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The SPCG comprehensive treatment algorithms provide evidence-based guidance for the multimodal care of patients with PC of gastrointestinal origin that were endorsed by all Swiss clinicians routinely involved in the multimodal care of these challenging patients.

Intraperitoneal drug delivery systems releasing cytostatic agents to target gastro-intestinal peritoneal metastases in laboratory animals: a systematic review

For peritoneal metastases (PM), there are few curative treatment options, and they are only available for a select patient group. Recently, new therapies have been developed to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for a prolonged period, suitable for a larger patient group. These drug delivery systems (DDSs) seem promising in the experimental setting. Many types of DDSs have been explored in a variety of animal models, using different cytostatics. This review aimed to provide an overview of animal studies using DDSs containing cytostatics for the treatment of gastro-intestinal PM and identify the most promising therapeutic combinations. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) guidelines. The 35 studies included revealed similar results: using a cytostatic-loaded DDS to treat PM resulted in a higher median survival time (MST) and a lower intraperitoneal tumor load compared to no treatment or treatment with a ‘free’ cytostatic or an unloaded DDS. In 65% of the studies, the MST was significantly longer and in 24% the tumor load was significantly lower in the animals treated with cytostatic-loaded DDS. The large variety of experimental setups made it impossible to identify the most promising DDS-cytostatic combination. In most studies, the risk of bias was unclear due to poor reporting. Future studies should focus more on improving the clinical relevance of the experiments, standardizing the experimental study setup, and improving their methodological quality and reporting.

Synopsis of a clinical practice guideline for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with peritoneal dissemination in Japan; Japan Peritoneal Malignancy Study Group

Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with peritoneal dissemination have a dismal prognosis because discontinuation of systemic chemotherapy is required for massive ascites or poor performance status. The natural history, diagnosis and treatment of PDAC with peritoneal dissemination have not been fully investigated. We systematically reviewed published information on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of PDAC with peritoneal dissemination using the PubMed database (2000-2020) and provided recommendations in response to clinical questions. This guideline was created according to the "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Guide 2017". The literature quality and body of evidence were evaluated with the GRADE System and classified into four levels ("strong", "medium", "weak", "very weak"). The strength of each final recommendation was decided by a vote of committee members based on the GRADE Grid method. These guidelines address three subjects: diagnostic, chemotherapeutic, and surgical approaches. They include nine clinical questions and statements with recommendation strengths, evidence levels, and agreement rates, in addition to one "column". This is the English synopsis of the 2021 Japanese clinical practice guideline for PDAC with peritoneal dissemination. It summarizes the clinical evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of PDAC with peritoneal dissemination and provides future perspectives.

Selection Criteria for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Treatment in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

Background: The standard treatment protocol for PIPAC consists of three procedures. Completion of treatment has been shown to be prognostic of improved survival. The aim of this study was to identify predictors for completion of treatment. Methods: Retrospective multicentric cohort study of patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC in three PIPAC expert centers. Per protocol (PP) treatment was defined as patients receiving ≥3 PIPACs and was compared to patients receiving <3. Results: Overall, 183 patients had 517 PIPACs. The main reasons for stopping PIPAC were disease progression in 50% patients, bowel obstruction in 15%, patient’s refusal to pursue in 10%, conversion to cytoreductive surgery in 7%, and medical reasons in 8%. Overall, 95 patients (52%) had PP treatment. The PP median OS was 17 vs. 7 months, p = 0.001. PP patients had r ascites (410 ± 100 mL vs. 960 ± 188 mL, p = 0.001), no prior history of bowel obstruction (12% vs. 24%, p = 0.028), and more bimodal treatment (39% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). After multiple regression, bimodal treatment was found as an independent predictive factor for completing PP (OR = 4.202, 95%CI [1.813, 10.630], p < 0.001), along with prior bowel obstruction (OR = 0.389, 95%CI [0.153, 0.920], p = 0.037). Conclusion: The absence of ascites and prior bowel obstruction can help to select patients suitable for PIPAC. Best results seem to be achieved when PIPAC is combined with systemic chemotherapy.

Current Trends in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Peritoneal Disease from Appendiceal and Colorectal Malignancies

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a poor prognostic factor for all malignancies. This extent of metastatic disease progression remains difficult to treat with systemic therapies due to poor peritoneal vascularization resulting in limited drug delivery and penetration into tissues. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are surgical interventions that directly target peritoneal tumors and have improved outcomes for PC resulting from appendiceal and colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite these radical therapies, long-term survival remains infrequent, and recurrence is common. The reasons for these outcomes are multifactorial and signal the need for the continued development of novel therapeutics, techniques, and approaches to improve outcomes for these patients. Here, we review landmark historical studies that serve as the foundation for current recommendations, recent discoveries, clinical trials, active research, and areas of future interest in CRS/HIPEC to treat PC originating from appendiceal and colorectal malignancies.

Early postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy for peritoneal metastases with or without pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced for palliative treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) and is currently tested also in the neoadjuvant and prophylactic setting. The aim was therefore to compare safety and tolerance of staging laparoscopy with or without PIPAC.

Methods

This retrospective analysis compared consecutive patients undergoing staging laparoscopy alone for oesogastric cancer with patients having PIPAC for suspected PSM of various origins from January 2015 until January 2020. Safety was assessed by use of the Clavien classification for complications and CTCAE for capturing of adverse events. Pain and nausea were documented by use of a visual analogue scale (VAS: 0–10: maximal intensity).

Results

Overall, 25 PIPAC procedures were compared to 24 staging laparoscopies. PIPAC procedures took a median of 35 min (IQR: 25–67) longer. Four patients experienced at least one complication in either group (p = 0.741). No differences were noted for postoperative nausea (p = 0.961) and pain levels (p = 0.156). Median hospital stay was 2 (IQR: 1–3) for PIPAC and 1 (IQR: 1–2) for the laparoscopy group (p = 0.104).

Conclusions

The addition of PIPAC did not jeopardize safety and postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy alone. Further studies need to clarify its oncological benefits.

Advances in Treatment Models of Advanced Gastric Cancer

The prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is extremely poor, and the therapeutic effect of traditional palliative chemotherapy is far from satisfactory. To overcome this bottleneck, palliative surgery resection, perioperative chemotherapy combined with surgical resection, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), radiation therapy, molecular-targeted therapy have been explored in AGC. Although considerable progress has been achieved, there is still no overwhelming therapeutic method. Due to the high heterogeneity of AGC, it is particularly vital to reshaped the paradigm of gastric cancer therapy according to the characteristics of clinical classifications and molecular subtypes.

State-of-the-Art Review of The Application and Development of Various Methods of Aerosol Therapy

Aerosol therapy is a rapidly developing field of science. Due to a number of advantages, the administration of drugs to the body with the use of aerosol therapy is becoming more and more popular. Spraying drugs into the patient's lungs has a significant advantage over other methods of administering drugs to the body, including injection and oral methods. In order to conduct proper and effective aerosol therapy, it is necessary to become familiar with the basic principles and applications of aerosol therapy under various conditions. The effectiveness of inhalation depends on many factors, but most of all on: the physicochemical properties of the sprayed system, the design of the medical inhaler and its correct application, the dynamics of inhalation (i.e. the frequency of breathing and the volume of inhaled air). It is worth emphasizing that respiratory system diseases are one of the most frequently occurring and fastest growing diseases in the world. Accordingly, in recent years, a significant increase in the number of new spraying devices and pharmaceutical drugs for spraying has appeared on the market. It should also be remembered that the process of spraying a liquid is a complicated and complex process, and its efficiency is very often characterized by the use of micro- and macro parameters (including average droplet diameters or the spectrum of droplet diameter distribution). In order to determine the effectiveness of the atomization process and in the delivery of drugs to the patient's respiratory tract, the analysis of the size of the generated aerosol droplets is most often performed. Based on the proposed literature review, it has been shown that many papers dealt with the issues related to aerosol therapy, the selection of an appropriate spraying device, the possibility of modifying the spraying devices in order to increase the effectiveness of inhalation, and the possibility of occurrence of certain discrepancies resulting from the use of various measurement methods to determine the characteristics of the generated aerosol. The literature review presented in the paper was prepared in order to better understand the spraying process. Moreover, it can be helpful in choosing the right medical inhaler for a given liquid with specific rheological properties. The experimental data contained in this study are of great cognitive importance and may be of interest to entities involved in pharmaceutical product engineering (in particular in the case of the production of drugs containing liquids with complex rheological properties).

Peritoneal Metastasis: Current Status and Treatment Options

Simple Summary

Surgical and locoregional treatments of peritoneal metastasis, e.g., from colorectal cancer, has gained increasing acceptance after the publication of excellent patient outcomes from many groups around the world. Apart from systemic chemotherapy and surgical removal of the tumor, locoregional therapies such as HIPEC or PIPAC may improve tumor control. Understanding the molecular characteristics of peritoneal metastasis is crucial to evolve future therapeutic strategies for peritoneal metastasis. This includes the genetic background of PM, which is often different from other sites of metastasis, and promotes peritoneal dissemination and the growth of tumor cells. Growing knowledge and insight into the physiology of the peritoneal tumor microenvironment and the specific role of the immune system in this compartment may provide a critical step to move locoregional therapy to the next level. This review summarizes the current knowledge and highlights the molecular characteristics of peritoneal metastasis.

Abstract

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) originating from gastrointestinal cancer was considered a terminal disease until recently. The advent of better systemic treatment, a better understanding of prognostic factors, and finally, the advent of novel loco-regional therapies, has opened the door for the multimodal treatment of PM. These strategies, including radical surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) showed surprisingly good results, leading to the prolonged survival of patients with peritoneal metastasis. This has triggered a significant body of research, leading to the molecular characterization of PM, which may further help in the development of novel treatments. This review summarizes current evidence on peritoneal metastasis and explores potential novel mechanisms and therapeutic approaches to treat patients with peritoneal metastasis.

Consensus guidelines for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: Technical aspects and treatment protocols

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with peritoneal cancer. A recent survey demonstrated considerable diversification of current practice of PIPAC raising issues of concern also regarding safety and efficacy. The study aim was to reach consensus on best practice of PIPAC treatment.

METHODS

Current practice was critically discussed during an expert meeting and the available evidence was scrutinized to elaborate a 33-item closed-ended questionnaire. All active PIPAC centers were then invited to participate in an online two-round Delphi process with 3 reminders at least. Consensus was defined a priori as >70% agreement for a minimal response rate of 70%.

RESULTS

Forty-nine out of 57 invited PIPAC centers participated in Delphi 1 and 2 (86%). Overall, there was agreement for 21/33 items. Consensus was reached for important aspects like advanced OR ventilation system (91.8%), remote monitoring (95.9%), use of the PRGS (85.7%) and use of a safety checklist (98%). The drug regimens oxaliplatin (87.8%) and cisplatin/doxorubicin (81.6%) were both confirmed by the expert panel. Important controversies included number and location of Biopsies during repeated PIPAC and the combination of PIPAC with additional surgical procedures.

CONCLUSION

This consensus statement aims to allow for safe and efficacious PIPAC treatment and to facilitate multi-center analyses of the results. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to resolve the remaining controversies.

Consensus statement on safety measures for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising treatment for peritoneal cancer that entails, however, potential risks for the caregivers in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to reach a consensus within the PIPAC community on a comprehensive safety protocol.

Methods

Active PIPAC centers were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi process on 43 predefined items: concise summaries of the existing evidence were presented together with questions formulated using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the strength of recommendation was voted by panelists, accepting a consensus threshold of ≥50% of the agreement for any of the four grading options, or ≥70% in either direction.

Results

Forty-seven out of 66 invited panelists answered both rounds (response rate 76%). The consensus was reached for 41 out of 43 items (95.3%). Strong and weak recommendations were issued for 30 and 10 items, respectively. A positive consensual recommendation was issued to activate laminar airflow without specific strength, neither strong nor weak. No consensus was reached for systematic glove change for caregivers with a high risk of exposure and filtering facepiece mask class 3 for caregivers with low risk of exposure.

Conclusions

A high degree of consensus was reached for a comprehensive safety protocol for PIPAC, adapted to the risk of exposure for the different caregivers in the OR. This consensus can serve as a basis for education and help reach a high degree of adherence in daily practice.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): The First Reported Case in Brazil Using Standardized Technique with the Capnopen® Nebulizer Device

BACKGROUND Peritoneal metastasis is a common progression of abdominal-pelvic cancers, and it is associated with poorer oncological prognosis when compared to other metastasis sites. Its treatment has limited results, mainly because of poor bioavailability of chemotherapy within the abdominal cavity after systemic administration. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been proposed as a novel method to deliver chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal surface; it combines the effectiveness and response of an intraperitoneal therapy with benefits of a minimally invasive approach. The laparoscopic capnoperitoneum is used to instill chemotherapy particles in a more efficient way for distribution and penetration when compared to peritoneal lavage. In the present study, we describe the first PIPAC performed in Brazil, according to the standard technique previously described with the Capnopen® nebulizer device, as well as technique details based on our literature review. CASE REPORT A 67-year-old man with pancreatic adenocarcinoma metastatic to the liver at first diagnosis underwent systemic treatment with the FOLFIRINOX protocol. After a major clinical response due to systemic treatment, pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed with resection and radiofrequency ablation of hepatic nodules. After 7 months of follow-up, the patient's condition evolved with symptomatic relapse in the peritoneum. Aiming at better control of this site, multiple PIPAC procedures were performed, showing excellent control of the peritoneal cavity disease. The patient had a sustained response in the peritoneal cavity and showed systemic disease progression 6 months after the first PIPAC procedure, which deceased at 20 months after the first PIPAC procedure and 42 months after the primary diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS This report shows that the PIPAC procedure is reproducible elsewhere, with safety and good functional results.

The ISSPP PIPAC database: design, process, access, and first interim analysis

Objectives

Several trials have documented the favorable safety profile, and promising clinical results of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed treatment in different types of peritoneal malignancies. However, until the results of randomized trials are available, the quality of documentation and acceptance by the users may be improved through a worldwide registry. The International Society for the Study of Pleura and Peritoneum (www.ISSPP.org) facilitated this process by creating a dedicated focus group and providing the funding needed for the creation and implementation of an international database. This article describes the design and the journey of establishing this international database and the first, preliminary results from the ISSPP PIPAC online database.

Methods

In 2019 the ISSPP PIPAC Registry Group started to create a database with a minimal dataset relevant to many diseases and applicable in different framework conditions. The task was divided into three phases including design, testing, implementation, protocol, handbook, legal requirements, as well as registry rules and bylaws for the registry group.

Results

The ISSPP PIPAC online database has six key elements (patient, consent, treatment, complications, response evaluation and follow-up). Following design, testing and implementation the database was successfully launched in June 2020. Ten institutions reported on 459 PIPAC procedures in 181 patients during the first 6 months, and the recorded data were comparable to the present literature.

Conclusions

A new international multicenter PIPAC database has been developed, tested and implemented under the auspices of ISSPP. The database is accessible through the ISSPP website (www.ISSPP.org), and PIPAC institutions worldwide are highly encouraged to participate.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal malignancy: initial experience of the first program in the Baltic countries

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal malignancies include primary and metastatic cancer of the peritoneal cavity. The most common origin for peritoneal metastasis is ovarian, gastric, and colorectal cancers. Irrespective of the origin, peritoneal metastases represent the advanced disease and are associated with poor long-term outcomes. The minimally invasive approach of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) allows repeated applications and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing histological samples. This study aimed to investigate the initial experience with PIPAC in the Baltic region.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PIPAC at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos between 2015 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS) in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by PIPAC. The secondary outcomes included postoperative morbidity; peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) and ascites reduction after treatment by PIPAC.

RESULTS

In total, 15 patients underwent 34 PIPAC procedures. PIPAC-related intraoperative and postoperative morbidity occurred in 3 (8.8%) of 34 procedures. Following PIPAC, the median PCI decreased from 8 (4; 15) to 5 (1; 16) in GC patients, although, the difference failed for significance, p = 0.581. In OC patients, PCI after PIPAC remained stable. Median overall survival after PIPAC procedure was 25 (95% CI 5-44) months. Ovarian cancer patients (22; 95% CI 12-44 months) had significantly higher OS, compared to gastric cancer patients (8; 95% CI 4-16 months), p = 0.018.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC is safe and feasible for patients with gastric and ovarian cancers peritoneal metastases.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy-Related Clinical Trials in the Treatment of Peritoneal Metastases

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a treatment option for patients with peritoneal metastases. We evaluated the current status of ongoing prospective clinical trials investigating PIPAC to provide an overview and predict trends in this field.

METHODS

All 367,494 records of clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for trials dealing with PIPAC. Active or unpublished trials were further analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 22 clinical trials were identified and selected for further analyses. Most trials had a single-arm design and were phase I or II. No phase III trials were registered. Academic centers were recorded as primary sponsors in the majority of trials (63.6%). Every year, between 2 and 5 new trials were initiated. In 17 trials (81.8%), PIPAC was used in a palliative setting only, 2 trials performed PIPAC in a neoadjuvant setting, and 2 trials performed PIPAC in an adjuvant setting. Six different drugs (doxorubicin, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, nab-paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and docetaxel) were used in these clinical trials. Most trials investigated the efficacy (n = 15) or safety (n = 7) of PIPAC therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ongoing clinical trials will bring specific information on indications for PIPAC as well as the impact of PIPAC on quality of life and overall survival.

Development of rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy to enhance drug delivery into the peritoneum

This study aims to evaluate the drug distribution, tissue concentrations, penetration depth, pharmacokinetic properties, and toxicities after rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) in pigs. Because relevant medical devices have not been introduced, we developed our prototype of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and RIPAC by adding a conical pendulum motion device for rotating the nozzle. RIPAC and PIPAC were conducted using 150 ml of 1% methylene blue to evaluate the drug distribution and 3.5 mg of doxorubicin in 50 ml of 0.9% NaCl to evaluate the tissue concentrations and penetration depth, pharmacokinetic properties, and toxicities. All agents were sprayed as aerosols via the nozzle, DreamPen^® (Dalim Biotech, Gangwon, South Korea), with a velocity of 5 km/h at a flow rate of 30 ml/min under a pressure of 7 bars, and capnoperitoneum of 12 mmHg was maintained for 30 min. As a result, RIPAC showed a wider distribution and stronger intensity than PIPAC. Compared with PIPAC, RIPAC demonstrated high values of the tissue concentration in the central, right upper, epigastrium, left upper, left lower, right lower, and right flank regions (median, 375.5-2124.9 vs. 161.7-1240 ng/ml; p ≤ .05), and higher values of the depth of concentrated diffusion and depth of maximal diffusion (median, 232.5-392.7 vs. 116.9-240.1 μm; 291.2-551.2 vs. 250.5-362.4 μm; p ≤ .05) in all regions except for bowels. In RIPAC, the pharmacokinetic properties reflected hemodynamic changes during capnoperitoneum, and there were no related toxicities. Conclusively, RIPAC may have the potential to enhance drug delivery into the peritoneum compared to PIPAC.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases-a systematic review

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) is increasingly used as a palliative treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study aimed to systematically review all clinical studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of PIPAC-OX in patients with CPM. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify all clinical studies that included at least one patient with CPM treated with PIPAC-OX and reported one of the following outcomes: adverse events, tumor response, quality of life, secondary cytoreductive surgery, progression-free survival, overall survival, and environmental safety of PIPAC-OX. Results were narratively described. Of 28 included studies, only 14 non-comparative studies separately reported at least one outcome of PIPAC-OX for CPM, of which only two studies specifically focused on this group. These 14 studies reported adverse events (5 studies), tumor response (5 studies), secondary cytoreductive surgery (4 studies), progression-free survival (1 study), overall survival (5 studies), and environmental safety (2 studies). Except for 5 studies (describing 26 patients), none of the included studies stratified their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and none of the studies reporting survival outcomes stratified results for line of palliative treatment, complicating interpretation. No PIPAC-OX related deaths were reported. No occupational platinum was detected during PIPAC-OX. The available evidence regarding PIPAC-OX for CPM is limited and difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, PIPAC-OX appears safe in patients with CPM and safe for operating personnel. To increase insight in the role of PIPAC-OX in this setting, investigators of ongoing and future studies are encouraged to report separate outcomes of PIPAC-OX for CPM, to stratify their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and to stratify survival results for line of palliative treatment.