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

First-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (oxaliplatin) for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a multicentre, single-arm, phase II study (CRC-PIPAC-II)

INTRODUCTION

Despite its increasing use, first-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX), hereinafter referred to as first-line bidirectional therapy, has never been prospectively investigated in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). As a first step to address this evidence gap, the present study aims to assess the safety, feasibility, antitumour activity, patient-reported outcomes, costs and systemic pharmacokinetics of first-line bidirectional therapy in patients with isolated unresectable CPM.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this single-arm, phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 20 patients are enrolled. Key eligibility criteria are a good performance status, pathologically proven isolated unresectable CPM, no previous palliative systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, no (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy ≤6 months prior to enrolment and no previous pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Patients receive three cycles of bidirectional therapy. Each cycle consists of 6 weeks first-line palliative systemic therapy at the medical oncologists' decision (CAPOX-bevacizumab, FOLFOX-bevacizumab, FOLFIRI-bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab) followed by ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²) with an intraoperative bolus of intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m²). Study treatment ends after the third ePIPAC-OX. The primary outcome is the number of patients with-and procedures leading to-grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) up to 4 weeks after the last procedure. Key secondary outcomes include the number of bidirectional cycles in each patient, treatment-related characteristics, grade ≤2 adverse events, tumour response (histopathological, cytological, radiological, biochemical, macroscopic and ascites), patient-reported outcomes, systemic pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, costs, progression-free survival and overall survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Dutch competent authority, a medical ethics committee and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL8303.

Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Metastases: Technical Innovations, Preclinical and Clinical Advances and Future Perspectives

(1) Background: Tumors of the peritoneal serosa are called peritoneal carcinosis. Their origin may be primary by primitive involvement of the peritoneum (peritoneal pseudomyxoma, peritoneal mesothelioma, etc.). This damage to the peritoneum can also be a consequence of the dissipation of cancers-in particular, digestive (stomach, pancreas, colorectal, appendix) and gynecological (ovaries) ones in the form of metastases. The aim of the treatment is a maximal reduction of the macroscopic disease called "cytoreduction" in combination with hyperthermic intra-abdominal chemotherapy to treat residual microscopic lesions. (2) Methods: In this narrative review, we fundamentally synthetize the evolution of this process over time and its impact on clinical applications. (3) Results: Over the last past decade, different evolutions concerning both delivery modes and conditions concerning hyperthermic intra-abdominal chemotherapy have been realized. (4) Conclusion: The final objective of these evolutions is the improvement of the global and recurrence-free survival of primary and secondary malignant peritoneal pathologies. However, more large randomized controlled trials are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of such treatments with the help of molecular biology and genetics.

Pharmaceutical strategies in improving anti-tumour efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal therapy for peritoneal metastasis

Introduction: In selected patients with limited peritoneal metastasis (PM), favorable tumor biology, and a good clinical condition, there is an indication for combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and subsequent intravenous (IV) or intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Compared with IV injection, IP therapy can achieve a high drug concentration within the peritoneal cavity with low systemic toxicity, however, the clinical application of IP chemotherapy is limited by the related abdominal pain, infection, and intolerance.Areas covered:To improve the anti-tumor efficacy and safety of IP therapy, various pharmaceutical strategies have been developed and show promising potential. This review discusses the specialized modification of traditional drug delivery systems and demonstrates the preparation of customized drug carriers for IP therapy, including chemotherapy and gene therapy. IP therapy has important clinical significance in the treatment of PM using novel anti-tumor agents as well as conventional drugs in new applications.Expert opinion: Although IP therapy exhibits good performance both in mouse models and in patients with PM in clinical trials, its clinical application remains limited due to the serious side effects and low acceptability. Further investigations, including pharmaceutical strategies, are needed to develop potential IP therapy, focusing on the efficacy and safety thereof.

Current practice and perceptions of safety protocols for the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating room: results of the IP-OR international survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

A multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).

RESULTS

Ten centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.

Local peritoneal toxicity from adjuvant pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin in high-risk patients with colonic cancer

This research letter describes unexpected and unacceptable local toxicity manifesting as abdominal pain after adjuvant pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with 92 mg/m2 oxaliplatin in the PIPAC-OPC3 study. It is not clear whether the toxicity is dose- or drug-dependent (or both), but the preliminary data suggest that tolerability is improved by dose reduction to 46 mg/m2.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (Oxaliplatin) for Unresectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Phase II Trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

Despite its increasing use, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) has never been prospectively investigated as a palliative monotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases in clinical trials. This trial aimed to assess the safety (primary aim) and antitumor activity (key secondary aim) of PIPAC-OX monotherapy in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases.

METHODS

In this two-center, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in any line of palliative treatment underwent 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²). Key outcomes were major treatment-related adverse events (primary outcome), minor treatment-related adverse events, hospital stay, tumor response (radiological, biochemical, pathological, ascites), progression-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Twenty enrolled patients underwent 59 (median 3, range 1-6) PIPAC-OX procedures. Major treatment-related adverse events occurred in 3 of 20 (15%) patients after 5 of 59 (8%) procedures (abdominal pain, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, iatrogenic pneumothorax, transient liver toxicity), including one possibly treatment-related death (sepsis of unknown origin). Minor treatment-related adverse events occurred in all patients after 57 of 59 (97%) procedures, the most common being abdominal pain (all patients after 88% of procedures) and nausea (65% of patients after 39% of procedures). Median hospital stay was 1 day (range 0-3). Response rates were 0% (radiological), 50% (biochemical), 56% (pathological), and 56% (ascites). Median progression-free and overall survival were 3.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-5.7) and 8.0 months (IQR 6.3-12.6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC-OX monotherapy, some major adverse events occurred and minor adverse events were common. The clinical relevance of observed biochemical, pathological, and ascites responses remains to be determined, especially since radiological response was absent.

Current status of conversion surgery for stage IV gastric cancer

Palliative chemotherapy with best supportive care is a mainstay for patients with gastric cancer (GC) and distant metastasis. However, with advances in GC chemotherapy, multimodal treatment, including perioperative chemotherapy plus conversion surgery, has attracted attention as a new strategy to improve the outcome of patients with stage IV disease. Conversion surgery is defined as surgical treatment aimed at R0 resection after a good response to induction chemotherapy for tumors originally considered unresectable or marginally resectable for technical and/or oncological reasons. Various biological characteristics differ, depending on each metastatic condition in stage IV GC. The main metastatic pathways of GC can be divided into three categories: lymphatic, hematogenous, and peritoneal. In each category, considerable historical data on conversion surgery have demonstrated the benefits of individualized approaches. However, owing to the diversity of these conditions, a common definition, including the choice of induction chemotherapy, optimal timing of resection, and eligibility for conversion surgery, has not been established among surgical oncologists. Thus, we explore the current and future treatment options by reviewing the literature on this controversial topic comprehensively.

Enhanced intraperitoneal delivery of charged, aerosolized curcumin nanoparticles by electrostatic precipitation

Aims: To investigate the potential of curcumin-loaded polylactic-co-glycolic acid nanoparticles (CUR-PLGA-NPs), alone and with electrostatic precipitation, for improving tissue uptake during pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Methods: Positively and negatively charged CUR-PLGA-NPs were delivered as PIPAC into inverted bovine urinary bladders ex vivo. The experiment was repeated with the additional use of electrostatic precipitation pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (electrostatic PIPAC). Results: Positively charged CUR-PLGA-NPs increased depth of tissue penetration by 81.5% and tissue concentration by 80%. Electrostatic precipitation further improved the uptake of positively charged CUR-PLGA-NPs by 41.8%. Conclusion: The combination of positive charge and electrostatic precipitation have significant potential to improve tissue uptake of nanoparticles during intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for rare gynecologic indications: peritoneal metastases from breast and endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) in patients with breast (BC) and endometrial cancer (EC) is rare and treatment options are limited. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) has demonstrated efficacy against PM from various cancers, but its efficacy in BC/EC patients is unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with PM from BC/EC undergoing PIPAC with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² and cisplatin 7.5 mg/m². Data were collected within an international prospective PIPAC registry. Study outcomes were microscopic tumor regression grade (TRG), survival, adverse events (CTCAE), and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

150 PIPAC procedures in 44 patients (BC/EC = 28/16; mean age 58.8 ± 10.1 and 63.2 ± 10.1 years, respectively) were analyzed. The mean number of PIPACs per patient was 3 (range 0-9) and 3.5 (range 0-10), respectively. Primary/secondary non-access occurred in 4/3 of 150 (5%) procedures. PIPAC induced objective tumor regression as demonstrated by repetitive PM biopsies in 73% (32/44) of patients. Peri- and postoperative CTCAE grade 3 and 4 complications were observed in 12/150 (8%) of procedures. No grade 5 event was observed. After a median follow up of 5.7 (IQR 2.7-13.0) months, overall median survival was 19.6 (95% CI: 7.8-31.5) months (from first PIPAC). QoL indicators (general health, nausea, fatigue, constipation, pain, dyspnea, social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning) all improved or were maintained throughout PIPAC treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive intraperitoneal chemotherapy with PIPAC is feasible and safe in patients with PM from BC and EC. PIPAC induces significant histological regression of PM while maintaining QoL.

Anaesthesia considerations and techniques for Pressurised IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Pressurised IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel surgical technique to administer aerosolized chemotherapy into the abdominal cavity as treatment for peritoneal metastasis from various cancers. As the surgery is unique and there are concerns about occupational hazards, specific anaesthetic setup and techniques are required. Notably, our institution’s experience with PIPAC has enlightened us that anaesthesia requirements during PIPAC are generally uncomplicated and that the majority of the patients undergoing PIPAC do not require invasive monitoring, advanced intra or postoperative analgesia like epidurals or PCA. The need for postoperative intensive unit care is also not required in routine PIPAC cases. We describe the anaesthetic considerations involved and the detailed preparation of staff, space, anaesthetic equipment and drugs to facilitate the appropriate modifications for anaesthesia monitoring and maintenance for an elective set up as well as our standard operating procedure for an emergency situation should it arise.

PIPAC-OX: A Phase I Study of Oxaliplatin-Based Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel laparoscopic, intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery technique aiming to improve drug distribution and tissue penetration to treat peritoneal metastases. Thus far, PIPAC oxaliplatin is conducted at an arbitrary dose of 92 mg/m². We conducted a phase I study to establish safety and tolerability.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a 3+3 dose-escalation design of PIPAC oxaliplatin for patients with peritoneal metastases from gastrointestinal tumors, after failure of at least first-line chemotherapy. Dose levels were planned at 45, 60, 90, and 120 mg/m².

RESULTS

This study included 16 patients with 24 PIPAC procedures (8 gastric; 5 colorectal; and 1 gallbladder, pancreas, and appendix cancer each). Median age and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score were 62 years and 17, respectively. Two patients developed pancreatitis (grade 2 and 3) at 45 mg/m², necessitating cohort expansion. Another patient developed grade 2 pancreatitis at 90 mg/m². There were no other dose-limiting toxicities, and the highest-dose cohort (120 mg/m²) tolerated PIPAC well. Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated good linearity between dose and maximum concentration (r ² = 0.95) and AUC (r ² = 0.99). On the basis of RECIST, 62.5% and 50% had stable disease after one and two PIPAC procedures, respectively. A total of 8 patients underwent two PIPAC procedures, with improvement of median PCI and peritoneal regression grade score from 15 to 12 and 2.5 to 2.0, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommended phase II dose is 120 mg/m². Future studies should further delineate the efficacy and role of PIPAC oxaliplatin for peritoneal metastases.See related commentary by de Jong et al., p. 1830.

Current Opinion on Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Treatment: a Survey of the Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ISPSM)

Purpose

Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) are increasingly treated with multidisciplinary combined approaches. The study aim was to assess current practice and perceptions of treatment modalities of PC.

Methods

Indian Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ISPSM) members were invited to complete an online survey. Current practice and perceptions of treatment modalities were assessed through 19 closed questions. Scores were assessed using a Likert scale (0: not important, 5: very important). Treatment modality satisfaction was assessed using a semantic scale (frustrated: 0, perfectly happy: 10). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 4-week intervals.

Results

Fifty-seven out of 182 members completed the survey (31%). Forty percent of participants had an experience of at least 10 years, and 75% stated treating less than 20 PC patients per year. Main treatment goals for patients with PC were cure (5/5) and symptom relief (4/5). Participant’s satisfaction with treatment modalities for ovarian, colorectal, and gastric PC were 6/10, 5/10, and 2/10, respectively. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian (57%) and colorectal (44%) origins were considered to be useful. Clinical usefulness of chemotherapy for gastric PC was rated to be low (17%).

Conclusions

Current treatment modalities fall short to satisfy the needs (cure, symptom relief) of patients with PC. Alternative systemic and intraperitoneal treatment modalities should be assessed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12029-020-00538-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM)

Objectives

Perception of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for treating peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) differ widely among physicians.

Methods

This on-site survey performed during a major oncology congress in 2019 evaluated the current opinion, perceptions, knowledge and practice of HIPEC and PIPAC among oncologists in India.

Results

There were 147 respondents (gynecologists (30%), surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons (64%), and medical oncologists (6%)). Whereas most respondents considered CRS and HIPEC an appropriate therapeutic option, 25% would not recommend CRS and HIPEC. The main barriers to referral to an expert center were inaccessibility to such a center (37.8%), non-inclusion of CRS and HIPEC in clinical practice guidelines (32.4%), and a high morbidity/mortality (21.6%). Variations were found in the various practice patterns of CRS/HIPEC like eligibility criteria, HIPEC protocols and safety measures. Although PIPAC awareness as a novel therapeutic option was high, only a limited number of centers offered PIPAC, mainly because of non-access to technology and missing training opportunities (76.2%).

Conclusions

Lack of widespread acceptance, poor accessibility and low utilization presents a significant challenge for HIPEC and PIPAC in India. There is a need to raise the awareness of curative and palliative therapeutic options for PSM. This might be achieved by the creation of expert centers, specialized training curricula and of a new sub-speciality in oncology.

Systematic review of patient reported outcomes (PROs) and quality of life measures after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) constitutes a recently described surgical technique to administer chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum, under pressure, for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The purpose of an oncological treatment is to improve survival but without altering the patient's quality of life. The aim of this review was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after PIPAC for patients with PM. This systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2020, studies were selected according to the following criteria: "pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy" OR "PIPAC" AND "patient-reported outcomes" OR "PRO" OR "Quality of life". In this review, 959 PIPAC and five PITAC (Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy) were performed in 425 patients. We highlight the prominent application of generic EORTC QLQ-C30 followed by SF-36 in this review. The PROs according to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score and based on symptom and function scores were stable across most studies. Moreover, PIPAC has improved the PRO of altered patients in two studies. Among 425 patients, the mortality rate was 0.7% and adverse events of Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events grade 3 and grade 4 were 9.6% and 1.6%, respectively. We synthesised current research on PROs among patients with PM. This review increases our understanding of the PIPAC strategy from the patient perspective. The implementation of PROs can be complex but will be essential in delivering quality care.

Current practice of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): Still standardized or on the verge of diversification?

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a new treatment modality for peritoneal cancer which has been practiced and evaluated until very recently by few academic centers in a highly standardized manner. Encouraging oncological outcomes and the safety profile have led to widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess current PIPAC practice in terms of technique, treatment and safety protocol, and indications.

METHODS

A standardized survey with 82 closed-ended questions was sent online to active PIPAC centers which were identified by help of PIPAC training centers and the regional distributors of the PIPAC-specific nebulizer. The survey inquired about center demographics (n = 8), technique (n = 34), treatment and safety protocol (n = 34), and indications (n = 6).

RESULTS

Overall, 62 out of 66 contacted PIPAC centers answered the survey (response rate 93%). 27 centers had performed >60 PIPAC procedures. A consensus higher than 70% was reached for 37 items (50%), and higher than 80% for 28 items (37.8%). The topics with the highest degree of consensus were safety and installation issues (93.5% and 80.65%) while chemotherapy and response evaluation were the least consensual topics (63.7 and 59.6%). The attitudes were not influenced by volume, PIPAC starting year, type of activity, or presence of peritoneal metastases program.

CONCLUSION

Homogeneous treatment standards of new techniques are important to guarantee safe implementation and practice but also to allow comparison between cohorts and multi-center analysis of merged data including registries. Efforts to avoid diversification of PIPAC practice include regular update of the PIPAC training curriculum, targeted research and a consensus statement.

Initial Single-center Experience of PIPAC in Patients With Unresectable Peritoneal Metastasis

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal carcinomatosis remains a condition with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Pressurized Intrapertioneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been developed as a new tool for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy with low morbidity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial experience of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis at our hospital.

METHODS

A prospective study between January 2019 and February 2020 was carried at a tertiary public hospital. Primary tumor, ascites volume, PCI, chemotherapy regimen, operative time, morbidity, length of hospital stay and mortality were recorded for analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 9 PIPAC procedures performed in 5patients. Median PCI was 27.6 (24-35). Median surgical time was 93minutes (70-125). Only one adverse event occurred out of 9 procedures (Clavien-DindoII). Median length of hospital stay was 2days (1-4). Mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC seems to be a feasible and safe procedure to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis, with low morbidity and short hospital stay.

Anaesthesia in a Toxic Environment: Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new type of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinosis via minimally invasive surgery. This technique's specificity is the remote application of the therapy because of the potential risk of exposure to toxic products. The present paper summarises the important aspects of PIPAC and analyses the anaesthetic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients undergoing PIPAC treatment between January 2015 and February 2018. Data on protocol adherence and perioperative anaesthetic complications and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain levels (visual analogue scale 0-10) from recovery room to 72 h were analysed.

RESULTS

The overall analysis included 193 PIPAC procedures on 87 patients. Protocol adherence was high as regards the use of propofol (100%), rocuronium (98%), antiemetic prophylaxis (99%) and lidocaine intravenous (i.v.) (87%). No accidental exposure to chemotherapy occurred during the study period. Of the 87 patients, 6.3% suffered delayed recovery, 58% due to hypothermia and 42% due to excessive sedation or curarisation. In the recovery room, 16% of patients suffered moderate to severe pain, requiring >8 mg of morphine i.v., with average doses of 13.7 mg. Median postoperative pain scores were 1 and 3 at 12 h and 0 and 0 at 72 h at rest and mobilisation, respectively. PONV was observed in <10% of patients during the first 12 h, but in 40% at 72 h.

CONCLUSION

A dedicated anaesthetic protocol and intraoperative safety checklist facilitates safe, well-tolerated anaesthesia for PIPAC treatments.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin or oxaliplatin for peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma

Background

Systemic chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) with peritoneal metastases (PM) is affected by several pharmacological shortcomings and low clinical efficacy. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is expected to maximize exposure of peritoneal nodules to antiblastic agents. This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of PIPAC for PM of PDAC and CC origin.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC and CC cases with PM treated with PIPAC at two European referral centers for peritoneal disease. We prospectively recorded from August 2016 to May 2019 demographic, clinical, surgical, and oncological data. We performed a feasibility and safety assessment and an efficacy analysis based on clinical and pathological regression.

Results

Twenty patients with PM from PDAC (14) and CC (six) underwent 45 PIPAC administrations. Cisplatin-doxorubicin or oxaliplatin were administered to eight and 12 patients, respectively. We experienced one intraoperative complication (small bowel perforation) and 18 grade 1-2 postoperative adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. A pathological regression was recorded in 50% of patients (62% in the cisplatin-doxorubicin cohort and 42% in the oxaliplatin one). Median survival from the first PIPAC was 9.7 and 10.9 months for PDAC and CC, respectively.

Conclusion

PIPAC resulted feasible and safe without relevant toxicity issues, with both cisplatin-doxorubicin and oxaliplatin. The pathological response observed supports the evidence of antitumoral activity. Despite the study limitations, these outcomes are encouraging, recommending PIPAC in prospective, controlled trials in the palliative setting or the first line chemotherapy for PM from PDAC and CC.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and tissue penetration of PIPAC paclitaxel in a swine model

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is difficult to treat. Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel method of delivering chemotherapy to the peritoneal cavity, aiming for homogenous and deeper drug distribution. To date, limited chemotherapeutics have been used with promising results. Here, we evaluate the pharmacokinetics, peritoneal tissue drug concentration, penetration, and short-term safety of PIPAC using solvent-based paclitaxel in swine to guide clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PIPAC solvent-based paclitaxel was administered at 60, 30, and 15mg/m² for 3 cohorts. Each PIPAC procedure was followed by intravenous (IV) administration of the same dose of solvent-based paclitaxel on Day 7, serving as control for pharmacokinetic comparison in the same pig. Safety and toxicity were evaluated by clinical assessment, blood counts and biochemistry. Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis. Peritoneal biopsies were taken to measure tissue paclitaxel concentrations and distribution.

RESULTS

12 Yorkshire x Landrace pigs underwent trial procedures. With PIPAC, there was linear pharmacokinetics and lower systemic exposure to paclitaxel compared to IV administration. MALDI-MSI demonstrated concentration of paclitaxel at the peritoneal surface, with estimated 2 mm penetration. PIPAC paclitaxel had favorable toxicity profile. The most significant adverse event was neutropenia which was dose dependent, with absolute neutrophil count <1.0 × 10³/μL seen at the highest dose. One pig developed grade 2 hypersensitivity reaction during IV infusion and one death occurred during the PIPAC procedure, likely from anaphylaxis; these are known potential adverse events mandating standard precautions and monitoring.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC paclitaxel at 15mg/m² may be considered for a Phase I study.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was introduced as a new treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases in November, 2011. Reports of its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy have encouraged centres worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a novel drug delivery technique. In this Review, we detail the technique and rationale of PIPAC and critically assess its evidence and potential indications. A systematic search was done to identify all relevant literature on PIPAC published between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2019. A total of 106 articles or reports on PIPAC were identified, and 45 clinical studies on 1810 PIPAC procedures in 838 patients were included for analysis. Repeated PIPAC delivery was feasible in 64% of patients with few intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications (3% for each in prospective studies). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events greater than grade 2) occurred after 12-15% of procedures, and commonly included bowel obstruction, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Repeated PIPAC did not have a negative effect on quality of life. Using PIPAC, an objective clinical response of 62-88% was reported for patients with ovarian cancer (median survival of 11-14 months), 50-91% for gastric cancer (median survival of 8-15 months), 71-86% for colorectal cancer (median survival of 16 months), and 67-75% (median survival of 27 months) for peritoneal mesothelioma. From our findings, PIPAC has been shown to be feasible and safe. Data on objective response and quality of life were encouraging. Therefore, PIPAC can be considered as a treatment option for refractory, isolated peritoneal metastasis of various origins. However, its use in further indications needs to be validated by prospective studies.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for unresectable peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a recent approach with promising results for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). We aimed to evaluate survival and postoperative outcome of patients with unresectable PM from gastric origin treated with chemotherapy and PIPAC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective maintained PIPAC database was queried for all patients diagnosed with unresectable PM from gastric cancer who underwent PIPAC before 2018. PIPAC with Cisplatin 7.5 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2 were given for 30 min at 6-week intervals. Outcome criteria were overall survival and adverse events according to (CTCAE) version4.0.

RESULTS

One hundred Sixty-three PIPAC were done in 42 consecutive patients. Twenty-two (52%) of the patients were female. Signet-ring cells were observed in 33/42 patients (78.6%). At the first PIPAC, median age was 51.5 years (32-74). Median PCI was 17 (1-39). Twenty (47.6%) patients underwent more than 2 lines of pre-PIPAC chemotherapy. All patients had systemic chemotherapy alternating with PIPAC. Median consecutive PIPAC procedures were 3 (1-12). Overall and major complications (CTCAE - III, IV) occurred in 10 (6.1%) and 5 procedures (3.1%), respectively. Two patients (4.7%) died within 30 days of a PIPAC procedure, one related to small bowel obstruction and a pulmonary embolism for the other. Overall Survival was 19.1 months. Six (14.3%) patients became resectable during treatment and underwent curative intent CRS and HIPEC.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin is safe and feasible in association with systemic chemotherapy for gastric PM. Survival data are encouraging and justify further clinical studies in this indication.

Albumin-based cancer therapeutics for intraperitoneal drug delivery: a review

Albumin is a remarkable carrier protein with multiple cellular receptor and ligand binding sites, which are able to bind and transport numerous endogenous and exogenous compounds. The development of albumin-bound drugs is gaining increased importance in the targeted delivery of cancer therapy. Intraperitoneal (IP) drug delivery represents an attractive strategy for the local treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). PM is characterized by the presence of widespread metastatic tumor nodules on the peritoneum, mostly originating from gastro-intestinal or gynaecological cancers. Albumin as a carrier for chemotherapy holds considerable promise for IP delivery in patients with PM. Data from recent (pre)clinical trials suggest that IP albumin-bound chemotherapy may result in superior efficacy in the treatment of PM compared to standard chemotherapy formulations. Here, we review the evidence on albumin-bound chemotherapy with a focus on IP administration and its efficacy in PM.

Systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): A bidirectional approach for gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis

BACKGROUND

Few patients affected by gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) are offered locoregional treatment, despite several proof-of-efficacy trials. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged in recent years as a promising tool to control peritoneal carcinomatosis. The combination of PIPAC with systemic chemotherapy may offer a greater clinical benefit than standard treatment alone.

METHODS

A single-center cohort of 28 consecutive patients affected by GCPM was scheduled for bidirectional treatment, comprising PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy, from September 2017 to September 2019. Data recorded included safety, efficacy and survival outcomes. Ascite volumes, the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) and pathological response through the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) were compared in those patients who underwent more than one PIPAC procedure.

RESULTS

Forty-six PIPAC procedures were administered, with a mean of 1.7 PIPAC procedures per patient. The median time to resume systemic chemotherapy after PIPAC was 6 days (range 4-7). Concerning safety, two grade 3-4 CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) toxicity events and one intraoperative complication were recorded. Thirteen patients repeated PIPAC. A pathological response was recorded in 61.5% of patients (one with complete and seven with partial regression). The median overall survival was 12.3 months in the overall population and 15.0 months in patients undergoing more than one PIPAC procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

A bidirectional approach for GCPM was feasible and safe, as the PIPAC procedure integrates well with several systemic chemotherapy regimens. The pathological response demonstrated the antitumoral efficacy of PIPAC. The proposed bidirectional approach may be further investigated in the first-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer.

Standardizing training for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a novel mode of intraperitoneal drug delivery for patients with peritoneal cancer (PC). PIPAC is a safe treatment with promising oncological results. Therefore, a structured training program is needed to maintain high standards and to guarantee safe implementation.

METHODS

An international panel of PIPAC experts created by means of a consensus meeting a structured 2-day training course including essential theoretical content and practical exercises. For every module, learning objectives were defined and structured presentations were elaborated. This structured PIPAC training program was then tested in five courses.

RESULTS

The panel consisted of 12 experts from 11 different centres totalling a cumulative experience of 23 PIPAC courses and 1880 PIPAC procedures. The final program was approved by all members of the panel and includes 12 theoretical units (45 min each) and 6 practical units including dry-lab and live surgeries. The panel finalized and approved 21 structured presentations including the latest evidence on PIPAC and covering all mandatory topics. These were organized in 8 modules with clear learning objectives to be tested by 12 multiple-choice questions. Lastly, a structured quantifiable (Likert scale 1-5) course evaluation was created. The new course was successfully tested in five courses with 85 participants. Mean overall satisfaction with the content was rated at 4.79 (±0.5) with at 4.71 (±0.5) and at 4.61 (±0.7), respectively for course length and the balance between theory and practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed PIPAC training program contains essential theoretical background and practical training enabling the participants to safely implement PIPAC.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed treatment of peritoneal metastasis in end-stage colo-rectal cancer patients

Background

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) represents a novel approach to intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Hereby results, obtained with PIPAC in patients with advanced peritoneal metastasis (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC), are presented.

Methods

Data from CRC patients (n = 24) included in the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 trials are reported. Oxaliplatin 92 mg/m² was administered at 4-6-week intervals. A CE certified nebulizer was used to aerosolize the chemotherapeutics. Outcome criteria were objective tumor response, survival and adverse events.

Results

Retrospective analysis of 74 PIPAC procedures carried out in 24 consecutive patients with PM from CRC included from October 2015 to February 2019. Five patients had still the primary tumor in situ, and 22 patients had received palliative systemic chemotherapy. Nineteen patients completed more than two PIPAC procedures, and objective tumor response according to the histological Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) was observed in 67% of the patients, while 21% had stable disease. Four patients (21%) had complete response (mean PRGS = 1 and negative cytology). We recorded a median survival of 37.6 (range 7.3–48.9) months from the time of PM diagnosis, whereas it was 20.5 (range 0.13–34.7) months following the first PIPAC session. Minor postoperative complications were noted, and few were considered causally related to the PIPAC treatment. However, two cases of severe postoperative complications were recorded (urosepsis and iatrogenic bowel perforation).

Conclusions

PIPAC with low-dose oxaliplatin can induce objective tumor regression in selected patients with advanced PM from colorectal cancer.

Next-generation sequencing and histological response assessment in peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with PIPAC

Background

Peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer (PM-PC) may be treated with repeated pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect cancer-related mutations in peritoneal quadrant biopsies (QBs) and peritoneal fluid (PF) after systemic and PIPAC treatment has not been evaluated. Around 90% of pancreatic cancers (PCs) harbour a KRAS mutation, making PC ideal for the evaluation of this aspect.

Aims

Evaluation of PM-PC in terms of (1) histological response to PIPAC using Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), (2) clinical characteristics and (3) frequency of mutations in QBs and PF before and after PIPAC.

Methods

Peritoneal QBs and PF were obtained prior to each PIPAC. NGS for 22 cancer-related genes was performed on primary tumours, QBs and PFs. Response was assessed by the four-tiered PRGS.

Results

Sixteen patients treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures were included. The mean PRGS was reduced from 1.91 to 1.58 (p=0.02). Fifty-seven specimens (13 primary tumours, 2 metastatic lymph nodes, 16 PFs and 26 QB sets) were analysed with NGS. KRAS mutation was found in 14/16 patients (87.50%) and in QBs, primary tumours and PF in 8/12 (66.67%), 8/13 (61.53%) and 6/9 (66.67%). The median overall survival was 9.9 months (SE 1.5, 95% CI 4.9 to 13.9).

Conclusion

PIPAC induces histological response in the majority of patients with PM-PC. KRAS mutation can be found in PM-PC after PIPAC at a frequency similar to the primaries. NGS may be used to detect predictive mutations in PM-PC of various origins, also when only post-PIPAC QBs or PFs are available.

Recent Advances in Intra-peritoneal Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) frequently occurs in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and confers a dismal prognosis despite advances in systemic chemotherapy. While systemic chemotherapy has poor peritoneal penetration, intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy remains sequestered, resulting in high peritoneal drug concentrations with less systemic side-effects. The first application of IP treatment was hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM); but was associated with an increased morbidity and mortality rate without significantly improving overall survival (OS). While CRS confers limited benefit, the potential role of prophylactic HIPEC and laparoscopic neoadjuvant HIPEC are currently being evaluated. Combination systemic and IP chemotherapy (SIPC) gained popularity in the 1990s, since it provided the benefits of IP treatment while reducing surgical morbidity, demonstrating promising early results in multiple Phase II trials. Unfortunately, these findings were not confirmed in the recent PHOENIX-GC randomized controlled trial; therefore, the appropriate treatment for GCPM remains controversial. Small observational studies from Japan and Singapore have reported successful downstaging of PM in GC patients receiving SIPC who subsequently underwent conversion gastrectomy with a median OS of 21.6–34.6 months. Recently, the most significant development in IP-directed therapy is pressurized IP aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Given that aerosol chemotherapy achieves a wider distribution and deeper penetration, the outcomes of multiple ongoing trials assessing its efficacy are eagerly awaited. Indeed, IP-directed therapy has evolved rapidly in the last 3 decades, with an encouraging trend toward improved outcomes in GCPM, and may offer some hope for an otherwise fatal disease.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a review of the introduction of a new surgical technology using the IDEAL framework

BACKGROUND

The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, Long-term study) framework is a scheme of investigation for innovative surgical therapeutic interventions. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure based on laparoscopy to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastases, introduced in 2011. The aim of this article was to review literature on PIPAC and assess whether development of the technique has followed the IDEAL framework.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and Embase was carried out to identify scientific reports on PIPAC published between January 2000 and February 2019. The studies were categorized according to the IDEAL stages.

RESULTS

Eighty-six original research papers on PIPAC were identified. There were 23 stage 0, 18 stage 1, 25 stage 2a and six stage 2b studies. Protocol papers for stage 1, 2b and 3 studies, and trial registrations for stage 2a studies, were also identified. The number of centres publishing reports and the number of publications has increased each year. Overall, there has been progression through the IDEAL stages; however, about 60 per cent of clinical reports published in 2018 were stage 1 Idea-type studies.

CONCLUSION

Since its introduction, studies investigating PIPAC have progressed in line with the IDEAL framework. However, the majority of studies reported recently were stage 0 and 1 studies.

Type I IFN, Ly6C+ cells, and Phagocytes Support Suppression of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Elicited by a TLR and CLR Agonist Combination

Metastatic cancer involving spread to the peritoneal cavity is referred to as peritoneal carcinomatosis and has a very poor prognosis. Our previous study demonstrated a Toll-like receptor and C-type lectin receptor agonist pairing of monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) and trehalose-6,6'-dicorynomycolate (TDCM) effectively inhibits tumor growth and ascites development following TA3-Ha and EL4 challenge through a mechanism dependent on B-1a cell-produced natural IgM and complement. In this study, we investigated additional players in the MPL/TDCM-elicited response. MPL/TDCM treatment rapidly increased type I IFN levels in the peritoneal cavity along with myeloid cell numbers, including macrophages and Ly6C^hi monocytes. Type I IFN receptor (IFNAR1^-/-) mice produced tumor-reactive IgM following MPL/TDCM treatment, but failed to recruit Ly6C⁺ monocytes and were not afforded protection during tumor challenges. Clodronate liposome depletion of phagocytic cells, as well as targeted depletion of Ly6C⁺ cells, also ablated MPL/TDCM-induced protection. Cytotoxic mediators known to be produced by these cells were required for effects. TNFα was required for effective TA3-Ha killing and nitric oxide was required for EL4 killing. Collectively, these data reveal a model whereby MPL/TDCM-elicited antitumor effects strongly depend on innate cell responses, with B-1a cell-produced tumor-reactive IgM and complement pairing with myeloid cell-produced cytotoxic mediators to effectively eradicate tumors in the peritoneal cavity.

Initial experience of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a French hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) expert center

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new intraabdominal technique to approach non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). PIPAC can be performed alone or alternated with systemic chemotherapy to increase tumor regression. We describe our initial experience performed in an expert hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) French center to demonstrate the safety and the feasibility of PIPAC.

METHODS

Between January 2016 and March 2019, PIPAC was proposed to 43 consecutive patients affected by digestive, ovarian, peritoneal and mammary carcinomatosis. Initially PIPAC was proposed to patients non eligible for cytoreductive surgery for palliative purposes. In five patients we associated PIPAC to systemic chemotherapy to improve tumor regression and enhance the chance of patients to undergo HIPEC. Three PIPAC treatments were supposed to be performed for each patient with an interval of 6 weeks in between each procedure. Peritoneal biopsies were always performed to evaluate microscopic tumor regression. In case of postoperative clinical deterioration or quick tumor progression during the cycles, PIPAC was interrupted. Depending on the primary tumor, chemotherapies used were oxaliplatin or a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (60.4%) patients have already had a surgical resection or intervention of primary cancer removal. In 5 patients abdominal access was impossible. Of the 38 patients operated, seventy-one procedures were performed. In the series, one patient died because of tumor progression. Only one major complication occurred intraoperatively. Two of thirteen patients receiving oxaliplatin had postoperative abdominal pain and needed more drugs assumption and a longer hospitalization. Three patients after a three cycles procedure underwent HIPEC. Nine of the patients who had at least two PIPACs had last biopsies showing a major or complete tumor response.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is a safe and feasible procedure that can be performed in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis initially not eligible for surgery to reduce tumor invasion or for palliation to reduce symptoms. Contraindications are bowel obstruction and multiple intraabdominal adhesions.

Peritoneal Metastases in Colorectal Cancer: Biology and Barriers

BACKGROUND

Advances in the molecular biology of tumor metastasis have paralleled the evolution in the management of metastatic disease from colorectal cancer. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of the mechanism of colorectal cancer metastases, in particular that of peritoneal metastases, as well as clinical data on the treatment of this disease.

METHODS

A review of relevant English literature using MEDLINE/PubMed on the biology of colorectal cancer metastases, determinants of oligometastasis, and use of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer is presented.

RESULTS

Recognition of oligometastasis in the evolution of colorectal peritoneal metastases provides the theoretical framework for which cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is considered. Clearly, a subset of patients benefit from peritoneal metastasectomy.

CONCLUSION

Advances in cancer biology and clinical imaging promise to expand the role of cytoreductive surgery with or without intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer.

Bidirectional treatment of peritoneal metastasis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy: a systematic review

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is used in the palliative treatment of peritoneal metastasis. The combination of intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy seems rational, and the aim of this systematic review was to compare PIPAC directed monotherapy with a bidirectional treatment approach (PIPAC in combination with systemic chemotherapy). Main outcomes were survival and quality of life.

Methods

A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the “Pleura and Peritoneum” was conducted and analyzed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English reporting on bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy and published before April 2019 were included.

Results

Twelve studies with a total of 386 patients were included. None were specifically designed to compare mono- versus bidirectional treatment, but 44% of the patients received bidirectional treatment. This was more frequent in women (non-gynecological cancers) and one-third of the bidirectional treated patients had received no prior chemotherapy. Data from the included studies provided no conclusions regarding survival or quality of life.

Conclusion

Bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy is practised and feasible, and some patients are enrolled having received no prior systemic chemotherapy for their PM.

The difficulty in drawing any conclusions based on this systematic review has highlighted the urgent need to improve and standardize reports on PIPAC directed therapy. We have, therefore, constructed a list of items to be considered when reporting on clinical PIPAC research.

Trial registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO. Registration number: 90352, March 5, 2018.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy, a Palliative Treatment Approach for Patients With Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Description of Method and Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases arise in patients with a variety of primary cancers, and are associated with a poor prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment; however, the morbidity is considerable and the survival benefit is modest. Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy is a potentially curative treatment available to a minority of patients; however, most develop recurrent disease. A novel palliative treatment for peritoneal metastases, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, has recently been introduced. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy utilizes an aerosol of chemotherapy in carbon dioxide gas. It is instilled into the abdomen under pressure via laparoscopic ports. No cytoreduction is performed. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy can be repeated at 6-week intervals. Oxaliplatin or cis-platinum and doxorubicin have been used to date.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review and evaluate the method, and the preclinical and early clinical results of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and the Cochrane Library were the data sources for the study.

STUDY SELECTION

Peer-reviewed series of greater than 10 patients, with sufficient patient data, through April 2019, were selected.

INTERVENTION

Patients with peritoneal metastases underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient dropout, histologic tumor response, adverse events, and 30-day mortality were the primary outcomes measured.

RESULTS

A total of 921 patients with peritoneal metastases were brought to the operating room for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. The number of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy treatments administered was as follows: 1 treatment, 862 (94%); 2 treatments, 645 (70%); and 3 treatments, 390 patients (42%). Initial laparoscopic access was not possible in 59 patients (6.4%). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were noted in 13.7% of the patients who, collectively, underwent a total of 2116 treatments. The 30-day mortality was 2.4% (22/921).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the heterogeneity of reported data and primary tumor types and by the lack of long-term survival data.

CONCLUSIONS

Early clinical results are encouraging, but tumor-specific, prospective, randomized trials are needed to compare pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy to systemic chemotherapy. This method has yet to be introduced to the United States. It is another therapeutic option for patients with peritoneal metastases and will broaden the patient base for future clinical trials.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with peritoneal metastasized colorectal, appendiceal and small bowel cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with intestinal cancer (colorectal, appendiceal, and small bowel) with peritoneal metastases (PM) have a poor prognosis. We assessed whether pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) together with systemic chemotherapy is an effective treatment option for these entities in palliative intent.

METHODS

Between November 2015 and February 2018, prospective data registry was performed (NCT03100708). Thirteen patients with intestinal cancer (median age 61 years [range 49-77]) underwent 26 PIPAC procedures with a median number of 2 interventions per patient (range 1-6). A chemoaerosol consisting of cisplatin/doxorubicin was administered during standard laparoscopy.

RESULTS

The median peritoneal carcinomatosis index according to Sugarbaker before the first PIPAC was 14 (range 2-27), and the median ascites volume was 10 mL (range 0-6300 mL). Six patients who received 2 or more PIPAC procedures had decreased and stable ascites volumes, while only 1 patient displayed increased ascites. The median overall survival was 303 days (range 30-490) after the first PIPAC procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC offers a novel treatment option for patients with PM. Our data show that PIPAC is safe and well-tolerated. Ascites production can be controlled by PIPAC in patients with intestinal cancer. Further studies are required to document the significance of PIPAC within palliative therapy concepts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03100708.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with one minute of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC) is feasible, but the histological tumor response in peritoneal metastasis is insufficient

INTRODUCTION

Electrostatic precipitation Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has shown superior penetration depth and tissue uptake compared to standard PIPAC. We investigated the feasibility and objective tumor response to ePIPAC with 1 min of precipitation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with PM from various abdominal cancers were included in an amendment to the ongoing prospective PIPAC-OPC2 trial. Colorectal and appendiceal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with PM from other primaries were treated with a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin. Three ePIPAC procedures were planned in each patient including repeated peritoneal biopsies for response evaluation. After emission to the peritoneal cavity, the aerosolized chemotherapeutics were precipitated for 1 min followed by immediate exsufflation and abdominal closure. Histological regression from the first to the third ePIPAC was evaluated according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and compared to data from the PIPAC-OPC1 trial. Complications and toxicities were recorded according to Dindo-Clavien and CTCAE.

RESULTS

Sixty-five ePIPAC procedures were performed in 33 patients (median 2, range 1-6). Ten patients were eligible for response evaluation based on biopsies from the first and third ePIPAC procedure. Four patients had disease progression, four patients had regressive disease, and two patients had stable disease according to PRGS. No life threatening adverse reactions and no mortality was observed following ePIPAC.

CONCLUSION

One minute ePIPAC was feasible and safe, but the histological tumor response was insufficient compared to standard PIPAC directed therapy with 30 min passive diffusion time.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) might increase the risk of anastomotic leakage compared to HIPEC: an experimental study

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are technics proposed to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, in different settings. There is some concern about an over-risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) with PIPAC jeopardizing a combination with cytoreductive surgery. This study used a healthy swine model to compare the postoperative AL rate between PIPAC and HIPEC with digestive resection and to analyze macrocirculation and microcirculation parameters.

METHODS

Segmental colonic resection with a handsewn anastomosis was performed on 16 healthy pigs; 8 pigs had a PIPAC procedure with 7.5 mg/m² cisplatin (PIPAC group), and 8 pigs had a closed HIPEC procedure with 70 mg/m² cisplatin and 42 °C as the target intraperitoneal temperature (HIPEC group). Pigs were kept alive for 8 days, then sacrificed and autopsied to look for AL, which was defined as local abscess or digestive fluid leakage when pressure was applied to the anastomosis. Food intake, weight, and core temperature were monitored postoperatively. Macrocirculation (heart rate, systolic blood pressure) and microcirculation parameters (percentage of perfused vessels, perfused vessels density, DeBacker score) were evaluated intraoperatively at five timepoints. Results were compared between pigs with AL and those without.

RESULTS

The HIPEC group had no AL, but 3 of 8 pigs (37.5%) had AL in the PIPAC group (p = 0.20). Heart rate and core temperature showed perioperative increases in the HIPEC group. Intraoperatively, heart rate was higher in the HIPEC group at the two last timepoints (123 vs. 93 bpm, p = 0.031, and 110 vs. 85 bpm, p = 0.010, at timepoints 3 and 4, respectively). Other macrocirculatory and microcirculatory parameters showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

In this healthy swine model, PIPAC might have increased AL incidence compared to HIPEC. This potential over-risk did not seem to be related to changes in the microcirculation. PIPAC should probably not be used with digestive resection and should be avoided in cases of perioperative serosal injury.

[Perioperative safety of intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy : Analysis of our first 111 pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) procedures]

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new tool in the treatment of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The aerosol containing chemotherapeutic drugs is administered laparoscopically into the abdominal cavity to achieve a local treatment effect. This can be carried out in combination with systemic chemotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Within the framework of a register study, we prospectively documented and evaluated the data of our first 111 PIPAC procedures. The analysis focused on perioperative patient safety and safety at the workplace. Perioperative clinical patient data were analyzed and the platinum concentration in the operating room was checked by wipe samples.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were scheduled for PIPAC and 121 operations were carried out. In 9 procedures a secure access to the abdomen could not be found and 54 patients received 111 PIPAC treatments. One patient died as a result of intestinal perforation, six bowel lesions were treated immediately and healed without further complications. A further patient developed a postoperative renal failure. Otherwise, there was no major complications and no cases of toxicity.

CONCLUSION

The PIPAC procedure can be used as a supplement to systemic drug treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis. An exact selection of suitable patients is important. The PIPAC is a low-risk procedure when performed under strict inclusion criteria and under standardized conditions, for the patients and also the surgical staff.

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) with oxaliplatin as a palliative monotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a Dutch, multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study (CRC-PIPAC)

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX) is offered as a palliative treatment option for patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in several centres worldwide. However, little is known about its feasibility, safety, tolerability, efficacy, costs and pharmacokinetics in this setting. This study aims to explore these parameters in patients with isolated unresectable colorectal PM who receive repetitive ePIPAC-OX as a palliative monotherapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals for the surgical treatment of colorectal PM. Eligible patients are adults who have histologically or cytologically proven isolated unresectable PM of a colorectal or appendiceal carcinoma, a good performance status, adequate organ functions and no symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction. Instead of standard palliative treatment, enrolled patients receive laparoscopy-controlled ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m² body surface area (BSA)) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m² BSA) and bolus 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m² BSA) every 6 weeks. Four weeks after each procedure, patients undergo clinical, radiological and biochemical evaluation. ePIPAC-OX is repeated until disease progression, after which standard palliative treatment is (re)considered. The primary outcome is the number of patients with major toxicity (grade ≥3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) up to 4 weeks after the last ePIPAC-OX. Secondary outcomes are the environmental safety of ePIPAC-OX, procedure-related characteristics, minor toxicity, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmissions, quality of life, costs, pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, progression-free survival, overall survival, and the radiological, histopathological, cytological, biochemical and macroscopic tumour response.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by an ethics committee, the Dutch competent authority and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and for presentation to patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03246321, Pre-results; ISRCTN89947480, Pre-results; NTR6603, Pre-results; EudraCT: 2017-000927-29, Pre-results.

Occupational safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in an operating room without laminar airflow

AIM OF THE STUDY

The safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is often questioned when newly implemented in an operating room (OR); as it may increase the risk of exposure to cytotoxics for healthcare workers. There are no data on the risk of healthcare exposure in OR without laminar airflow. We aimed to ensure the safety of PIPAC for surgeons and their co-workers for newly implemented procedures in an OR without laminar airflow.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-six samples with cellulosic wipes from surgeons and co-workers' environmental items and 5 specific polytetrafluoroethylene air-filtered collections were randomly performed for the first 2 cisplatin/doxorubicin-based PIPAC procedures in Strasbourg University Hospital. PIPAC was performed according to previously described safety protocol but without a laminar airflow and with an additional plastic cover and smoke evacuation device. Sampling and analyzes were performed by 2 accredited independent certified organizations.

RESULTS

All air measurements were negative for cisplatin and doxorubicin. Only one wipe sample out of 26 was positive for cisplatin (4%) on the outer surgeon's pair of gloves but dosages on the surgeon's inner pair and hands were negative.

CONCLUSION

When performed in approved security conditions, even without laminar airflow, PIPAC might seem harmless for surgeons and their co-workers with very limited risk of exposure to cytotoxics.

NIR-II Fluorescent Self-Assembled Peptide Nanochain for Ultrasensitive Detection of Peritoneal Metastasis

Fluorescence-guided cytoreductive surgery is one of the most promising approaches for facile elimination of tumors in situ, thereby improving prognosis. Reported herein is a simple strategy to construct a novel chainlike NIR-II nanoprobe (APP-Ag₂ S-RGD) by self-assembly of an amphiphilic peptide (APP) into a nanochain with subsequent chemical crosslinking of NIR-II Ag₂ S QDs and the tumor-targeting RGD peptide. This probe exhibits higher capability for cancer cell detection compared with that of RGD-functionalized Ag₂ S QDs (Ag₂ S-RGD) at the same concentration. Upon intraperitoneal injection, superior tumor-to-normal tissue signal ratio is achieved and non-vascularized tiny tumor metastatic foci as small as about 0.2 mm in diameter could be facilely eliminated under NIR-II fluorescent imaging guidance. These results clearly indicate the potential of this probe for fluorescence-guided tumor staging, preoperative diagnosis, and intraoperative navigation.

MESOTIP: Phase II multicenter randomized trial evaluating the association of PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy vs. systemic chemotherapy alone as 1st-line treatment of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma

Background

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare tumoral disease characterized by the diffuse involvement of the peritoneal serosa. The standard frontline treatment of MPM is cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) unless the peritoneal disease is considered unresectable. For unresectable patients the standard frontline treatment is a combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed but the prognosis remains ominous with only 13 months of overall survival (OS).

Methods

The proposed study is a multicenter randomized non-comparative study evaluating the association of Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy vs. systemic chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of MPM. Patients will be randomized with a 2:1 ratio using a minimization technique. Sixty-six patients have to be enrolled. Stratification will be performed according to histology (epithelioid vs. sarcomatoid and biphasic), presence of extraperitoneal disease and center. Primary objective is OS and secondary objectives include progression-free survival (PFS), safety, compliance, feasibility, conversion to resectability, histological response to treatment and quality of life.

Conclusions

We expect to show that intensification of the first line treatment with PIPAC for initially unresectable MPM patients increases OS.

Trial registration

Prospective study. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03574493 EudraCT: 2019–001515-23.

Unresectable peritoneal metastasis treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) leading to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a recent method of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of the patients who became amenable to CRS & HIPEC after PIPAC treatment.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with unresectable PM who became resectable throughout PIPAC treatment were included. Outcome criteria were adverse events following PIPAC procedure and rate of secondary CRS and HIPEC.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty-seven PIPAC were done in 146 consecutive patients. Among them, 26 patients (17.8%) who underwent 76 PIPAC were scheduled for CRS and HIPEC after reduction of the peritoneal burden. PM were from gastric, peritoneal mesothelioma, ovarian, colorectal and small bowel in 13, 7, 4, 1 and 1 patients, respectively. At the time of the first PIPAC, median age was 58.6 years (32-76.3). Median PCI was 16 (1-39). All patients had systemic chemotherapy in between PIPAC session. Median consecutive PIPAC procedure was 3 (1-8). Complications occurred in 3 PIPAC session (4%) and there was no major complication (CTCAE III or higher). Complete CRS and HIPEC was achieved in 21 patients of the 26 scheduled (14.4%). The remaining 5 patients were considered unresectable at the exploratory laparotomy. Among patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC, with median follow-up of 7 (1-26) months, 14 patients (66.7%) were alive without recurrence, 2 patients (9.5%) were alive with recurrence and 5 patients (23.8%) died.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete CRS and HIPEC can be achieved in strictly selected patient with unresectable PM at diagnosis after repeated PIPAC session with palliative intent.

Safety and preliminary efficacy of electrostatic precipitation during pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for unresectable carcinomatosis

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was recently introduced to treat unresectable peritoneal metastases. Adding an electrostatic field may enhance charged droplet precipitation and tissue penetration, resulting in improved anticancer efficacy. We report for the first time its safety and preliminary efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients underwent PIPAC combined with an electrostatic field, using the Ultravision™ apparatus. Adverse events were scored with the Common Terminology Criteria. Treatment response was assessed after more than one PIPAC, using clinical symptoms, tumor markers, CT imaging and histological regression.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (median age, 61 y) with diverse primary tumors underwent 135 procedures (median per patient, 3). Most (65.2%) were treated as outpatient. Twenty-eight (58.3%) patients received concomitant chemotherapy. The most frequent treatment-related toxicities were anemia (grade 1 to 3, 13 [9.6%]), ileus (grade 1 to 3, 5 [3.7%]), anorexia (grade 1 to 3, 6 [4.4%]), nausea (grade 1 to 3, 5 [3.7%]) and vomiting (grade 1 to 3, 7 [5.2%]). There was no grade 4 or 5 morbidity. Twenty (41.7%) patients did not complete three treatments, mainly because of disease progression (n = 13). After two procedures, there were one responder and 8 non-responders. After three treatments, we observed 11 responders, two patients with stable disease, and 15 non-responders. All but one patient with therapy response received simultaneous chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Electrostatic precipitation during PIPAC is well tolerated and safe. After three procedures and concomitant chemotherapy, response or stable disease is achieved in approximately half of cases. These findings warrant prospective trials in homogeneous patient cohorts.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis: a phase II study

Background:

Efficacy of second-line systemic chemotherapy in recurrent gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (RGCPM) is limited. We assessed the feasibility, safety and possible efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with RGCPM after ⩾1 line of palliative intravenous chemotherapy.

Methods:

In this open-label, single-arm, monocentric phase II ICH-GCP clinical trial, patients were scheduled for three courses of PIPAC with cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² (PIPAC C/D) every 6 weeks. Patients with bowel obstruction or extraperitoneal metastasis were ineligible. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors based on clinical records. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), median time to progression (TTP), peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI), histological regression and ascites volume. Safety and tolerability were assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4, quality of life (QoL) by EORTC-QLQ30 questionnaire.

Results:

A total of 25 patients were enrolled and available for the analysis of the primary endpoint. Of those 25 patients, 10 (40%) had a radiological complete, partial response or stable disease. Median OS [intention to treat (ITT)] was 6.7 months, median TTP was 2.7 months. Complete or major regression on histology were observed in 9/25 patients (36%, ITT) or 6/6 [100%, per protocol (PP)] patients. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions, no treatment-related deaths, no CTCAE grade 4 toxicity and three (12%) grade 3 toxicities. Changes in the QLQ-C30 scores during PIPAC C/D therapy were small and not significant.

Conclusions:

PIPAC C/D was well tolerated and active in patients with RGCPM. Survival was encouraging. Randomized controlled trials should now be designed in this indication.

Oxaliplatin use in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is safe and effective: A multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new drug delivery method used in patients with peritoneal cancer (PC) of primary or secondary origin. Intraperitoneal use of oxaliplatin raises concerns about toxicity, especially abdominal pain. The objective of this study was to assess the tolerance of PIPAC with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-Ox) in a large cohort of patients and to identify the risk factors for high grade toxicity, discontinuation of treatment and impaired survival.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with PIPAC-Ox (92 mg/m²) in five centers specialized in the treatment of PC. The procedure was repeated every 6 weeks. Outcomes of interest were Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), symptoms and survival (Kaplan-Meier). Univariate risk factors were included in a multinominal regression model to control for bias.

RESULTS

Overall, 251 PIPAC-Ox treatments were performed in 101 patients (45 female) having unresectable PC of various origins: 66 colorectal, 15 gastric, 5 ovarian, 3 mesothelioma, 2 pseudomyxoma, 10 other malignancies (biliary, pancreatic, endocrine) respectively. The median PCI was 19 (IQR: 10-28). Postoperative abdominal pain was present in 23 patients. Out of the 9 patients with grade 3 abdominal pain, only 3 needed a change of PIPAC drug. CTCAE 4.0 toxicity grade 4 or higher was encountered in 16(15.9%) patients. The patients had a mean of 2.5 procedures/patient (SD = 1.5). 50 subjects presented with symptom improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxaliplatin-based PIPAC appears to be a safe treatment that offers good symptom control and promising survival for patients with advanced peritoneal disease.

Establishment of a rat ovarian peritoneal metastasis model to study pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), with or without electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC), was recently introduced in the treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM) from ovarian cancer (OC). Preliminary clinical data are promising, but several methodological issues as well the anticancer efficacy of PIPAC remain unaddressed. Here, we propose a rat ePIPAC model that allows to study these issues in a clinically relevant, reproducible, and high throughput model.

METHODS

laparoscopy and PIPAC were established in healthy Wistar rats. Aerosol properties were measured using laser diffraction spectrometry based granulometric analyses. Electrostatic precipitation was accomplished using a commercially available generator (Ultravision™). A xenograft model of ovarian PM was created in athymic rats using intraperitoneal (IP) injection of SKOV-3 luciferase positive cells. Tumor growth was monitored weekly by in vivo bioluminescence imaging.

RESULTS

PIPAC and electrostatic precipitation were well tolerated using a capnoperitoneum of 8 mmHg. All rats survived the (e)PIPAC procedure and no gas or aerosol leakage was observed over the entire procedure. With an injection pressure of 20 bar, granulometry showed a mean droplet diameter (D(v,0.5)) of 47 μm with a flow rate of 0.5 mL/s, and a significantly lower diameter (30 μm) when a flow rate of 0.8 mL/s was used. Experiments using IP injection of SKOV-3 luciferase positive cells showed that after IP injection of 20 × 10⁶ cells, miliary PM was observed in all animals. PIPAC was feasible and well supported in these tumor bearing animals.

CONCLUSIONS

we propose a reproducible and efficient rodent model to study PIPAC and ePIPAC in OC xenografts with widespread PM. This model allows to characterize and optimize pharmacokinetic and biophysical parameters, and to evaluate the anti-cancer efficacy of (e)PIPAC treatment.