Intraperitoneal chemotherapy of peritoneal carcinomatosis using pressurized aerosol as an alternative to liquid solution: first evidence for efficacy

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.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

The benefit of repetitive PIPAC specifically in CPM patients has yet to be demonstrated in terms of oncological and functional outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with non-resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of a prospective single-center database of all CPM patients who underwent PIPAC with oxaliplatin 92 mg/m² body surface (PIPAC-Ox). The outcome criteria were adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0), Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), and survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 patients with a median age of 64 years (33-88) were scheduled for PIPAC-Ox. Access to the abdominal cavity for the first application failed in 22/102 (21.6%) patients. A total of 185 PIPACs were performed, with 26/102 (25.5%), 20/102 (19.6%), 17/102 (16.7%), and 17/102 (16.7%) patients undergoing one, two, three, and four or more PIPACs, respectively. Perioperative overall morbidity/mortality Grade I-V occurred in 14 (7.6%), 29 (15.8%), 6 (3.2%), 1 (0.5%), and 1 (0.5%) patient without significant differences between each cycle. Of 27 patients who underwent three or more PIPACs, 20/102 (19.6%) had major/complete CPM regression (PRGS 1-2). In a multivariate analysis, independent predictive factors for > 12 months' survival following the first PIPAC-Ox administration were three or more PIPACs (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-15.2; p = 0.014) and younger patient age (OR 1.058, 95% CI 1.00-1.12; p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive PIPAC-Ox for CPM patients, alone or combined with perioperative systemic chemotherapy, is feasible. Our data suggest that three or more consecutive PIPAC-Ox cycles for advanced CPM can improve survival.

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.

Technique of pressurized intrathoracic aerosol chemotherapy (PITAC) for malignant pleural effusion

Objectives

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a devastating evolution of several malignancies. Pressurized intrathoracic aerosol chemotherapy (PITAC) might be a novel therapy option in MPE.

Methods

PITAC is considered for patients with MPE with a performance status <2 and without other metastatic sites. General anesthesia is administered and a double-lumen bronchial tube is inserted. The patient is placed in a lateral decubitus position, and the operation is performed after ipsilateral lung exclusion. Two 12-mm balloon trocars are inserted—one in the seventh intercostal space in the mid-axillary line and one in the fifth intercostal space in the anterior axillary line. Extent of pleural disease and volume of MPE are documented. MPE is removed and parietal pleural biopsy are performed. An intrathoracic pressure of 12 mmHg CO₂ is established, and a combination of Cisplatin (10.5 mg/m² in a total volume of 150 cc NaCl 0.9%) and Doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m² in a total volume of 50 cc NaCl 0.9%) are aerosolized via nebulizer in the pleural cavity. Vital signs and nebulization are remote-controlled. After 30 min, the remaining toxic aerosol is exhausted using a closed surgical smoke evacuation system. A 24Fr chest tube is inserted in postero-apical position with continuous negative pressure of 20 cm H₂O. When needed, PITAC may be repeated every six weeks in alternate with systemic chemotherapy.

Results

In our hands, the technique above has shown to be feasible and safe.

Conclusions

Further studies are needed to assess the potential symptomatic and oncological benefits of PITAC in MPE.

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.

A phase I dose-escalation study of oxaliplatin delivered via a laparoscopic approach using pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for advanced peritoneal metastases of gastrointestinal tract cancers

OBJECTIVE

The objectives were to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety profile and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin delivered by pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal tract cancers.

METHODS

PIPAC was applied every 4-6 weeks, for 5 cycles, in a phase I dose-escalation study using a 3 + 3 design. The first dose level was 90 mg/m² with planned increases of 50 mg/m² per level. Platinum concentration was measured in plasma, tissues and intraperitoneal fluid samples. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03294252).

RESULTS

Ten patients with 33 PIPAC sessions were included. No dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at 90 mg/m² and two at 140 mg/m². The MTD was therefore set at 90 mg/m². Overall treatment included a median number of three PIPAC sessions (range: 1-5) and secondary complete cytoreductive surgery for two patients. Overall safety showed 67 grade I-II and 11 grade III-IV toxicities, usually haematologic, digestive (nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain), and fatigue. Oxaliplatin concentrations were three- to four-fold higher in tissue in contact with aerosol than in muscle without contact. At 140 mg/m², the plasma oxaliplatin concentration was high with Cmax and area under the curve (AUC)_0-48h of 1035 μg/l and 9028 μg h/L, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The MTD of oxaliplatin during PIPAC is 90 mg/m². PK data demonstrate a high tumour concentration and a significant systemic absorption.

PIPAC versus HIPEC: cisplatin spatial distribution and diffusion in a swine model

Purpose: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel approach for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy and offers perspective in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Concept is based on a 12 mmHg capnoperitoneum loaded with drug changed in microdoplets. It was postulated to guarantee a more homogeneous drug distribution and tissular uptake than hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The aim of this study was to compare cisplatin peritoneal distribution and pharmacokinetic between HIPEC and PIPAC procedures in a healthy swine model.Methods: Two groups of eight pigs underwent either HIPEC with cisplatin (70 mg/m²) at 43 °C for 60 min, or PIPAC with cisplatin (7.5 mg/m²) for 30 min. Postoperatively, peritoneal areas were biopsied allowing peritoneal cavity cartography. Tissular and plasmatic cisplatin concentrations were analyzed.Results: Cisplatin distribution was heterogeneous in both the groups with higher concentrations obtained closed to the delivery sites. Median total platinum peritoneal concentration by pig was higher in the HIPEC group than in the PIPAC group (18.0 μg/g versus 4.3 μg/g, p < .001) but the yield was 2.2 times better with PIPAC. Platinum concentrations were higher in the HIPEC group in all stations. At each time-point, cisplatin plasmatic concentrations were higher in the HIPEC group (p < .001) but beneath the toxicity threshold.Conclusions: With doses used in clinical practice, HIPEC guaranteed a higher cisplatin peritoneal uptake than PIPAC in this swine model. Spatial drug distribution was heterogeneous with both technics, with hotspots closed to the drug delivery sites. Nevertheless, considering the dose ratio, IP drug uptake yield was better with PIPAC.

Prognostic impact of combined progression index based on peritoneal grading regression score and peritoneal cytology in peritoneal metastasis

AIMS

The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) and peritoneal cytology (PC) assess response to chemotherapy in peritoneal metastasis (PM) in a setting of palliative treatment by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Progression has been defined as an increase of PRGS between first and third PIPAC procedures (iPRGS). iPRGSand positive peritoneal cytology were not associated with prognostic impact. These results may be explained by a lack of statistical power. Also, it is not known whether the mean or the highest PRGS among taken peritoneal biopsies bears the highest clinical value. We therefore conducted the largest prospective study to investigate the prognostic impact of PGRS, PC, and their combination, designated as combined progression index (CPI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with PM who underwent >3 PIPAC (n = 112) between December 2016 and February 2019 were prospectively included. A significant difference in OS and PFS according to CPI (used highest value of PRGS) was found (OS: CPI-, 83.3, 95% CI [49.8; NA] vs. CPI+, 48.1, 95% CI [38.5; 66.4] months; and PFS (respectively, 59.7, 95% CI [43.0; 96.0] vs. 33.7, 95% CI [30.4; 44.2] months). PRGS or PC had no independent prognostic impact. CPI+ was an independent predictor of worse prognosis, in OS (HR = 5.24, 95% CI [2.07; 13.26]), and PFS (HR = 4.41, 95% CI [1.40; 13.88]).

CONCLUSIONS

The CPI based on highest PRGS and PC was found to be independently associated with a worse prognosis for OS and for PFS in the setting of peritoneal metastasis. These results indicate that it should be of interest to systematically take peritoneal fluid for cytological examination and to implement the CPI in the therapeutic decision-making process in the context of PIPAC.

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.

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.

A phase I study of intraperitoneal paclitaxel combined with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for pancreatic cancer with peritoneal metastasis

PURPOSE

A phase I study of intraperitoneal paclitaxel (ip PTX) combined with gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) (GnP) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose (RD) in pancreatic cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis in first-line setting.

METHODS

Based on the 3 + 3 dose-escalation model, ip PTX, GEM and nab-PTX were administered at doses of 20 or 30 mg/m², 800 or 1000 mg/m² and 100 or 125 mg/m² (level 1, 2 and 3, respectively) on days 1, 8 and 15 in 4-week cycles. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) defined as severe adverse events was evaluated during the first cycle of the treatment. Safety and preliminary efficacy were also investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 12 patients were enrolled. While 2 of the first 6 patients enrolled at level 1 experienced DLTs (grade 3 ip port dysfunction and grade 3 pneumonia), no DLT was observed in the next 6 patients enrolled at level 2 and 3. Therefore, we did not reach the MTD and the RD was determined to be level 3 (ip PTX of 30 mg/m², GEM of 1000 mg/m², and nab-PTX of 125 mg/m²). The major grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (58%), anemia (33%), and ip port dysfunction (25%). The response rate was 25% and the median PFS was 5.4 (95% confidence interval; 2.4-16.0). The cytological status in peritoneal lavage turned negative in 8 patients (67%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ip PTX combined with GnP was feasible and potentially effective in pancreatic cancer with peritoneal metastasis as a first-line treatment deserved further evaluations.

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.

Restricted access to innovative surgical technique related to a specific training, is it ethical? Example of the PIPAC procedure. A systematic review and an experts survey

OBJECTIVE

Using the example of Pressurized Intra Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), we analyse the development model of this procedure and provide an ethical analysis of the involvement of the industry in a new development.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In the case of breakthrough innovation, medical training is essential for safe use of the new procedure. In some cases, pharmaceutical companies decide to organise this training. But when it becomes the only training opportunity to use the device, scientists and clinicians could be exposed to a conflict of interest?

METHODS

We performed a literature review of PIPAC publications using the STROBE criteria. Then, we conducted interviews with an expert panel to analyse the ethical impact of involvement of the industry in the development of the PIPAC procedure.

RESULTS

The number of publications has increased every year since the first publication in Germany, where the technology was developed in 2013. The scientific production was of good quality, with a mean STROBE score of 18.2 ± 2.4 out of 22 points. Ten of the 33 included studies declared a conflict of interest. From the interviews, the main axe concerning the implication of the industry was the training model. The company had decided that only trained and approval surgeon could perform the PIPAC procedure. All four interviewed practitioners agreed that it was initially a good way to implement the procedure safely, but later they felt uncomfortable about the control and validation by the industry.

CONCLUSION

Based on the growing number of published papers from a growing number of international centres, the controlled training model is not limiting. However, the different levels of conflict of interest complicate transparency, and we postulated that this development model is limited to the beginning of the procedure diffusion. CLINICALTRIAL.

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT04341337.

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.

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.

A Pilot Study of the Predictive Potential of Chemosensitivity and Gene Expression Assays Using Circulating Tumour Cells from Patients with Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) from liquid biopsies are under current investigation in several cancers, including epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) but face significant drawbacks in terms of non-standardised methodology, low viable cell numbers and accuracy of CTC identification. In this pilot study, we report that chemosensitivity assays using liquid biopsy-derived metastatic EOC CTCs, from 10 patients, nine with stage IIIC and one with stage IV disease, in progression after systemic chemotherapy, submitted for hypoxic isolated abdominal perfusion (HAP), are both feasible and useful in predicting response to therapy. Viable metastatic EOC CTCs (>5 cells/mL for all 10 blood samples), enriched by transient culture and identified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and indirect immunofluorescence (IF), were subjected to flow cytometry-based Annexin V-PE assays for chemosensitivity to several chemotherapeutic agents and by RT-PCR for tumour gene expression profiling. Using a cut-off value of >80% cell death, CTC chemosensitivity tests were predictive of patient RECIST 1.1 responses to HAP therapy associated with 100% sensitivity, 50% specificity, 33% positive predictive, 100% negative predictive and 60% accuracy values. We propose that the methodology employed in this study is feasible and has the potential to predict response to therapy, setting the stage for a larger study.

Synergy between Intraperitoneal Aerosolization (PIPAC) and Cancer Nanomedicine: Cisplatin-Loaded Polyarginine-Hyaluronic Acid Nanocarriers Efficiently Eradicate Peritoneal Metastasis of Advanced Human Ovarian Cancer

Intra-abdominal dissemination of peritoneal nodules, a condition known as peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), is typically diagnosed in ovarian cancer patients at the advanced stages. The current treatment of PC consists of perioperative systemic chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery, followed by intra-abdominal flushing with solutions of chemotherapeutics such as cisplatin and oxaliplatin. In this study, we developed cisplatin-loaded polyarginine-hyaluronic acid nanoscale particles (Cis-pARG-HA NPs) with high colloidal stability, marked drug loading efficiency, unimpaired biological activity, and tumor-targeting ability. Injected Cis-pARG-HA NPs showed enhanced antitumor activity in a rat model of PC, compared to injection of the free cisplatin drug. The activity of Cis-pARG-HA NPs could even be further improved when administered by an intra-abdominal aerosol therapy, referred to as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). PIPAC is hypothesized to ensure a more homogeneous drug distribution together with a deeper drug penetration into peritoneal tumor nodules within the abdominal cavity. Using fluorescent pARG-HA NPs, this enhanced nanoparticle deposit on tumors could indeed be observed in regions opposite the aerosolization nozzle. Therefore, this study demonstrates that nanoparticles carrying chemotherapeutics can be synergistically combined with the PIPAC technique for IP therapy of disseminated advanced ovarian tumors, while this synergistic effect was not observed for the administration of free cisplatin.

Systemic Pharmacokinetics of Oxaliplatin After Intraperitoneal Administration by Electrostatic Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) in Patients with Unresectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases in the CRC-PIPAC Trial

BACKGROUND

Electrostatic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) is a palliative treatment for unresectable peritoneal metastases from various primary cancers. However, little is known about the systemic pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin after ePIPAC.

METHODS

Twenty patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases were treated with repetitive ePIPAC monotherapy with oxaliplatin (92 mg/m²) and a simultaneous intravenous bolus of leucovorin (20 mg/m²) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m²). Samples were collected during each ePIPAC: whole blood at t = 0, t = 5, t = 10, t = 20, t = 30, t = 60, t = 120, t = 240, t = 360 and t = 1080 min for plasma and plasma ultrafiltrate concentrations; urine at t = 0, t = 1, t = 3, t = 5 and t = 7 days. Samples were analyzed using atomic absorption spectrometry. Pharmacokinetics were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.

RESULTS

Four patients received one ePIPAC, three patients received two ePIPAC, and thirteen patients received ≥ 3 ePIPAC. The population pharmacokinetic models adequately described the pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin after ePIPAC. The plasma ultrafiltrate C_max of oxaliplatin reached 1.36-1.90 µg/mL after 30 min with an AUC_{0-24 h} of 9.6-11.7 µg/mL * h. The plasma C_max reached 2.67-3.28 µg/mL after 90 min with an AUC_{0-24 h} of 49.0-59.5 µg/mL * h. The absorption rate constant (Ka) was 1.13/h. Urine concentrations of oxaliplatin rapidly decreased to less than 3.60 µg/mL in 90% of the samples at day 7.

DISCUSSION

Systemic exposure to oxaliplatin after ePIPAC seemed comparable to that after systemic chemotherapy, as described in other literature. Since this is an indirect comparison, future research should focus on the direct comparison between the systemic exposure to oxaliplatin after ePIPAC and after systemic chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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.

COVID-19: impact on colorectal surgery

AIM

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for the medical and surgical healthcare systems. With the ongoing need for urgent and emergency colorectal surgery, including surgery for colorectal cancer, several questions pertaining to operating room (OR) utilization and techniques needed to be rapidly addressed.

METHOD

This manuscript discusses knowledge related to the critical considerations of patient and caregiver safety relating to personal protective equipment (PPE) and the operating room environment.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, additional personal protective equipment (PPE) may be required contingent upon local availability of COVID-19 testing and the incidence of known COVID-19 infection in the respective community. In addition to standard COVID-19 PPE precautions, a negative-pressure environment, including an OR, has been recommended, especially for the performance of aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). Hospital spaces ranging from patient wards to ORs to endoscopy rooms have been successfully converted from standard positive-pressure to negative-pressure spaces. Another important consideration is the method of surgical access; specifically, minimally invasive surgery with pneumoperitoneum is an AGP and thus must be carefully considered. Current debate centres around whether it should be avoided in patients known to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or whether it can be performed under precautions with safety measures in place to minimize exposure to aerosolized virus particles. Several important lessons learned from pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy procedures are demonstrated to help improve our understanding and management.

CONCLUSION

This paper evaluates the issues surrounding these challenges including the OR environment and AGPs which are germane to surgical practices around the world. Although there is no single universally agreed upon set of answers, we have presented what we think is a balanced cogent description of logical safe approaches to colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Evaluation of Enhanced Recovery After Following a Surgical Protocol for Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

Introduction:

Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS ± HIPEC) has positive effects on the survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) due to intra-abdominal tumors. Currently, the available literature on the safety of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for PC, which is associated with severe morbidity and mortality, is insufficient.

Aim:

This study aimed to present our results from treating patients using the ERAS protocol for PC that developed due to intra-abdominal tumors.

Material and Methods:

The data of 120 consecutive patients with PC due to different etiologies of abdominal origin and who underwent CRS ± HIPEC were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the ERAS protocol was applied. Information on demographics, length of hospital stay, cost, morbidity, and mortality was statistically compared between groups.

Results:

A total of 102 patients were included in the study. The first 40 patients did not undergo the ERAS protocol, whereas 62 patients did undergo the protocol. The mean length of hospital stay was 10 days in the non-ERAS group and 7 days in the ERAS group. The ERAS group was observed to have earlier mobilization, earlier gas and stool release, lower oral intake, and fewer respiratory problems than the non-ERAS group.

Conclusion:

CRS ± HIPEC has a positive effect on survival. The simultaneous application of the ERAS protocol with the aforementioned procedure has positive effects on intestinal motility and postoperative outcomes. In addition, this protocol may reduce costs by shortening the length of hospital stay.

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.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) with Oxaliplatin, Cisplatin, and Doxorubicin in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase II Clinical Trial

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative approach for treating peritoneal carcinomatosis that applies chemotherapeutic drugs into the peritoneal cavity as an under-pressure airflow. It improves local bioavailability of cytostatic drugs as compared to conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The aim of this study is to prove feasibility, efficacy and safety of this new treatment. Patients included in the analysis underwent at least two single port PIPAC procedures; drugs used were Oxaliplatin for colorectal cancers and Cisplatin + Doxorubicin for ovarian, gastric, and primary peritoneal cancers. The primary endpoint was the Disease Control Rate according to the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. Secondary significant endpoints were overall and progression free survival, tumor regression on histology, and quality of life. Safety and tolerability were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4. Sixty-three patients were enrolled in this trial. Forty patients (100 PIPAC) were eligible for analysis. Twenty patients were undergoing systemic chemotherapy. Fourteen patients reported an objective response (35%). Median overall survival was 18.1 months; median progression-free survival was 7.4 months. Minor morbidity was observed in seven procedures. Grade 3 complications occurred in two patients, and grade 4 in one patient submitted to reoperation. Single-port PIPAC is feasible, safe, and easy to perform. The combined treatment based on systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC does not induce significant hepatic and renal toxicity and can be considered a valid therapeutic option in patients with advanced peritoneal disease. Further studies on the use of PIPAC alone, possibly with different drug dosages, may define the real effectiveness of the procedure.

Comparison between microcatheter and nebulizer for generating Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Background

This study compares an endoscopic microcatheter and a nebulizer for delivering Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Methods

This is an in vitro and ex vivo study in an established model (inverted bovine urinary bladder). Four parameters were compared to determine the performance of a micro-perforated endoscopic spray catheter vs. state-of-the art, nozzle technology: (1) surface coverage and pattern with methylene blue on blotting paper at three different distances; (2) median aerodynamic diameter (MAD) of aerosol droplets with three different solutions (H₂O, Glc 5% and silicon oil); (3) depth of tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) and (4) tissue concentration of cisplatin (CIS) and DOX using standard clinical solutions.

Results

The spray area covered by the microcatheter was larger (p < 0.001) but its pattern was inhomogenous than with the nozzle technology. We found that aerosol droplets were larger in the test group than in the control group for all three solutions tested. Median tissue penetration of DOX was lower (980 µm) with the microcatheter than with the nebulizer (1235 µm) and distribution was more heterogeneous ( = 0.003) with the microcatheter. The median tissue concentration of DOX and CIS was lower and concentration of DOX was more heterogeneous with the microcatheter (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

This investigation has revealed that microcatheter technology generates larger aerosol droplet size, less drug tissue penetration and lower drug tissue concentration than the current nozzle technology. In the absence of clinical studies, use of microcatheters for delivering PIPAC can not be recommended at this stage.

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.

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastases: an expert opinion

Introduction: The rationale for intraperitoneal (IP) drug delivery for patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) is based on the pharmacokinetic advantage resulting from the peritoneal-plasma barrier, and on the potential to adequately treat small, poorly vascularized PM. Despite a history of more than three decades, many aspects of IP drug delivery remain poorly studied.Areas covered: We outline the anatomy and physiology of the peritoneal cavity, including the pharmacokinetics of IP drug delivery. We discuss transport mechanisms governing tissue penetration of IP chemotherapy, and how these are affected by the biomechanical properties of the tumor stroma. We provide an overview of the current clinical evidence on IP chemotherapy in ovarian, colorectal, and gastric cancer. We discuss the current limitations of IP drug delivery and propose several potential areas of progress.Expert opinion: The potential of IP drug delivery is hampered by off-label use of drugs developed for systemic therapy. The efficacy of IP chemotherapy for PM depends on cancer type, disease extent, and mode of drug delivery. Results from ongoing randomized trials will allow to better delineate the potential of IP chemotherapy. Promising approaches include IP aerosol therapy, prolonged delivery platforms such as gels or biomaterials, and the use of nanomedicine.

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.

Evaluation of a Novel Prototype for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been suggested as an alternative option for treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Even with its clinical advantages, the current PIPAC system still suffers from limitations regarding drug distribution area and penetration depth. Thus, we evaluated the new PIPAC system using a novel prototype, and compared its performance to the results from previous studies related with the current MIP^® indirectly because the system is currently not available for purchase in the market. The developed prototype includes a syringe pump, a nozzle, and controllers. Drug distribution was conducted using a methylene blue solution for performance test. For penetration depth evaluation, an ex-vivo experiment was performed with porcine tissues in a 3.5 L plastic box. Doxorubicin was sprayed using the novel prototype, and its penetration depth was investigated by confocal laser scanning microscopy. The experiment was repeated with varying nozzle levels from the bottom. The novel prototype sprays approximately 30 μm drug droplets at a flow rate of 30 mL/min with 7 bars of pressure. The average diameter of sprayed region with concentrated dye was 18.5 ± 1.2 cm, which was comparable to that of the current MIP^® (about 10 cm). The depth of concentrated diffusion (DCD) did not differ among varying nozzle levels, whereas the depth of maximal diffusion (DMD) decreased with increasing distance between the prototype and the bottom (mean values, 515.3 μm at 2 cm; 437.6 μm at 4 cm; 363.2 μm at 8 cm), which was comparable to those of the current MIP^® (about 350–500 μm). We developed a novel prototype that generate small droplets for drug aerosolization and that have a comparably wide sprayed area and depth of penetration to the current MIP^® at a lower pressure.

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) of peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer: a descriptive cohort study

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) represents a novel approach to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We report our experience with PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC). Data from GC patients (n = 20) included in the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies are reported. All patients had received prior systemic chemotherapy. The mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 10.5 (range 0-39) and nine patients had diffuse GC. PIPAC with cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² were administered at 4-6-week intervals. Outcome criteria were objective tumour response, survival and adverse events. Twenty patients had 52 PIPAC procedures with a median follow-up of 10.4 months (3.3-26.5). Median survival from the time of PM diagnosis and after the first PIPAC procedure was 11.5 months and 4.7 months, respectively. Fourteen patients had repeated PIPAC (> 2), and the objective tumour response according to the histological peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) was observed in 36%, whereas 36% had stable disease. Ten patients completed the three prescheduled sessions (per protocol group) and 40% of those displayed an objective tumour response, while 20% had stable disease. Only minor postoperative complications were noted, and none were considered causally related to the PIPAC treatment. PIPAC with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin can induce a quantifiable objective tumour response in selected patients with PM from GC. Survival data are encouraging and warrant further clinical studies.

Overcoming Drug Resistance by Taking Advantage of Physical Principles: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Theoretical considerations as well as comprehensive preclinical and clinical data suggest that optimizing physical parameters of intraperitoneal drug delivery might help to circumvent initial or acquired resistance of peritoneal metastasis (PM) to chemotherapy. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel minimally invasive drug delivery system systematically addressing the current limitations of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The rationale behind PIPAC is: (1) optimizing homogeneity of drug distribution by applying an aerosol rather than a liquid solution; (2) applying increased intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure to counteract elevated intratumoral interstitial fluid pressure; (3) limiting blood outflow during drug application; (4) steering environmental parameters (temperature, pH, electrostatic charge etc.) in the peritoneal cavity for best tissue target effect. In addition, PIPAC allows repeated application and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing biopsies between chemotherapy cycles. Although incompletely understood, the reasons that allow PIPAC to overcome established chemoresistance are probably linked to local dose intensification. All pharmacological data published so far show a superior therapeutic ratio (tissue concentration/dose applied) of PIPAC vs. systemic administration, of PIPAC vs. intraperitoneal liquid chemotherapy, of PIPAC vs. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) or PIPAC vs. laparoscopic HIPEC. In the initial introduction phase, PIPAC has been used in patients who were quite ill and had already failed multiple treatment regimes, but it may not be limited to that group of patients in the future. Rapid diffusion of PIPAC in clinical practice worldwide supports its potential to become a game changer in the treatment of chemoresistant isolated PM of various origins.

Release of doxorubicin from its liposomal coating via high intensity ultrasound

The present ex vivo study was performed to analyze the impact of high intensity ultrasound (HIUS) on penetration depth and particle stability of liposomal doxorubicin (LD) on the peritoneal surface. Fresh post mortem swine peritoneum was cut into proportional sections and subjected to a previously established ex vivo model of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Samples were treated with 50 ml NaCl (0.9%) containing 3 mg LD via PIPAC or lavage. In both groups, half of the samples received additional HIUS treatment. Samples treated via PIPAC were covered with a 30-mm-thick abdominal muscle wall tissue, fatty tissue and skin, followed by transcutaneous HIUS. Samples administered with LD via lavage received close-range contact HIUS. Doxorubicin tissue penetration was measured using fluorescence microscopy on frozen sections. Liposomal integrity on peritoneal surfaces was measured via electron microscopy (EM). Mean penetration rates of doxorubicin were significantly higher with HIUS in combination with PIPAC or lavage compared with PIPAC alone (P<0.001) or lavage alone (P<0.00001). LD was not detected on the peritoneal surface via EM analysis in either group following HIUS. The present data suggested that HIUS may be a feasible application that can facilitate the release of doxorubicin from its liposomal envelope. HIUS was effective in both close-range, in contact with the samples, and through the abdominal wall. The present approach may be used in the future for both endoscopic and open lavage of the peritoneal cavity with LD in intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic applications such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy or PIPAC.

The use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric malignancies

Introduction: Gastric cancer is the fourth/fifth most common malignancy worldwide, with only a quarter of patients achieving a 5-year survival rate. It has been estimated that 15-50% or more of patients have peritoneal disease upon surgical exploration. Until the early 1990s, peritoneal metastasis was considered as terminal stage of the disease; in the late 1990s, selected patients with peritoneal metastasis were recategorized as local disease. Over the past two decades, the treatment of peritoneal involvement has transformed, and cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal therapy have drastically altered the natural course of several malignancies. Areas covered: We performed a review of studies available on PubMed from 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2019 and the analysis of their reference citations. We describe the most current intraperitoneal chemotherapy opportunities in the treatment of gastric cancer: hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (LHIPEC), neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), LHIPEC + NIPS, extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL), early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Expert opinion: Comprehensive treatment consisting of CRS combined with perioperative intraperitoneal/systemic chemotherapy can, today, be considered an effective strategy to improve the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis.

A real-time ex vivo model (eIBUB) for optimizing intraperitoneal drug delivery as an alternative to living animal models

BACKGROUND

Optimization of intraperitoneal drug delivery systems requires functional models. We proposed the Inverted Bovine Urinary Bladder Model (IBUB), but IBUB does not allow repeated measurements over time and there is a significant biological variability between organs.

METHODS

A further development of IBUB is presented, based on the physical principle of communicating vessels. Fresh bovine bladders were inverted so that the peritoneum lines up the inner surface. The IBUB and a second vessel were then interconnected under the same CO2 pressure and placed on two scales. The therapeutic solution (Doxorubicin 2.7 mg and Cisplatin 13.5 mg) was delivered via an aerosolizer. All experiments were in triplicate and blinded to the origin of samples, measurements in a GLP-certified laboratory.

RESULTS

The enhanced IBUB (eIBUB) model allows measurements of tissue drug concentration, depth of tissue penetration and spatial distribution. The homogeneous morphology of the peritoneum enables standardized, multiple tissue sampling. eIBUB minimizes biological variability between different bladders and eliminates the bias caused by the liquid collecting at the bottom of the model. Concentration of doxorubicin in the eIBUB (mean ± STDV: 18.5 ± 22.6 ng/mg) were comparable to clinical peritoneal biopsies (19.2 ± 38.6 ng/mg), as was depth of drug penetration (eIBUB: mean (min-max) 433 (381-486) µm, clinical ~ 500 µm).

CONCLUSIONS

The eIBUB model is a simple and powerful ex vivo model for optimizing intraperitoneal drug delivery and represents an attractive alternative to animal models. Results obtained are similar to those obtained in the human patient.

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.

Comparison of Tissue and Blood Concentrations of Oxaliplatin Administrated by Different Modalities of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new technology for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy. It is generally assumed that with PIPAC, the ratio of peritoneal to systemic drug concentration is superior to liquid hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). To date, no direct comparative data are available supporting such an assumption.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve 65-day-old pigs were randomly separated into three groups of four pigs each, all of which received intraperitoneal chemotherapy using the following administration methods: PIPAC with oxaliplatin 92 mg in 150 ml dextrose 5% (Group 1); PIPAC with electrostatic aerosol precipitation (ePIPAC; Group 2); or laparoscopic HIPEC (L-HIPEC) with oxaliplatin 400 mg in 4 L dextrose 5% at 42 °C (Group 3). Serial blood and peritoneal tissue concentrations of oxaliplatin were determined by spectrometry.

RESULTS

In all three groups, the maximum concentration of oxaliplatin in blood was detected 50-60 min after onset of the chemotherapy experiments, with no significant differences among the three groups (p = 0.7994). Blood oxaliplatin concentrations (0-30 min) were significantly higher in the L-HIPEC group compared with the ePIPAC group (p < 0.05). No difference was found for the overall systemic oxaliplatin absorption (area under the curve). Overall concentrations in the peritoneum were not different among the three groups (p = 0.4725), but were significantly higher in the visceral peritoneum in the PIPAC group (p = 0.0242).

CONCLUSIONS

Blood and tissue concentrations were comparable between all groups; however, depending on the intraperitoneal area examined and the time points of drug delivery, the concentrations differed significantly between the three groups.

[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.