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

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.

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.

Aerosolization of Nanotherapeutics as a Newly Emerging Treatment Regimen for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

Recent advances in locoregional chemotherapy have opened the door to new approaches for the clinical management of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by facilitating the delivery of anti-neoplastic agents directly to the tumor site, while mitigating adverse effects typically associated with systemic administration. In particular, an innovative intra-abdominal chemotherapeutic approach, known as Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), was recently introduced to the intraperitoneal (IP) therapy regimens as a palliative therapeutic option in patients with PC, presumably providing a better drug distribution pattern together with deeper drug penetration into tumor nodules within the peritoneal space. Furthermore, the progress of nanotechnology in the past few decades has prompted the application of different nanomaterials in IP cancer therapy, offering new possibilities in this field ranging from an extended retention time to sustained drug release in the peritoneal cavity. This review highlights the progress, challenges, and opportunities in utilizing cancer nanotherapeutics for locoregional drug delivery, with a special emphasis on the aerosolization approach for intraperitoneal therapies.

High Pressure Nebulization (PIPAC) Versus Injection for the Intraperitoneal Administration of mRNA Complexes

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel technique delivering drugs into the abdominal cavity as an aerosol under high pressure. It is hypothesized to have advantages such as enhancing tissue uptake, distributing drugs homogeneously within the closed and expanded abdominal cavity and higher local concentration of drugs in the peritoneal cavity. However, the clinical trials of PIPAC so far are limited to liquid chemotherapeutic solution, and the applicability of biomolecules (such as mRNA, siRNA and oligonucleotide) is not known. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of administrating mRNA lipoplexes to the peritoneal cavity via high pressure nebulization.

METHODS

We firstly investigated the influences of nebulization on physicochemical properties and in vitro transfection efficiency of mRNA lipoplexes. Then, mRNA lipoplexes were delivered to healthy rats through intravenous injection, intraperitoneal injection and PIPAC, respectively.

RESULTS

mRNA lipoplexes can withstand the high pressure applied during the PIPAC procedure in vitro. Bioluminescence localized to the peritoneal cavity of rats after administration by IP injection and nebulization, while intravenous injection mainly induced protein expression in the spleen.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that local nebulization is feasible to apply mRNA complexes in the peritoneal cavity during a PIPAC procedure.

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.

Phase II randomized study on tissue distribution and pharmacokinetics of cisplatin according to different levels of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during HIPEC (NCT02949791)

AIMS

To evaluate the effects of high intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on cisplatin uptake by residual tumor and normal tissues, pharmacokinetics, and short-term surgical outcomes.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Patients with peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer or pseudomyxoma peritonei were randomized to closed-abdomen HIPEC with low-IAP or high-IAP, after complete cytoreduction. High-IAP was obtained increasing the volume of perfusate maintaining constant the cisplatin concentration (42 mg/L). We determined the Platinum concentration using an Inductive Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry System. Randomization was stratified according to tumor type. To consider the multiple sampling in the three tissues types of interest, we performed linear mixed models to assess the differences of cisplatin concentration between study arms. We also compared AUC perfusate/plasma ratios (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney) and perioperative severe complication rates (chi-square) between study arms.

RESULTS

38 cases were randomly assigned to IAP arms (n = 19 each). Median IAPs were 19 mmHg and 11 mmHg in the high and low arms, respectively. Cisplatin concentrations did not differ in the tumor residual tissues and in the muscular fascia [22.8 ng/mg (SD: 25.5) vs. 15.9 ng/mg (SD: 13.3), p = 0.181] and [50.3 ng/mg (SD: 40.1) vs. 42.0 ng/mg (SD: 38.3), p = 0.426, respectively], whereas in the mesenteric peritoneum it did [5.4 ng/mg (SD: 7.82) vs. 2.7 ng/mg (SD: 2.9), p = 0.048]. Pharmacokinetic advantage did not differ between the two arms. High-IAP did not increase perioperative severe complications rate (NCI-CTCAE.v3).

CONCLUSIONS

high-IAP HIPEC increases cisplatin distribution in the mesenteric peritoneum, is safe, and could be considered to obtain microscopic cytoreduction.

Rapid Staining Using the Shorr Method for Intraoperative Peritoneal Washing Cytology in Advanced Gastric Cancer: a Pilot Study from a Single Institution

PURPOSE

Intraoperative peritoneal washing cytology (PWC) is used to determine treatment strategies for gastric cancer with suspected serosal invasion. However, a standard staining method for intraoperative PWC remains to be established. We evaluated the feasibility of a rapid and simple staining method using Shorr's stain for intraoperative PWC in advanced gastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between November 2012 and December 2014, 77 patients with clinical T3 or higher gastric cancer were enrolled. The sensitivity, specificity, and concordance between the Shorr staining method and conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) staining with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) immunohistochemistry (IHC) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Intraoperative PWC was performed laparoscopically in 69 patients (89.6%). The average time of the procedure was 8.3 minutes, and the average amount of aspirated fluids was 83.3 mL. The average time for Shorr staining and pathologic review was 21.0 minutes. Of the 77 patients, 16 (20.7%) had positive cytology and 7 (9.1%) showed atypical findings; sensitivity and specificity were 73.6% and 98.2% for the Shorr method, and 78.9% and 98.2% for the Pap method with CEA IHC, respectively. Concordance of diagnosis between the 2 methods was observed in 90.9% of cases (weighted κ statistic=0.875) and most disagreements in diagnoses occurred in atypical findings (6/7). In overall survival, there was no significant difference in C-index between the 2 methods (0.459 in Shorr method vs. 0.458 in Pap with CEA IHC method, P=0.987).

CONCLUSIONS

Shorr staining could be a rapid and reliable method for intraoperative PWC in advanced gastric cancer.

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.

Reproducibility of the peritoneal regression grading score for assessment of response to therapy in peritoneal metastasis

AIMS

The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) assesses the response to chemotherapy in peritoneal metastasis (PM). The PRGS is used, for example, to assess the response to pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). However, the reproducibility of the PRGS is currently unknown. We aimed to evaluate the inter- and intraobserver variability of the PRGS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-three patients who underwent at least three PIPAC treatments as part of the PIPAC-OPC1 or PIPAC-OPC2 clinical trials at Odense University Hospital, Denmark, were included. Prior to each therapy cycle, peritoneal quadrant biopsies were obtained and three haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained step sections were scanned and uploaded to a pseudonymised web library. For determining interobserver variability, eight pathologists assessed the PRGS for each quadrant biopsy, and Krippendorff's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. For determining intraobserver variability, three pathologists repeated their own assessments and Cohen's kappa and ICCs were calculated. A total of 331 peritoneal biopsies were analysed. Interobserver variability for PRGS of each biopsy and for the mean and maximum PRGS per biopsy set was moderate to good/substantial. The intraobserver variability for PRGS of each biopsy and for the mean and maximum PRGS per biopsy set was good to excellent/almost perfect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the PRGS as a reproducible and useful tool to assess response to intraperitoneal chemotherapy in PM. Future studies should evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of the PRGS.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in association with systemic chemotherapy and bevacizumab, evaluation of safety and feasibility. A single center comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising technic for unresectable peritoneal metastasis (PM). Targeted therapies such as bevacizumab have demonstrated their efficacy in advanced colorectal and ovarian cancer. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this bidimensional therapeutic association.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained PIPAC database was retrospectively analyzed from December 2015 to March 2018. All patients who underwent PIPAC for unresectable PM were selected. Patients with systemic chemotherapy including bevacizumab (BEVA group) were compared with patients with systemic chemotherapy without bevacizumab (NON-BEVA group). Major morbidity and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

134 patients underwent 397 PIPAC in Lyon Sud University Hospital. 26 Patients had 88 PIPAC in the BEVA group were compared to 108 patients who had 309 PIPAC in the NON-BEVA group. Patients in the BEVA group demonstrated a higher Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI 20 vs. 16, p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in overall 30-day morbidity (BEVA: 13 (14.8%) vs NON-BEVA: 29 (9.4%); p = 0.147). There was no statistical difference for grade III-IV complications (BEVA: 4 (4.5%) vs NON-BEVA 10 (3.2%); P = 0.521). Major complications from BEVA group were as follow, 2 bowel obstructions, one hematoma and one severe hypersensitivity reaction to platinum compound. There was no 30-day mortality in the BEVA group compared to 6 (5.5%) mortality in the NON-BEVA group.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC associated with bevacizumab is feasible, safe and well tolerated. The potential oncologic benefit of the concomitant use of bevacizumab and PIPAC remains to be evaluated.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): Initial Experience from Indian Centers and a Review of Literature

Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC is a therapeutic option that benefits only selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM). New treatments like pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) have been developed to overcome some limitations of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and treat patients who are not eligible for a curative approach. The safety and feasibility of the procedure in the first few Indian patients treated with PIPAC, and the technique and the set-up required for PIPAC are described here. From May 2017 to August 2017, data was collected prospectively for all patients undergoing PIPAC at three Indian centers. The patients' characteristic, operative findings, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Seventeen procedures were performed in 16 patients with peritoneal metastases from various primary sites using standard drug regimens developed for the procedure. The median hospital stay was 1 day, minor and major complications were seen in two patients each (11.7%), and there was one post-operative death. Of the six patients who completed at least 6 weeks of follow-up, there was disease progression in two, unrelated problems in two patients, and a second procedure was performed in one patient. One patient underwent subsequent CRS and HIPEC. Our results show the feasibility and safety of PIPAC in Indian patients with a low morbidity and mortality and short hospital stay. While clinical trials will determine its role in addition to systemic chemotherapy, it can be used in patients who have progressed on one or more lines of systemic chemotherapy and those who have chemotherapy-resistant ascites.

The role of Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in the management of gastric cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently described surgical technique which is being evaluated at many centers for the management of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The present study is a systematic review to evaluate the current role of PIPAC in the management of gastric cancer associated PM.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed and EMBASE database using relevant keywords and confirming to the PRISMA guidelines to identify the articles describing the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. All the studies which were published prior to July 1, 2018 in English literature and reported the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

The search yielded 79 articles; there were ten published studies which have reported the use of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. A total of 129 patients with gastric cancer associated PM were treated in the studies. Only two studies had an exclusive cohort of gastric cancer patients while eight other studies had a heterogeneous population with a small proportion of gastric cancer patients. There was only one study highlighting the role of PIPAC in neoadjuvant setting to downgrade the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. All the studies revealed that PIPAC is feasible and has minimal perioperative morbidity, even after repeated applications.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of English literature related to the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated procedure which has the potential to contain spreading PM. Further studies are warranted to better define the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM.

Pharmacokinetics of cisplatin during open and minimally-invasive secondary cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC in women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a prospective study

Objective

Evidences from animal models seem to suggest that minimally invasive surgery may enhance cisplatin diffusion when the drug is administered in the context of post-operative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The present study evaluates the cisplatin pharmacokinetic profile in a prospective series of women with platinum sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer treated with open secondary cytoreductive surgery (O-SCS) or minimally-invasive secondary cytoreductive surgery (MI-SCS).

Methods

Cisplatin levels were assessed at 0, 20, 40, 60, and 120 minutes in: 1) blood samples, 2) peritoneal perfusate, and 3) peritoneal biopsies at the end of HIPEC. Median C_max has been used to identify women with high and low drug levels. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as the time elapsed between SCS+HIPEC and secondary recurrence or last follow-up visit.

Results

Nine (45.0%) women received MI-SCS, and 11 (55.0%) O-SCS. At 60 minutes, median cisplatin C_max in peritoneal tissue was higher in patients treated with MI-SCS compared to O-SCS (C_max=8.262 µg/mL vs. C_max=4.057 µg/mL). Furthermore, median cisplatin plasma C_max was higher in patients treated with MI-SCS compared to O-SCS (C_max=0.511 vs. C_max=0.254 µg/mL; p-value=0.012) at 120 minutes. With a median follow-up time of 24 months, women with higher cisplatin peritoneal C_max showed a longer PFS compared to women with low cisplatin peritoneal levels (2-years PFS=70% vs. 35%; p-value=0.054).

Conclusions

We demonstrate for the first time that minimally invasive route enhances cisplatin peritoneal tissue uptake during HIPEC, further evaluations are needed to confirm the correlation between peritoneal cisplatin levels after HIPEC and survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01539785

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy and its effect on gastric-cancer-derived peritoneal metastases: an overview

This manuscript aspires to portray a review of the current literature focusing on manifest peritoneal metastasis (PM) derived from gastric cancer and its treatment options. Despite the development of chemotherapy and multimodal treatment options during the last decades, mortality remains high worldwide. After refreshing important epidemiological considerations, the molecular mechanisms currently accepted through which PM occurs are revised. Palliative chemotherapy is the only recommended treatment option for patients with PM of gastric cancer according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, although cytoreductive surgery in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy demonstrated promising results in selected patients with regional PM and localized intraabdominal tumor spread. A novel treatment named pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy may have a promising future in improving overall survival with an acceptable postoperative complication rate and stabilizing quality of life during treatment. Additionally, the procedure has been proved to be safe for the patient and medical personnel and a feasible, repeatable method to deter metastatic proliferation. This overview comprehensively addresses this novel and promising treatment in the context of a scientifically and clinically challenging disease.

Feasibility and Characteristics of Pressurized Aerosol Chemotherapy (PAC) in the Bladder as a Therapeutical Option in Early-stage Urinary Bladder Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (PAC) is a novel approach to the treatment of surface malignancies. This study aimed to investigate whether PAC is a feasible treatment of early-stage bladder cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PAC via inserted microcatheter was performed on a fresh urinary bladder in a post-mortem swine model (n=3), creating a pressurized doxorubicin chemoaerosol. Drug penetration of aerosolized doxorubicin at different concentrations (3 mg/50 ml, 9 mg/50 ml and 15 mg/50 ml) and different locations on the mucosa was measured via fluorescence microscopy.

RESULTS

Mean endoluminal penetration rates for the urothelium following PAC reached 149±61 μm (using 15 mg/50 ml). Doxorubicin penetration was significantly increased with higher drug concentration (15 vs. 3 mg/50 ml: p<0.01). This study demonstrated the feasibility of PAC for intravesical use.

CONCLUSION

PAC is a feasible minimally-invasive approach to the treatment of early-stage bladder cancer.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastases in Solid Organ Graft Recipients: First Experience

BACKGROUND Therapy of peritoneal metastases (PM) in solid organ transplant recipients is challenging. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) might constitute a new therapeutic opportunity for these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of prospective registry data (NCT03210298) in a tertiary care center between 1.7.2016 and 31.12.2017. Intraperitoneal administration of oxaliplatin 92 mg/m² body surface or a combination of cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m², repeated every 6 weeks. Objective tumor response was documented via histology (Peritoneal Regression Grading Score, PRGS), adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.0. RESULTS Out of 71 consecutive patients treated with PIPAC, 2 patients (2.8%) were solid organ transplant recipients. The first patient had metachronous PM of colonic cancer origin after liver transplantation. The second patient had synchronous PM of pancreatic cancer origin after combined kidney-pancreas transplantation. After repeated combined systemic and PIPAC chemotherapy, objective histological response was documented in both patients. No adverse events >CTCAE 2 were recorded. There was no measurable liver or renal toxicity. PIPAC procedures could be repeated (2, resp. 3 cycles) without any interruption of immunosuppressive medication or impairment of respective plasmatic drug levels. The first patient passed away 7 months after the first PIPAC, the second patient was still alive after 8 months. CONCLUSIONS PIPAC can induce objective regression of PM in solid organ transplant recipients without inducing organ toxicity or interfering with immunosuppressive therapy.

Severe hypersensitivity reactions to platinum compounds post-pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): first literature report

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) shows encouraging results for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastasis. Several reports demonstrated the safety of the procedure combined with systemic chemotherapy, with a low rate of complication. The aim of this study is to report severe hypersensitivity reactions to platinum compounds (SHRPC) during PIPAC procedures.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PIPAC for non-resectable PC in Lyon Sud University hospital were included in a prospective institutional database. All patients who presented a SHRPC after PIPAC were included in our analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-two patients underwent 383 PIPAC procedures between December 2015 and December 2017. oxaliplatin's and cisplatin-doxorubicin's protocols were used in 71 and 312 PIPAC, respectively. Four patients (3%) developed SHRPC; two patients (2.8%) after oxaliplatin and two patients (0.6%) after cisplatin-doxorubicin protocols. SHRPC occurred during the 6th PIPAC with cisplatin-doxorubicin protocol and during 2nd and 3rd PIPAC of the oxaliplatin protocol. Three events appeared within 15 min and one event occurred 50 min following nebulization. All the SHRPC have been managed successfully without any complication.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report of SHRPC after PIPAC. The physician must constantly keep this rare but life-threatening complication in mind, especially after repeated PIPAC administration or previous platinum-based systemic chemotherapy.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) as an outpatient procedure

BACKGROUND

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a drug-delivery method for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The study objective was to investigate whether PIPAC is possible in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

Data was extracted from the prospective PIPAC-OPC2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03287375). Patients with PM were treated by cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D), except patients with colorectal PM, who were treated by oxaliplatin (PIPAC OX). Patients were evaluated concerning the suitability for carrying out the PIPAC procedure in an out- patient setting. The preconditions for outpatient surgery were that the patient should be (1) freely mobilized, (2) adequately pain-relieved, (3) have untroubled urination and (4) without anxiety or discomfort caused by leaving the hospital.

RESULTS

During the study period, 106 PIPAC procedures (79 PIPAC C/D, 27 PIPAC OX) were performed in 41 patients with gastrointestinal or ovarian PM. Ninety percent (37/41) of the patients were pretreated with systemic chemotherapy. Eight patients (20%) received bidirectional chemotherapy. Twenty-four percent (10/41) of the first PIPAC procedures were completed in an outpatient setting, which increased to 65% (13/20) in PIPAC no 3 (p=0.008). In the PIPAC C/D cohort, 28% and 80% of the PIPACs were performed in the outpatient setting at PIPAC 1 and 3 respectively, contrasting to only 11% and 20% in the PIPAC OX group. No readmissions after outpatient care. Postoperative morphine administration was more frequent in the PIPAC OX group.

CONCLUSIONS

The PIPAC procedure can be performed in an outpatient setting. The critical component for success is pain control.

How to Perform Safe and Technically Optimized Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): Experience After a Consecutive Series of 1200 Procedures

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new approach to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients with advanced peritoneal metastases (PM). Although this treatment has rapidly been adopted into clinical practice, most surgeons are not familiar with the basics and principles of this technology. The purpose of this article is to review patient selection criteria, as well as highlighting important operative and technical details regarding PIPAC technology with a focus on "how to do it." To this end, safety and feasibility data from a series of 1200 consecutive PIPAC procedures performed by two pioneers of PIPAC treatment are presented.

Pharmacokinetics and Tissue Transport of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

The presence of a peritoneal barrier results in a pharmacokinetic advantage associated with intraperitoneal (IP) delivery of anticancer drugs. The anticancer efficacy of IP chemotherapy depends, however, on its ability to penetrate the tumor stroma. Tumor tissue transport is governed by diffusion and convection and is affected by numerous physical, biological, and pharmaceutical variables. From preclinical and clinical studies, it appears that tissue penetration after IP chemotherapy delivery is very limited. Several approaches are studied in order to improve tissue penetration of small molecular and macromolecular anticancer drugs after IP instillation.

Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastasis: A Registry Study

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel drug delivery system with superior pharmacological properties for treating peritoneal metastasis (PM). Safety and efficacy results of PIPAC with cisplatin/doxorubicin or oxaliplatin from a registry cohort are presented.

METHODS

IRB-approved registry study. Retrospective analysis. No predefined inclusion criteria, individual therapeutic recommendation by the interdisciplinary tumor board. Safety assessment with CTCAE 4.0. Histological assessment of tumor response by an independent pathologist using the 4-tied peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS). Mean PRGS and ascites volume were assessed at each PIPAC.

RESULTS

A total of 142 PIPAC procedures were scheduled in 71 consecutive patients with PM from gastric (n = 26), colorectal (n = 17), hepatobiliary/pancreatic (n = 9), ovarian (n = 6), appendiceal (n = 5) origin, pseudomyxoma peritonei (n = 4), and other tumors (n = 3). Mean age was 58 ± 13 years. Patients were heavily pretreated. Mean PCI was 19 ± 13. Laparoscopic nonaccess rate was 11/142 procedures (7.7%). Mean number of PIPAC/patient was 2. All patients were eligible for safety analysis. There was no procedure-related mortality. There were 2.8% intraoperative and 4.9% postoperative complications. 39 patients underwent more than one PIPAC and were eligible for efficacy analysis, and PRGS could be assessed in 36 of them. In 24 patients (67%), PRGS improved or remained unchanged at PIPAC#2, reflecting tumor regression or stable disease. Ascites was present in 24 patients and diminished significantly under therapy. Median survival was 11.8 months (95% CI: 7.45-16.2 months) from PIPAC#1.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is feasible, safe, and well-tolerated and can induce histological regression in a significant proportion of pretreated PM patients. This trial is registered with NCT03210298.

Effect of Liposomal Doxorubicin in Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Background: This ex-vivo study was performed to compare the impact of doxorubicin vs. liposomal doxorubicin on penetration depth in peritoneal tissue during Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) via microcatheter (MC). Methods: Fresh post mortem swine peritoneum was cut into proportional sections. One group of samples was treated with PIPAC with Doxorubicin (D), and the other was treated with PIPAC with liposomal doxorubicin (LD). Tissue specimens were placed as follows: at the bottom of the plastic box (1), at the side wall (2), at the top cover (3) and the side of the box covered by a plastic tunnel (4). In-tissue doxorubicin penetration was measured using fluorescence microscopy on frozen thin sections. Results: Medium penetration levels with D were 325 µm (1), 152 µm (2), 84 µm (3) and 71 µm (4), respectively. Medium penetration levels with LD were significantly lower with 10 µm (1), 2 µm (2), 0 µm (3) and 0 µm (4), respectively. In most samples that were treated with LD no doxorubicin could be detected at all. Conclusion: Our data indicate that liposomal coating of doxorubicin and possibly other chemotherapeutical drugs might inhibit their interaction with the peritoneal surface. This inhibition appears to be relatively strong, since doxorubicin is partially undetectable due to liposomal coating. Further studies are warranted to investigate this interaction and its potential benefit in peritoneal applications.

Optimizing outcomes for patients with gastric cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from gastric cancer has traditionally been considered a terminal progression of the disease and is associated with poor survival outcomes. Positive peritoneal cytology similarly worsens the survival of patients with gastric cancer and treatment options for these patients have been limited. Recent advances in multimodality treatment regimens have led to innovative ways to care for and treat patients with this disease burden. One of these advances has been to use neoadjuvant therapy to try and convert patients with positive cytology or low-volume PC to negative cytology with no evidence of active peritoneal disease. These strategies include the use of neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone, using neoadjuvant laparoscopic heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NLHIPEC) after systemic chemotherapy, or using neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS) in a bidirectional manner. For patients with higher volume PC, cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have been mainstays of treatment. When used together, CRS and HIPEC can improve overall outcomes in properly selected patients, but overall survival outcomes remain unacceptably low. The extent of peritoneal disease, commonly measured by the peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI), and the completeness of cytoreduction, has been shown to greatly impact outcomes in patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC. The uses of NLHIPEC and NLHIPEC plus NIPS have both been shown to decrease the PCI and thus increase the opportunity for complete cytoreduction. Newer therapies like pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy and immunotherapy, such as catumaxomab, along with improved systemic chemotherapeutic regimens, are being explored with great interest. There is exciting progress being made in the management of PC from gastric cancer and its' treatment is no longer futile.

Study protocol: phase 1 dose escalating study of Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin in peritoneal metastasis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel laparoscopic intraperitoneal chemotherapy technique, with advantages such as homogeneous distribution of aerosol and deeper tissue penetration. Thus far, PIPAC oxaliplatin has been administered at an arbitrary dose of 92 mg/m2.

AIM

We aim to determine the dose-related safety profile and tolerability of PIPAC oxaliplatin using an evidence-based approach. The secondary aim is to evaluate clinic-pathologic response and the pharmacokinetic profile.

METHODS

This is a phase I 3+3 dose escalation study for gastric and colorectal cancer with predominant peritoneal metastasis starting at a dose of 45 mg/m2. Safety is assessed according to Clavien-Dindo Classification and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). Clinico-pathologic response is assessed using the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score, Peritoneal Cancer Index, and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumour criteria (version 1.1). Pharmacokinetic analysis is performed using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry assay. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03172416).

CONCLUSIONS

This phase I study can provide the scientific basis to identify the optimal dose for PIPAC with oxaliplatin such that the benefits of this novel and promising intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery technique can be maximized.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastases of pancreas and biliary tract cancer

Data on the effectivness of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases of pancreaticobiliary origin is scarce. We here present further proof of treatment efficacy in this subset of patients. Repetitive PIPAC treatment with low-dose cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² body surface area every 6 weeks and prospective data collection. Documentation included microscopic histological regression, median overall survival and treatment-related adverse events. Twelve patients with a median age of 57 years (range 43-78 years) were included. Six patients suffered from pertioneal metastases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and six patients from cholangiocarcinoma (CC). In total 23 cycles of PIPAC were adminstered with the median number of PIPAC cycles being two (range 1-4). Complete tumor regression was found in four patients and major regression in one patient. Median overall survival after the first PIPAC cycle was 12.7 months for PDAC patients and 15.1 months for CC patients. 11 of the 12 patients are still alive after a median follow-up of 438 days. There were no CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 complications. PIPAC is an innovative and attractive treatment option in the salvage situation for patients with peritoneal metastases of pancreaticobiliary tumors after failure of systemic chemotherapy. In 40% of the patients histological regression can be induced. Further studies are warranted to further elucidate treatment efficacy.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis: systematic review of clinical and experimental evidence with special emphasis on ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Systemic chemotherapy is not effective in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) and only a minority of affected patients is eligible for cytoreductive surgery. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy may provide a therapy alternative for these patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of clinical and experimental evidence on the safety and efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with PC and provide clinical recommendations based on the available evidence.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight reports were identified, categorized as experimental (18 reports), clinical (28 reports), and other articles (14 reports). Experimental studies demonstrated improved tissue penetration and peritoneal coverage. The 28 clinical studies reported on 3515 procedures in 1547 patients with PC of various primary tumors with 16 of these studies reporting on patients with ovarian cancer. Toxicity was manageable. Based on 1197 patients in 22 studies, adverse events CTCAE grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were observed in 537 (45%), 167 (14%), 83 (7%), 10 (0.8%), and 19 (1.6%) cases, respectively. In a pooled analysis, the objective tumor response rate was 69% and the mean overall survival duration was 13.7 months. No significant hepatic, renal, or hematologic toxicity was described. PIPAC maintained and/or improved quality of life, as reported in 10 studies with 396 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from controlled trials (phase I and phase II) and retrospective cohort studies in > 1500 patients unequivocally demonstrates that PIPAC is feasible, safe, and effective. PIPAC maintains quality of life in patients with recurrent cancer and PC. PIPAC is as evidence-based as any other treatment in women with ovarian cancer and PC beyond the third line of systemic chemotherapy and can be recommended in this indication.

The evolving management of small bowel adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is rare despite the fact that the small bowel represents the longest part and has the largest surface of all alimentary tract sections. Its incidence is 50-fold lower than that of colorectal carcinoma. It is often diagnosed at an advanced stage due to atypical and late symptoms, its low index of suspicion, difficult endoscopic access and poor detection by radiological imaging, resulting in impaired outcome. Due to its rarity and being molecularly a unique intestinal cancer, data regarding its optimal management are relatively sparse.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to identify relevant manuscripts that were recently published. Emerging data regarding the pathogenesis, the diagnosis and the treatment of SBA that resulted from recent research are discussed in this comprehensive review.

RESULTS

Genomic analysis has demonstrated that SBA is a molecularly unique intestinal cancer. Double balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy are novel techniques which may result in earlier diagnosis and consequently in improvement of the generally poor prognosis. For clinically localized disease, the quality of surgery has recently been defined, with removal of at least 8-10 lymph nodes correlating with improved prognosis. Moreover, adjuvant chemotherapy seems to improve outcome of stage III disease. The combination of a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin appears to be the most effective systemic chemotherapy for disseminated disease. Genomic profiling can identify potentially targetable genomic alterations in a significant proportion of SBA patients. The role of administration of targeted agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors is still unknown and subject of ongoing clinical trials. In the common case of peritoneal metastases, recent studies have shown that cytoreductive surgery and intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy may be an attractive treatment option in selected patients.

CONCLUSIONS

SBA is a rare and unique malignancy, whose diagnostic approach and treatment are evolving, resulting in improved outcome.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in combination with standard of care chemotherapy in primarily untreated chemo naïve upper gi-adenocarcinomas with peritoneal seeding - a phase II/III trial of the AIO/CAOGI/ACO

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastasis is a common and dismal evolution of several gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, including gastric, colorectal, hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and other cancers. The therapy of peritoneal metastasis is largely palliative; with the aim of prolonging life and preserving its quality. In the meantime, a significant pharmacological advantage of intraperitoneal chemotherapy was documented in the preclinical model, and numerous clinical studies have delivered promising clinical results.

METHODS

This is a prospective, open, randomized multicenter phase III clinical study with two arms that aims to evaluate the effects of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) combined with systemic chemotherapy vs. intravenous systemic chemotherapy alone on patients with metastatic upper GI tumors with a peritoneal seeding. Upper GI-adenocarcinomas originated from biliary tract, pancreas and stomach, or esophago- gastric junction are eligible. Patients in the study are treated with standard of care systemic palliative chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6) vs. PIPAC with intravenous (i.v.) chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6). Patients in first line with first diagnosed peritoneal seeding are eligible. Primary outcome is progression free survival (PFS).

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC-procedure is explicit a palliative method but it delivers cytotoxic therapy like in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)-procedure directly to the tumor in a minimally invasive technique, without the need for consideration of the peritoneal-plasma barrier. The technique of PIPAC is minimally invasive and very gentle and the complete procedure takes only round about 45 min and, therefore, optimal in a clearly palliative situation where cure is not the goal. It is also ideal for using this approach in a first line situation, where deepest response should be achieved. The symbiosis of systemic therapy and potentially effective surgery has to be well-planned without deterioration of the patient due to aggressive way of surgery like in cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+HIPEC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT: 2018-001035-40.

Intraperitoneal aerosolization of albumin-stabilized paclitaxel nanoparticles (Abraxane™) for peritoneal carcinomatosis - a phase I first-in-human study

BACKGROUND

Nanoparticles hold considerable promise for aerosol-based intraperitoneal delivery in patients with carcinomatosis. Recently, results from preclinical and early clinical trials suggested that albumin-bound paclitaxel (ABP, Abraxane™) may result in superior efficacy in the treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM) compared to the standard solvent-based paclitaxel formulation (Taxol™). Here, we propose a phase I study of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) using ABP in patients with upper Gastrointestinal, breast, or ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Eligible patients with advanced, biopsy-proven PM from ovarian, breast, gastric, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic origin will undergo three PIPAC treatments using ABP with a 4-week interval. The dose of ABP will be escalated from 35 to 140 mg/m² using a Bayesian approach until the maximally tolerated dose is determined. The primary end point is dose-limiting toxicity. Secondary analyses include surgical morbidity, non-access rate, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, quality of life, and exploratory circulating biomarker analyses.

DISCUSSION

ABP holds considerable promise for intraperitoneal aerosol delivery. The aim of this study is to determine the dose level for future randomized phase II trials using ABP in PIPAC therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as EudraCT: 2017-001688-20 and Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03304210.

Prospective, single-center implementation and response evaluation of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastasis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopy-guided administration of aerosolized chemotherapy. PIPAC seems to improve objective tumor response, survival and quality of life in patients with peritoneal metastasis. We assessed feasibility and efficacy of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM).

METHODS

Patients were included in a prospective PIPAC protocol. Patients with colorectal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with other primary tumors were treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Any chemotherapy exposure for healthcare workers was monitored by environmental and biological sampling. Feasibility was quantified by completion and complication rates. Response evaluation was documented by the peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) and by peritoneal lavage cytology. Biopsy sites were marked by clips. Quality of life questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 60, 120 and 180 days.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients with PM were treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures (range 1-9). Intraperitoneal access and completion of PIPAC was achieved in all patients. Few complications and adverse events were noted. There was no risk of chemotherapy exposure for healthcare workers. The mean PRGS was reduced significantly and a reduction of the PRGS was seen in 67% of the patients. Conversion from positive to negative cytology was achieved in 23% of the patients. Quality of life was stabilized from baseline to day 60.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC is feasible and well tolerated, may stabilize the quality of life in patients with end-stage PM and may induce histological and cytological regression.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02320448].

PIPAC EstoK 01: Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in gastric peritoneal metastasis: a randomized and multicenter phase II study

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer often remains undiagnosed until it reaches an advanced stage. Despite curative management combining perioperative systemic chemotherapy, cytoreductive surgery (CRS), and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), treated patients' 5 year survival rate remains under 20 % when patients are carefully selected. Palliative intravenous chemotherapy in patients with non-resectable cancer is frequently associated with poor long-term benefit and an estimated survival time below 1 year. Recently, two retrospectives studies reported that Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves patients' overall survival without impairing their quality of life (QoL). This promising result needs however to be studied on large randomized clinical trial to validate the effect of PIPAC on survival and QoL of patients with gastric PM.

METHODS

PIPAC EstoK 01 is a prospective, open, randomized multicenter phase II clinical study with two arms that aims at evaluating the effects of PIPAC with doxorubicin and cisplatin on patients with PM of gastric cancer with peritoneal cancer index (PCI)>8, treated with systemic chemotherapy between two PIPAC procedures. Patients were randomized at the end of explorative laparoscopy and after signing a written consent. Patients received in the first experimental arm a treatment associating PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy (1 PIPAC then 2 IV Chemo) and systemic chemotherapy only in the control arm. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival from the date of surgery to the date of death, or to the end of the 5 year follow-up. Secondary endpoint was 2 year overall survival, morbidity, QoL and secondary resectability rate. The number of patients randomized was calculated to be 94.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered.

Occupational exposure to cisplatin/oxaliplatin during Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)?

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new promising treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. It is supposed to provide a higher local drug concentration and deeper penetrate into the tumor tissue compared to systemic chemotherapy or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy perfusion (HIPEC). Due to the application of cytotoxic drug aerosols within the operating room (OR), concern has been raised regarding the occupational exposure risk of the involved OR staff.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, an OR workplace monitoring was performed during 14 PIPAC procedures in two hospitals by collecting air samples (n = 14) during PIPAC and wipe samples (n = 223) before and after PIPAC: 56 samples from the OR floor, 84 from the injector, 28 from trocars and 55 from gloves. All samples were analyzed for platinum (Pt).

RESULTS

While air Pt concentrations were below 3.1 pg/m³, surface contaminations widely varied between 0.01 pg/cm² and 1733 pg/cm² (median 1.04 pg/cm²), with substantial Pt concentrations on injector parts (i.e. syringe holder) and trocars. Floors and particularly injectors were often higher contaminated before compared to after PIPAC, probably due to inefficient cleaning or cross-contamination. Glove samples taken after different tasks ranged between 0.04 and 423 pg/cm² (median 0.58 pg/cm²).

CONCLUSION

Contamination on various OR surfaces widely ranged and can lead to a distribution of cytotoxic drug residues. However, the air contamination was very low. The results indicate that PIPAC performance seems to be possible with low occupational exposure risk, but adequate safety and cleaning standards for PIPAC must be developed and monitored.

Severe peritoneal sclerosis after repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC OX): report of two cases and literature survey

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new laparoscopic administration of chemotherapy for peritoneal metastasis (PM). PIPAC is repeated every 5th week, and seems to stabilize or improve quality of life, and might improve survival. So far, PIPAC has been well tolerated. With this paper, we aim to highlight a potential severe adverse reaction, as we describe the first cases of severe peritoneal sclerosis (SPS) caused by PIPAC. Patients with isolated PM were included in a prospective PIPAC protocol. Following insufflation of normothermic CO₂, laparoscopy was performed at an intraabdominal pressure of 12 mmHg. After peritoneal lavage and quadrant biopsies of the PM, the patients were treated with oxaliplatin 92 mg/m² (flowrate 0.5 ml/s, maximum pressure of 200 per square inch). Treatment related toxicity was evaluated after 2 weeks. Response was evaluated histologically by the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and cytologically by analysis of the lavage fluid. In a series of 24 PIPAC patients treated with oxaliplatin, two patients developed SPS. Patient one had a mucinous adenocarcinoma of the appendix with PM, the mean PRGS was reduced from 2.75 to 1.75 during the course of therapy. Patient two had an appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid with a dominating mucinous adenocarcinoma component with PM, the mean PRGS was reduced from 2.00 to 1.67. Repeated applications of PIPAC with oxaliplatin can lead to SPS.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for the treatment of malignant mesothelioma

Background

Patients with recurrent malignant epithelioid mesothelioma (MM) after surgery and standard chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed have limited treatment options.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent MM undergoing Pressurized IntraPeritoneal/Thoracal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC/PITAC) with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² and cisplatin 7.5 mg/m². Data were retrospectively collected in a prospective registry of patients undergoing PIPAC/PITAC. Study outcomes were microscopic tumor regression grade (TRG), survival and adverse events (v4.0 CTCAE).

Results

A total of 29 patients (m/f = 17/12) with MM with a mean age of 62.4 (range: 42 to 84) years were analyzed. A total of 74 PIPAC and 5 PITAC procedures were performed. The mean number of PIPAC applications was 2.5 (range: 0 to 10) per patient. Twenty patients (69%) had > 2 PIPAC procedure and were eligible for TRG analysis. TRG 1 to 4 was observed in 75% (15/20) of patients. Major regression (TRG 3) or complete regression (TRG 4) was observed in 20% and 10%, respectively. PIPAC induced significant tumor regression in 51.7% (15/29) of patients with a cumulative effect after repetitive PIPACs (PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #2: p = 0.001; PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #3: p = 0.001; PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #4: p = 0.001). Postoperative CTCAE grade 4 complications were observed in two patients (6.9%) who had cytoreductive surgery (CC2) and intraoperative PIPAC. One patient (3.4%) died due to postoperative kidney insufficiency. After a follow up of 14.4 (95% CI: 8.1 to 20.7) months after the last PIPAC/PITAC application, median overall survival was 26.6 (95% CI: 9.5 to 43.7) months (from the first application).

Conclusion

After prior abdominal surgery and systemic chemotherapy, repetitive PIPAC applications are feasible and safe for patients with end-stage MM. Furthermore, PIPAC induces significant histological regression of malignant mesothelioma in the majority of patients. PITAC is feasible, but its safety and efficacy to control malignant pleural effusion remain unclear.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4363-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A prototype single-port device for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. Technical feasibility and local drug distribution

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical feasibility and homogeneity of drug distribution of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) based on a novel process of intraperitoneal drug application (multidirectional aerosolization).

METHODS

This was an in vivo experimental study in pigs. A single-port device was manufactured at the smallest diameter possible for multidirectional aerosolization of the chemotherapeutic drug under positive intraperitoneal pressure. Four domestic pigs were used in the study, one control animal that received multidirectional microjets of 9 mL/sec for 30 min and three animals that received multidirectional aerosolization (pig 02: 9 mL/sec for 30 min; pigs 03 and 04: 3 mL/sec for 15 min). Aerosolized silver nitrate solution was applied for anatomopathological evaluation of intraperitoneal drug distribution.

RESULTS

Injection time was able to maintain the pneumoperitoneum pressure below 20 mmHg. The rate of moderate silver nitrate staining was 45.4% for pig 01, 36.3% for pig 02, 36.3% for pig 03, and 72.7% for pig 04.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-abdominal drug distribution had a broad pattern, especially in animals exposed to the drug for 30 min. Our sample of only four animals was not large enough to demonstrate an association between aerosolization and a higher silver nitrate concentration in the stained abdominal regions.

Tumour tissue transport after intraperitoneal anticancer drug delivery

Intraperitoneal (IP) drug delivery, either as an intraoperative chemoperfusion or as an adjuvant, repeated instillation, is an established treatment modality in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The efficacy of IP drugs depends on its ability to penetrate the tumour stroma in order to reach their (sub)cellular target. It is known, that drug penetration after IP delivery is limited to a few millimetres. Here, we review the basic tissue transport mechanisms after IP delivery and discuss the biophysical barriers and obstacles that limit penetration distance. In addition, we review the physical and pharmaceutical interventions that have been studied in order to improve delivery of small molecular and macromolecular drugs after IP instillation. These interventions could inform the design of future clinical trials aiming at an improved efficacy of IP-based drug delivery in carcinomatosis patients.