1
|
Tozzi F, Rashidian N, Ceelen W, Callebout E, Hübner M, Sgarbura O, Willaert W. Standardizing eligibility and patient selection for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Delphi consensus statement. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2024; 50:108346. [PMID: 38669779 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2024] [Revised: 04/08/2024] [Accepted: 04/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure for minimally invasive drug administration in patients with peritoneal metastasis. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of uniformity in treatment protocols and standardization of this practice. This study aimed to reach a consensus on eligibility, patient selection, and choice of chemotherapy for PIPAC. METHODS A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. A steering group formulated a list of baseline statements, addressing the objectives. The steering group consisted of seven expert surgical and medical oncologists. Available evidence and published key opinions were critically reviewed. An international expert panel scored those statements on a 4-point Likert scale. The statements were submitted electronically and anonymously. Consensus was reached if the agreement rate was ≥75%. A minimum Cronbach's alpha of >0.8 was set. RESULTS Forty-five (45/58; 77.6%) experts participated and completed all rounds. Experts were digestive surgeons (n = 28), surgical oncologists (n = 7), gynecologists (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 4), and one clinical researcher. Their assessment of 81 preliminary statements in the first round resulted in 41 consolidated statements. In round two, consensus was reached on 40 statements (40/41; 97.6%) with a consensus of ≥80% for each individual statement. In the third round, 40 statements were unanimously approved as definitive. The choice of first- and second-line chemotherapy remained controversial and could not reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS This International Delphi study provides practical guidance on eligibility and patient selection for PIPAC. Ongoing trial data and long-term results that could contribute to the further standardization of PIPAC are eagerly awaited.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Tozzi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Nikdokht Rashidian
- Department of General, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Wim Ceelen
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Eduard Callebout
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Gastroenterology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Martin Hübner
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 21, Lausanne, VD, Switzerland.
| | - Olivia Sgarbura
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute Montpellier (ICM), University of Montpellier, 208 Avenue des Apothecaries, Parc Euromédecine, 34298, Montpellier, France; IRCM, Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier, INSERM, U1194, Université de Montpellier, Institut régional Du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
| | - Wouter Willaert
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Baggaley AE, Lafaurie GBRC, Tate SJ, Boshier PR, Case A, Prosser S, Torkington J, Jones SEF, Gwynne SH, Peters CJ. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework. Br J Surg 2022; 110:10-18. [PMID: 36056893 PMCID: PMC10364525 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alice E Baggaley
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Sophia J Tate
- Department of Anaesthesia, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Piers R Boshier
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Amy Case
- Department of Cancer Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Susan Prosser
- Department of Library Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Jared Torkington
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sadie E F Jones
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sarah H Gwynne
- Department of Cancer Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Christopher J Peters
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Case A, Prosser S, Peters CJ, Adams R, Gwynne S. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: A systematic review by the PIPAC UK collaborative. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2022; 180:103846. [PMID: 36257535 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Revised: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 10/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases (GCPM) carries a poor prognosis. Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy (PIPAC) offers pharmacokinetic advantages over intravenous therapy, resulting in higher chemotherapy concentrations in peritoneal deposits, and potentially reduced systemic absorption/toxicity. This review evaluates efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life (QOL) of PIPAC for GCPM. METHODS Following registration with PROSPERO (CRD42021281500), MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases, in accordance with PRISMA standards RESULTS: Across 18 included reports representing 751 patients with GCPM (4 prospective, 11 retrospective, 3 abstracts, no phase III studies), median overall survival (mOS) was 8 - 19.1 months, 1-year OS 49.8-77.9%, complete response (PRGS1) 0-35% and partial response (PRGS2/3) 0-83.3%. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was 0.7-25% and 0-4.1% respectively. Three studies assessing QOL reported no significant difference. CONCLUSION PIPAC may offer promising survival benefits, toxicity, and QOL for GCPM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Case
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Sketty Lane, Swansea SA2 8QA, UK; Swansea University Medical School, Grove Building, Singleton Park, SA2 8PP, UK.
| | - S Prosser
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Sketty Lane, Swansea SA2 8QA, UK
| | - C J Peters
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Marys Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK
| | - R Adams
- Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University and Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre Road, Whitchurch CF14 2TL, UK
| | - S Gwynne
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Sketty Lane, Swansea SA2 8QA, UK; Swansea University Medical School, Grove Building, Singleton Park, SA2 8PP, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Raoof M, Sullivan KM, Frankel PH, Fakih M, Synold TW, Lim D, Woo Y, Paz IB, Fong Y, Thomas RM, Chang S, Eng M, Tinsley R, Whelan RL, Deperalta D, Reymond MA, Jones J, Merchea A, Dellinger TH. Multicenter dose-escalation Phase I trial of mitomycin C pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy in combination with systemic chemotherapy for appendiceal and colorectal peritoneal metastases: rationale and design. Pleura Peritoneum 2022; 7:169-177. [PMID: 36560966 PMCID: PMC9742457 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2022-0116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 05/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from appendiceal cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) has significant morbidity and limited survival. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach to treat PM. We aim to conduct a dose-escalation trial of mitomycin C (MMC)-PIPAC combined with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI) in patients with PM from appendiceal cancer or CRC. Methods This is a multicenter Phase I study of MMC-PIPAC (NCT04329494). Inclusion criteria include treatment with at least 4 months of first- or second-line systemic chemotherapy with ineligibility for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Exclusion criteria are: progression on chemotherapy; extraperitoneal metastases; systemic chemotherapy intolerance; bowel obstruction; or poor performance status (ECOG>2). Escalating MMC-PIPAC doses (7-25 mg/m2) will be administered in combination with standard dose systemic FOLFIRI. Safety evaluation will be performed on 15 patients (dose escalation) and six expansion patients: 21 evaluable patients total. Results The primary endpoints are recommended MMC dose and safety of MMC-PIPAC with FOLFIRI. Secondary endpoints are assessment of response (by peritoneal regression grade score; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST 1.1], and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), progression free survival, overall survival, technical failure rate, surgical complications, conversion to curative-intent CRS-HIPEC, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Longitudinal blood and tissue specimens will be collected for translational correlatives including pharmacokinetics, circulating biomarkers, immune profiling, and single-cell transcriptomics. Conclusions This Phase I trial will establish the recommended dose of MMC-PIPAC in combination with FOLFIRI. Additionally, we expect to detect an early efficacy signal for further development of this therapeutic combination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mustafa Raoof
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Kevin M. Sullivan
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Paul H. Frankel
- Department of Computation and Quantitative Medicine, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Marwan Fakih
- Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Timothy W. Synold
- Analytical Pharmacology Core, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Dean Lim
- Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Yanghee Woo
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Isaac Benjamin Paz
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Yuman Fong
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | | | - Sue Chang
- Department of Pathology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Melissa Eng
- Office of Clinical Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Raechelle Tinsley
- Office of Clinical Research, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Richard L. Whelan
- Department of Surgery, Northwell Health, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA
| | - Danielle Deperalta
- Department of Surgery, Northwell Health, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY, USA
| | - Marc A. Reymond
- Department of Surgery, University of Tuebingen, Tubingen, Germany
| | - Jeremy Jones
- Department of Oncology (Medical), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Amit Merchea
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Thanh H. Dellinger
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sgarbura O, Eveno C, Alyami M, Bakrin N, Guiral DC, Ceelen W, Delgadillo X, Dellinger T, Di Giorgio A, Kefleyesus A, Khomiakov V, Mortensen MB, Murphy J, Pocard M, Reymond M, Robella M, Rovers KP, So J, Somashekhar SP, Tempfer C, Van der Speeten K, Villeneuve L, Yong WP, Hübner M. Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Pleura Peritoneum 2022; 7:1-7. [PMID: 35602919 PMCID: PMC9069497 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2022-0102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics. Methods The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance). Results Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m2) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m2 (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10. Conclusions The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivia Sgarbura
- Department of Surgical Oncology , Cancer Institute of Montpellier, University of Montpellier , Montpellier , France
- IRCM, Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier, INSERM U1194 , Université de Montpellier, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier , Montpellier , France
| | - Clarisse Eveno
- Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery , University of Lille, Claude Huriez University Hospital , Lille , France
| | - Mohammad Alyami
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology , Oncology Center, King Khalid Hospital , Najran , Saudi Arabia
| | - Naoual Bakrin
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology , Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon , Pierre-Bénite , France
- Lyon University 1, EA 3738 CICLY , Lyon , France
| | - Delia Cortes Guiral
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology , Oncology Center, King Khalid Hospital , Najran , Saudi Arabia
| | - Wim Ceelen
- Department of GI Surgery , Ghent University Hospital , Ghent , Belgium
| | - Xavier Delgadillo
- Centre Médico Chirurgical Volta , Unité Spécialisée de Chirurgie , La Chaux-de-Fonds , Switzerland
| | - Thanh Dellinger
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology , City of Hope National Medical Center , Duarte , CA , USA
| | - Andrea Di Giorgio
- Peritoneal and Retroperitoneal Surgical Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS , Rome , Italy
| | - Amaniel Kefleyesus
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology , Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon , Pierre-Bénite , France
- Department of Visceral Surgery , Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL) , Lausanne , Switzerland
| | - Vladimir Khomiakov
- P.A. Hertsen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – Branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology , Moscow , Russia
| | - Michael Bau Mortensen
- Department of Surgery , Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC) & Odense PIPAC Center (OPC), Odense University Hospital , Odense , Denmark
| | - Jamie Murphy
- Academic Surgical Unit , Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust , London , UK
| | - Marc Pocard
- Université de Paris, INSERM, U1275 CAP Paris-Tech , Paris , France
- Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Gastrointestinal Surgery and Liver Transplantation , Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, AP-HP , Paris , France
| | - Marc Reymond
- Department of Surgery , University of Tübingen , Tübingen , Germany
| | - Manuela Robella
- Unit of Surgical Oncology , Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO, IRCCS , Turin , Italy
| | - Koen P. Rovers
- Department of Surgery , Catharina Cancer Institute , Eindhoven , The Netherlands
| | - Jimmy So
- Division of Surgical Oncology , National University Cancer Institute , Singapore , Singapore
| | - S. P. Somashekhar
- Department of Surgical Oncology , Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Center, Manipal Hospital , Bangalore , India
| | - Clemens Tempfer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Therapy Center for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis , Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr-Universität Bochum , Herne , Germany
| | | | - Laurent Villeneuve
- Lyon University 1, EA 3738 CICLY , Lyon , France
- Department of Public Health , Clinical Research and Epidemiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon , Lyon , France
| | - Wei Peng Yong
- Cancer Science Institute of Singapore , National University of Singapore , Singapore , Singapore
| | - Martin Hübner
- Department of Visceral Surgery , Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL) , Lausanne , Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Peritoneal surface malignancies comprise a heterogeneous group of primary tumours, including peritoneal mesothelioma, and peritoneal metastases of other tumours, including ovarian, gastric, colorectal, appendicular or pancreatic cancers. The pathophysiology of peritoneal malignancy is complex and not fully understood. The two main hypotheses are the transformation of mesothelial cells (peritoneal primary tumour) and shedding of cells from a primary tumour with implantation of cells in the peritoneal cavity (peritoneal metastasis). Diagnosis is challenging and often requires modern imaging and interventional techniques, including surgical exploration. In the past decade, new treatments and multimodal strategies helped to improve patient survival and quality of life and the premise that peritoneal malignancies are fatal diseases has been dismissed as management strategies, including complete cytoreductive surgery embedded in perioperative systemic chemotherapy, can provide cure in selected patients. Furthermore, intraperitoneal chemotherapy has become an important part of combination treatments. Improving locoregional treatment delivery to enhance penetration to tumour nodules and reduce systemic uptake is one of the most active research areas. The current main challenges involve not only offering the best treatment option and developing intraperitoneal therapies that are equivalent to current systemic therapies but also defining the optimal treatment sequence according to primary tumour, disease extent and patient preferences. New imaging modalities, less invasive surgery, nanomedicines and targeted therapies are the basis for a new era of intraperitoneal therapy and are beginning to show encouraging outcomes.
Collapse
|
7
|
Kepenekian V, Péron J, You B, Bonnefoy I, Villeneuve L, Alyami M, Bakrin N, Rousset P, Benzerdjeb N, Glehen O. Non-resectable Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma Treated with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Plus Systemic Chemotherapy Could Lead to Secondary Complete Cytoreductive Surgery: A Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 29:2104-2113. [PMID: 34713369 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10983-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Accepted: 09/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) is an aggressive primary peritoneal neoplasia. At diagnosis, few patients are eligible for a recommended cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Among neoadjuvant strategies, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) combined with systemic chemotherapy has been recently proposed. This study evaluated this strategy in a cohort of DMPM patients. METHODS Patients with DMPM and primary or recurrent non-resectable diseases who received at least one PIPAC procedure in alternation with systemic chemotherapy were included in this retrospective study to analyze oncologic outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 26 DMPM patients were treated with at least one PIPAC, including 20 patients with no previous CRS. Of 22 patients (85%) who had symptoms, 9 had perceptible ascites. Overall, 79 PIPAC procedures were performed, with half of the patients receiving three PIPAC procedures or more. Among eight patients (31%), 10 adverse events (13% of procedures) were reported, including two severe complications, both corresponding to digestive perforations. Improvement of symptoms was reported for 32% of the patients, whereas control of ascites was noted in 46%. All but one procedure among 14 patients (54%) secondarily treated by CRS-HIPEC were considered complete resections. After a median follow-up period of 29.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-not reached [NR]), the median overall survival period was 12 months (95% CI 11.1-NR). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better among the patients who underwent resection than among those who did not (33.5 vs 7.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.755; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS For patients with initially non-resectable DMPM, PIPAC is feasible for treatment with neoadjuvant intent and could facilitate complete secondary resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vahan Kepenekian
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Université Lyon-1, Pierre-Bénite, Lyon, France. .,Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France.
| | - Julien Péron
- Service d'oncologie Médicale, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.,Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Equipe Biostatistique-Santé, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Benoit You
- Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France.,Service d'oncologie Médicale, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Isabelle Bonnefoy
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Université Lyon-1, Pierre-Bénite, Lyon, France.,Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France
| | - Laurent Villeneuve
- Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France.,Service de Recherche et d'Epidémiologie Cliniques, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Université Lyon-1, Lyon, France
| | - Mohammad Alyami
- Department of Surgical Oncology, King Khalid University Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia
| | - Naoual Bakrin
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Université Lyon-1, Pierre-Bénite, Lyon, France.,Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France
| | - Pascal Rousset
- Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France.,Service d'Imagerie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Université Lyon-1, Lyon, France
| | - Nazim Benzerdjeb
- Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France.,Laboratoire d'Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Lyon, France
| | - Olivier Glehen
- Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Lyon Sud, Université Lyon-1, Pierre-Bénite, Lyon, France.,Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, EA3738 CICLY, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Thibaudeau E, Brianchon C, Raoul JL, Dumont F. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin: a case report. Pleura Peritoneum 2021; 6:167-170. [PMID: 35071738 PMCID: PMC8719447 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2021-0126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2021] [Accepted: 09/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new drug delivery method for intraabdominal cavity chemotherapy. It combines the benefits of a minimally invasive approach (low morbidity and easy to repeat) with the pharmacokinetic advantages of intraperitoneal administration and tolerance seems excellent. We would like to report one case of a serious adverse event, acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is likely related to oxaliplatin administration; all signs disappeared within a few days.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Thibaudeau
- Department of Oncological Surgery , Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest , Saint-Herblain , France
| | - Corinne Brianchon
- Department of Anesthesia , Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest , Saint-Herblain , France
| | - Jean-Luc Raoul
- Department of Medical Oncology , Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest , Saint-Herblain , France
| | - Frédéric Dumont
- Department of Oncological Surgery , Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest , Saint-Herblain , France
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gauthier A, Mankouri F, Demoly P, Sgarbura O, Chiriac AM. Hypersensitivity reactions to platinum-based compounds in the context of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): Description and management. Allergy 2021; 76:1882-1885. [PMID: 33616981 DOI: 10.1111/all.14679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2020] [Revised: 11/02/2020] [Accepted: 11/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Amélie Gauthier
- Division of Allergy Department of Pulmonology Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve University Hospital of Montpellier Univ Montpellier Montpellier France
- Department of Allergy and Immunology Laval University Hospital Center Laval University Quebec City QC Canada
| | - Farid Mankouri
- Division of Allergy Department of Pulmonology Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve University Hospital of Montpellier Univ Montpellier Montpellier France
| | - Pascal Demoly
- Division of Allergy Department of Pulmonology Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve University Hospital of Montpellier Univ Montpellier Montpellier France
- UMR‐S 1136 INSERM‐Sorbonne UniversitéEquipe EPAR—IPLESP Paris France
| | - Olivia Sgarbura
- Department of Surgical Oncology Cancer Institute of Montpellier Montpellier France
| | - Anca Mirela Chiriac
- Division of Allergy Department of Pulmonology Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve University Hospital of Montpellier Univ Montpellier Montpellier France
- UMR‐S 1136 INSERM‐Sorbonne UniversitéEquipe EPAR—IPLESP Paris France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lurvink RJ, Rovers KP, Nienhuijs SW, Creemers GJ, Burger JWA, de Hingh IHJ. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases-a systematic review. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 12:S242-S258. [PMID: 33968441 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-20-257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) is increasingly used as a palliative treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study aimed to systematically review all clinical studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of PIPAC-OX in patients with CPM. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify all clinical studies that included at least one patient with CPM treated with PIPAC-OX and reported one of the following outcomes: adverse events, tumor response, quality of life, secondary cytoreductive surgery, progression-free survival, overall survival, and environmental safety of PIPAC-OX. Results were narratively described. Of 28 included studies, only 14 non-comparative studies separately reported at least one outcome of PIPAC-OX for CPM, of which only two studies specifically focused on this group. These 14 studies reported adverse events (5 studies), tumor response (5 studies), secondary cytoreductive surgery (4 studies), progression-free survival (1 study), overall survival (5 studies), and environmental safety (2 studies). Except for 5 studies (describing 26 patients), none of the included studies stratified their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and none of the studies reporting survival outcomes stratified results for line of palliative treatment, complicating interpretation. No PIPAC-OX related deaths were reported. No occupational platinum was detected during PIPAC-OX. The available evidence regarding PIPAC-OX for CPM is limited and difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, PIPAC-OX appears safe in patients with CPM and safe for operating personnel. To increase insight in the role of PIPAC-OX in this setting, investigators of ongoing and future studies are encouraged to report separate outcomes of PIPAC-OX for CPM, to stratify their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and to stratify survival results for line of palliative treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin J Lurvink
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Koen P Rovers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Geert-Jan Creemers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Ignace H J de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.,GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lurvink RJ, Van der Speeten K, Rovers KP, de Hingh IHJT. The emergence of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy as a palliative treatment option for patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases: a narrative review. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 12:S259-S270. [PMID: 33968442 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-20-497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases. Potential advantages of PIPAC over current treatment options are a homogeneous intraperitoneal distribution, low local and systemic toxicity, and enhanced tumour penetration. Given these possible benefits, PIPAC is increasingly implemented in many centres worldwide. Scientific research into PIPAC is currently available from in vitro/in vivo/in animal studies, retrospective cohorts in humans, and phase I and II studies in humans. There are no results from randomised trials comparing PIPAC with conventional treatment, such as palliative systemic therapy. This narrative review aimed to provide an overview of the currently available literature on PIPAC. In general, repetitive PIPAC was feasible and safe for patients and operating room personnel. Primary and secondary non-access rates varied from 0-17% and 0-15%, respectively. Iatrogenic bowel injury was observed in 0-3% of PIPAC procedures. CTCAE grade 1-2 complications were common, mostly consisting of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. CTCAE grade 3-4 complications were uncommon, occurring on 0-15% of PIPAC procedures. Post-operative mortality rates of 0-2% were reported. The risk of occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs was very low when strict safety guidelines were followed. Clinical heterogeneity was high in most studies, since, in general, patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases from a variety of primary tumours were included. Also, patients received either PIPAC monotherapy or PIPAC combined with concomitant systemic therapy, and were able to receive PIPAC in any line of palliative treatment. Since the results were generally not stratified for these three important factors, this severely complicates the interpretation of results. Based on the current literature, PIPAC may be regarded as a promising palliative treatment option in patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases. Initial results show that it is feasible and safe. However, well designed and (ideally) randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to determine the additional value of PIPAC in this setting. Until then, PIPAC should preferably be performed in the setting of clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin J Lurvink
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | - Koen P Rovers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Ignace H J T de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.,GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Rovers KP, Wassenaar ECE, Lurvink RJ, Creemers GJM, Burger JWA, Los M, Huysentruyt CJR, van Lijnschoten G, Nederend J, Lahaye MJ, Deenen MJ, Wiezer MJ, Nienhuijs SW, Boerma D, de Hingh IHJT. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (Oxaliplatin) for Unresectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Phase II Trial (CRC-PIPAC). Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28:5311-5326. [PMID: 33544279 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09558-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Accepted: 12/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koen P Rovers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Emma C E Wassenaar
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Robin J Lurvink
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Geert-Jan M Creemers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Jacobus W A Burger
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje Los
- Department of Medical Oncology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Joost Nederend
- Department of Radiology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Max J Lahaye
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten J Deenen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Marinus J Wiezer
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Djamila Boerma
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Ignace H J T de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. .,GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Shree V, Lim TJ, Lean LL, So BYJ, Kim G. Anaesthesia considerations and techniques for Pressurised IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). Pleura Peritoneum 2020; 5:20190013. [PMID: 33575459 PMCID: PMC7823152 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2019-0013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2019] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Venkatesan Shree
- Department of Anaesthesia, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.,University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Tian Jin Lim
- Department of Anaesthesia, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.,University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Lyn Li Lean
- Department of Anaesthesia, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.,University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Bok Yan Jimmy So
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.,Division of Surgical Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore (NCIS), National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Guowei Kim
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.,Division of Surgical Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore (NCIS), National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Di Giorgio A, Sgarbura O, Rotolo S, Schena CA, Bagalà C, Inzani F, Russo A, Chiantera V, Pacelli F. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin or oxaliplatin for peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2020; 12:1758835920940887. [PMID: 32782488 PMCID: PMC7383654 DOI: 10.1177/1758835920940887] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 06/15/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Systemic chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) with peritoneal metastases (PM) is affected by several pharmacological shortcomings and low clinical efficacy. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is expected to maximize exposure of peritoneal nodules to antiblastic agents. This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of PIPAC for PM of PDAC and CC origin. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC and CC cases with PM treated with PIPAC at two European referral centers for peritoneal disease. We prospectively recorded from August 2016 to May 2019 demographic, clinical, surgical, and oncological data. We performed a feasibility and safety assessment and an efficacy analysis based on clinical and pathological regression. Results Twenty patients with PM from PDAC (14) and CC (six) underwent 45 PIPAC administrations. Cisplatin-doxorubicin or oxaliplatin were administered to eight and 12 patients, respectively. We experienced one intraoperative complication (small bowel perforation) and 18 grade 1-2 postoperative adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. A pathological regression was recorded in 50% of patients (62% in the cisplatin-doxorubicin cohort and 42% in the oxaliplatin one). Median survival from the first PIPAC was 9.7 and 10.9 months for PDAC and CC, respectively. Conclusion PIPAC resulted feasible and safe without relevant toxicity issues, with both cisplatin-doxorubicin and oxaliplatin. The pathological response observed supports the evidence of antitumoral activity. Despite the study limitations, these outcomes are encouraging, recommending PIPAC in prospective, controlled trials in the palliative setting or the first line chemotherapy for PM from PDAC and CC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Di Giorgio
- Foundation Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum Surgery, Roma, Lazio, Italy
| | - Olivia Sgarbura
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, Languedoc-Roussillon, France
| | - Stefano Rotolo
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro, 129, Palermo, 90127, Sicilia, Italy
| | - Carlo Alberto Schena
- Foundation Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, General Surgery Unit, Roma, Lazio, Italy
| | - Cinzia Bagalà
- Foundation Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Division of Medical Oncology, Roma, Lazio, Italy
| | - Frediano Inzani
- Foundation Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Anatomic Pathology Unit, Roma, Lazio, Italy
| | - Andrea Russo
- Foundation Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Institute of Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology, Roma, Lazio, Italy
| | - Vito Chiantera
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy
| | - Fabio Pacelli
- Foundation Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum Surgery, Roma, Lazio, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Alyami M, Hübner M, Grass F, Bakrin N, Villeneuve L, Laplace N, Passot G, Glehen O, Kepenekian V. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications. Lancet Oncol 2020; 20:e368-e377. [PMID: 31267971 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30318-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 183] [Impact Index Per Article: 45.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2019] [Revised: 04/18/2019] [Accepted: 04/23/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Alyami
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Oncology Center, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia.
| | - Martin Hübner
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Fabian Grass
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Naoual Bakrin
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; EMR 3738 Lyon Sud Charles Mérieux Faculty, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Oullins, France
| | - Laurent Villeneuve
- Department of Public Health, Clinical Research and Epidemiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Nathalie Laplace
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; EMR 3738 Lyon Sud Charles Mérieux Faculty, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Oullins, France
| | - Guillaume Passot
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; EMR 3738 Lyon Sud Charles Mérieux Faculty, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Oullins, France
| | - Olivier Glehen
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; EMR 3738 Lyon Sud Charles Mérieux Faculty, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Oullins, France
| | - Vahan Kepenekian
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France; EMR 3738 Lyon Sud Charles Mérieux Faculty, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Oullins, France
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Alyami M, Bonnot PE, Mercier F, Laplace N, Villeneuve L, Passot G, Bakrin N, Kepenekian V, Glehen O. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for unresectable peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 47:123-127. [PMID: 32561204 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2020] [Revised: 05/09/2020] [Accepted: 05/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Alyami
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France; Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Oncology Center, King Khalid Hospital, Najran, Saudi Arabia.
| | - Pierre-Emmanuel Bonnot
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - Frederic Mercier
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; Department of Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Montreal, Montreal, Canada
| | - Nathalie Laplace
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - Laurent Villeneuve
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - Guillaume Passot
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - Naoual Bakrin
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - Vahan Kepenekian
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| | - Olivier Glehen
- Department of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre, Bénite, France; EMR 3738, Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Tate SJ, Torkington J. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a review of the introduction of a new surgical technology using the IDEAL framework. BJS Open 2020; 4:206-215. [PMID: 31957257 PMCID: PMC7093779 DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2019] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S. J. Tate
- Department of General SurgeryUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
- Division of Cancer and GeneticsCardiff University School of MedicineCardiffUK
| | - J. Torkington
- Department of General SurgeryUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Rovers KP, Lurvink RJ, Wassenaar EC, Kootstra TJ, Scholten HJ, Tajzai R, Deenen MJ, Nederend J, Lahaye MJ, Huysentruyt CJ, van 't Erve I, Fijneman RJ, Constantinides A, Kranenburg O, Los M, Thijs AM, Creemers GJM, Burger JW, Wiezer MJ, Boerma D, Nienhuijs SW, de Hingh IH. 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). BMJ Open 2019; 9:e030408. [PMID: 31352425 PMCID: PMC6661551 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koen P Rovers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Robin J Lurvink
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Emma Ce Wassenaar
- Department of Surgery, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas Jm Kootstra
- Department of Surgery, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Harm J Scholten
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Rudaba Tajzai
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten J Deenen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Joost Nederend
- Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Max J Lahaye
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Iris van 't Erve
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Remond Ja Fijneman
- Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Maartje Los
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Anna Mj Thijs
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jacobus Wa Burger
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Marinus J Wiezer
- Department of Surgery, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Djamila Boerma
- Department of Surgery, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Ignace Hjt de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
- GROW - School for Oncology and Development Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|