Therapeutic approach of human peritoneal carcinomatosis with Dbait in combination with capnoperitoneum: proof of concept

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Progress in Biological Research and Treatment of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare disease characterized by extensive peritoneal implantation and mass secretion of mucus after primary mucinous tumors of the appendix or other organ ruptures. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is currently the preferred treatment, with excellent efficacy and safety, and is associated with breakthrough progress in long-term disease control and prolonged survival. However, the high recurrence rate of PMP is the key challenge in its treatment, which limits the clinical application of multiple rounds of CRS-HIPEC and does not benefit from conventional systemic chemotherapy. Therefore, the development of alternative therapies for patients with refractory or relapsing PMP is critical. The literature related to PMP research progress and treatment was searched in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, and a literature review was conducted. The overview of the biological research, treatment status, potential therapeutic strategies, current research limitations, and future directions associated with PMP are presented, focuses on CRS-HIPEC therapy and alternative or combination therapy strategies, and emphasizes the clinical transformation prospects of potential therapeutic strategies such as mucolytic agents and targeted therapy. It provides a theoretical reference for the treatment of PMP and the main directions for future research.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Postoperative Pain and Opioid Administration After Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique, developed for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). In this retrospective observational study we assessed the impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.

METHODS

We analyzed pain scores after 100 PIPAC procedures using either oxaliplatin or doxorubicin-cisplatin performed in 49 patients with PC between July 2016 and September 2020. The patients were divided into 3 groups (BMI <18.5, 18.5 ≥ BMI < 25, BMI≥25). Pain was self-rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

Univariate logistic regression analysis identified oxaliplatin and PCI score to be associated with moderate to severe pain (VAS 4-10 at 8 am D1) after adjustment on BMI (OR [95% CI]; 3.26[1.00 - 10.65] p=0.050) and (OR [95% CI]; 1.09[1.01 - 1.17] p=0.019). The level of pain appeared significantly different between the treatment groups (median 2.5[0; 5] vs 0[0; 2.5] p=0.0017) irrespective of BMI (p =0.705 and p=0.118). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified moderate to severe pain and synchronous PC to be associated with greater use of opioids (OR [95% CI]: 3.91 [1.24 - 12.32]) and (OR [95% CI]: 5.16 [1.71 - 15.58]; respectively. Opioids were administered after 45 procedures (45%) and was comparable between the treatment groups. Opioid administration and length-of-stay were similar among BMI bands.

CONCLUSION

BMI is not related to postoperative pain or opioid use, howevermoderate to severe pain and synchronous PC are factors associated with requiring opioids.

Comparing patient reported abdominal pain between patients treated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) and primary colorectal cancer surgery

Oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases. Previously, our study group reported that patients experienced abdominal pain for several weeks after PIPAC-OX. However, it is unknown how this compares to abdominal pain after regular colorectal cancer surgery. To provide some perspective, this study compared the presence of abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX to the presence of abdominal pain after primary tumor surgery. Patient reported abdominal pain scores (EORTC QLQ-CR-29), from two prospective, Dutch cohorts were used in this study. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, a higher score represents more abdominal pain. Abdominal pain at baseline and at four weeks after treatment were compared between the two groups. Twenty patients who underwent PIPAC-OX and 322 patients who underwent primary tumor surgery were included in the analysis. At baseline, there were no differences in abdominal pain between both groups (mean 20 vs. 18, respectively; p = 0.688). Four weeks after treatment, abdominal pain was significantly worse in the PIPAC group (39 vs 15, respectively; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.99). The differential effect over time for abdominal pain differed significantly between both groups (mean difference: 19 vs - 3, respectively; p = 0.004; Cohen's d = 0.88). PIPAC-OX resulted in significantly worse postoperative abdominal pain than primary tumor surgery. These results can be used for patient counseling and stress the need for adequate analgesia during and after PIPAC-OX. Further research is required to prevent or reduce abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX.Trial registration CRC-PIPAC: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT03246321 (01-10-2017).

PIPAC for Gastrointestinal Malignancies

The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood-peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided.

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

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

Management of peritoneal surface metastases from colorectal cancer: Cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and beyond

This article provides a contemporary review of the current surgical management of peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) of colorectal origin. A brief review of the founding history of surgical intervention for PSM is followed by a focused review of the level I evidence, current clinical questions, and evolving advancements. While not intended to address all the facets of PSM, this review aims to provide the reader with the essential knowledge and resources to effectively provide surgical care for carcinomatosis due to colorectal malignancies.

Feasibility and Safety of Taxane-PIPAC in Patients with Peritoneal Malignancies-a Retrospective Bi-institutional Study

Taxanes have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile for intraperitoneal application. We report our initial experience with taxane-PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy) for unresectable peritoneal metastases from different primary sites in terms of safety, feasibility, response rate, and conversion to resectability. In this retrospective study, PIPAC was performed alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy. Paclitaxel was used as a single agent, whereas docetaxel was used in combination with cisplatin-adriamycin or oxaliplatin-adriamycin. From December 2019 to December 2021, 47 patients underwent 82 PIPAC procedures (1 PIPAC in 55.3%, 2 in 29.7%, 3 in 14.8%). The most common primary sites were ovarian cancer (31.9%), gastric cancer (23.4%), and colorectal cancer (21.2%). Docetaxel-cisplatin-adriamycin was used in 33 (70.2%) patients, docetaxel-oxaliplatin-adriamycin in 12 (25.5%), and paclitaxel alone in 2 (4.2%) patients. Grade 1-2 complications were observed in 24 (51%) and grade 3-4 complications in 6 (12.7%) patients (8.5% of 82 PIPACs). 16/47 (34.0%) patients had a clinical response to PIPAC. The mean PCI was 25.9 ± 9.2 for the first PIPACs and 22.4 ± 9 for the subsequent PIPACs with an average reduction of 3.6 points [change in PCI ranged from - 14 to + 8]. The PRGS was 1/2 in 4/47 (8.5%) patients (19.0% patients with > 1 PIPAC). A reduction in ascites was observed in 35.4% presenting with ascites. Nine (19.1%) patients had conversion to operability leading to a subsequent cytoreductive surgery in 8 (17%) patients. PIPAC with docetaxel is feasible and safe. The role of PIPAC with both docetaxel and paclitaxel either alone or in combination with other drugs should be investigated in prospective studies.

Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibition as a Promising Approach for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapy

Primary liver cancer is the sixth most common cancer in men and seventh in women, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) being the most common form (75-85% of primary liver cancer cases) and the most frequent etiology being viral infections (HBV and HCV). In 2020, mortality represented 92% of the incidence-830,180 deaths for 905,677 new cases. Few treatment options exist for advanced or terminal-stage HCC, which will receive systemic therapy or palliative care. Although radiotherapy is used in the treatment of many cancers, it is currently not the treatment of choice for HCC, except in the palliative setting. However, as radiosensitizing drugs, such as inhibitors of DNA repair enzymes, could potentiate the effects of RT in HCC by exploiting the modulation of DNA repair processes found in this tumour type, RT and such drugs could provide a treatment option for HCC. In this review, we provide an overview of PARP1 involvement in DNA damage repair pathway and discuss its potential implication in HCC. In addition, the use of PARP inhibitors and PARP decoys is described for the treatment of HCC and, in particular, in HBV-related HCC.

Phase I study of intraperitoneal aerosolized nanoparticle albumin based paclitaxel (NAB-PTX) for unresectable peritoneal metastases

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel method to treat patients with peritoneal metastases (PM). We aimed to study the tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and tumour response of nanoparticle albumin bound paclitaxel (NAB-PTX) during PIPAC in a Phase I study.

Methods

Eligible patients with biopsy-proven PM from ovarian, breast, gastric, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic origin underwent three PIPAC treatments using NAB-PTX with a four-week interval. The dose of NAB-PTX was escalated from 35 to 140 mg/m² using a Bayesian design to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

Findings

Twenty-three patients were included; thirteen (65%) patients combined PIPAC therapy with continued systemic chemotherapy. The most frequent toxicities were liver toxicity and anaemia. Treatment resulted in seven (35%) responders, six (30%) non-responders and seven (35%) patients with stable PM. Systemic absorption of NAB-PTX was slow, with median peak plasma concentrations reached after 3 to 4 h. Median NAB-PTX tumour tissue concentrations suggested accumulation: 14.6 ng/mg, 19.2 ng/mg and 40.8 ng/mg after the first, second and third PIPAC procedure respectively. EORTC QoL and VAS scores remained stable. Overall survival after one year was 57%.

Interpretation

PIPAC with NAB-PTX results in a favourable PK profile and promising anticancer activity in patients with unresectable PM. The MTD and recommended Phase II clinical trial dose are 140 mg/m². In patients with impaired hepatobiliary function, a dose of 112.5 mg/m² is recommended.

Funding

Kom op tegen Kanker (Flemish League against Cancer).

Optimization of intraperitoneal aerosolized drug delivery using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling

Intraperitoneal (IP) aerosolized anticancer drug delivery was recently introduced in the treatment of patients with peritoneal metastases. However, little is known on the effect of treatment parameters on the spatial distribution of the aerosol droplets in the peritoneal cavity. Here, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling was used in conjunction with experimental validation in order to investigate the effect of droplet size, liquid flow rate and viscosity, and the addition of an electrostatic field on the homogeneity of IP aerosol. We found that spatial distribution is optimal with small droplet sizes (1–5 µm). Using the current clinically used technology (droplet size of 30 µm), the optimal spatial distribution of aerosol is obtained with a liquid flow rate of 0.6 mL s⁻¹. Compared to saline, nebulization of higher viscosity liquids results in less homogeneous aerosol distribution. The addition of electrostatic precipitation significantly improves homogeneity of aerosol distribution, but no further improvement is obtained with voltages higher than 6.5 kV. The results of the current study will allow to choose treatment parameters and settings in order to optimize spatial distribution of IP aerosolized drug, with a potential to enhance its anticancer effect.

Intraperitoneal infusion of recombinant human indentation improves prognosis in gastric cancer ascites

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal administration of recombinant human indentation in gastric cancer with malignant ascites. Methods: Clinical data of 90 patients (37 in an Endostar^® combined with cisplatin group and 53 in a cisplatin group) were retrospectively analyzed. The primary end point was overall survival, and the secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and so on. Results: Median overall survival was longer in the combination group (9.7 vs 8.1 months; p = 0.01). ORR and DCR were higher in the combination group (ORR: 75.7% vs 54.7%; p = 0.04; DCR: 94.6% vs 75.5%; p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in adverse effects between the two groups. Conclusion: Intraperitoneal administration of recombinant human indentation improved efficacy and survival for gastric cancer with ascites.

Patient-reported outcomes during repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

CRC-PIPAC prospectively assessed repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) as a palliative monotherapy (i.e., without concomitant systemic therapy in between subsequent procedures) for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during trial treatment.

METHODS

In this single-arm phase 2 trial in two tertiary centers, patients with isolated unresectable CPM received 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²). PROs (calculated from EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) were compared between baseline and 1 and 4 weeks after the first three procedures using linear mixed modeling with determination of clinical relevance (Cohen's D ≥ 0.50) of statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent 59 procedures (median 3 [range 1-6]). Several PROs solely worsened 1 week after the first procedure (index value - 0.10, p < 0.001; physical functioning - 20, p < 0.001; role functioning - 27, p < 0.001; social functioning - 18, p < 0.001; C30 summary score - 16, p < 0.001; appetite loss + 15, p = 0.007; diarrhea + 15, p = 0.002; urinary frequency + 13, p = 0.004; flatulence + 13, p = 0.001). These PROs returned to baseline at subsequent time points. Other PROs worsened 1 week after the first procedure (fatigue + 23, p < 0.001; pain + 29, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 32, p < 0.001), second procedure (fatigue + 20, p < 0.001; pain + 21, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 20, p = 0.002), and third procedure (pain + 22, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 22, p = 0.002). Except for appetite loss, all changes were clinically relevant. All analyzed PROs returned to baseline 4 weeks after the third procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving repetitive PIPAC-OX monotherapy for unresectable CPM had clinically relevant but reversible worsening of several PROs, mainly 1 week after the first procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03246321; Netherlands trial register: NL6426.

Treatment for Peritoneal Metastasis of Patients With Colorectal Cancer

From the perspective of survival outcomes, the cancer survival of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the whole stage has improved. Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is found in approximately 8% to 15% of patients with CRC, with a poorer prognosis than that associated with other sites of metastases. Randomized controlled trials and up-to-date meta-analyses provide firm evidence that cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) could significantly improve overall survival compared with systemic chemotherapy alone in selected patients with CRC-PM. Practical guidelines recommend that the management of CRC-PM should be led by a multidisciplinary team carried out in experienced centers and consider CRS plus HIPEC for selected patients. In this review, we aim to provide the latest results of land mark studies and an overview of recent insights with regard to the management of CRC-PM.

The Feasibility of Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Virotherapy (PIPAV) to Administer Oncolytic Adenoviruses

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with peritoneal metastases is poor. Treatment options are limited because systemically delivered chemotherapy is not usually effective in this type of disease. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently developed alternative technology for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, potentially enhancing treatment efficacy. Here, we assess the feasibility of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised virotherapy (PIPAV) to deliver a different class of anticancer agents, oncolytic adenoviruses, in vitro and in vivo.

METHODS

Adenoviral vectors expressing reporter genes green fluorescence protein (Ad5.GFP) or firefly luciferase (Ad5.Luc) were subject to pressurised aerosolisation. The ability of the virus to survive PIPAV was assessed in vitro and in vivo by monitoring reporter gene activity. Wistar rats subjected to PIPAV were assessed for any adverse procedure related events.

RESULTS

In vitro transduction assays demonstrated that Ad5 retained viability following pressurised aerosolisation and could transduce permissive cells equally effectively as non-aerosolised control vector. PIPAV was well tolerated in rats, although minimal transduction was observed following intraperitoneal administration.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAV appears viable and well tolerated, though in vivo efficacy requires further optimisation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Radiologist Checklist for Selecting Patients to Undergo PIPAC (Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy)

Peritoneal carcinomatosis frequently occurs in advanced gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers. As factors such as poor drug uptake and distribution cause chemotherapy to be less effective, alternative therapies have been explored. Introduced in 2013, PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) uses aerosolized chemotherapeutics sprayed into the patient’s peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic approach. Despite the literature showing encouraging data regarding the tolerability and efficacy of PIPAC, there is a lack of articles on the role that imaging plays in selecting patients suitable for PIPAC. The aim of this study is to combine literature-based evidence and clinical experience to provide information able to support training radiologists, as well as experienced radiologists interested in innovative therapies.

Establishment of an Experimental System for Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in a Rat Model

AIM

To establish an experimental system for comparing different methods of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in a rat model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used six-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats, and created an early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) system using 18-gauge syringes and evacuators, and a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) system using two peristaltic pumps which controlled the flow rate and temperature. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was achieved using a nozzle for dispersing aerosols at a flow rate up to 41.5 ml/min. The distribution and intensity of 0.2% trypan blue dye was compared among three methods.

RESULTS

The distribution was limited and the intensity was weak after EPIC, and the dye stained moderately in gravity-dependent regions after HIPEC. On the other hand, the distribution was the most comprehensive, and the intensity was the greatest after PIPAC.

CONCLUSION

This experimental system in a rat model may reflect the comparative effect among EPIC, HIPEC and PIPAC in humans.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

HIPEC Methodology and Regimens: The Need for an Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is performed with a wide variation in methodology, drugs, and other elements vital to the procedure. Adoption of a limited number of regimens could increase the collective experience of peritoneal oncologists, make comparison between studies more meaningful, and lead to a greater acceptance of results from randomized trials. This study aimed to determine the possibility of standardizing HIPEC methodology and regimens and to identify the best method of performing such a standardization.

METHODS

A critical review of preclinical and clinical studies evaluating the pharmacokinetic aspects of different HIPEC drugs and drug regimens, the impact of hyperthermia, and the efficacy of various HIPEC regimens as well as studies comparing different regimens was performed.

RESULTS

The preclinical and clinical data were limited, and studies comparing different regimens were scarce. Many of the regimens were neither supported by preclinical rationale or data nor validated by a dose-escalating formal phase 1 trial. All the regimens were based on pharmacokinetic data and did not take chemosensitivity of peritoneal metastases into account. Personalized medicine approaches such as patient-derived tumor organoids could offer a solution to this problem, although clinical validation is likely to be challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from randomized trials, more translational research and phases 1 and 2 studies are needed. While waiting for better preclinical and clinical evidence, the best way to minimize heterogeneity is by an expert consensus that aims to identify and define a limited number of regimens for each indication and primary site. The choice of regimen then can be tailored to the patient profile and its expected toxicity and the methodology according regional factors.

Pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): increased intraperitoneal pressure does not affect distribution patterns but leads to deeper penetration depth of doxorubicin in a sheep model

BACKGROUND

Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative treatment against peritoneal carcinomatosis. Doxorubicin is a common intra-venous chemotherapy used for peritoneal carcinomatosis and for PIPAC. This study evaluated the impact of increased PIPAC intraperitoneal pressure on the distribution and cell penetration of doxorubicin in a sheep model.

METHODS

Doxorubicin was aerosolized using PIPAC into the peritoneal cavity of 6 ewes (pre-alpes breed): N = 3 with 12 mmHg intraperitoneal pressure ("group 12") and N = 3 with 20 mmHg ("group 20"). Samples from peritoneum (N = 6), ovarian (N = 1), omentum (N = 1) and caecum (N = 1) were collected for each ewe. The number of doxorubicin positive cells was determined using the ratio between doxorubicine fluorescence-positive cell nuclei (DOXO+) over total number of DAPI positive cell nuclei (DAPI+). Penetration depth (μm) was defined as the distance between the luminal surface and the location of the deepest DOXO+ nuclei over the total number of cell nuclei that were stained with DAPI. Penetration depth (μm) was defined as the distance between the luminal surface and the location of the deepest DOXO+ nuclei.

RESULTS

DOXO+ nuclei were identified in 87% of samples. All omental samples, directly localized in front of the nebulizer head, had 100% DOXO+ nuclei whereas very few nuclei were DOXO+ for caecum. Distribution patterns were not different between the two groups but penetration depth in ovary and caecum samples was significantly deeper in group 20.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that applying a higher intra-peritoneal pressure during PIPAC treatment leads to a deeper penetration of doxorubicin in ovarian and caecum but does not affect distribution patterns.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL8303.

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

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

A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of Oxaliplatin, Cisplatin and Doxorubicin Applied as PIPAC in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

Simple Summary

This study is one of the very few phase I trials on intraperitoneal chemotherapy applied as PIPAC. Cisplatin and doxorubicin may be safely used as PIPAC at a dose of 30 mg/m² and 6 mg/m², respectively; oxaliplatin can be used at an intraperitoneal dose of 135 mg/m². No serious adverse event was reported. The dosages achieved to date are the highest ever used in PIPAC. The results of these investigations should be the starting point for further clinical phase II trials regarding repeated PIPAC, possibly associated with systemic chemotherapy.

Abstract

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative laparoscopic intraperitoneal chemotherapy approach with the advantage of a deeper tissue penetration. Thus far, oxaliplatin has been administered at an arbitrary dose of 92 mg/m², cisplatin at 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m². This is a model-based approach phase I dose escalation study with the aim of identifying the maximum tolerable dose of the three different drugs. The starting dose of oxaliplatin was 100 mg/m²; cisplatin was used in association with doxorubicin: 15 mg/m² and 3 mg/m² were the respective starting doses. Safety was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.03). Thirteen patients were submitted to one PIPAC procedure. Seven patients were treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin and 6 patients with oxaliplatin; no dose limiting toxicities and major side effects were found. Common adverse events included postoperative abdominal pain and nausea. The maximum tolerable dose was not reached. The highest dose treated cohort (oxaliplatin 135 mg/m²; cisplatin 30 mg/m² and doxorubicin 6 mg/m²) tolerated PIPAC well. Serological analyses revealed no trace of doxorubicin at any dose level. Serum levels of cis- and oxaliplatin reached a peak at 60–120 min after PIPAC and were still measurable in the circulation 24 h after the procedure. Cisplatin and doxorubicin may be safely used as PIPAC at a dose of 30 mg/m² and 6 mg/m², respectively; oxaliplatin can be used at an intraperitoneal dose of 135 mg/m². The dosages achieved to date are the highest ever used in PIPAC.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a narrative review

For recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), it is challenging to resect tumors completely or to get complete remission by intravenous (IV) chemotherapy, and many patients show the resistance to various chemotherapeutic agents for IV chemotherapy ultimately. As an alternative, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced for treating the disease, which delivers chemotherapeutic agents as an aerosol form while maintaining high intraperitoneal (IP) pressure. Based on preclinical studies, PIPAC showed better penetration depth and distribution of drugs into the peritoneum in comparison to conventional IP chemotherapy. Tumor regression on histology and peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) has also been shown in relevant studies. In addition, most of the PIPAC procedures were completed successfully with acceptable toxicity due to the use of a low dose of chemotherapeutic agents. For considering these advantages of PIPAC, we review the current status of PIPAC for treating recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer through literature review.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

INTERVENTION

Patients with peritoneal metastases underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Intraperitoneal aerosolized drug delivery: Technology, recent developments, and future outlook

Current therapies for patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) are only moderately effective. Recently, a novel locoregional treatment method for PM was introduced, consisting of a combination of laparoscopy with intraperitoneal (IP) delivery of anticancer agents as an aerosol. This 'pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy' (PIPAC) may enhance tissue drug penetration by the elevated IP pressure during CO₂ capnoperitoneum. Also, repeated PIPAC cycles allow to accurately stage peritoneal disease and verify histological response to treatment. This review provides an overview of the rationale, indications, and currently used technology for therapeutic IP nebulization, and discusses the basic mechanisms governing aerosol particle transport and peritoneal deposition. We discuss early clinical results in patients with advanced, irresectable PM and highlight the potential of electrostatic aerosol precipitation. Finally, we discuss promising novel approaches, including nebulization of nanoparticles and prolonged release formulations.

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

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

Society of Onco-Anaesthesia and Perioperative Care consensus guidelines for perioperative management of patients for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC)

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for primary peritoneal malignancies or peritoneal spread of malignant neoplasm is being done at many centres worldwide. Perioperative management is challenging with varied haemodynamic and temperature instabilities, and the literature is scarce in many aspects of its perioperative management. There is a need to have coalition of the existing evidence and experts' consensus opinion for better perioperative management. The purpose of this consensus practice guideline is to provide consensus for best practice pattern based on the best available evidence by the expert committee of the Society of Onco-Anaesthesia and Perioperative Care comprising perioperative physicians for better perioperative management of patients of CRS-HIPEC.

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 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.