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

Top Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Articles from 2022 to Inform your Cancer Practice

Over the last few decades, the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without regional-based peritoneal therapies such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has evolved in the management of patients with peritoneal surface malignances (PSMs). Despite the benefit of CRS in improving oncologic outcomes, significant challenges remain in the treatment of patients with advanced PSMs, and the role of HIPEC continues to be questioned. Additionally, while there has been improvement in perioperative outcomes, long-term survival remains poor. As a result, there is much need to improve our understanding of the processes that drive tumor biology, thereby improving patient selection for various treatment approaches. Additionally, newer therapies are needed for patients who remain poor surgical candidates and who progress on systemic therapy. This article highlights recently published studies that we consider impactful in the care of patients with PSMs.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Safety-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); p < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; p = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; p < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions: PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.

Ovarian Causes of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP)-A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare, progressive, slowly growing, inadequately understood neoplasm with a 5-year progression-free survival rate of as low as 48%. It is characterized by varying degrees of malignancy and the production of mucinous and gelatinous structures. Typically, the development of pseudomyxoma peritonei is associated with the rupture of appendiceal mucinous tumors and other gastrointestinal or ovarian mucinous tumors. The goal of our literature review was to identify various aspects that characterize the ovarian causes of pseudomyxoma peritonei.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors performed an extensive literature search between 1 February 2024 and 2 March 2024 on the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Oxford Journals, and Reaxys, and the findings were summarized into seven main clinical and paraclinical situations.

RESULTS

According to our research, the main instances in which pseudomyxoma peritonei can be triggered by an ovarian cause are the following: (1) mucinous cystadenoma; (2) mucinous ovarian cancer; (3) colon cancer with ovarian metastasis; (4) malignant transformation of an ovarian primary mature cystic teratoma; (5) appendiceal mucocele with peritoneal dissemination mimicking an ovarian tumor with peritoneal carcinomatosis; (6) mucinous borderline tumor developing inside an ovarian teratoma; and (7) the association between a mucinous bilateral ovarian cancer and a colonic tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the ovarian causes of pseudomyxoma peritonei, including its epidemiology, imagery characteristics, symptoms, current treatment, and promising future therapies, in the hopes of finding feasible solutions, as a lack of understanding of this mucus-secreting malignant disease increases the risk of delayed diagnosis or uncontrolled deterioration.

Safety and Efficacy of Oxaliplatin Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosolized Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in Colorectal and Appendiceal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: Results of a Multicenter Phase I Trial in the USA

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopic locoregional treatment for peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) or appendiceal cancer (AC) in patients who cannot undergo cytoreductive surgery (CRS). While PIPAC has been studied in Europe and Asia, it has not been investigated in the USA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated PIPAC with 90 mg/m2 oxaliplatin alone (cycle 1) and preceded by systemic chemotherapy with fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (cycle 2-3) as a multicenter prospective phase I clinical trial (NCT04329494). The primary endpoint was treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints included survival and laparoscopic, histologic, and radiographic response.

RESULTS

12 patients were included: 8 with CRC and 4 with AC. Median prior chemotherapy cycles was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 2-3). All patients were refractory to systemic oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 28 (IQR 19-32). Six (50%) of twelve patients completed three PIPAC cycles. No surgical complications or dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Two patients developed grade 3 treatment-related toxicities (one abdominal pain and one anemia). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.0 months, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months. OS was correlated with stable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria but not with laparoscopic response by PCI or histologic response by peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS).

CONCLUSIONS

This phase I trial in the USA demonstrated safety, feasibility, and early efficacy signal of PIPAC with oxaliplatin and chemotherapy in patients with PM from AC or CRC who are refractory to standard lines of systemic chemotherapy.

Evaluation of the Effect of an Intraperitoneal Cytostatic-Loaded Supramolecular Hydrogel on Intestinal Anastomotic Healing in an Animal Model

The prognosis of colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases is very poor. Intraperitoneal drug delivery systems, like supramolecular hydrogels, are being developed to improve local delivery and intraperitoneal residence time of a cytostatic such as mitomycin C (MMC). In this study, we evaluate the effect of intraperitoneal hydrogel administration on anastomotic healing. Forty-two healthy Wistar rats received a colonic end-to-end anastomosis, after which 6 animals received an intraperitoneal injection with saline, 18 with unloaded hydrogel and 18 with MMC-loaded hydrogel. After 7 days, animals were euthanized, and the anastomotic adhesion and leakage score were measured as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were bursting pressure, histological anastomosis evaluation and body weight changes. Twenty-two rats completed the follow-up period (saline: n = 6, unloaded hydrogel: n = 10, MMC-loaded hydrogel: n = 6) and were included in the analysis. A trend towards significance was found for anastomotic leakage score between the rats receiving saline and unloaded hydrogel after multiple-comparison correction (p = 0.020, α = 0.0167). No significant differences were found for all other outcomes. The main reason for drop-out in this study was intestinal blood loss. Although the preliminary results suggest that MMC-loaded or unloaded hydrogel does not influence anastomotic healing, the intestinal blood loss observed in a considerable number of animals receiving unloaded and MMC-loaded hydrogel implies that the injection of the hydrogel under the studied conditions is not safe in the current rodent model and warrants further optimalisation of the hydrogel.

A prediction model to refine the timing of an early second-look laparoscopic exploration in patients with colon cancer at high risk of early peritoneal metastasis recurrence

BACKGROUND

In patients at high risk of peritoneal metastasis (PM) recurrence following surgical treatment of colon cancer (CC), second-look laparoscopic exploration (SLLE) is mandatory; however, the best timing is unknown. We created a tool to refine the timing of early SLLE in patients at high risk of PM recurrence.

METHODS

This international cohort study included patients who underwent CC surgery between 2009 and 2020. All patients had PM recurrence. Factors associated with PM-free survival (PMFS) were assessed using Cox regression. The primary endpoint was early PM recurrence defined as a PMFS of <6 months. A model (logistic regression) was fitted and corrected using bootstrap.

RESULTS

In total, 235 patients were included. The median PMFS was 13 (IQR, 8-22) months, and 15.7% of the patients experienced an early PM recurrence. Synchronous limited PM and/or ovarian metastasis (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.66-3.78]; p < 0.001) were associated with a very high-risk status requiring SLLE. T4 (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: [1.03-2.11]; p = 0.036), transverse tumor localization (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: [0.17-0.69]; p = 0.002), emergency surgery (HR: 2.06; 95% CI: [1.36-3.13]; p < 0.001), mucinous subtype (HR: 0.50; 95% CI [0.30, 0.82]; p = 0.006), microsatellite instability (HR: 2.29; 95% CI [1.06, 4.93]; p = 0.036), KRAS mutation (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: [1.24-2.55]; p = 0.002), and complete protocol of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: [0.89-0.96]; p < 0.001) were also prognostic factors for PMFS. Thus, a model was fitted (area under the curve: 0.87; 95% CI: [0.82-0.92]) for prediction, and a cutoff of 150 points was identified to classify patients at high risk of early PM recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Using a nomogram, eight prognostic factors were identified to select patients at high risk for early PM recurrence objectively. Patients reaching 150 points could benefit from an early SLLE.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, reasons for interrupting treatment: a systematic review of the literature

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) gives encouraging results in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The current recommendations require at least 3 sessions of PIPAC. However, some patients do not complete the full treatment course and stop after only 1 or 2 procedures, hence the limited benefit. A literature review was performed, with search terms including "PIPAC" and "pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy."

Content

Only articles describing the causes for premature termination of the PIPAC treatment were analysed. The systematic search identified 26 published clinical articles related to PIPAC and reporting causes for stopping PIPAC.

Summary

The series range from 11 to 144 patients, with a total of 1352 patients treated with PIPAC for various tumours. A total of 3088 PIPAC treatments were performed. The median number of PIPAC treatments per patient was 2.1, the median PCI score at the time of the first PIPAC was 19 and the number of patients who did not complete the recommended 3 sessions of PIPAC was 714 (52.8%). Disease progression was the main reason for early termination of the PIPAC treatment (49.1%). The other causes were death, patients' wishes, adverse events, conversion to curative cytoreductive surgery and other medical reasons (embolism, pulmonary infection, etc…).

Outlook

Further investigations are necessary to better understand the causes for interrupting PIPAC treatment and also improving the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from PIPAC.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM): a prospective single-center registry study

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new, palliative approach for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs). Its main goals are to control symptoms and ascites. For this experimental procedure, treatment efficacy and patient safety need to be closely monitored.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry study for patients with PSMs. Cisplatin (C) (7.5 mg/m² body surface) and doxorubicin (D) (1.5 mg/m²) were administered laparoscopically via PIPAC.

RESULTS

Between November 2015 and June 2020, we recorded data from 108 patients and 230 scheduled procedures. Tumor burden, patient fitness, quality of life, operating time and in-hospital stay remained stable over consecutive procedures. We recorded 21 non-access situations and 14 intraoperative complications (11 intestinal injuries, and three aspirations while inducing anesthesia). Three or more previous abdominal surgeries or cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) were risk factors for non-access and intestinal injuries (χ², p ≤ 0.01). Five Grade IV and three Grade V postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) occurred. Median overall survival was 264 days (interquartile range 108-586). Therapies were primarily discontinued because of death (34%), progressive (26%), or regressive (16%) disease.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is effective in stabilizing PSMs and retaining quality of life in selected patients. Earlier abdominal surgeries and CRS with HIPEC should be considered when determining the indication for PIPAC. Randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate PIPAC's therapeutic benefits compared to systemic chemotherapy (sCHT) alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03100708 (April 2017).

10 Years of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper-Pearson exact CIs in all instances.

RESULTS

A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3-4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61-0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I² 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: A systematic review by the PIPAC UK collaborative

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.

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

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.

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.

Comprehensive Treatment Algorithms of the Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group for Peritoneal Cancer of Gastrointestinal Origin

Peritoneal cancer (PC) is a dire finding, yet in selected patients, long-term survival is possible. Complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) together with combination immunochemotherapy is essential to achieve cure. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are increasingly added to the multimodal treatment. The Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group (SPCG) is an interdisciplinary group of expert clinicians. It has developed comprehensive treatment algorithms for patients with PC from pseudomyxoma peritonei, peritoneal mesothelioma, gastric, and colorectal origin. They include multimodal neoadjuvant treatment, surgical resection, and palliative care. The indication for and results of CRS HIPEC and PIPAC are discussed in light of the current literature. Institutional volume and clinical expertise required to achieve best outcomes are underlined, while inclusion of patients considered for CRS HIPEC and PIPAC in a clinical registry is strongly advised. The present recommendations are in line with current international guidelines and provide the first comprehensive treatment proposal for patients with PC including intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The SPCG comprehensive treatment algorithms provide evidence-based guidance for the multimodal care of patients with PC of gastrointestinal origin that were endorsed by all Swiss clinicians routinely involved in the multimodal care of these challenging patients.

Is Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosolized Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Effective in Ovarian Cancer With Peritoneal Metastasis?

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common causes of mortality in women and is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage. Ovarian cancer has a high recurrence rate, with most cases being peritoneal metastasis. The standard treatment of peritoneal metastasis is systemic chemotherapy, but naturally, the peritoneum is poorly vascularized, making this standard of treatment frequently ineffective. Hence, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) introduced a new type of intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) in November 2011. Positive feedback on its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy has encouraged medical communities worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a new drug delivery technique. This study's objective is to review previously conducted research on the efficacy of PIPAC treatment for peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer.

Intraperitoneal drug delivery systems releasing cytostatic agents to target gastro-intestinal peritoneal metastases in laboratory animals: a systematic review

For peritoneal metastases (PM), there are few curative treatment options, and they are only available for a select patient group. Recently, new therapies have been developed to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for a prolonged period, suitable for a larger patient group. These drug delivery systems (DDSs) seem promising in the experimental setting. Many types of DDSs have been explored in a variety of animal models, using different cytostatics. This review aimed to provide an overview of animal studies using DDSs containing cytostatics for the treatment of gastro-intestinal PM and identify the most promising therapeutic combinations. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) guidelines. The 35 studies included revealed similar results: using a cytostatic-loaded DDS to treat PM resulted in a higher median survival time (MST) and a lower intraperitoneal tumor load compared to no treatment or treatment with a ‘free’ cytostatic or an unloaded DDS. In 65% of the studies, the MST was significantly longer and in 24% the tumor load was significantly lower in the animals treated with cytostatic-loaded DDS. The large variety of experimental setups made it impossible to identify the most promising DDS-cytostatic combination. In most studies, the risk of bias was unclear due to poor reporting. Future studies should focus more on improving the clinical relevance of the experiments, standardizing the experimental study setup, and improving their methodological quality and reporting.

Feasibility and Safety of Oxaliplatin-Based Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy With or Without Intraoperative Intravenous 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared the feasibility and safety of oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-Ox) with or without intraoperative intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (L).

METHODS

Our study included consecutive patients with histologically proven unresectable and isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases (cPM) treated with PIPAC-Ox in seven tertiary referral centers between January 2015 and April 2020. Toxicity events and oncological outcomes (histological response, progression-free survival, and overall survival) were compared between patients who received intraoperative intravenous 5-FU/L (PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group) and patients who did not (PIPAC-Ox group).

RESULTS

In total, 101 patients (263 procedures) were included in the PIPAC-Ox group and 30 patients (80 procedures) were included in the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 48 of 101 (47.5%) patients in the PIPAC-Ox group and in 13 of 30 (43.3%) patients in the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group (p = 0.73). The complete histological response rates according to the peritoneal regression grading score were 27% for the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group and 18% for the PIPAC-Ox group (p = 0.74). No statistically significant differences were observed in overall or progression-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and feasibility of PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L appears to be similar to the safety and feasibility of PIPAC-Ox alone in patients with unresectable cPM. Oncological outcomes must be evaluated in larger studies.

Appendiceal tumors and pseudomyxoma peritonei: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (RENAPE, RENAPATH, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of appendicular epithelial tumors (AT) and pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) published in March 2020, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

All French medical societies specialized in the management of AT and PMP collaboratively established these recommendations based on literature until December 2019 and the results of a Delphi vote carried out by the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International experts, and graded into 4 categories (A, B, C, Expert Agreement) according to their level of evidence.

RESULTS

AT and PMP are rare but represent a wide range of clinico-pathological entities with several pathological classification systems and different biological behaviors. Their treatment modalities may vary accordingly and range from simple surveillance or laparoscopic appendectomy to complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and / or systemic chemotherapy. The prognosis of these neoplasms may also largely vary according to their pathological grade and spreading at diagnosis or during the follow-up. Given the rarity of certain situations, the therapeutic strategy adapted to each patient, must be discussed in a specialized multidisciplinary meeting after a specialized pathological and radiological pre-therapeutic assessment and a clinical examination by a surgeon specializing in the management of rare peritoneal malignancies.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations are proposed to achieve the most beneficial strategy in a daily practice as the wide range and the rareness of these entities renders their management challenging. These guidelines are permanently being reviewed.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the environmental contamination and exposure risk in medical/non-medical staff after oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a technique to directly deliver chemotherapeutic drugs in the abdomen for the treatment of peritoneal metastases. Pressurization improves the treatment efficacy but increases the risk of exposure for the medical/non-medical staff who can be exposed by dermal or ocular contact, or inhalation of aerosols containing the cytotoxic drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of exposure for the medical/non-medical staff (nurses, surgeons, anaesthesiologists and cleaning personnel; n = 13) during PIPAC with oxaliplatin performed according to the protocol recommended in France. Blood samples were collected 1 h before and immediately after PIPAC, and urine samples 1 h before, and then 3 h and the morning after PIPAC. In the control, non-exposed group (n = 7), only one urine and blood sample were collected. Surface contamination in the operating room was assessed in water- and Surfanios-impregnated wipe samples. The total elemental platinum in each sample was quantified by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, using a method adapted to quantify trace amounts (ng.L^-1) in very low volumes (100 μl). No surface contamination was detected. Although 25% of urine samples in the exposed group contained platinum, no statistical difference was observed in urine and plasma samples collected before and after PIPAC and with the control group samples. These findings suggest that the French PIPAC protocol does not increase the risk of exposure to platinum in all staff categories involved. This protocol could be considered in future occupational policies and consensus statements. Trial registration: NCT04014426.

Incidentally found mucinous epithelial tumors of the appendix with or without pseudomyxoma peritonei: diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms based on current evidence

Mucinous appendiceal tumors with or without the pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) syndrome are rare, but often present as an incidental finding. The confusing histology and lack of large prospective trials result in a considerable diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in these patients. We propose treatment algorithms in patients with incidentally found mucinous epithelial appendiceal tumors, with or without PMP, based on the currently available evidence. The therapeutic approach should take into account the histology and grade of the primary appendix tumor, as well as those of the associated peritoneal disease.

Retrospective Cohort Study of Intraoperative Administration of Sustained-Release 5-Fluorouracil Implants in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients

Background: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is basically used in the field of postoperative chemotherapy of gastric cancer (GC), the goal of this study was to evaluate improvement of long-term survival rate among GC patients after the 5-FU implants treatment.

Methods: The study included 145 patients with gastric cancer who received postoperative chemotherapy with 5-FU implants and had complete follow-up information. According to the sex, age and clinical stage of 5-FU implants group, 74 patients were matched as the control group at the same time. In the study, we compared the 5-year overall survival rate with progression-free survival rate in the two groups, and the drug safety for both groups during the treatment was also compared.

Results: The median follow-up time was 85 months (range 60–116 months). 31 patients (21.38%) died of tumor recurrence in 5-FU implants group and 21 (28.38%) in control group. In the control group, metastatic lesions were found in the small intestine, left adrenal gland and peritoneum in three patients. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 79.71% in 5-FU group and 67.12% in control (p = 0.0045). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 77.68% in 5-FU implants group and 64.87% in control (p = 0.0159). Both the 5-years OS and PFS rates in 5-FU group were better than control group without significant side effect.

Conclusions: 5-FU implants may improve 5-years OS and PFS rates after surgery in gastric cancer patients, while good safety profile suggests it could be reliable.

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.

The emergence of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy as a palliative treatment option for patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases: a narrative review

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: Current status and future direction

Gastric cancer is still a major cause of death worldwide. While laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has gained evidence as a standard treatment for early gastric cancer in the distal stomach, there are still concerns regarding its application for gastric cancer in the upper stomach and advanced gastric cancer. Nevertheless, LG has shown to have faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, less pain, and less blood loss in many retrospective and prospective studies. The application of LG has now extended from conventional radical gastrectomy to novel approaches such as function-preserving gastrectomy and sentinel-node navigated surgery. Studies on the use of laparoscopy in treatment for stage IV gastric cancer are rare, but show that there may be some roles of LG in selected cases. With the development of new laparoscopic tools that augment human ability, the future of LG should move on from proving non-inferiority to demonstrating superiority compared to the traditional open gastrectomy.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy Enhanced by Electrostatic Precipitation (ePIPAC) for Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new mode of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration that can potentially be improved by the addition of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC). This study aimed to describe the procedural details of ePIPAC and to analyze its safety for patients with nonresectable peritoneal metastasis as well as their tolerance and response to this treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients treated with ePIPAC in three centers from April 2019 to April 2020. The toxicities of each patient were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Complications were documented according to the Clavien classification. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) was used to grade histologic responses. Further surrogates for responses were the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), ascites, and symptoms.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 patients received 147 ePIPACs with oxaliplatin (n = 34) or cisplatin/doxorubicin (n = 35) mainly for colorectal (n = 25), ovarian (n = 14), and gastric (n = 13) primary cancers. Systemic chemotherapy was used in the treatment of 54 patients (76%). The median electrostatic therapy time was 12 min (range 6-30 min). The overall and major CTCAE toxicity rates were respectively 24.6% and 15.9%. The postoperative complications rate according to Clavien classification was 4.7%. The responses of 22 patients who had three or more ePIPAC treatments were evaluated as follows: PCI (16 vs 14; p = 0.4), ascites (320 vs 98 ml; p = 0.1), and PRGS (2.23 vs 1.73; p = 0.15). The complete (PRGS1) and major (PRGS2) histologic responses at the third ePIPAC were respectively 38.5% and 53.8%. Overall QoL was stable during the first ePIPACs.

CONCLUSION

Repetitive ePIPACs were safe and well tolerated for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastasis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Complications and risk factors for complications of implanted subcutaneous ports for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis

Objective

Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy through subcutaneous port is an effective treatment for gastric cancer (GC) patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The objective of this study is to assess the port complications and risk factors for complications in GC patients with PM.

Methods

In retrospective screening of 301 patients with subcutaneous ports implantation, 249 GC patients with PM who received IP chemotherapy were screened out for analysis. Port complications and risk factors for complications were analyzed.

Results

Of the 249 analyzed patients, 57 (22.9%) experienced port complications. Subcutaneous liquid accumulation (42.1%) and infection (28.1%) were the main complications, and other complications included port rotation (14.1%), wound dehiscence (12.3%), inflow obstruction (1.7%) and subcutaneous metastasis (1.7%). The median interval between port implantation and occurrence of complications was 3.0 months. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status [odds ratio (OR), 1.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.12−2.69], albumin (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.96−6.86), implantation procedure optimization (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18−0.61) and implantation groups (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20−0.69) were independent risk factors for port complications (P<0.05). ECOG performance status was the only factor that related to the grades of port complications (P=0.016).

Conclusions

Port complications in GC patients who received IP chemotherapy are manageable. ECOG performance status, albumin, implantation procedure and implantation group are independent risk factors for port complications in GC patients with PM.