Standardizing training for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy

Standardizing eligibility and patient selection for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Delphi consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure for minimally invasive drug administration in patients with peritoneal metastasis. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of uniformity in treatment protocols and standardization of this practice. This study aimed to reach a consensus on eligibility, patient selection, and choice of chemotherapy for PIPAC.

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. A steering group formulated a list of baseline statements, addressing the objectives. The steering group consisted of seven expert surgical and medical oncologists. Available evidence and published key opinions were critically reviewed. An international expert panel scored those statements on a 4-point Likert scale. The statements were submitted electronically and anonymously. Consensus was reached if the agreement rate was ≥75%. A minimum Cronbach's alpha of >0.8 was set.

RESULTS

Forty-five (45/58; 77.6%) experts participated and completed all rounds. Experts were digestive surgeons (n = 28), surgical oncologists (n = 7), gynecologists (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 4), and one clinical researcher. Their assessment of 81 preliminary statements in the first round resulted in 41 consolidated statements. In round two, consensus was reached on 40 statements (40/41; 97.6%) with a consensus of ≥80% for each individual statement. In the third round, 40 statements were unanimously approved as definitive. The choice of first- and second-line chemotherapy remained controversial and could not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This International Delphi study provides practical guidance on eligibility and patient selection for PIPAC. Ongoing trial data and long-term results that could contribute to the further standardization of PIPAC are eagerly awaited.

The Future of Interventions for Stage IV Colorectal Cancers

Future options for the management of stage IV colorectal cancer are primarily focused on personalized and directed therapies. Interventions include precision cancer medicine, utilizing nanocarrier platforms for directed chemotherapy, palliative pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), adjunctive oncolytic virotherapy, and radioembolization techniques. Comprehensive genetic profiling provides specific tumor-directed therapy based on individual genetics. Biomimetic magnetic nanoparticles as chemotherapy delivery systems may reduce systemic side effects of traditional chemotherapy by targeting tumor cells and sparing healthy cells. PIPAC is a newly emerging option for patients with peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer and is now being used internationally, showing promising results as a palliative therapy for colorectal cancer. Oncolytic virotherapy is another emerging potential treatment option, especially when combined with standard chemotherapy and/or radiation, as well as immunotherapy. And finally, radioembolization with yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) microspheres has shown some success in treating patients with unresectable liver metastasis from colorectal cancer via selective arterial injection.

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.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Applied to Platinum-Resistant Recurrence of Ovarian Tumor: A Single-Institution Experience (ID: PARROT Trial)

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in platinum-resistant recurrence of ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis, while our secondary endpoint was to establish any changes in quality of life estimated via the EORTC QLQ-30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires.

METHODS

In this monocentric, single-arm, phase II trial, women were prospectively recruited and every 28-42 days underwent courses of PIPAC with doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m2 followed by cisplatin 10.5 mg/m2 via sequential laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 PIPAC procedures were performed on 43 women from January 2016 to January 2020; three procedures were aborted due to extensive intra-abdominal adhesions. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reached in 82% of women. Three cycles of PIPAC were completed in 18 women (45%), and 13 (32.5%) and 9 (22.5%) patients were subjected to one and two cycles, respectively. During two PIPAC procedures, patients experienced an intraoperative intestinal perforation. There were no treatment-related deaths. Nineteen patients showed no response according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and 8 patients showed minor response according to the PRGS. Median time from ovarian cancer relapse to disease progression was 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.483-17.517), while the median overall survival was 27 months (95% CI 20.337-33.663). The EORTC QLQ-28 and EORTC QLQ-30 scores did not worsen during therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC seems a feasible approach for the treatment of this subset of patients, without any impact on their quality of life. Since this study had a small sample size and a single-center design, future research is mandatory, such as its application in addition to systemic chemotherapy.

Gastric Cancer (GC) with Peritoneal Metastases (PMs): An Overview of Italian PSM Oncoteam Evidence and Study Purposes

Gastric cancer (GC) continues to be one of the leading types of malignancies worldwide, despite an ongoing decrease in incidence. It is the fifth most frequent type of cancer in the world and the fourth leading cause of cancer death. Peritoneal metastases (PMs) occur in 20-30% of cases during the natural history of the disease. Systemic chemotherapy (SC) is undoubtedly the standard of care for patients with GC and PMs. However, with the development of highly effective regimens (SC combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy), significant tumor shrinkage has been observed in many patients with synchronous GC and PMs, allowing some to undergo curative resection "conversion surgery" with long-term survival. In recent years, there has been growing interest in intraperitoneal chemotherapy for PMs, because the reduced drug clearance associated with the peritoneal/plasma barrier allows for direct and prolonged drug exposure with less systemic toxicity. These procedures, along with other methods used for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs), can be used in GCs with PMs as neoadjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant treatments after radical surgery or as palliative treatments delivered either laparoscopically or-more recently-as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. The great heterogeneity of patients with stage IV gastric cancer did not allow us to carry out a systemic review; therefore, we limited ourselves to providing readers with an overview to clarify the indications and outcomes of integrated treatments for GCs with PMs by analyzing reports from the international clinical literature and the specific experiences of our oncoteam.

Novel Multi-Modal Therapies and Their Prognostic Potential in Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer has a poor prognosis and involves metastasis to the peritoneum in over 40% of patients. The optimal treatment modalities have not been established for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (GC/PC). Although studies have reported favourable prognostic factors, these have yet to be incorporated into treatment guidelines. Hence, our review aims to appraise the latest diagnostic and treatment developments in managing GC/PC.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) in GC/PC. A meta-analysis of studies reporting on overall survival (OS) in HIPEC and comparing the extent of cytoreduction as a prognostic factor was also carried out.

RESULTS

The database search yielded a total of 2297 studies. Seventeen studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Eight studies reported the short-term OS at 1 year as the primary outcome measure, and our analysis showed a significantly higher OS for the HIPEC/CRS cohort compared to the CRS cohort (pooled OR = 0.53; p = 0.0005). This effect persisted longer term at five years as well (pooled OR = 0.52; p < 0.0001). HIPEC and CRS also showed a longer median OS compared to CRS (pooled SMD = 0.61; p < 0.00001). Three studies reporting on PIPAC demonstrated a pooled OS of 10.3 (2.2) months. Prognostic factors for longer OS include a more complete cytoreduction (pooled OR = 5.35; p < 0.00001), which correlated with a peritoneal carcinomatosis index below 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel treatment strategies, such as HIPEC and PIPAC, are promising in the management of GC/PC. Further work is necessary to define their role within the treatment algorithm and identify relevant prognostic factors that will assist patient selection.

Oncological Outcomes After Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Our objective was to assess its oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Between July 2016 and September 2020, data from 100 PIPAC procedures with oxaliplatin or doxorubicin-cisplatin in 49 patients with PC (all etiologies) were analyzed. We studied the evolution of the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), the need for radical surgery (R0), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 65 (59; 71) years, and 55.1% were women. Median PIPAC procedures per patient were 2 (1-3), and 28 (57.1%) underwent more than one PIPAC procedure. Median PCI at the first PIPAC was 19 (15-22). PCI decreased for 37%, remained stable for 29.6%, and increased for 33.4% patients. Four (8.3%) underwent radical R0 surgery after PIPAC. After a median follow-up of 16.1 months (1.5-90.1), the median overall survival from PC diagnosis was 29.1 months (14.8-34.3), with a median gastric and colorectal PC survival of 11.3 (7.2-34.3) and 29.1 months (16.1-31) respectively. Overall survival after the first PIPAC session was 11.6 months (6-17.3), with median survival after gastric and colorectal PCs being 6 (2.9-15.5) and 13.3 months (5-17.6), respectively. Stratification of patients according to the number of lines of systemic chemotherapy, PIPAC procedures, and the chronology of PC onset did not result in a significant difference in survival.

CONCLUSION

The OS was in line with the literature. PIPAC could delay oncological progression and improve survival. These encouraging results justify the ongoing and future evaluations of PIPAC by prospective randomized trials.

PIPAC nebulizer: How to test the new devices in the market, expert recommendations

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, named PIPAC, is now used in many centers around the world and as an intraperitoneal drug delivery system for treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Recently, many of us have encountered problems during PIPAC procedures due to changes in material and production features of the original PIPAC nebulizer. Concomitantly, new PIPAC nebulizers proposed by other manufacturers are being launched on the market; which claim that they are the same as the original device in delivering PIPAC. However, these new devices are all different in terms of materials, technical characteristics and costs. We have considered that, to maintain the acquired results of PIPAC, we must ensure that the new systems are equivalent. The characteristics deemed essential by the expert group are as follows: 1: The nebulizer must be able to create droplets through an injector pressure between 10 and 20 bars, 2: The mean droplet size must be 3 micrometers, with 95% of the droplets between 0 and 10 micrometers, 3: The diffusion angle must be 70 degrees, which is the minimum.

Hospitalization cost of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. Very little data is available on the costs of this treatment in France as there is currently no code for PIPAC in the French Common Classification of Medical Acts (CCAM). Our objective was to estimate the mean cost of hospitalization for PIPAC in two French public teaching hospitals.

METHODS

The mean cost of hospitalization was estimated from the mean fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital and the mean additional costs of treatment paid by the hospital. At discharge a patient's hospitalization is classified into a diagnosis related group, which determines the fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital (obtained from the national hospitals database - PMSI). Costs of medical devices and drug treatments specific to PIPAC, not covered by the fixed-rate remuneration, were obtained from the hospital pharmacies.

RESULTS

Between July 2016 and November 2021, 205 PIPAC procedures were performed on 79 patients (mean procedures per patient = 2.6). Mean operating room occupancy was 165 min. The mean fixed-rate remuneration received by the hospitals per PIPAC hospitalization was €4031. The actual mean cost per hospitalization was €6562 for a mean length-of-stay of 3.3 days. Thus, each PIPAC hospitalization cost the hospital €2531 on average.

CONCLUSION

The current reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the national health system is insufficient and represents only 61% of the real cost. The creation of a new fixed-rate remuneration for PIPAC taking into account this cost differential is necessary.

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.

Assessment of postoperative pain after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique, for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal metastasis (PM). Our objective was to assess postoperative pain and morbidity.

METHODS

Between July 2016 and September 2020, data from 100 consecutive PIPAC procedures with oxaliplatin (PIPAC Ox) or doxorubicin-cisplatin (PIPAC C/D) in 49 patients with PM (all etiologies) were analyzed. Pain was self-assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-10.

RESULTS

The median PIPAC procedures per patient were 2 [1-3]. Patients indicated greatest pain at 4 pm on the day of the procedure (D0) and on postoperative D1 at 8 am and 4 pm. Postprocedural moderate-to-severe pain (VAS 4-10) was more frequent with PIPAC Ox than with PIPAC C/D, respectively 14 (36.8%) vs 7 (13.5%); p = 0.010. Hospitalization was longer for patients with moderate-to-severe pain than for others (median 4 days [3-7] vs 3 days [2-4], p = 0.004). Multivariate analysis identified oxaliplatin as a factor associated with greater pain (OR [95% CI], 2.95 [1.10-7.89]. Opiate administration was similar after PIPAC Ox and PIPAC C/D procedures, p = 0.477.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC was well-tolerated, and pain was well-controlled in the majority of patients. Pain was greatest at 4 pm on D0 and 8 am and 4 pm on D1. PIPAC Ox is associated with greater pain than PIPAC C/D, independently of opiate treatment. Moderate-to-severe pain was associated with longer hospital stays.

Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics.

Methods

The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance).

Results

Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m² (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10.

Conclusions

The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.

State-of-the-Art Review of The Application and Development of Various Methods of Aerosol Therapy

Aerosol therapy is a rapidly developing field of science. Due to a number of advantages, the administration of drugs to the body with the use of aerosol therapy is becoming more and more popular. Spraying drugs into the patient's lungs has a significant advantage over other methods of administering drugs to the body, including injection and oral methods. In order to conduct proper and effective aerosol therapy, it is necessary to become familiar with the basic principles and applications of aerosol therapy under various conditions. The effectiveness of inhalation depends on many factors, but most of all on: the physicochemical properties of the sprayed system, the design of the medical inhaler and its correct application, the dynamics of inhalation (i.e. the frequency of breathing and the volume of inhaled air). It is worth emphasizing that respiratory system diseases are one of the most frequently occurring and fastest growing diseases in the world. Accordingly, in recent years, a significant increase in the number of new spraying devices and pharmaceutical drugs for spraying has appeared on the market. It should also be remembered that the process of spraying a liquid is a complicated and complex process, and its efficiency is very often characterized by the use of micro- and macro parameters (including average droplet diameters or the spectrum of droplet diameter distribution). In order to determine the effectiveness of the atomization process and in the delivery of drugs to the patient's respiratory tract, the analysis of the size of the generated aerosol droplets is most often performed. Based on the proposed literature review, it has been shown that many papers dealt with the issues related to aerosol therapy, the selection of an appropriate spraying device, the possibility of modifying the spraying devices in order to increase the effectiveness of inhalation, and the possibility of occurrence of certain discrepancies resulting from the use of various measurement methods to determine the characteristics of the generated aerosol. The literature review presented in the paper was prepared in order to better understand the spraying process. Moreover, it can be helpful in choosing the right medical inhaler for a given liquid with specific rheological properties. The experimental data contained in this study are of great cognitive importance and may be of interest to entities involved in pharmaceutical product engineering (in particular in the case of the production of drugs containing liquids with complex rheological properties).

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.

Consensus statement on safety measures for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising treatment for peritoneal cancer that entails, however, potential risks for the caregivers in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to reach a consensus within the PIPAC community on a comprehensive safety protocol.

Methods

Active PIPAC centers were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi process on 43 predefined items: concise summaries of the existing evidence were presented together with questions formulated using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the strength of recommendation was voted by panelists, accepting a consensus threshold of ≥50% of the agreement for any of the four grading options, or ≥70% in either direction.

Results

Forty-seven out of 66 invited panelists answered both rounds (response rate 76%). The consensus was reached for 41 out of 43 items (95.3%). Strong and weak recommendations were issued for 30 and 10 items, respectively. A positive consensual recommendation was issued to activate laminar airflow without specific strength, neither strong nor weak. No consensus was reached for systematic glove change for caregivers with a high risk of exposure and filtering facepiece mask class 3 for caregivers with low risk of exposure.

Conclusions

A high degree of consensus was reached for a comprehensive safety protocol for PIPAC, adapted to the risk of exposure for the different caregivers in the OR. This consensus can serve as a basis for education and help reach a high degree of adherence in daily practice.

Effect of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy on the Survival Rate of Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Gastric Origin

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Our objective was to compare the results of PIPAC associated with systemic chemotherapy (PIPAC_CHEM) with those of systemic chemotherapy alone (ONLY_CHEM) in patients with gastric PC without metastasis other than peritoneal, and the WHO performance status < 3.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single center, comparative non-randomized study. Seventeen PIPAC_CHEM patients were compared to 29 ONLY_CHEM patients. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 6 months from diagnosis of PC.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients were screened and 46 were included (PIPAC_CHEM, n = 17; ONLY_CHEM, n = 29). The PIPAC_ CHEM population was significantly younger (median 64 years [56; 68] vs 74 years [61; 79]; p = 0.0054). Median PIPAC session per patient is 2 [1-3]. Six-month survival was significantly higher in the PIPAC_CHEM group than in the ONLY_CHEM group 16/17 (94.1% [65-99.2]) vs 19/29 (65.5% [45.4-79.7]), respectively; p = 0.029. Over the entire follow-up, median survival [95% CI] was 12.8 months [7.2-34.3] with PIPAC vs 9.1 months [5.4-11.5] without, p = 0.056. At 6 months, median length of additional hospitalization was significantly less for PIPAC_CHEM (median 2 days [2-7]) than without PIPAC (median 11 days [3-21]) (p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

The overall survival at 6 months after the diagnosis of carcinomatosis was significantly better for PIPAC_CHEM patients. This difference appears to continue until at least 18 months. At 6 months, days of additional hospitalization was significantly less in the PIPAC_CHEM group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 04,879,953.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A Partitioned Survival Model followed by state transition Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy in the UK. The intervention was assessed at two different levels of care, including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus Oxaliplatin in combination with Capecitabine (XELOX) chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second-line therapy (PIPAC C/D alone versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources, including published literature and UK-based databases, were used to inform the economic model.

RESULTS

For the upfront therapy analysis, the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £32,606 (SD: £3877) and £17,844 (SD: £920), respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.46 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £31,868. For the second-line therapy analysis, the use of PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.19 in QALYs and a £21,474 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention was a dominant strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness results for the upfront therapy analysis indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy. Additionally, PIPAC C/D alone as a second-line therapy has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.

PIPAC for the Treatment of Gynecologic and Gastrointestinal Peritoneal Metastases: Technical and Logistic Considerations of a Phase 1 Trial

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases (PM) from ovarian, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal origin can be treated via cytoreductive surgery with or without the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for selected patients. Unfortunately, not all patients are candidates for aggressive surgical debulking. For these patients, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as an alternative method for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy administration. This report presents the design and implementation of the first phase 1 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PIPAC in the United States.

METHODS

This is an ongoing prospective phase 1 clinical trial of PIPAC for patients who have histologically confirmed ovarian, uterine, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal cancer with PM and have progressed to at least one evidence-based chemotherapeutic regimen. The trial has two clinical arms. The patients in arm 1 have gynecologic and gastric malignancies treated with IP cisplatin and doxorubicin, and the arm 2 patients have colorectal and appendiceal malignancies treated with intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin followed by IP oxaliplatin. All the patients are monitored for dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events.

RESULTS

Practical and technical considerations for the phase 1 PIPAC trial are presented. These considerations include patient selection, operating room setup, and technical details for successful aerosolized chemotherapy delivery. The phase 1 study results will be reported separately at completion of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The PIPAC treatment is a feasible, minimally invasive approach that permits IP delivery of chemotherapy. Once completed, the ongoing phase 1 trial will help to provide safety and initial efficacy data.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Current practice of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): Still standardized or on the verge of diversification?

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a new treatment modality for peritoneal cancer which has been practiced and evaluated until very recently by few academic centers in a highly standardized manner. Encouraging oncological outcomes and the safety profile have led to widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess current PIPAC practice in terms of technique, treatment and safety protocol, and indications.

METHODS

A standardized survey with 82 closed-ended questions was sent online to active PIPAC centers which were identified by help of PIPAC training centers and the regional distributors of the PIPAC-specific nebulizer. The survey inquired about center demographics (n = 8), technique (n = 34), treatment and safety protocol (n = 34), and indications (n = 6).

RESULTS

Overall, 62 out of 66 contacted PIPAC centers answered the survey (response rate 93%). 27 centers had performed >60 PIPAC procedures. A consensus higher than 70% was reached for 37 items (50%), and higher than 80% for 28 items (37.8%). The topics with the highest degree of consensus were safety and installation issues (93.5% and 80.65%) while chemotherapy and response evaluation were the least consensual topics (63.7 and 59.6%). The attitudes were not influenced by volume, PIPAC starting year, type of activity, or presence of peritoneal metastases program.

CONCLUSION

Homogeneous treatment standards of new techniques are important to guarantee safe implementation and practice but also to allow comparison between cohorts and multi-center analysis of merged data including registries. Efforts to avoid diversification of PIPAC practice include regular update of the PIPAC training curriculum, targeted research and a consensus statement.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT04341337.