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

Peritoneal chemotherapy delivery systems for ovarian cancer treatment: systematic review of animal models

Introduction

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer treatment has controversial benefits as most methodologies are associated with significant morbidity. We carried out a systematic review to compare tumor response, measured by tumor weight and volume, between intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivered via drug delivery systems (DDSs) and free intraperitoneal chemotherapy in animal models of ovarian cancer. The secondary aim was to assess the toxicity of DDS-delivered chemotherapy, based on changes in animal body weight.

Methods

Based on PRISMA and SYRCLE guidelines, we identified 38 studies for review, of which 20, were used in the meta-analysis. We evaluated outcome, through tumor volume and tumor weight and, toxicity, through animal weight. Analysis was based on drugs employed and treatment duration.

Results

Most studies were performed on mice. Ovarian cancer cell lines most commonly used to induce xenografts were SKOV3 (19 studies) and A2780 (6 studies). Intraperitoneal device, also known as drug delivery systems (DDS), consisted in nanoparticles, hydrogels, lipid polymer and others. The most commonly used drugs were paclitaxel and cisplatin. Most studies used as the control treatment the same chemotherapy applied free intraperitoneally and tumor response/animal weight were evaluated weekly. There was a small benefit in overall tumor reduction in animals treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy applied through the slow release device compared with animals treated with intraperitoneal free chemotherapy, as evaluated through tumor weight - results in standardized mean difference. (-1.06; 95% CI: -1.34, -0.78) and tumor volume (-3.72; 95% CI: -4.47, -2.97), a benefit that was seen in most weekly evaluations and for most chemotherapy drugs, such as carboplatin (tumor weight: -5.60; 95% CI: -7.83, -3.37), paclitaxel (tumor weight: -1.18; 95% CI: -1.52, -0.83), and cisplatin (tumor volume: -2.85; 95% CI: -3.66, -2.04) carboplatin (tumor volume: -12.71; 95% CI: -17.35, -8.07); cisplatin (tumor volume: -7.76; 95% CI: -9.88, -5.65); paclitaxel (tumor volume: -2.85; 95% CI: -3.66, -2.04). Regarding animal weight, there was no weight reduction in animals treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy applied through the slow-release device compared with animals treated with intraperitoneal free chemotherapy. However, significant heterogeneity was observed in some comparisons.

Conclusion

slow-release devices are overall safe and effective in animal models of ovarian cancer. It was not possible to evaluate which one is the most promising device to treat ovarian cancer, because many different types were used to apply chemotherapy intraperitoneally.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021224573.

Emerging Treatment Modalities for Gastric Cancer With Macroscopic Peritoneal Metastases: A Systematic Review

Gastric cancer with macroscopic peritoneal metastases represents a major therapeutic challenge and is associated with a poor prognosis. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new treatment modalities. A systematic search of PubMed was conducted to identify studies published between January 2014 and April 2024. Inclusion criteria were trials investigating novel therapies for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases. Data on treatment efficacy, survival outcomes, and side effects were extracted.

Efficacy of Hyperthermic Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in an In Vitro Model Using a Human Gastric Cancer AGS Cell Line and an Abdominal Cavity Model

PURPOSE

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) presents a major challenge in the treatment of late-stage, solid tumors, with traditional therapies limited by poor drug penetration. We evaluated a novel hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HPIPAC) system using a human abdominal cavity model for its efficacy against AGS gastric cancer cells.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A model simulating the human abdominal cavity and AGS gastric cancer cell line cultured dishes were used to assess the efficacy of the HPIPAC system. Cell viability was measured to evaluate the impact of HPIPAC under 6 different conditions: heat alone, PIPAC with paclitaxel (PTX), PTX alone, normal saline (NS) alone, heat with NS, and HPIPAC with PTX.

RESULTS

Results showed a significant reduction in cell viability with HPIPAC combined with PTX, indicating enhanced cytotoxic effects. Immediately after treatment, the average cell viability was 66.6%, which decreased to 49.2% after 48 hours and to a further 19.6% after 120 hours of incubation, demonstrating the sustained efficacy of the treatment. In contrast, control groups exhibited a recovery in cell viability; heat alone showed cell viability increasing from 90.8% to 94.4%, PIPAC with PTX from 82.7% to 89.7%, PTX only from 73.3% to 74.8%, NS only from 90.9% to 98.3%, and heat with NS from 74.4% to 84.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The HPIPAC system with PTX exhibits a promising approach in the treatment of PC in gastric cancer, significantly reducing cell viability. Despite certain limitations, this study highlights the system's potential to enhance treatment outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining HPIPAC and validating its effectiveness in clinical settings.

Phase Ib study of HSP90 inhibitor, onalespib (AT13387), in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Background

Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is a molecular chaperone required for stabilization of client proteins over-activated in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Over-expression of HSP90 client proteins has been implicated in paclitaxel resistance. Onalespib (AT13387) is a potent inhibitor of HSP90 that could improve paclitaxel efficacy when administered in combination.

Design

This phase Ib trial administered onalespib with paclitaxel in patients with advanced TNBC to assess safety and establish a recommended phase II dose (RP2D).

Objectives

The primary objectives were determining the dose-limiting toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of combination therapy. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis and determination of overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS).

Methods

Patients with advanced TNBC were treated with standard dose intravenous paclitaxel in combination with intravenous onalespib at doses ranging from 120 to 260 mg/m2 administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle using a standard 3 + 3 design. A total of 15 patients were enrolled to dose expansion cohort at RP2D to confirm safety profile.

Results

Thirty-one patients were enrolled in the study, of which over 90% had received prior taxane therapy. Paclitaxel was given for metastatic disease in 23% of patients. Adverse events (AEs) included anemia (grade 3: 20%), lymphopenia (grade 3: 17%), and neutropenia (grade 3: 33%, grade 4: 4%). The most frequent grade ⩾3 non-hematologic AE was diarrhea (7%). The established RP2D was 260 mg/m2 onalespib when given with paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2. PK analysis revealed a modest drug interaction profile for onalespib in the combination regimen. ORR was 20%. Three patients achieved complete responses, all of whom had received prior taxane therapy. Median DOR was 5.6 months; median PFS was 2.9 months.

Conclusion

Combination treatment with onalespib and paclitaxel had an acceptable toxicity profile and RP2D was determined to be 260 mg/m2 of onalespib. Combination therapy showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced TNBC.

Trial registration

Onalespib and paclitaxel in treating patients with advanced TNBC https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02474173.

Current progress of pig models for liver cancer research

Preclinical trials play critical roles in assessing the safety and efficiency of novel therapeutic strategies for human diseases including live cancer. However, most therapeutic strategies that were proved to be effective in preclinical cancer models failed in human clinical trials due to the lack of appropriate disease animal models. Therefore, it is of importance and urgent to develop a precise animal model for preclinical cancer research. Liver cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers with low 5-year survival rate. Recently, porcine attracted increasing attentions as animal model in biomedical research. Porcine liver cancer model may provide a promising platform for biomedical research due to their similarities to human being in body size, anatomical characteristics, physiology and pathophysiology. In this review, we comprehensively summarized and discussed the advantages and disadvantages, rationale, current status and progress of pig models for liver cancer research.

Integration of Genomic Biology Into Therapeutic Strategies of Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis

The peritoneum is a common site of metastasis in advanced gastric cancer (GC). Diagnostic laparoscopy is now routinely performed as part of disease staging, leading to an earlier diagnosis of synchronous peritoneal metastasis (PM). The biology of GCPM is unique and aggressive, leading to a dismal prognosis. These tumors tend to be resistant to traditional systemic therapy, and yet, this remains the current standard-of-care recommended by most international clinical guidelines. As this is an area of unmet clinical need, several translational studies and clinical trials have focused on addressing this specific disease state. Advances in genomic sequencing and molecular profiling have revealed several promising therapeutic targets and elucidated novel biology, particularly on the role of the surrounding tumor microenvironment in GCPM. Peritoneal-specific clinical trials are being designed with a combination of locoregional therapeutic strategies with systemic therapy. In this review, we summarize the new knowledge of cancer biology, advances in surgical techniques, and emergence of novel therapies as an integrated strategy emerges to address GCPM as a distinct clinical entity.

Swine models for translational oncological research: an evolving landscape and regulatory considerations

Swine biomedical models have been gaining in popularity over the last decade, particularly for applications in oncology research. Swine models for cancer research include pigs that have severe combined immunodeficiency for xenotransplantation studies, genetically modified swine models which are capable of developing tumors in vivo, as well as normal immunocompetent pigs. In recent years, there has been a low success rate for the approval of new oncological therapeutics in clinical trials. The two leading reasons for these failures are either due to toxicity and safety issues or lack of efficacy. As all therapeutics must be tested within animal models prior to clinical testing, there are opportunities to expand the ability to assess efficacy and toxicity profiles within the preclinical testing phases of new therapeutics. Most preclinical in vivo testing is performed in mice, canines, and non-human primates. However, swine models are an alternative large animal model for cancer research with similarity to human size, genetics, and physiology. Additionally, tumorigenesis pathways are similar between human and pigs in that similar driver mutations are required for transformation. Due to their larger size, the development of orthotopic tumors is easier than in smaller rodent models; additionally, porcine models can be harnessed for testing of new interventional devices and radiological/surgical approaches as well. Taken together, swine are a feasible option for preclinical therapeutic and device testing. The goals of this resource are to provide a broad overview on regulatory processes required for new therapeutics and devices for use in the clinic, cross-species differences in oncological therapeutic responses, as well as to provide an overview of swine oncology models that have been developed that could be used for preclinical testing to fulfill regulatory requirements.

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.