Occupational exposure to platinum drugs during intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Biomonitoring and surface contamination

The 2022 PSOGI International Consensus on HIPEC Regimens for Peritoneal Malignancies: HIPEC Technologies

This manuscript reports the results of an international consensus on technologies of hyperthermic intraperitoneal perioperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) performed with the following goals: To provide recommendations for the technological parameters to perform HIPEC. To identify the role of heat and its application forms in treating peritoneal metastases. To provide recommendations regarding the correct dosimetry of intraperitoneal chemotherapy drugs and their carrier solutions. To identify for each intraperitoneal chemotherapy regimen the best dosimetry and fractionation. To identify areas of future research pertaining to HIPEC technology and regimens. This consensus was performed by the Delphi technique and comprised two rounds of voting. In total, 96 of 102 eligible panelists replied to both Delphi rounds (94.1%) with a consensus of 39/51 questions on HIPEC technical aspects. Among the recommendations that met with the strongest consensus were those concerning the dose of HIPEC drug established in mg/m2, a target temperature of at least 42°C, and the use of at least three temperature probes to pursue hyperthermia. Ninety minutes as the ideal HIPEC duration seemed to make consensus. These results should be considered when designing new clinical trials in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies.

Providing a Safe Pregnancy Experience for Surgeons: A Review

Importance

Childbearing has been a particular barrier to successful recruitment and retention of women in surgery. Pregnant surgeons are more likely to have major pregnancy complications, such as preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, infertility, and miscarriage, compared with nonsurgeons. The average obstetric complication rate for surgeons ranges between 25% and 82% in the literature and is considerably higher than that in the general US population at 5% to 15%.

Observations

The risks that pregnant surgeons experience were individually analyzed. These risks included missed prenatal care; musculoskeletal hazards, such as prolonged standing, lifting, and bending; long work hours; overnight calls; exposure to teratogenic agents, such as ionizing radiation, anesthetic gases, chemotherapy agents, and methyl methacrylate; and psychological stress and discrimination from the long-standing stigma associated with balancing motherhood and professional life.

Conclusions and Relevance

A clear, translatable, and enforceable policy addressing perinatal care of surgeons was proposed, citing evidence of the risks reviewed from the literature. A framework of protection for pregnant individuals is essential for attracting talented students into surgery, retaining talented surgical trainees and faculty, and protecting pregnant surgeons and their fetuses.

Airborne and surface contamination after rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy using cisplatin

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the occupational exposure levels of healthcare workers while conducting rotational pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) using cisplatin in a large animal model.

METHODS

We performed RIPAC using cisplatin in 6 female pigs and collected surface and air samples during the procedure. Surface samples were obtained from RIPAC devices and personal protective equipment (PPE) by wiping, and air samples were collected around the operating table. All samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to detect platinum.

RESULTS

Among all surface samples (n=44), platinum was detected in 41 samples (93.2%) but not in all air samples (n=16). Among samples collected from RIPAC devices (n=23), minimum and maximum cisplatin levels of 0.08 and 235.09 ng/cm² were detected, mainly because of direct aerosol exposure in the abdominal cavity. Among samples collected from healthcare workers' PPE (n=21), 18 samples (85.7%) showed contamination levels below the detection limit, with a maximum of 0.23 ng/cm². There was no significant contamination among samples collected from masks, shoes, or gloves.

CONCLUSION

During the RIPAC procedures, there is a potential risk of dermal exposure, as platinum, a surrogate material for cisplatin, was detected at low concentration levels in some surface samples. However, the respiratory exposure risk was not identified, as platinum was not detected in the airborne samples in this study.

Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy-Results from the First Hundred Consecutive Procedures

PIPAC is a new and promising technique for the intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy. It can be used in patients with various peritoneal cancer metastases. It is mainly a palliative treatment, but there is some neoadjuvant treatment potential. We have operated on 41 patients with various intra-abdominal cancers. PIPAC was performed every 6 weeks. The indication was extension of peritoneal carcinomatosis beyond the criteria for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. The effect was evaluated according to the peritoneal cancer index, the peritoneal regression grading score and the amount of ascites. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. We have performed 100 PIPAC procedures. There were two major complications, classified as Clavien Dindo III (2%). The number of procedures varied from 1 to 6. Five patients switched to cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, and one was indicated for the watch and wait strategy due to total regression according to PRGS. Three patients are still continuing treatment. The others stopped treatment mainly because of progression of the disease and loss of metastases. We observed a reduction in ascites production soon after PIPAC application. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated treatment modality. It is mainly a palliative treatment that can improve the quality of life by reducing the production of ascites, but in about 10% of cases, it can reduce the extent of the disease and allow for further radical treatment.

Developing a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) gynecologic oncology program: a Canadian experience

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment option for epithelial ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery. The intraperitoneal spread of the disease makes the peritoneal cavity an ideal target for drug delivery. HIPEC has shown promising results in improving overall survival in epithelial ovarian cancer patients when performed during interval cytoreductive surgery. Recent studies have provided level 1 evidence supporting increased overall survival in stage III ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC during interval cytoreduction. Meta-analyses have further confirmed the survival improvement in women receiving HIPEC. Despite its inclusion in guidelines, many centers have been hesitant to implement HIPEC programs due to perceived obstacles, such as increased morbidity, cost, and resource requirements. Studies have shown that morbidity rates are acceptable in selected patients, and the addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery is cost effective. Therefore, the main barrier to implementing HIPEC programs is related to resource requirements and logistics, but with proper preparation, these challenges can be overcome. Establishing a successful HIPEC program requires institutional support, a knowledgeable and dedicated team, adequate resources and equipment, and proper training and audit. This review aims to provide evidence based information to guide the development of successful HIPEC programs, including preoperative, anesthetic, and surgical considerations. It also reviews the different equipment and protocols for the perfusion and common postoperative events.

The Excretion of Cisplatin after Hyperthermic Intrathoracic Chemotherapy

Hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy (HITOC) is an additional intraoperative treatment option within the multimodality therapy of pleural malignancies. A chemotherapy perfusion with high-dose cisplatin is performed over a period of 60 min after surgical cytoreduction to improve local tumour control through the eradication of residual tumour cells. Although HITOC is increasingly used, there is only little scientific evidence about the necessary safety measures after HITOC. Therefore, the objective of this study was an analysis of cisplatin excretion via various body fluids after HITOC, with the aim of providing recommendations on occupational health and safety. Five patients undergoing HITOC were included. Before and after the HITOC, as well as during the following days, serum, urine, and bronchial secretion, as well as pleural effusion, were sampled. The platinum levels in the samples were measured using ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry). Immediately after the HITOC, the mean levels of cisplatin increased dramatically in the serum (from 0.79 to 1349 µg/L), urine (from 3.48 to 10,528 µg/g creatinine), and bronchial secretion (from 0.11 to 156 µg/L). Thereafter, the cisplatin levels dropped to 133 µg/L in the serum and 994 µg/g creatinine in the urine within nine days after the HITOC. The AUC ratio shows 59% of the cisplatin being excreted via the urine after 48 h. The sampling of pleural effusion started 24 h after the HITOC, and the cisplatin levels decreased from 618 to 93 µg/L within nine days. Although the cisplatin levels in the body fluids of HITOC patients are much lower compared to patients receiving intravenous chemotherapy, a significant amount of cisplatin is excreted via these body fluids. Consequently, safety precautions must be implemented in the post-HITOC care of patients to avoid occupational exposure to cisplatin.

Occupational Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs in Twelve French Health Care Setting: Biological Monitoring and Surface Contamination

Antineoplastic drugs used in the treatment of cancers have an intrinsic toxicity, because of their genotoxic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic properties. Their use is recognized as an occupational hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs) who may be exposed. The purpose of this article is to present biological- and environmental-monitoring data collected in twelve French hospitals over eight years. Urine samples were collected from a wide range of HCWs (250 participants) from pharmacy and oncology units, including physicians, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nurses, auxiliary nurses, and cleaners. The investigated drugs were cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and α-fluoro-β-alanine, the main urinary metabolite of 5-fluorouracil. Wipe samples were collected from various locations in pharmacy and oncology units. More than 50% of participants, from all exposure groups, were contaminated with either drug, depending on the unit, the day, or the task performed. However, workers from oncology units were more frequently exposed than workers from pharmacy units. Significant contamination was detected on various surfaces in pharmacy and oncology units, highlighting potential sources of exposure. Risk-management measures should be implemented to reduce and maintain exposures at lowest-possible levels. In addition, regular exposure assessment, including biological and environmental monitoring, is recommended to ensure the long-term efficiency of the prevention measures.

Advances in the management of peritoneal malignancies

Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs) are usually associated with a poor prognosis. Nonetheless, in line with advances in the management of most abdominopelvic metastatic diseases, considerable progress has been made over the past decade. An improved understanding of disease biology has led to the more accurate prediction of neoplasia aggressiveness and the treatment response and has been reflected in the proposal of new classification systems. Achieving complete cytoreductive surgery remains the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment of PSMs. Alongside centralization in expert centres, enabling the delivery of multimodal and multidisciplinary strategies, preoperative management is a crucial step in order to select patients who are most likely to benefit from surgery. Depending on the specific PSM, the role of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and of perioperative systemic chemotherapy, in particular, in the neoadjuvant setting, is established in certain scenarios but questioned in several others, although more prospective data are required. In this Review, we describe advances in all aspects of the management of PSMs including disease biology, assessment and improvement of disease resectability, perioperative management, systemic therapy and pre-emptive management, and we speculate on future research directions.

Perception, knowledge and protective practices for surgical staff handling antineoplastic drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC

Objectives

Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.

Methods

This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions.

Results

Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC.

Conclusions

This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.

Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs in Occupational Settings: A Systematic Review of Biological Monitoring Data

The high toxicity of antineoplastic drugs (ADs) makes them dangerous not only for patients, but also for exposed workers. Therefore, the aim of this review was to provide an updated overview of the biological monitoring of occupational AD exposure in order to extrapolate information useful to improve risk assessment and management strategies in workplaces. Several studies demonstrated that remarkable portions of healthcare workers may have traces of these substances or their metabolites in biological fluids, although with some conflicting results. Nurses, directly engaged in AD handling, were the occupational category at higher risk of contamination, although, in some cases, personnel not involved in AD-related tasks also showed quantifiable internal doses. Overall, further research carried out on greater sample sizes appears necessary to gain deeper insight into the variability retrieved in the reported results. This may be important to understand the impact of the extent of ADs use, different handling, procedures, and cleaning practices, spill occurrence, training of the workforce, as well as the adoption of adequate collective and personal protective equipment in affecting the occupational exposure levels. This may support the achievement of the greatest clinical efficiency of such therapies while assuring the health and safety of involved workers.

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.

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.

A Roadmap for Navigating Occupational Exposures for Surgeons: A Special Consideration for the Pregnant Surgeon

SUMMARY

Surgeons are exposed to occupational hazards daily. Risks include chemical, biological, and physical hazards that place providers at risk of serious harm. Departmental policies or written guides to help pregnant surgeons navigate the hospital are lacking. In response to the scarcity in the literature, the authors have summarized current guidelines and recommendations to aid surgeons in making an informed decision. In addition, the authors present a brief narrative of the impact of these exposures during pregnancy and methods of transmission and, where relevant, include specialties that are at risk of these exposures.

Assessment of workplace environmental contamination and occupational exposure to cisplatin and doxorubicin aerosols during electrostatic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Electrostatic precipitation pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) is a novel approach for intraperitoneal drug delivery. As ePIPAC using cisplatin and doxorubicin is performed in an operating room, the challenge is to safely deliver the chemotherapeutic aerosol intraperitoneally while preventing exposure to healthcare workers. The objective of this study was to describe cisplatin and doxorubicin workplace environmental contamination and healthcare worker exposure during ePIPAC.

METHODS

Antineoplastic drugs concentrations of cisplatin and doxorubicin were measured in wipe samples from the operating room, and urine samples were collected from healthcare workers. The air samples were collected in order to detect Cisplatin contamination. Cisplatin was analysed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry and doxorubicin by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

No trace of cisplatin was found in the air. Cisplatin and doxorubicin were detected on the operating room floor, surfaces, devices and personal protective equipment even after a cleaning protocol. No traces of cisplatin or doxorubicin were found in the urine samples.

CONCLUSION

In this study, no internal contamination was found in the ePIPAC surgical team even after implementing two successive ePIPAC procedures. These results showed the effectiveness of the individual and collective protective measures applied. However, the cleaning procedure during ePIPAC should be respected to limit environmental exposure to chemotherapy to cisplatin and doxorubicin during ePIPAC.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

Occupational exposure to cytostatic fumes during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)-heated, intra-abdominal chemotherapy-has become the treatment of choice for treating peritoneal metastases from ovarian, stomach or colorectal cancers. HIPEC has several advantages and disadvantages. The major benefit is minimal systemic toxicity for the patient, but there is a risk of occupational exposure for operating room staff. We have not found any reports of workers with chronic aplastic anaemia as a result of exposure to cytostatic fumes during HIPEC. The aim of this case report is to raise the awareness of potential negative health effects of inhalation exposure to cytostatic drugs. We present a rare case of a 43-year-old woman, suffering from aplastic anaemia as a long-term consequence of exposure to cytostatics. During the HIPEC procedure, surgical revision of the peritoneal cavity was undertaken which resulted in release of cytostatic fumes. Despite awareness of the health effects of occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs and well-developed procedures for safely handling them, unexpected exposure may occur causing serious medical conditions. These may develop in sensitive subjects although accidental high-level exposure may lead to unexpected long-term consequences in all workers. Medical staff need to be informed of the risks of HIPEC and safety guidelines to reduce the risk of exposure.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Quantification of healthcare workers' exposure to cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil by 24-h urine assay: A descriptive pilot study

PURPOSE

The objective of this pilot study was to determine the frequency of urination and the concentration of four hazardous drugs (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) in workers' 24-h urine samples in relation to exposure to traces with hazardous drugs.

METHODS

The study was conducted in three healthcare centers in the region of Montréal, Quebec, Canada. We recruited healthcare workers (nurses and pharmacy technicians) assigned to the hematology-oncology department. Each participant was asked to collect all urine voided during a 24-h period, to fill out an activity journal documenting tasks performed and to document the use of personal protective equipment. Samples were analyzed for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (FBAL, the main urinary metabolite of 5-fluorouracil). Drugs were quantified by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (positive electrospray MRM mode).

RESULTS

Eighteen healthcare workers (10 nurses and 8 technicians) were recruited and provided consent to participate. Urine samples were obtained between 1 September and 30 September 2019. The number of urinations over the 24-h collection period ranged from 3 to 11 per participant. A total of 128 urine samples were analyzed for the 18 workers. All urine samples were negative for the four antineoplastics tested.

CONCLUSION

No traces of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, or FBAL were found in the 24-h urine samples of 18 healthcare workers practicing in three healthcare facilities in Quebec. Although it was feasible to collect 24-h urine samples in this research project, it appears unrealistic to do so recurrently as part of a large-scale surveillance program.

Non-medical caregivers and the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating theatre: A survey on the perception of safety

BACKGROUND

In the last two decades, intraperitoneal(IP) chemotherapy during surgery achieved recognition in the management of peritoneal metastases. Occupational hazard became a concern leading to standardized safety measures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the perceived level of information and protection among the non-medical caregivers involved in HIPEC and PIPAC in a high-volume center.

METHODS

All non-medical caregivers in the operating theatre of our institution were asked to answer a questionnaire between April and May 2018. The questionnaire included multiple choice questions and open questions structured in four parts: demographic variables, perceived level of information, perceived level of protection, interest in further education.

RESULTS

Forty-nine caregivers agreed to answer the questionnaire. All identified IP chemotherapy as an occupational risk. Thirty-eight persons (77.55%) trusted the protective value of safety measures during HIPEC compared to 32 (65.3%) during PIPAC. A total of 29 persons (59.18%) used some of the measures while 16 (32.65%) used all of them. Main reasons of non-use were slips and lapses (7 persons) and lack of comfort (4 persons). A total of 34 caregivers considered the level of information about safety protocols as good or very good (69%). A total of 46 persons considered the level of protection as satisfying or excellent (93.87%). A total of 36 (73.47%) interviewees expressed the need of receiving more information.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that non-medical caregivers in the operating theatres are aware of the occupational hazards related to the use of IP chemotherapy. The use of protective measures is associated with decreased level of perceived risk. However there is a high need of continuous education on this subject for the involved personnel.

A fully validated simple new method for environmental monitoring by surface sampling for cytotoxics

A wipe sampling procedure followed by a simple ultra-performance liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated for simultaneous quantification of six cytotoxic drugs: 5-fluorouracil (5FU), doxorubicin (DOXO), epirubicin (EPI), ifosfamide (IF), cyclophosphamide (CP) and gemcitabine (GEM), as surrogate markers for occupational exposure. After a solid-phase extraction of wiping filter on 10 × 10 cm surface, the separation was performed within 6.5 min, using a gradient mobile phase and the analytes were detected by mass spectrometry in the multiple reaction ion monitoring mode. The method was validated according to the recommendations of the US Food and Drug Administration. The method was linear (r² > 0.9912) between 2.5 and 200 ng per wiping sample (25 to 2000 pg/cm²) for 5FU, doxorubicin and epirubicin and between 0.2 and 40 ng per wiping sample (2 to 400 pg/cm²) for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and gemcitabine. The lower limits of quantification were 2.5 ng (25 pg/ cm²) for 5FU, doxorubicin and epirubicin, and 0.2 ng (2 pg/cm²) for CP, IF and GEM. Within-day and between-day imprecisions were <14.0, 10.6, 11.1, 8.7, 11.2 and 10.9% for 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, epirubicin, ifosfamide cyclophosphamide and gemcitabine, respectively. The inaccuracies did not exceed 2.7, 10.9, 1.1, 4.5, 1.6 and 2.9% for the studied molecules, respectively. This new sensitive validated method for surface contamination studies of cytotoxics was successfully applied on different localizations in hospital. This approach is particularly suitable to assess occupational exposure risk to cytotoxic drugs.

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) with oxaliplatin as a palliative monotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a Dutch, multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study (CRC-PIPAC)

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX) is offered as a palliative treatment option for patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in several centres worldwide. However, little is known about its feasibility, safety, tolerability, efficacy, costs and pharmacokinetics in this setting. This study aims to explore these parameters in patients with isolated unresectable colorectal PM who receive repetitive ePIPAC-OX as a palliative monotherapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals for the surgical treatment of colorectal PM. Eligible patients are adults who have histologically or cytologically proven isolated unresectable PM of a colorectal or appendiceal carcinoma, a good performance status, adequate organ functions and no symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction. Instead of standard palliative treatment, enrolled patients receive laparoscopy-controlled ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m² body surface area (BSA)) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m² BSA) and bolus 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m² BSA) every 6 weeks. Four weeks after each procedure, patients undergo clinical, radiological and biochemical evaluation. ePIPAC-OX is repeated until disease progression, after which standard palliative treatment is (re)considered. The primary outcome is the number of patients with major toxicity (grade ≥3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) up to 4 weeks after the last ePIPAC-OX. Secondary outcomes are the environmental safety of ePIPAC-OX, procedure-related characteristics, minor toxicity, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmissions, quality of life, costs, pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, progression-free survival, overall survival, and the radiological, histopathological, cytological, biochemical and macroscopic tumour response.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by an ethics committee, the Dutch competent authority and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and for presentation to patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

Occupational safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in an operating room without laminar airflow

AIM OF THE STUDY

The safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is often questioned when newly implemented in an operating room (OR); as it may increase the risk of exposure to cytotoxics for healthcare workers. There are no data on the risk of healthcare exposure in OR without laminar airflow. We aimed to ensure the safety of PIPAC for surgeons and their co-workers for newly implemented procedures in an OR without laminar airflow.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-six samples with cellulosic wipes from surgeons and co-workers' environmental items and 5 specific polytetrafluoroethylene air-filtered collections were randomly performed for the first 2 cisplatin/doxorubicin-based PIPAC procedures in Strasbourg University Hospital. PIPAC was performed according to previously described safety protocol but without a laminar airflow and with an additional plastic cover and smoke evacuation device. Sampling and analyzes were performed by 2 accredited independent certified organizations.

RESULTS

All air measurements were negative for cisplatin and doxorubicin. Only one wipe sample out of 26 was positive for cisplatin (4%) on the outer surgeon's pair of gloves but dosages on the surgeon's inner pair and hands were negative.

CONCLUSION

When performed in approved security conditions, even without laminar airflow, PIPAC might seem harmless for surgeons and their co-workers with very limited risk of exposure to cytotoxics.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy and its effect on gastric-cancer-derived peritoneal metastases: an overview

This manuscript aspires to portray a review of the current literature focusing on manifest peritoneal metastasis (PM) derived from gastric cancer and its treatment options. Despite the development of chemotherapy and multimodal treatment options during the last decades, mortality remains high worldwide. After refreshing important epidemiological considerations, the molecular mechanisms currently accepted through which PM occurs are revised. Palliative chemotherapy is the only recommended treatment option for patients with PM of gastric cancer according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, although cytoreductive surgery in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy demonstrated promising results in selected patients with regional PM and localized intraabdominal tumor spread. A novel treatment named pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy may have a promising future in improving overall survival with an acceptable postoperative complication rate and stabilizing quality of life during treatment. Additionally, the procedure has been proved to be safe for the patient and medical personnel and a feasible, repeatable method to deter metastatic proliferation. This overview comprehensively addresses this novel and promising treatment in the context of a scientifically and clinically challenging disease.