Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastasis: A Registry Study

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

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

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.

Neoplastic appendiceal mucinous lesions: a narrative review of the literature from an oncologist's perspective

Appendiceal mucinous lesions' classification and nomenclature has been modified several times along the last decades, reflecting their great heterogeneity and making difficult to compare results and draw conclusions. Despite its nearby origin, appendiceal mucinous lesions have a distinctive behaviour compared to colorectal cancer, including their molecular and genetic markers. Due to their low frequency, their management is not well standardised. However, surgery is considered the cornerstone of treatment. Their indolent behaviour has encouraged surgeons to apply more aggressive treatments, such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), that may extend overall survival. Chemotherapy is reserved for unresectable and/or disseminated disease and could play a role in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is recently emerging as a possible alternative for treatment in advanced disease although its results in long-term survival are lacking Hereby, we review the available evidence in the management of appendiceal mucinous lesions, including localised and disseminated disease, with a special emphasis on the oncological perspective, focusing on the lights and shadows of the systemic treatments.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

PIPAC consists in delivering normothermic chemotherapy solution directly into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. Currently PIPAC is considered as a palliative treatment for patients suffering from non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. We performed a SR to assess tolerance and response of this novel method among patient with OC.

METHODS

We searched electronic database PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials.gov. We only included clinical studies reporting PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 4 studies. In 3 studies all patients were pretreated with cytoreductive surgery, in 1 study surgery was performed in 8/34 (23 %) patients. Mean PCI at first PIPAC procedure ranged from 16.3 to 19.6. All studies reported the proportion of patients with ascites at the first PIPAC with a pooled rate of 48,3 %. Pooled rate of CTCAE Grade 3 toxicity calculated on the total number of PIPAC was 6 % and Grade 4 was 0.9 %. One study reported two cases of small bowel perforation related or potentially related to PIPAC. On study reported a cumulative survival after 400 days of 62 % and a mean actuarial survival time of all patients who underwent PIPAC of 442 days. In another study the mean time to progression was 144 days (95 % CI 122-168 days).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin appear to have a good safety profile with low toxicity and encouraging trend in terms of overall survival.

What is long-term survival in patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer? A study of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

A definition of long-term survival (LTS) in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), pancreatic cancer (PC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is lacking. We aimed to define LTS and investigate characteristics and treatment response in patients who reached LTS in data from two prospective trials.

Methods

Retrospective study of patients with GC-, PC-, or CRC-PM from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies. The definition of LTS was based on published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. LTS was defined at the time point where 25 % of the patients were alive in these studies. Histology based response was evaluated by the mean Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) using biopsies obtained prior to PIPAC 3, and defined by a mean PRGS of ≤2.0 or a decrease of mean PRGS of ≥1, compared to baseline.

Results

LTS was defined at 21 (GC), 15 (PC), and 24 (CRC) months. Fifty-one (47.2 %) patients (nine GC, 17 PC, 25 CRC) reached LTS calculated from the date of PM diagnosis. All but one received palliative chemotherapy before PIPAC, and 37 % received bidirectional treatment. More than 90 % of the LTS patients had response according to PRGS. The mOS from PIPAC 1 was 23.3, 12.4, and 28.5 months for GC, PC, and CRC LTS patients.

Conclusions

Patients with PM from GC, PC, and CRC treated with systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC can reach LTS and most show histological response. Causality must be further investigated.

The Role of Additional Staining in the Assessment of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) in Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Origin

INTRODUCTION

The Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) is a 4-tied histologic regression grading score for determining the response of peritoneal metastasis to chemotherapy. Peritoneal biopsies in every abdominal quadrant are recommended. A positive therapy response is defined as a decreasing or stable mean PRGS between 2 therapy cycles. The added value of periodic acid satin (PAS) and Ber-EP4 staining over HE staining for diagnosing PRGS1 (the absence of vital tumor cells) is unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 339 biopsies obtained during 76 laparoscopies in 33 patients with peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer were analyzed. Biopsies classified as PRGS 1 (no residual tumor, n=95) or indefinite (n=50) were stained with PAS, and remaining indefinite or PRGS1 cases additionally stained with BerEP4.

RESULTS

After PAS-staining tumor cells were detected in 28 out of 145 biopsies (19%), the remaining 117 biopsies were immunostained with Ber-EP4. Tumor cells were detected in 22 biopsies (19%). In total, additional staining allowed the detection of residual tumor cells in 50 out of 339 biopsies (15%) and changed the therapy response assessment in 7 out of 33 (21%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, 25% (24 out of 95) of initially tumor-free samples (PRGS1) showed residual tumor cells after additional staining with PAS and/or BerEp4. Immunohistochemistry provided important additional information (the presence of tumor cells) in 22 of all 339 biopsies (11.2%). Further staining reduced the instances of unclear diagnosis from 50 to 0 and changed the therapy response assessment in 7 out of 33 patients (21%). We recommend additional staining in PRGS1 or unclear cases.

Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS): first evidence for independent predictive and prognostic significance

Objectives

The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is a four-tied pathologic score measuring tumor regression in biopsies from patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) receiving chemotherapy.

Methods

This retrospective analysis of a prospective registry (NCT03210298) analyses 97 patients with isolated PM under palliative chemotherapy. We examined the predictive value of the initial PRGS for overall survival (OS) and the prognostic value of PRGS in repeated peritoneal biopsies.

Results

The 36 (37.1 %) patients with an initial mean PRGS≤2 had a longer median OS (12.1 months, CI 95 % 7.8-16.4) vs. 8.0 months (CI 95 % 5.1-10.8 months) in 61 (62.9 %) patients with PRGS≥3 (p=0.02) After stratification, the initial PRGS was an independent predictor of OS (Cox-regression, p<0.05). Out of 62 patients receiving≥two chemotherapy cycles, 42 (67.7 %) had a histological response (defined as a lower or stable mean PRGS in successive therapy cycles), and 20 (32.3 %) progressed (defined as an increasing mean PRGS). PRGS response was associated with a longer median OS (14.6 months, CI 5-95 % 6.0-23.2) vs. 6.9 (CI 5-95 % 0.0-15.9) months. PRGS response was prognostic in the univariate analysis (p=0.017). Thus, PRGS had both a predictive and prognostic significance in patients with isolated PM receiving palliative chemotherapy in this patient cohort.

Conclusions

This is the first evidence for the independent predictive and prognostic significance of PRGS in PM. These encouraging results need validation in an adequately powered, prospective study.

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

Objectives

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

Content

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

Summary

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

Outlook

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

Occupational Exposure during Intraperitoneal Pressurized Aerosol Chemotherapy Using Doxorubicin in a Pig Model

Background

This study evaluated occupational exposure levels of doxorubicin in healthcare workers performing rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) procedures.

Methods

All samples were collected during PIPAC procedures applying doxorubicin to an experimental animal model (pigs). All procedures were applied to seven pigs, each for approximately 44 min. Surface samples (n = 51) were obtained from substances contaminating the PIPAC devices, surrounding objects, and protective equipment. Airborne samples were also collected around the operating table (n = 39). All samples were analyzed using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Results

Among the surface samples, doxorubicin was detected in only five samples (9.8%) that were directly exposed to antineoplastic drug aerosols in the abdominal cavity originating from PIPAC devices. The telescopes showed concentrations of 0.48-5.44 ng/cm² and the trocar showed 0.98 ng/cm² in the region where the spraying nozzles were inserted. The syringe line connector showed a maximum concentration of 181.07 ng/cm², following a leakage. Contamination was not detected on the surgeons' gloves or shoes. Objects surrounding the operating table, including tables, operating lights, entrance doors, and trocar holders, were found to be uncontaminated. All air samples collected at locations where healthcare workers performed procedures were found to be uncontaminated.

Conclusions

Most air and surface samples were uncontaminated or showed very low doxorubicin concentrations during PIPAC procedures. However, there remains a potential for leakage, in which case dermal exposure may occur. Safety protocols related to leakage accidents, selection of appropriate protective equipment, and the use of disposable devices are necessary to prevent occupational exposure.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03100708 (April 2017).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Response Evaluation in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis Treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed therapy emerged as a treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) a decade ago. The response assessment of PIPAC is not uniform. This narrative review describes non-invasive and invasive methods for response evaluation of PIPAC and summarizes their current status. PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible publications, and data were reported on an intention-to-treat basis. The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) showed a response in 18-58% of patients after two PIPACs. Five studies showed a cytological response in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid in 6-15% of the patients. The proportion of patients with malignant cytology decreased between the first and third PIPAC. A computed tomography showed stable or regressive disease following PIPAC in 15-78% of patients. The peritoneal cancer index was mainly used as a demographic variable, but prospective studies reported a response to treatment in 57-72% of patients. The role of serum biomarkers of cancer or inflammation in the selection of candidates for and responders to PIPAC is not fully evaluated. In conclusion, response evaluation after PIPAC in patients with PM remains difficult, but PRGS seems to be the most promising response evaluation modality.

Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease.

Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis: how many biopsies should be examined?

Objectives

The four-tied peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is increasingly used to evaluate the response of peritoneal metastases (PM) to chemotherapy. The minimal number of peritoneal biopsies needed for PRGS determination remains unclear.

Methods

A prospective cohort of 89 PM patients treated with 210 pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) cycles was investigated. Four biopsies from every abdominal quadrant were recommended. Histological tumor response was defined as a stable or decreasing mean PRGS between therapy cycles, progression increasing. We compared the diagnostic uncertainty induced by missing biopsies to the histological response.

Results

A total of 49 patients had at least two PIPAC and were eligible for therapy response assessment. Mean PRGS decreased from 2.04 (CI 5-95% 1.85-2.27) to 1.79 (CI 5-95% 1.59-2.01), p=0.14, as a proof of therapy effectiveness. 35 (71.4%) patients had a stable or decreasing PRGS (therapy response), 14 (28.6%) a PRGS increase (disease progression). Histology showed agreement between four biopsies in 42/210 laparoscopies (20%), between ≥3 biopsies in 103 (49%), and between ≥2 biopsies in 169 laparoscopies (81%). Mean loss of information with one missing biopsy was 0.11 (95% CI=0.13) PRGS points, with two missing biopsies 0.18 (95% CI 0.21). In 9/49 patients (18.3%), the loss of information with one less biopsy exceeded the change in PRGS under therapy.

Conclusions

A minimum of three biopsies is needed to diagnose PM progression with an accuracy superior to 80%. Missing biopsies often result in a false diagnosis of tumor progression.

Multicenter dose-escalation Phase I trial of mitomycin C pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy in combination with systemic chemotherapy for appendiceal and colorectal peritoneal metastases: rationale and design

Objectives

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from appendiceal cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) has significant morbidity and limited survival. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach to treat PM. We aim to conduct a dose-escalation trial of mitomycin C (MMC)-PIPAC combined with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI) in patients with PM from appendiceal cancer or CRC.

Methods

This is a multicenter Phase I study of MMC-PIPAC (NCT04329494). Inclusion criteria include treatment with at least 4 months of first- or second-line systemic chemotherapy with ineligibility for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Exclusion criteria are: progression on chemotherapy; extraperitoneal metastases; systemic chemotherapy intolerance; bowel obstruction; or poor performance status (ECOG>2). Escalating MMC-PIPAC doses (7-25 mg/m2) will be administered in combination with standard dose systemic FOLFIRI. Safety evaluation will be performed on 15 patients (dose escalation) and six expansion patients: 21 evaluable patients total.

Results

The primary endpoints are recommended MMC dose and safety of MMC-PIPAC with FOLFIRI. Secondary endpoints are assessment of response (by peritoneal regression grade score; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST 1.1], and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), progression free survival, overall survival, technical failure rate, surgical complications, conversion to curative-intent CRS-HIPEC, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Longitudinal blood and tissue specimens will be collected for translational correlatives including pharmacokinetics, circulating biomarkers, immune profiling, and single-cell transcriptomics.

Conclusions

This Phase I trial will establish the recommended dose of MMC-PIPAC in combination with FOLFIRI. Additionally, we expect to detect an early efficacy signal for further development of this therapeutic combination.

Optimal Nozzle Position and Patient's Posture to Enhance Drug Delivery into the Peritoneum during Rotational Intraperitoneal Pressurized Aerosol Chemotherapy in a Swine Model

Even though rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) has been developed to improve the distribution and penetration depth of anti-cancer agents by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), the optimal nozzle position and patient's posture have not been investigated. Thus, we used nine pigs weighing 50-60 kg, and sprayed 150 mL of 1% methylene blue as an aerosol through the nozzle, DreamPen^® (Dreampac Corp., Wonju, Republic of Korea), with a flow rate of 0.6 ml/min under a pressure of 140 to 150 psi for RIPAC in six and three pigs with supine and Trendelenburg positions, respectively. When we evaluated its distribution and penetration depth, even distribution among 13 regions of the abdomen was observed in three pigs with Trendelenburg position regardless of the depth of the nozzle. Regarding penetration depth, the numbers of regions with maximal penetration depth were high in the 2 cm depth of the nozzle with supine position (n = 5) and the 4 cm depth with Trendelenburg position (n = 3). Conclusively, even distribution and maximal penetration of anti-cancer agents can be expected during RIPAC in the medium depth (4 cm) between the nozzle inlet and the visceral peritoneum located on the opposite side of it and the Trendelenburg position.

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.

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

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

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

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

Histological regression of peritoneal metastases of recurrent tubo-ovarian cancer after systemic chemotherapy

Introduction

Post-treatment histological regression of peritoneal metastases (PM) is a new and potentially important predictor of oncological outcomes. Histology of PM from adnexal origin is usually evaluated by the Chemotherapy Response Score (CRS). The aim of this preliminary study was to quantify the response of PM of recurrent tubo-ovarian cancer (TOVC) after systemic chemotherapy by using the recently validated Peritoneal Regression Grading System (PRGS) and compare it with CRS. Correlation with per operative evaluation through Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was performed.

Material and methods

Retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients with recurrent PM from TOVC undergoing surgery after prior systemic chemotherapy from January 2015 to March 2019. Biopsies were assessed with the four-scale PRGS.

Results

Thirty-eight patients were included. Patients had a median of 2 (range 1-2) lines and 12 (range 3-18) cycles of prior systemic chemotherapy. Overall mean (SD) PRGS was 2.3 (±1.1). Of the patients, 26% (10) had complete response (PRGS 1), 40% (15) had major response (PRGS 2), 26% (10) minor response (PRGS 3), and 8% (3) had no response (PRGS 4). Mean PRGS was positively correlated with the Peritoneal Cancer Index (ρ = 0.5302, p = 0.0003) and inversely correlated with CRS (ρ = -0.8403, p < 0.0001). No correlation was highlighted between mean PRGS and overall survival (ρ = -0.0195, p = 0.9073).

Conclusion

CRS and mean PRGS correlated with each other. Histological response of PM after systemic chemotherapy was quantifiable and variable. The role of PRGS for the evaluation of treatment response and as potential surrogate marker for oncological outcomes is part of ongoing and planned research.

Current treatment strategies for patients with only peritoneal cytology positive stage IV gastric cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and surgery remains the only potentially curative treatment option for it. Although a significant proportion of GC patients are found with distant metastases already at the initial diagnosis. Peritoneal dissemination is the most common site of metastases. Positive peritoneal cytology (Cy1) is associated with poor long-term outcomes; thus, these patients are considered as stage IV even if macroscopic carcinomatosis is absent. Currently, there is no clear evidence for the most optimal treatment for this distinct subpopulation of the stage IV cohort. Available strategies vary from palliative chemotherapy to upfront gastrectomy. This comprehensive review summarized current evidence of different treatment strategies for Cy1 GC including roles of surgery, systemic and intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Histological regression of gastrointestinal peritoneal metastases after systemic chemotherapy

Objectives

Peritoneal metastases (PM) are relatively resistant to systemic chemotherapy, and data on histological response to therapy is rare. The aim of this study was to quantify the treatment response of PM after systemic chemotherapy.

Methods

Retrospective monocentric cohort study of 47 consecutive patients with PM from gastrointestinal origin undergoing surgery (cytoreduction: CRS + Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy [HIPEC] or Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy [PIPAC]) after prior systemic chemotherapy from 1.2015 to 3.2019. Tumor response was assessed using the 4-scale Peritoneal Regression Grading System (PRGS) (4: vital tumor to 1: complete response).

Results

Patients had a median of 2 (range: 1-7) lines and 10 (3-39) cycles of prior systemic chemotherapy. A median of four biopsies (range: 3-8) was taken with a total of 196 analyzed specimens. Twenty-four biopsies (12%) showed no histological regression (PRGS4), while PRGS 3, two and one were diagnosed in 37 (19%), 39 (20%), and 69 (49%) specimens, respectively. A significant heterogeneity was found between peritoneal biopsies in 51% patients. PRGS correlated strongly with peritoneal spread (PCI, p<0.0001), and was improved in patients with more than nine cycles of systemic chemotherapy (p=0.04). Median survival was higher in patients with PRGS < 1.8 (Quartiles one and 2) than higher (Q3 and Q4), but the difference did not reach significance in this small cohort.

Conclusions

PRGS is an objective too to describe histological response of PM of GI origin after systemic chemotherapy. This response differs significantly between patients, allowing to distinguish between chemosensitive and chemoresistant tumors.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Systemic Chemotherapy Including Ramucirumab in Combination With Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy Is a Safe Treatment Option for Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopic technique for local chemotherapy. It has been used for treatment of peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer (PM GC) in combination with systemic therapy. VEGFR2 antagonist ramucirumab is a second-line therapy for GC, and has been suspected to cause wound healing disorders.

Methods

This is a retrospective single center cohort study of patients with PM GC, who received PIPAC treatment in combination with systemic chemotherapy with and without ramucirumab. Data on patients’ characteristics and their perioperative courses were collected and complication rates were compared with regard to preoperative use of ramucirumab and time between last dose of systemic therapy and PIPAC treatment.

Results

Fifty patients underwent 90 PIPAC treatments for PM GC in 3 years. Overall postoperative morbidity was 11% with 6% severe complications. The mean interval between systemic therapy and PIPAC was 20 days. Neither the length of interval nor the use of ramucirumab had an effect on complication rates.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that addition of ramucirumab to pre-PIPAC systemic therapy, irrespective of the length of the treatment-free interval before PIPAC, does not increase the risk of postoperative complications and is therefore a safe option for treatment of PM GC.

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

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

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

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases. Potential advantages of PIPAC over current treatment options are a homogeneous intraperitoneal distribution, low local and systemic toxicity, and enhanced tumour penetration. Given these possible benefits, PIPAC is increasingly implemented in many centres worldwide. Scientific research into PIPAC is currently available from in vitro/in vivo/in animal studies, retrospective cohorts in humans, and phase I and II studies in humans. There are no results from randomised trials comparing PIPAC with conventional treatment, such as palliative systemic therapy. This narrative review aimed to provide an overview of the currently available literature on PIPAC. In general, repetitive PIPAC was feasible and safe for patients and operating room personnel. Primary and secondary non-access rates varied from 0-17% and 0-15%, respectively. Iatrogenic bowel injury was observed in 0-3% of PIPAC procedures. CTCAE grade 1-2 complications were common, mostly consisting of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. CTCAE grade 3-4 complications were uncommon, occurring on 0-15% of PIPAC procedures. Post-operative mortality rates of 0-2% were reported. The risk of occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs was very low when strict safety guidelines were followed. Clinical heterogeneity was high in most studies, since, in general, patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases from a variety of primary tumours were included. Also, patients received either PIPAC monotherapy or PIPAC combined with concomitant systemic therapy, and were able to receive PIPAC in any line of palliative treatment. Since the results were generally not stratified for these three important factors, this severely complicates the interpretation of results. Based on the current literature, PIPAC may be regarded as a promising palliative treatment option in patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases. Initial results show that it is feasible and safe. However, well designed and (ideally) randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to determine the additional value of PIPAC in this setting. Until then, PIPAC should preferably be performed in the setting of clinical trials.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Canadian guidelines on the management of colorectal peritoneal metastases

Modern management of colorectal cancer (crc) with peritoneal metastasis (pm) is based on a combination of cytoreductive surgery (crs), systemic chemotherapy, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (hipec). Although the role of hipec has recently been questioned with respect to results from the prodige 7 trial, the role and benefit of a complete crs were confirmed, as observed with a 41-month gain in median survival in that study, and 15% of patients remaining disease-free at 5 years. Still, crc with pm is associated with a poor prognosis, and good patient selection is essential. Many questions about the optimal management approach for such patients remain, but all patients with pm from crc should be referred to, or discussed with, a pm surgical oncologist, because cure is possible. The objective of the present guideline is to offer a practical approach to the management of pm from crc and to reflect on the new practice standards set by recent publications on the topic.

Survival after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases: A systematic review and discussion of latest controversies

INTRODUCTION

Peritoneal metastases confer the worst survival amongst all sites of metastatic colorectal cancer. The adoption of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become an option for patients with isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes following CRS and HIPEC for CRPM from published high volume cohort studies and to highlight the latest controversies and future directions of CRPM treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed on published studies on the treatment outcomes of CRS and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The median survival for all patients ranged from 14.6 to 60.1 months. The 5-year overall survival ranged from 23.4% to 52%. For patients with complete cytoreduction, the median survival was 25 to 49 months. Major morbidity and mortality ranged from 15.1% to 47.2% and 0% to 4.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CRS and HIPEC for the treatment of CRPM is safe and current evidence suggests it improves both median and disease-free survival. However, the efficacy of intraperitoneal chemotherapy, in particular oxaliplatin, has recently come under scrutiny. Accordingly, higher quality evidence is urgently required to contribute to multidisciplinary and international consensus on CRPM treatment strategies.

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.

Lobaplatin in Prophylactic Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: Safety and Efficacy Profiles

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lobaplatin in prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

Advanced gastric cancer patients who underwent radical gastric resection and/or prophylactic HIPEC were systematically reviewed in our department from January 2016 to June 2017. All enrolled patients were grouped in either HIPEC or non-HIPEC groups. Clinical data were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 129 patients were enrolled with 61 cases in the HIPEC group and 68 in the non-HIPEC group. The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics. In patients of the HIPEC group, three suffered leakage from the duodenal stump or anastomosis, one suffered abnormal bleeding and two were found to have abnormal routine blood tests; no significant difference in adverse events between groups, however, was noted (p > 0.05) and most patients recovered uneventfully. During follow-up, peritoneal recurrence was significantly less among HIPEC patients (p = 0.029), with only three suffering peritoneal recurrence, as compared to 12 non-HIPEC patients. In addition, the estimated illness-specific 3-year disease-free survival rate was significantly higher in the HIPEC group as compared to the non-HIPEC group (89.4% vs.73.9%; p = 0.031).

Conclusion

Lobaplatin in prophylactic HIPEC is safe for advanced gastric cancer patients after treatment by radical resection and can effectively improve illness-specific 3-year disease-free survival.

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.

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.

Initial experience of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a French hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) expert center

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new intraabdominal technique to approach non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). PIPAC can be performed alone or alternated with systemic chemotherapy to increase tumor regression. We describe our initial experience performed in an expert hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) French center to demonstrate the safety and the feasibility of PIPAC.

METHODS

Between January 2016 and March 2019, PIPAC was proposed to 43 consecutive patients affected by digestive, ovarian, peritoneal and mammary carcinomatosis. Initially PIPAC was proposed to patients non eligible for cytoreductive surgery for palliative purposes. In five patients we associated PIPAC to systemic chemotherapy to improve tumor regression and enhance the chance of patients to undergo HIPEC. Three PIPAC treatments were supposed to be performed for each patient with an interval of 6 weeks in between each procedure. Peritoneal biopsies were always performed to evaluate microscopic tumor regression. In case of postoperative clinical deterioration or quick tumor progression during the cycles, PIPAC was interrupted. Depending on the primary tumor, chemotherapies used were oxaliplatin or a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin.

RESULTS

Twenty-six (60.4%) patients have already had a surgical resection or intervention of primary cancer removal. In 5 patients abdominal access was impossible. Of the 38 patients operated, seventy-one procedures were performed. In the series, one patient died because of tumor progression. Only one major complication occurred intraoperatively. Two of thirteen patients receiving oxaliplatin had postoperative abdominal pain and needed more drugs assumption and a longer hospitalization. Three patients after a three cycles procedure underwent HIPEC. Nine of the patients who had at least two PIPACs had last biopsies showing a major or complete tumor response.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is a safe and feasible procedure that can be performed in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis initially not eligible for surgery to reduce tumor invasion or for palliation to reduce symptoms. Contraindications are bowel obstruction and multiple intraabdominal adhesions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

INTERVENTION

Patients with peritoneal metastases underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Colorectal peritoneal metastases: Optimal management review

The peritoneum is a common site of dissemination for colorrectal cancer, with a poorer prognosis than other sites of metastases. In the last two decades, it has been considered as a locoregional disease progression and treated as such with curative intention treatments. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is the actual reference treatment for these patients as better survival results have been reached as compared to systemic chemotherapy alone, but its therapeutic efficacy is still under debate. Actual guidelines recommend that the management of colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases should be led by a multidisciplinary team carried out in experienced centers and consider CRS + HIPEC for selected patients. Accumulative evidence in the last three years suggests that this is a curative treatment that may improve patients disease-free survival, decrease the risk of recurrence, and does not increase the risk of treatment-related mortality. In this review we aim to gather the latest results from referral centers and opinions from experts about the effectiveness and feasibility of CRS + HIPEC for treating peritoneal disease from colorectal malignancies.

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

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new drug delivery method used in patients with peritoneal cancer (PC) of primary or secondary origin. Intraperitoneal use of oxaliplatin raises concerns about toxicity, especially abdominal pain. The objective of this study was to assess the tolerance of PIPAC with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-Ox) in a large cohort of patients and to identify the risk factors for high grade toxicity, discontinuation of treatment and impaired survival.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with PIPAC-Ox (92 mg/m²) in five centers specialized in the treatment of PC. The procedure was repeated every 6 weeks. Outcomes of interest were Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), symptoms and survival (Kaplan-Meier). Univariate risk factors were included in a multinominal regression model to control for bias.

RESULTS

Overall, 251 PIPAC-Ox treatments were performed in 101 patients (45 female) having unresectable PC of various origins: 66 colorectal, 15 gastric, 5 ovarian, 3 mesothelioma, 2 pseudomyxoma, 10 other malignancies (biliary, pancreatic, endocrine) respectively. The median PCI was 19 (IQR: 10-28). Postoperative abdominal pain was present in 23 patients. Out of the 9 patients with grade 3 abdominal pain, only 3 needed a change of PIPAC drug. CTCAE 4.0 toxicity grade 4 or higher was encountered in 16(15.9%) patients. The patients had a mean of 2.5 procedures/patient (SD = 1.5). 50 subjects presented with symptom improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxaliplatin-based PIPAC appears to be a safe treatment that offers good symptom control and promising survival for patients with advanced peritoneal disease.

Staging laparoscopy and Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastasis: safe access to the abdomen

BACKGROUND

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative drug delivery technique. Most common indication is palliative therapy of peritoneal metastasis of gastrointestinal and gynecological origin in the salvage situation. Access to the abdomen is the critical step of the procedure, since most patients had previous surgery. Potential pitfalls include non-access because of adhesions, bowel access lesions and postoperative subcutaneous toxic emphysema.

METHODS

We propose a technique, the "finger-access technique" that might prevent largely these pitfalls. A minilaparotomy of 3 cm is performed in the midline, a finger introduced into the abdomen and a 5-mm double-balloon trocar (no Hasson trocar) is placed under finger protection at some distance of the first incision. The fascia of the minilaparotomy, not the skin, is then closed. The abdomen is insufflated with CO2 and tightness is controlled with saline solution in the minilaparotomy. A second 10-12 mm trocar is then introduced under videoscopic control. The first trocar is then visualized through the second one to exclude a bowel lesion during first access.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In our hands, this access technique has shown to be safe and effective.

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: innovations in surgical techniques

Liver metastases and peritoneal carcinomatosis are a particular focus of surgeons in improving survival in stage IV colorectal cancer patients, with laparotomy long being the means to undertake these operations. The Louisville statement published in 2008 was the first international consensus on indications for minimally invasive liver resection. Herein we review the progress in innovative surgical techniques, including minimally invasive liver resection, robot-assisted hepatectomy, and we also describe initial reports in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.