Dynamic changes of tumor gene expression during repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with peritoneal cancer

RNA expression profiling of peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an experimental treatment option in peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer (PM-PC). Aims were to examine mRNA profile of fibrosis due to response after systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC (Regression) compared to treatment-naïve PM-PC and chronic cholecystitis-related peritoneal fibrosis (Controls).

Methods

Peritoneal biopsies (PBs) from PM-PC patients who had undergone systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC were evaluated with Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). We extracted RNA from PBs with Regression (PRGS 1, n=11), treatment-naïve PM-PC (n=10), and Controls (n=10). Profiling of 800 mRNAs was performed (NanoString nCounter, PanCancer Immuno-Oncology 360 (IO-360) and 30 additional stroma-related mRNAs).

Results

Regression vs. PM-PC identified six up-regulated and 197 down-regulated mRNAs (FDR≤0.05), linked to TNF-α signaling via NF-kB, G2M checkpoint, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, estrogen response, and coagulation. Regression vs. Controls identified 43 significantly up-regulated mRNAs, linked to interferon-α response, and down-regulation of 99 mRNAs, linked to TNF-α signaling via NF-kB, inflammatory response, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, KRAS signaling, and hypoxia (FDR≤0.05).

Conclusions

In regressive fibrosis of PM-PC after systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC (Regression), downregulation of mRNAs related to key tumor biological pathways was identified. Regression also showed transcriptional differences from unspecific, benign fibrosis (Controls). Future studies should explore whether mRNA profiling of PBs with PM from PC or other primaries holds prognostic or predictive value.

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.

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.

Assessing Post-Treatment Pathologic Tumor Response in Female Genital Tract Carcinomas: An Update

In the last decades, several new therapeutic strategies have been introduced in the field of gynecologic oncology. These include neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-grade serous tubo-ovarian carcinoma, hormonal fertility-sparing strategies for endometrial cancer, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for surgically incurable peritoneal metastasis, and neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced cervical carcinomas. All these recent advances lead to the development of novel scoring systems for the evaluation of pathological response related to specific treatments. In this regard, pathological evaluation of the morphological modifications related to these treatments and the definition of a tumor regression grading score have been introduced in clinical practice in order to achieve a more efficient prognostic stratification of patients affected by gynecological malignancies. The aim of the present paper is to provide a detailed review on the post-treatment pathological scoring systems in patients affected by gynecological malignancies.

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.

[Pt(O,O'-acac)(γ-acac)(DMS)]: Alternative Strategies to Overcome Cisplatin-Induced Side Effects and Resistance in T98G Glioma Cells

Cisplatin (CDDP) is one of the most effective chemotherapeutic agents, used for the treatment of diverse tumors, including neuroblastoma and glioblastoma. CDDP induces cell death through different apoptotic pathways. Despite its clinical benefits, CDDP causes several side effects and drug resistance.[Pt(O,O'-acac)(γ-acac)(DMS)], namely PtAcacDMS, a new platinum(II) complex containing two acetylacetonate (acac) and a dimethylsulphide (DMS) in the coordination sphere of metal, has been recently synthesized and showed 100 times higher cytotoxicity than CDDP. Additionally, PtAcacDMS was associated to a decreased neurotoxicity in developing rat central nervous system, also displaying great antitumor and antiangiogenic activity both in vivo and in vitro. Thus, based on the knowledge that several chemotherapeutics induce cancer cell death through an aberrant increase in [Ca²⁺]_i, in the present in vitro study we compared CDDP and PtAcacDMS effects on apoptosis and intracellular Ca²⁺ dynamics in human glioblastoma T98G cells, applying a battery of complementary techniques, i.e., flow cytometry, immunocytochemistry, electron microscopy, Western blotting, qRT-PCR, and epifluorescent Ca²⁺ imaging. The results confirmed that (i) platinum compounds may induce cell death through an aberrant increase in [Ca²⁺]_i and (ii) PtAcacDMS exerted stronger cytotoxic effect than CDDP, associated to a larger increase in resting [Ca²⁺]_i. These findings corroborate the use of PtAcacDMS as a promising approach to improve Pt-based chemotherapy against gliomas, either by inducing a chemosensitization or reducing chemoresistance in cell lineages resilient to CDDP treatment.

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.

The use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric malignancies

Introduction: Gastric cancer is the fourth/fifth most common malignancy worldwide, with only a quarter of patients achieving a 5-year survival rate. It has been estimated that 15-50% or more of patients have peritoneal disease upon surgical exploration. Until the early 1990s, peritoneal metastasis was considered as terminal stage of the disease; in the late 1990s, selected patients with peritoneal metastasis were recategorized as local disease. Over the past two decades, the treatment of peritoneal involvement has transformed, and cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal therapy have drastically altered the natural course of several malignancies. Areas covered: We performed a review of studies available on PubMed from 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2019 and the analysis of their reference citations. We describe the most current intraperitoneal chemotherapy opportunities in the treatment of gastric cancer: hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (LHIPEC), neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), LHIPEC + NIPS, extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL), early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Expert opinion: Comprehensive treatment consisting of CRS combined with perioperative intraperitoneal/systemic chemotherapy can, today, be considered an effective strategy to improve the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis.

Inhaled Cisplatin for NSCLC: Facts and Results

Although we have new diagnostic tools for non-small cell lung cancer, diagnosis is still made in advanced stages of the disease. However, novel treatments are being introduced in the market and new ones are being developed. Targeted therapies and immunotherapy have brought about a bloom in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Still we have to find ways to administer drugs in a more efficient and safe method. In the current review, we will focus on the administration of inhaled cisplatin based on published data.

The role of Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in the management of gastric cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently described surgical technique which is being evaluated at many centers for the management of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The present study is a systematic review to evaluate the current role of PIPAC in the management of gastric cancer associated PM.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed and EMBASE database using relevant keywords and confirming to the PRISMA guidelines to identify the articles describing the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. All the studies which were published prior to July 1, 2018 in English literature and reported the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM were included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

The search yielded 79 articles; there were ten published studies which have reported the use of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. A total of 129 patients with gastric cancer associated PM were treated in the studies. Only two studies had an exclusive cohort of gastric cancer patients while eight other studies had a heterogeneous population with a small proportion of gastric cancer patients. There was only one study highlighting the role of PIPAC in neoadjuvant setting to downgrade the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. All the studies revealed that PIPAC is feasible and has minimal perioperative morbidity, even after repeated applications.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of English literature related to the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated procedure which has the potential to contain spreading PM. Further studies are warranted to better define the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis: systematic review of clinical and experimental evidence with special emphasis on ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Systemic chemotherapy is not effective in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) and only a minority of affected patients is eligible for cytoreductive surgery. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy may provide a therapy alternative for these patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of clinical and experimental evidence on the safety and efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with PC and provide clinical recommendations based on the available evidence.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight reports were identified, categorized as experimental (18 reports), clinical (28 reports), and other articles (14 reports). Experimental studies demonstrated improved tissue penetration and peritoneal coverage. The 28 clinical studies reported on 3515 procedures in 1547 patients with PC of various primary tumors with 16 of these studies reporting on patients with ovarian cancer. Toxicity was manageable. Based on 1197 patients in 22 studies, adverse events CTCAE grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were observed in 537 (45%), 167 (14%), 83 (7%), 10 (0.8%), and 19 (1.6%) cases, respectively. In a pooled analysis, the objective tumor response rate was 69% and the mean overall survival duration was 13.7 months. No significant hepatic, renal, or hematologic toxicity was described. PIPAC maintained and/or improved quality of life, as reported in 10 studies with 396 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from controlled trials (phase I and phase II) and retrospective cohort studies in > 1500 patients unequivocally demonstrates that PIPAC is feasible, safe, and effective. PIPAC maintains quality of life in patients with recurrent cancer and PC. PIPAC is as evidence-based as any other treatment in women with ovarian cancer and PC beyond the third line of systemic chemotherapy and can be recommended in this indication.

The use of PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) in gynecological oncology: a statement by the "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR)", the Swiss and Austrian AGO, and the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic Oncology

BACKGROUND

Ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas primarily affect the peritoneal cavity, and they are typically diagnosed at an advanced tumor stage (Foley, Rauh-Hain, del Carmen in Oncology (Williston Park) 27:288-294, 2013). In the course of primary surgery, postoperative tumor residuals are, apart from the tumor stage, the strongest independent factors of prognosis (du Bois, Reuss, Pujade-Lauraine, Harter, Ray-Coquard, Pfisterer in Cancer 115:1234-1244, 2009). Due to improved surgical techniques, including the use of multi-visceral procedures, macroscopic tumor clearance can be achieved in oncological centers, in most cases (Harter, Muallem, Buhrmann et al in Gynecol Oncol 121:615-619, 2011). However, to date, it has not been shown that peritoneal carcinomatosis is, per se, an independent factor of prognosis or that it excludes the achievement of tumor clearance. Several studies have shown that a preceding drug therapy in peritoneal carcinomatosis could positively influence the overall prognosis (Trimbos, Trimbos, Vergote et al in J Natl Cancer Inst 95:105-112, 2003). In relapses of ovarian carcinoma, studies have shown that peritoneal carcinomatosis is a negative predictor of complete tumor resection; however, when it is possible to resect the tumor completely, peritoneal carcinomatosis does not play a role in the prognosis (Harter, Hahmann, Lueck et al in Ann Surg Oncol 16:1324-1330, 2009).

RESULTS

PIPAC is a highly experimental method for treating patients with ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer. To date, only three studies have investigated a total of 184 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (Grass, Vuagniaux, Teixeira-Farinha, Lehmann, Demartines, Hubner in Br J Surg 104:669-678, 2017). Only some of those studies were phase I/II studies that included PIPAC for patients with different indications and different cancer entities. It is important to keep in mind that the PIPAC approach is associated with relatively high toxicity. To date, no systematic dose-finding studies have been reported. Moreover, no studies have reported improvements in progression-free or overall survival associated with PIPAC therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized phase III studies are required to evaluate the effect of this therapy compared to other standard treatments (sequential or simultaneous applications with systemic chemotherapy). In cases of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer, PIPAC should not be performed outside the framework of prospective, controlled studies.

Systematic review of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach under investigation as a novel treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of various origins. The aim was to review the available evidence on mechanisms, clinical effects and risks.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of the literature on pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy published between January 2000 and October 2016. All types of scientific report were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine relevant papers were identified; 16 were preclinical studies and 13 were clinical reports. The overall quality of the clinical studies was modest; five studies were prospective and there was no randomized trial. Preclinical data suggested better distribution and higher tissue concentrations of chemotherapy agents in PIPAC compared with conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy by lavage. Regarding technical feasibility, laparoscopic access and repeatability rates were 83-100 and 38-82 per cent. Surgery-related complications occurred in up to 12 per cent. Postoperative morbidity was low (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3-5 events reported in 0-37 per cent), and hospital stay was about 3 days. No negative impact on quality of life was reported. Histological response rates for therapy-resistant carcinomatosis of ovarian, colorectal and gastric origin were 62-88, 71-86 and 70-100 per cent respectively.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is feasible, safe and well tolerated. Preliminary good response rates call for prospective analysis of oncological efficacy.