Intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin as maintenance chemotherapy for unresectable ovarian cancer: a case report

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.

Identification of key genes for guiding chemotherapeutic management in ovarian cancer using translational bioinformatics

The emergence of resistance to chemotherapy drugs in patients with ovarian cancer is still the main cause of low survival rates. The present study aimed to identify key genes that may provide treatment guidance to reduce the incidence of drug resistance in patients with ovarian cancer. Original data of chemotherapy sensitivity and chemoresistance of ovarian cancer were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus dataset GSE73935. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between sensitive and resistant ovarian cancer cell lines were screened by Empirical Bayes methods. Overlapping DEGs between four chemoresistant groups were identified by Venn map analysis. Protein-protein interaction networks were also constructed, and hub genes were identified. The hub genes were verified by in vitro experiments as well as The Cancer Genome Atlas data. Results from the present study identified eight important genes that may guide treatment decisions regarding chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer, including epidermal growth factor-like repeats and discoidin I-like domains 3, NRAS proto-oncogene, hyaluronan and proteoglycan link protein 1, activated protein C receptor, CD53, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A, insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor and roundabout guidance receptor 2 genes. Their expressions were found to have an impact on the prognosis of different treatment groups (cisplatin, paclitaxel, cisplatin + paclitaxel, cisplatin + doxorubicin and cisplatin + topotecan). The results indicated that these genes may minimise the occurrence of ovarian cancer drug resistance and may provide effective treatment options for patients with ovarian cancer.

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.

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.

The scientific report from the first pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) procedures performed in the eastern part of Central Europe

Objective To perform a single-centre, detailed analysis of the preparations for the introduction of the first pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) programme in the eastern part of Central Europe. Methods The study analysed the 14-month preparation period prior to the performance of the first PIPAC procedure with respect to: (i) general preparations; (ii) patient referral and qualification; (iii) the first PIPAC procedure; (iv) the 2 weeks following PIPAC programme establishment; and (v) general problematic issues that arose. Results The length of time needed to prepare our institution for the first PIPAC procedure was extremely long compared with other European Union PIPAC centres: 14 months versus a standard 3-6 months of preparation. The longest amount of time (12 months) was required to prepare the required paperwork. Conclusions A new PIPAC programme was successfully established in the eastern part of Central Europe. The length of time to implement this method was significantly longer because of lengthy bureaucratic processes. These current findings should help new centres, especially in this part of Europe, to establish a PIPAC programme more quickly.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastases of pancreas and biliary tract cancer

Data on the effectivness of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases of pancreaticobiliary origin is scarce. We here present further proof of treatment efficacy in this subset of patients. Repetitive PIPAC treatment with low-dose cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² body surface area every 6 weeks and prospective data collection. Documentation included microscopic histological regression, median overall survival and treatment-related adverse events. Twelve patients with a median age of 57 years (range 43-78 years) were included. Six patients suffered from pertioneal metastases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and six patients from cholangiocarcinoma (CC). In total 23 cycles of PIPAC were adminstered with the median number of PIPAC cycles being two (range 1-4). Complete tumor regression was found in four patients and major regression in one patient. Median overall survival after the first PIPAC cycle was 12.7 months for PDAC patients and 15.1 months for CC patients. 11 of the 12 patients are still alive after a median follow-up of 438 days. There were no CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 complications. PIPAC is an innovative and attractive treatment option in the salvage situation for patients with peritoneal metastases of pancreaticobiliary tumors after failure of systemic chemotherapy. In 40% of the patients histological regression can be induced. Further studies are warranted to further elucidate treatment efficacy.

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.

A phase I, single-arm, open-label, dose escalation study of intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a phase I, single-arm, non-randomized, open-label, dose-escalation trial to determine the dose-limiting toxicity of intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin applied as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We used a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m², cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² q 4 to 6 weeks for 3 cycles and subsequent dose escalation steps (20% increment per step) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Toxicity and clinical efficacy were monitored. The primary endpoint was the maximum-tolerable dose. Secondary endpoints included histologic tumor regression and serum parameters.

RESULTS

15 evaluable patients (3, 7, and 5 in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively) on average received 2.3 PIPAC cycles. No dose limiting toxicities were found. Adverse side effects were 1 grade 3 event (colon perforation) and 85 grade 1/2 events including fatigue (n = 19), abdominal pain (n = 18), nausea/vomiting (n = 14), sleep disorder (n = 8), diarrhea (n = 5), and fever (n = 2). Liver and renal toxicity was not observed in any of the 3 cohorts (AST 19.1 ± 3.2, 25.8 ± 6.5, and 22.1 ± 4.5 IU/L, respectively; ALT 14.7 ± 3.5, 18.5 ± 5.6, and 23.3 ± 13.0 IU/L, respectively; GGT 45.7 ± 35.1, 25.2 ± 10.3, and 43.9 ± 26.4 IU/L, respectively; serum creatinine 1.06 ± 0.23, 0.80 ± 0.17, and 0.89 ± 0.35 mg/dL, respectively). No systemic hematologic toxicity, alopecia, or neurotoxicity was noted. The maximum tolerable dose was not reached. Histologic tumor regression was observed in 7/11 (64%) patients who underwent ≥2 PIPAC cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin may be safely used at an intraperitoneal dose of 10.5 mg/m² and 2.1 mg/m², respectively. Systemic toxicity of this therapy is low.