Intraperitoneal chemotherapy of peritoneal carcinomatosis using pressurized aerosol as an alternative to liquid solution: first evidence for efficacy

A multi-nozzle nebuliser does not improve tissue drug delivery during PIPAC

BACKGROUND

Multi-nozzle nebulisers for pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are implemented in clinical practice to improve the homogeneity of tissue drug delivery. Nonetheless, the advantages of such devices over one-nozzle nebulisers have not been demonstrated thus far. In this study, we compared the performance of multi- and one-nozzle nebulisers by conducting physical and ex vivo pharmacological experiments.

METHODS

The one-nozzle nebuliser Capnopen® and the multi-nozzle nebuliser were the subjects of this study. In physical experiments, the aerosol droplet size was measured by laser diffraction spectroscopy. Spatial spray patterns were depicted on blotting paper. Pharmacological experiments were performed on the enhanced inverted bovine urinary bladder model, demonstrating real-time tissue drug delivery, aerosol sedimentation and homogeneity of doxorubicin and cisplatin tissue distribution.

RESULTS

The multi-nozzle nebuliser had a sixfold greater aerosolisation flow and a threefold greater angle of aerosolisation than Capnopen®. The aerosol particle size and distribution range were higher than that of Capnopen®. Spray patterns on blotting paper were more extensive with the multi-nozzle nebuliser. Real-time tissue drug delivery with the multi-nozzle nebuliser was over 100 ml within 1 min, and the aerosol sedimentation was 48.9% ± 21.2%, which was not significantly different from that of Capnopen®. The doxorubicin and cisplatin tissue concentrations were greater with Capnopen®. Although there was no significant difference in the homogeneity of doxorubicin distribution between the two devices, the homogeneity of cisplatin distribution was significantly higher with Capnopen®.

CONCLUSION

The multi-nozzle PIPAC nebuliser did not fulfil expectations. Even though the surface spray patterns were broader with the multi-nozzle nebuliser, the tissue drug homogeneity and concentration were greater with Capnopen®.

Impact of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on gastric cancer survival: Peritoneal metastasis and cytology perspectives

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer presenting with peritoneal metastasis is notably associated with diminished survival prospects. The use of cytoreductive surgery in conjunction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been shown to increase survival rates in these patients. Despite these advancements, debates persist regarding the magnitude of survival improvement attributed to this treatment modality. The present investigation examined survival outcomes following HIPEC in individuals diagnosed with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis, and it took a comparative analysis of patients exhibiting positive and negative cytological findings.

AIM

To compare the impact of HIPEC on survival in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis and positive or negative cytology.

METHODS

Between April 2013 and March 2020, 84 patients with advanced gastric cancer treated at our institution were categorized into three cohorts: HIPEC (20 patients with peritoneal metastasis), cytology-positive (23 patients without peritoneal nodules but with positive wash cytology), and cytology-negative (41 patients with advanced gastric cancer, no peritoneal nodules, and negative wash cytology). The HIPEC cohort underwent gastrectomy with HIPEC, while the cytology-positive and cytology-negative groups received gastrectomy alone. The demographic, pathological, and survival data of the groups were compared.

RESULTS

The HIPEC cohort-predominantly younger females-exhibited relatively extended surgical durations and high blood loss. Nevertheless, the complication rates were consistent across all three groups. Median survival in the HIPEC group was 20.00 ± 4.89 months, with 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year overall survival rates of 73.90%, 28.70%, and 9.60%, respectively. These figures paralleled the survival rates of the cytology-positive group (52.20% at 1 year, 28.50% at 2 years, and 19.00% at 3 years). Notably, 47% of patients experienced peritoneal recurrence.

CONCLUSION

HIPEC may offer a modest improvement in short-term survival for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis, mirroring the outcomes in cytology-positive patients. However, peritoneal recurrence remained high.

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.

First-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: A single-arm phase II trial (CRC-PIPAC-II)

BACKGROUND

Palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic precipitation oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has never been prospectively investigated in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The CRC-PIPAC-II study aimed to assess safety, feasibility and efficacy of such bidirectional therapy.

METHODS

This two-center, single-arm, phase II trial enrolled chemotherapy-naïve patients to undergo three treatment cycles, consisting of systemic therapy (CAPOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or FOLFOXIRI, all with bevacizumab) and oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC (92 mg/m2) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2). Primary outcome were major treatment-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included minor events, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Twenty patients completed 52 treatment cycles. Fifteen major events occurred in 7 patients (35 %): 5 events (33 %) related to systemic therapy; 5 (33 %) related to ePIPAC; and 5 (33 %) were biochemical events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. All patients experienced minor events, mostly abdominal pain, nausea and peripheral sensory neuropathy. After treatment, radiological, pathological, cytological, and biochemical response was observed in 0 %, 88 %, 38 %, and 31 % of patients respectively. Curative surgery was achieved in one patient. Median PFS was 10.0 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.0-13.0) and median OS was 17.5 months (95 % CI 13.0-not reached).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining palliative systemic therapy with oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC in patients with unresectable CPM was feasible and showed an acceptable safety profile. Treatment-induced response and survival are promising, yet further research is required to determine the additional value of ePIPAC to systemic therapy.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Safety-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); p < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; p = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; p < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions: PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.

Outcome of patients with peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

There are few data on Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in women with primary unresectable or recurrent platinum-resistant peritoneal metastasis (PM) from ovarian cancer (OC). We evaluated survival, histological and cytological response, Quality of Life (QoL) and toxicity after PIPAC C/D in these patients.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and -OPC2 studies. The histological response was evaluated by the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). QoL questionnaires were collected at baseline and after third PIPAC or 60 days. Adverse events were collected until 30 days after the last PIPAC. Demographic and survival data were analysed based on intention to treat. Response, QoL and toxicity were analysed per protocol (≥1 PIPAC).

Results

Twenty-nine patients were included. Five patients (17 %) were non-accessible at PIPAC 1. One patient was excluded due to liver metastases at PIPAC 1. Thus, 23 patients had 76 PIPACs (median 2, range 1-12). Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95 % CI 4.4-10.3) from PIPAC 1. Biopsy data were available for 22 patients, and seven (32 %) patients had a major/complete histological response (PRGS≤2) at PIPAC 3. No cytological conversions were registered. Symptoms and function scores worsened, while emotional scores improved. Three patients had severe adverse reactions (two ileus, one pulmonary embolism); no life-threatening reactions or treatment-related mortality was observed.

Conclusions

PIPAC C/D was feasible and induced histological regression in a substantial proportion of patients with platinum-resistant PM from OC. Larger studies are needed to evaluate impact on survival.

Regional Therapy Approaches for Gastric Cancer with Limited Peritoneal Disease

PURPOSE

Despite advances in systemic therapy, outcomes of patients with gastric cancer (GC) peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) remain poor, in part because of poor penetrance of systemic therapy into peritoneal metastasis due to the plasma-peritoneal barrier and anarchic intra-tumoral circulation. Hence, regional treatment approach with administration of chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal cavity (intraperitoneal, IP) under various conditions, combined with or without cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has remained an area of significant research interest. The purpose of this review is to provide high-level evidence for regional treatment approaches in the management of GCPC with limited peritoneal disease.

METHODS

A review of the current literature and ongoing clinical trials for regional IP therapies for GCPC was performed. Studies included in this review comprise of phase III randomized controlled trials, non-randomized phase II studies, high-impact retrospective studies, and active ongoing clinical trials for each available IP modality.

RESULTS

The three common IP approaches are heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC) and more recently introduced, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC). These IP approaches have been combined with systemic therapy and/or CRS with varying degrees of promising results, demonstrating evidence of improvements in survival rates and peritoneal disease control. Patient selection, optimization of systemic therapy, and completeness of cytoreduction have emerged as major factors influencing the design of contemporary and ongoing trials.

CONCLUSION

IP chemotherapy has a clear role in the management of patients with GCPC, and when combined with CRS in appropriately selected patients has the potential to significantly improve survival. Ongoing and upcoming IP therapy clinical trials hold great promise to shape the treatment paradigm for GCPC.

Performance of different nebulizers in clinical use for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

OBJECTIVE

Technical ex-vivo comparison of commercial nebulizer nozzles used for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

The performance of four different commercial nebulizer nozzles (Nebulizer; HurriChemTM; MCR-4 TOPOL®; QuattroJet) was analysed concerning: i) technical design and principle of operation, ii) operational pressure as function of the liquid flow rate, iii) droplet size distribution via laser diffraction spectrometry, iv) spray cone angle, spray cone form as well as horizontal drug deposition by image-metric analyses and v) chemical resistance via exposing to a cytostatic solution and chemical composition by means of spark optical emission spectral analysis.

RESULTS

The Nebulizer shows quasi an identical technical design and thus also a similar performance (e.g., mass median droplet size of 29 μm) as the original PIPAC nozzles (MIP/ CapnoPen). All other nozzles show more or less a performance deviation to the original PIPAC nozzles. The HurriChemTM has a similar design and principle of operation as the Nebulizer, but provides a finer aerosol (22 μm). The principle of operation of MCR-4 TOPOL® and QuattroJet differ significantly from that of the original PIPAC nozzle technology. The MCR-4 TOPOL® offers a hollow spray cone with significantly larger droplets (50 μm) than the original PIPAC nozzles. The QuattroJet generates an aerosol (22 μm) similar to that of the HurriChemTM but with improved spatial drug distribution.

CONCLUSION

The availability of new PIPAC nozzles is encouraging but can also have a negative impact if their performance and efficacy is unknown. It is recommended that PIPAC nozzles that deviate from the current standard should be subject to bioequivalence testing and implementation in accordance with the IDEAL-D framework prior to routine clinical use.

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

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

Progress in Biological Research and Treatment of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare disease characterized by extensive peritoneal implantation and mass secretion of mucus after primary mucinous tumors of the appendix or other organ ruptures. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is currently the preferred treatment, with excellent efficacy and safety, and is associated with breakthrough progress in long-term disease control and prolonged survival. However, the high recurrence rate of PMP is the key challenge in its treatment, which limits the clinical application of multiple rounds of CRS-HIPEC and does not benefit from conventional systemic chemotherapy. Therefore, the development of alternative therapies for patients with refractory or relapsing PMP is critical. The literature related to PMP research progress and treatment was searched in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, and a literature review was conducted. The overview of the biological research, treatment status, potential therapeutic strategies, current research limitations, and future directions associated with PMP are presented, focuses on CRS-HIPEC therapy and alternative or combination therapy strategies, and emphasizes the clinical transformation prospects of potential therapeutic strategies such as mucolytic agents and targeted therapy. It provides a theoretical reference for the treatment of PMP and the main directions for future research.

Hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol drug delivery system in a large animal model: a feasibility and safety study

BACKGROUND

We developed a novel drug delivery system called hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HPIPAC) that hybridized Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The present study aims to assess the feasibility and safety of HPIPAC system in a large animal survival model.

METHODS

Eleven pigs (eight non-survival models and three survival models) were used in the experiment. The heat module in the HPIPAC controller circulates hyperthermic CO2 in a closed-loop circuit and creates gas-based dry intraperitoneal hyperthermia. Three 12 mm trocars were placed on the abdomen. The afferent CO2 tube wound with heat generating coil was inserted into a trocar, and the efferent tube was inserted into another trocar. Heated CO2 was insufflated and circulated in a closed circuit until the intra-abdominal and peritoneal surface temperature reached 42 °C. 100 ml of 5% dextrose in water was nebulized for 5 min and the closed-loop circulation was resumed for 60 min at 42 °C. Tissue biopsies were taken from several sites from the pigs in the survival model.

RESULTS

The average change in core temperature of the pigs was 2.5 ± 0.08 °C. All three pigs displayed no signs of distress, and their vital signs remained stable, with no changes in their diet. In autopsy, inflammatory and fibrotic responses at the biopsy sites were observed without serious pathologic findings.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully proved the feasibility and safety of our novel HPIPAC system in an in-vivo swine survival model.

Peritoneal Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Local Treatment Options and Recommendations

Peritoneal metastasis is a common finding in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Beyond systemic chemotherapy, additive local treatments such as cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy are considered an inherent part of different multimodal treatment concepts for selected patients with peritoneal metastatic gastric cancer. This review article discusses the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy, including HIPEC, NIPS, and PIPAC, as additive therapeutic options with curative and palliative intent.

The Future of Interventions for Stage IV Colorectal Cancers

Future options for the management of stage IV colorectal cancer are primarily focused on personalized and directed therapies. Interventions include precision cancer medicine, utilizing nanocarrier platforms for directed chemotherapy, palliative pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), adjunctive oncolytic virotherapy, and radioembolization techniques. Comprehensive genetic profiling provides specific tumor-directed therapy based on individual genetics. Biomimetic magnetic nanoparticles as chemotherapy delivery systems may reduce systemic side effects of traditional chemotherapy by targeting tumor cells and sparing healthy cells. PIPAC is a newly emerging option for patients with peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer and is now being used internationally, showing promising results as a palliative therapy for colorectal cancer. Oncolytic virotherapy is another emerging potential treatment option, especially when combined with standard chemotherapy and/or radiation, as well as immunotherapy. And finally, radioembolization with yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) microspheres has shown some success in treating patients with unresectable liver metastasis from colorectal cancer via selective arterial injection.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Postoperative Pain and Opioid Administration After Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique, developed for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). In this retrospective observational study we assessed the impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.

METHODS

We analyzed pain scores after 100 PIPAC procedures using either oxaliplatin or doxorubicin-cisplatin performed in 49 patients with PC between July 2016 and September 2020. The patients were divided into 3 groups (BMI <18.5, 18.5 ≥ BMI < 25, BMI≥25). Pain was self-rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

Univariate logistic regression analysis identified oxaliplatin and PCI score to be associated with moderate to severe pain (VAS 4-10 at 8 am D1) after adjustment on BMI (OR [95% CI]; 3.26[1.00 - 10.65] p=0.050) and (OR [95% CI]; 1.09[1.01 - 1.17] p=0.019). The level of pain appeared significantly different between the treatment groups (median 2.5[0; 5] vs 0[0; 2.5] p=0.0017) irrespective of BMI (p =0.705 and p=0.118). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified moderate to severe pain and synchronous PC to be associated with greater use of opioids (OR [95% CI]: 3.91 [1.24 - 12.32]) and (OR [95% CI]: 5.16 [1.71 - 15.58]; respectively. Opioids were administered after 45 procedures (45%) and was comparable between the treatment groups. Opioid administration and length-of-stay were similar among BMI bands.

CONCLUSION

BMI is not related to postoperative pain or opioid use, howevermoderate to severe pain and synchronous PC are factors associated with requiring opioids.

[Contribution of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinoma. HIPEC, PIPAC, state of the art and future directions]

After more than a decade of good results using the combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the treatment of peritoneal carcinosis of colorectal origin, the PRODIGE7 study, which specifically evaluated the role of HIPEC, failed to show any superiority in terms of overall and disease-free survival for the CRS+HIPEC combination compared with CRS alone. This study constituted a radical change in the knowledge and therapeutic attitudes observed to date. After reviewing the literature and the consensus of national and international experts, a synthesis is provided, together with an outlook on the questions raised and the therapeutic trials and innovations of the near future. An analysis of recent advances due to the advent of a new technique, PIPAC, is also proposed, as well as a review of current therapeutic trials in this field.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Applied to Platinum-Resistant Recurrence of Ovarian Tumor: A Single-Institution Experience (ID: PARROT Trial)

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in platinum-resistant recurrence of ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis, while our secondary endpoint was to establish any changes in quality of life estimated via the EORTC QLQ-30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires.

METHODS

In this monocentric, single-arm, phase II trial, women were prospectively recruited and every 28-42 days underwent courses of PIPAC with doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m2 followed by cisplatin 10.5 mg/m2 via sequential laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 PIPAC procedures were performed on 43 women from January 2016 to January 2020; three procedures were aborted due to extensive intra-abdominal adhesions. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reached in 82% of women. Three cycles of PIPAC were completed in 18 women (45%), and 13 (32.5%) and 9 (22.5%) patients were subjected to one and two cycles, respectively. During two PIPAC procedures, patients experienced an intraoperative intestinal perforation. There were no treatment-related deaths. Nineteen patients showed no response according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and 8 patients showed minor response according to the PRGS. Median time from ovarian cancer relapse to disease progression was 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.483-17.517), while the median overall survival was 27 months (95% CI 20.337-33.663). The EORTC QLQ-28 and EORTC QLQ-30 scores did not worsen during therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC seems a feasible approach for the treatment of this subset of patients, without any impact on their quality of life. Since this study had a small sample size and a single-center design, future research is mandatory, such as its application in addition to systemic chemotherapy.

UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (NCT03868228)

Objectives

This is the first UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases. This trial aimed to assess the impact of PIPAC in combination with standard of care systemic treatment on: progression free survival (PFS); quality of life (QoL); and short-term complications. In addition, this trial set out to demonstrate that PIPAC can be performed safely in operating theatres within a National Health Service (NHS) setting.

Methods

Single-centre clinical trial with prospective data collection for patients undergoing 8-weekly PIPAC with oxaliplatin at 92 mg/m2 from January 2019 till January 2022. Progression free survival was assessed using peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) by CT scans and laparoscopy. Quality of life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Adverse events were recorded using CTCAE.

Results

Five patients underwent a total of ten PIPAC administrations (median 2, range 1-4). Median PFS was 6.0 months. QoL was maintained across repeat PIPAC procedures but a decrease in social functioning and increased fatigue were evident. Three incidences of grade 3 adverse events occurred but PIPAC was well tolerated.

Conclusions

The presented data demonstrates that PIPAC is feasible and can be safely delivered within the NHS for patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases, but caution must also be exercised given a risk of adverse events. Systemic chemotherapy can be safely administered at a different unit to the PIPAC procedure if both groups have clear lines of communication and timely data sharing.

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.

Second annual report from the ISSPP PIPAC database

Objectives

To monitor the results of PIPAC directed therapy based on data from the International Society for the Study of the Pleura and Peritoneum (ISSPP) PIPAC database.

Methods

Analysis of data from patients entered between June 15th, 2020, and February 28th, 2023.

Results

Twelve centers reported 2,456 PIPAC procedures in 809 patients (median 2, range 1-18) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from different primary tumors. Approximately 90 % had systemic chemotherapy prior to PIPAC. Twenty-eight percent were treated in prospective protocols. Overall non-access rate was 3.5 %. Concomitant surgical procedures were performed during PIPAC in 1.6 % of the patients. Median length of stay was 2 days. A total of 95 surgical complications were recorded, but only 22 % of these were graded ≥3b. Seventeen-hundred-and-three adverse events were noted, and 8 % were classified ≥3. The rate of complete or major histological response (peritoneal regression grade score, PRGS≤2) increased between the first and the third PIPAC in the group of patients who were evaluated by PRGS, and a PRGS ≤2 or a reduction of the mean PRGS of at least 1 between first and third PIPAC were observed in 80 %. Disease progression (50 %) or technical issues (19 %) were the most important reasons for stopping PIPAC treatment. Median overall survival from first PIPAC directed treatment varied from 10.7 months (CI 8.7-12.5) in gastric cancer to 27.1 months (16.4-50.5) in mesothelioma.

Conclusions

The ISSPP PIPAC database provides substantial real-world data supporting the use of PIPAC directed therapy in patients with PM from different primary tumors.

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.

Comparing patient reported abdominal pain between patients treated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) and primary colorectal cancer surgery

Oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases. Previously, our study group reported that patients experienced abdominal pain for several weeks after PIPAC-OX. However, it is unknown how this compares to abdominal pain after regular colorectal cancer surgery. To provide some perspective, this study compared the presence of abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX to the presence of abdominal pain after primary tumor surgery. Patient reported abdominal pain scores (EORTC QLQ-CR-29), from two prospective, Dutch cohorts were used in this study. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, a higher score represents more abdominal pain. Abdominal pain at baseline and at four weeks after treatment were compared between the two groups. Twenty patients who underwent PIPAC-OX and 322 patients who underwent primary tumor surgery were included in the analysis. At baseline, there were no differences in abdominal pain between both groups (mean 20 vs. 18, respectively; p = 0.688). Four weeks after treatment, abdominal pain was significantly worse in the PIPAC group (39 vs 15, respectively; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.99). The differential effect over time for abdominal pain differed significantly between both groups (mean difference: 19 vs - 3, respectively; p = 0.004; Cohen's d = 0.88). PIPAC-OX resulted in significantly worse postoperative abdominal pain than primary tumor surgery. These results can be used for patient counseling and stress the need for adequate analgesia during and after PIPAC-OX. Further research is required to prevent or reduce abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX.Trial registration CRC-PIPAC: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT03246321 (01-10-2017).

Progress in the Treatment of Peritoneal Metastatic Cancer and the Application of Therapeutic Nanoagents

Peritoneal metastatic cancer is a cancer caused by the direct growth of cancer cells from the primary site through the bloodstream, lymph, or peritoneum, which is a difficult part of current clinical treatment. In the abdominal cavity of patients with metastatic peritoneal cancer, there are usually nodules of various sizes and malignant ascites. Among them, nodules of different sizes can obstruct intestinal movement and form intestinal obstruction, while malignant ascites can cause abdominal distension and discomfort, and even cause patients to have difficulty in breathing. The pathology and physiology of peritoneal metastatic cancer are complex and not fully understood. The main hypothesis is "seed" and "soil"; i.e., cells from the primary tumor are shed and implanted in the peritoneal cavity (peritoneal metastasis). In the last two decades, the main treatment modalities used clinically are cytoreductive surgery (CRS), systemic chemotherapy, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and combined treatment, all of which help to improve patient survival and quality of life (QOL). However, the small-molecule chemotherapeutic drugs used clinically still have problems such as rapid drug metabolism and systemic toxicity. With the rapid development of nanotechnology in recent years, therapeutic nanoagents for the treatment of peritoneal metastatic cancer have been gradually developed, which has improved the therapeutic effect and reduced the systemic toxicity of small-molecule chemotherapeutic drugs to a certain extent. In addition, nanomaterials have been developed not only as therapeutic agents but also as imaging agents to guide peritoneal tumor CRS. In this review, we describe the etiology and pathological features of peritoneal metastatic cancer, discuss in detail the clinical treatments that have been used for peritoneal metastatic cancer, and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the different clinical treatments and the QOL of the treated patients, followed by a discussion focusing on the progress, obstacles, and challenges in the use of therapeutic nanoagents in peritoneal metastatic cancer. Finally, therapeutic nanoagents and therapeutic tools that may be used in the future for the treatment of peritoneal metastatic cancer are prospected.

Safety and Efficacy of Oxaliplatin Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosolized Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in Colorectal and Appendiceal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases: Results of a Multicenter Phase I Trial in the USA

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopic locoregional treatment for peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) or appendiceal cancer (AC) in patients who cannot undergo cytoreductive surgery (CRS). While PIPAC has been studied in Europe and Asia, it has not been investigated in the USA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated PIPAC with 90 mg/m2 oxaliplatin alone (cycle 1) and preceded by systemic chemotherapy with fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (cycle 2-3) as a multicenter prospective phase I clinical trial (NCT04329494). The primary endpoint was treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints included survival and laparoscopic, histologic, and radiographic response.

RESULTS

12 patients were included: 8 with CRC and 4 with AC. Median prior chemotherapy cycles was 2 (interquartile range (IQR) 2-3). All patients were refractory to systemic oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 28 (IQR 19-32). Six (50%) of twelve patients completed three PIPAC cycles. No surgical complications or dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Two patients developed grade 3 treatment-related toxicities (one abdominal pain and one anemia). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.0 months, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months. OS was correlated with stable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria but not with laparoscopic response by PCI or histologic response by peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS).

CONCLUSIONS

This phase I trial in the USA demonstrated safety, feasibility, and early efficacy signal of PIPAC with oxaliplatin and chemotherapy in patients with PM from AC or CRC who are refractory to standard lines of systemic chemotherapy.

The effect of electrostatic high pressure nebulization on the stability, activity and ex vivo distribution of ionic self-assembled nanomedicines

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is applied to treat unresectable peritoneal metastasis (PM), an advanced, end-stage disease with a poor prognosis. Electrostatic precipitation of the aerosol (ePIPAC) is aimed at improving the intraperitoneal (IP) drug distribution and tumor penetration. Also, the combination of nanoparticles (NPs) as drug delivery vehicles and IP aerosolization as administration method has been proposed as a promising tool to treat PM. There is currently limited knowledge on how electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC) and high pressure nebulization (PIPAC) affects the performance of electrostatically formed complexes. Therefore, the stability, in vitro activity and ex vivo distribution and tissue penetration of negatively charged cisPt-pArg-HA NPs and positively charged siRNA-RNAiMAX NPs was evaluated following PIPAC and ePIPAC. Additionally, a multidirectional Medspray® nozzle was developed and compared with the currently used Capnopen® nozzle. For both NP types, PIPAC and ePIPAC did not negatively influence the in vitro activity, although limited aggregation of siRNA-RNAiMAX NPs was observed following nebulization with the Capnopen®. Importantly, ePIPAC was linked to a more uniform distribution and higher tissue penetration of the NPs aerosolized by both nozzles, independent on the NPs charge. Finally, compared to the Capnopen®, an increased NP deposition was observed at the top of the ex vivo model following aerosolization with the Medspray® nozzle, which indicates that this device possesses great potential for IP drug delivery purposes. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Aerosolized drug delivery in the peritoneal cavity holds great promise to treat peritoneal cancer. In addition, electrostatic precipitation of the aerosol to the peritoneal tissue is aimed at improving the drug distribution and tumor penetration. The combination of nanoparticles (NPs), which are nano-sized drug delivery vehicles, and aerosolization has been proposed as a promising tool to treat peritoneal cancer. However, there is currently limited knowledge on how electrostatic precipitation and aerosolization affect the performance of electrostatically formed NPs. Therefore, the stability, activity, distribution and penetration of negatively and positively charged NPs was evaluated after aerosolization and electrostatic precipitation. Additionally, to further optimize the local drug distribution, a multidirectional spray nozzle was developed and compared with the currently used nozzle.

Smart hydrogels delivered by high pressure aerosolization can prevent peritoneal adhesions

Postoperative peritoneal adhesions occur in the majority of patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery and are one of the leading causes of hospital re-admission. There is an unmet clinical need for effective anti-adhesive biomaterials, which can be applied evenly across the damaged tissues. We examined three different responsive hydrogel types, i.e. a thermosensitive PLGA-PEG-PLGA, a pH responsive UPy-PEG and a shear-thinning hexapeptide for this purpose. More specifically, their potential to be homogeneously distributed in the peritoneal cavity by high pressure nebulization and prevent peritoneal adhesions was evaluated. Solutions of each polymer type could be successfully nebulized while retaining their responsive gelation behavior in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, none of the polymers caused in vitro toxicity on SKOV3-IP2 cells. Following intraperitoneal administration, both the PLGA-PEG-PLGA and the hexapeptide hydrogels resulted in local inflammation and fibrosis and failed in preventing peritoneal adhesions 7 days after adhesion induction. In contrast, the pH sensitive UPy-PEG formulation was well tolerated and could significantly reduce the formation of peritoneal adhesions, even outperforming the commercially available Hyalobarrier® as positive control. To conclude, local nebulization of the bioresponsive UPy-PEG hydrogel can be considered as a promising approach to prevent postsurgical peritoneal adhesions.

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.

Surgical management of peritoneal metastasis: Opportunities for pharmaceutical research

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has emerged as a survival-extending treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM); recent advances include using intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) at normothermic or hyperthermic temperatures, or under pressure (CRS + IPC). Clinical CRS + IPC research has established its highly variable efficacy and suggested tumor size, tumor locations and presence of ascites as potential determinants. On the other hand, there is limited knowledge on the effects of pharmaceutical properties on treatment outcomes. The present study investigated the inter-subject variability of paclitaxel binding to proteins in patient ascites because some PM patients show accumulation of ascites and because activity and transport of highly protein-bound drugs such as paclitaxel are affected by protein binding. Ascites samples were collected from 26 patients and investigated for their protein contents using LC/MS/MS proteomics analysis and for the concentrations of total proteins and two major paclitaxel-binding proteins (human serum albumin or HSA and α-1-acid glycoprotein or AAG). The association constants of paclitaxel to HSA and AAG and the extent of protein binding of paclitaxel in patient ascites were studied using equilibrium dialysis. Proteomic analysis of four randomly selected samples revealed 288 proteins, >90% of which are also present in human plasma. Between 72% - 94% of paclitaxel was bound to proteins in patient ascites. The concentrations of HSA and AAG in ascites showed substantial inter-subject variations, ranging from 14.7 - 46.3 mg/mL and 0.13-2.56 mg/mL, respectively. The respective paclitaxel association constants to commercially available HSA and AAG were ∼ 3.5 and ∼ 120 mM. Calculation using these constants and the HSA and AAG concentrations in individual patient ascites indicated that these two proteins accounted for >85% of the total protein-binding of paclitaxel in ascites. The extensive drug binding to ascites proteins, by reducing the pharmacologically active free fraction, may lead to the diminished CRS efficacy in PM patients with ascites. Clinical advances in CRS + IPC have outpaced current knowledge of pharmaceutical properties in this setting. IPC, as a locally acting therapy, is subjected to processes different from those governing systemic treatments. This study, to our knowledge, is the first to illustrate the implications of drug properties in the CRS + IPC efficacy against PM. While drugs are now an integral part of PM patient management, there is limited pharmaceutical research in this treatment setting (e.g., effects of hyperthermia or pressure on drug transport or release from delivery systems, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics). Hence, CRS + IPC of PM represents an area where additional pharmaceutical research can assist further development and optimization.

Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients

Introduction

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the primary cause of mortality in women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Our study assessed pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as treatment for peritoneal surface metastases (PSM) from recurrent or progressive OC and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors.

Material and methods

This retrospective cohort study, conducted across 18 international centers, analyzed the clinical practices of patients receiving palliative treatment for PSM from OC who underwent PIPAC. All patients were initially treated appropriately outside any clinical trial setting. Feasibility, safety, and morbidity were evaluated along with objective endpoints of oncological response. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic factors for OS and PFS.

Results

From 2015-2020, 234 consecutive patients were studied, from which 192 patients were included and stratified by platinum sensitivity for analysis. Patients with early recurrence, within one postoperative month, were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding platinum sensitivity (platinum sensitive (PS) and resistant (PR)), but chemotherapy frequency differed, as did PCI before PIPAC. Median PCI decreased in both groups after three cycles of PIPAC (PS 16 vs. 12, p < 0.001; PR 24 vs. 20, p = 0.009). Overall morbidity was 22%, with few severe complications (4-8%) or mortality (0-3%). Higher pathological response and longer OS (22 vs. 11m, p = 0.012) and PFS (12 vs. 7m, p = 0.033) were observed in the PS group. Multivariate analysis (OS/PFS) identified ascites (HR 4.02, p < 0.001/5.22, p < 0.001), positive cytology at first PIPAC (HR 3.91, p = 0.002/1.96, p = 0.035), and ≥ 3 PIPACs (HR 0.30, p = 0.002/0.48, p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors of overall survival/progression-free survival.

Conclusions

With low morbidity and mortality rates, PIPAC is a safe option for palliative treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Promising results were observed after 3 PIPAC, which did improve the peritoneal burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of PIPAC as an independent prognostic factor.

Anatomical Targeting of Anticancer Drugs to Solid Tumors Using Specific Administration Routes: Review

Despite remarkable recent progress in developing anti-cancer agents, outcomes of patients with solid tumors remain unsatisfactory. In general, anti-cancer drugs are systemically administered through peripheral veins and delivered throughout the body. The major problem with systemic chemotherapy is insufficient uptake of intravenous (IV) drugs by targeted tumor tissue. Although dose escalation and treatment intensification have been attempted in order to increase regional concentrations of anti-tumor drugs, these approaches have produced only marginal benefits in terms of patient outcomes, while often damaging healthy organs. To overcome this problem, local administration of anti-cancer agents can yield markedly higher drug concentrations in tumor tissue with less systemic toxicity. This strategy is most commonly used for liver and brain tumors, as well as pleural or peritoneal malignancies. Although the concept is theoretically reasonable, survival benefits are still limited. This review summarizes clinical results and problems and discusses future directions of regional cancer therapy with local administration of chemotherapeutants.

Oncological Outcomes After Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Our objective was to assess its oncological outcomes.

METHODS

Between July 2016 and September 2020, data from 100 PIPAC procedures with oxaliplatin or doxorubicin-cisplatin in 49 patients with PC (all etiologies) were analyzed. We studied the evolution of the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), the need for radical surgery (R0), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 65 (59; 71) years, and 55.1% were women. Median PIPAC procedures per patient were 2 (1-3), and 28 (57.1%) underwent more than one PIPAC procedure. Median PCI at the first PIPAC was 19 (15-22). PCI decreased for 37%, remained stable for 29.6%, and increased for 33.4% patients. Four (8.3%) underwent radical R0 surgery after PIPAC. After a median follow-up of 16.1 months (1.5-90.1), the median overall survival from PC diagnosis was 29.1 months (14.8-34.3), with a median gastric and colorectal PC survival of 11.3 (7.2-34.3) and 29.1 months (16.1-31) respectively. Overall survival after the first PIPAC session was 11.6 months (6-17.3), with median survival after gastric and colorectal PCs being 6 (2.9-15.5) and 13.3 months (5-17.6), respectively. Stratification of patients according to the number of lines of systemic chemotherapy, PIPAC procedures, and the chronology of PC onset did not result in a significant difference in survival.

CONCLUSION

The OS was in line with the literature. PIPAC could delay oncological progression and improve survival. These encouraging results justify the ongoing and future evaluations of PIPAC by prospective randomized trials.

Localized chemotherapy approaches and advanced drug delivery strategies: a step forward in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a common outcome of epithelial ovarian carcinoma and is the leading cause of death for these patients. Tumor location, extent, peculiarities of the microenvironment, and the development of drug resistance are the main challenges that need to be addressed to improve therapeutic outcome. The development of new procedures such as HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy) and PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) have enabled locoregional delivery of chemotherapeutics, while the increasingly efficient design and development of advanced drug delivery micro and nanosystems are helping to promote tumor targeting and penetration and to reduce the side effects associated with systemic chemotherapy administration. The possibility of combining drug-loaded carriers with delivery via HIPEC and PIPAC represents a powerful tool to improve treatment efficacy, and this possibility has recently begun to be explored. This review will discuss the latest advances in the treatment of PC derived from ovarian cancer, with a focus on the potential of PIPAC and nanoparticles in terms of their application to develop new therapeutic strategies and future prospects.

Safety and Feasibility of High-Pressure/High-Dose Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (HP/HD-PIPAC) for Primary and Metastatic Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and perioperative safety of high-pressure/high-dose pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (HP/HD-PIPAC) to manage peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database of about 130 consecutive patients scheduled for HP/HD-PIPACs for PSM. Doxorubicin plus cisplatin (PIPAC-C/D) or oxaliplatin (PIPAC-Ox) were nebulized into a constant capnoperitoneum of 20 mmHg at doses of 6, 30, or 120 mg/m² of body surface area (BSA). Outcome criteria were perioperative complications (Clavien-Dindo).

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 62 years (range 9-82), and the primary tumor site was of colorectal (CRC), upper gastrointestinal tract (UGI), unknown primary (CUP), malignant epithelioid mesothelioma of the peritoneum (MPM), hepato-pancreatic-biliary tract (HPB), and other origin in 30 (23.1%), 27 (20.8%), 16 (12.3%), 16 (12.3%), 6 (4.6%), and 35 (26.9%) patients, respectively. Abdominal access failed for a first, second, third, and fourth or more HP/HD-PIPAC in 12/130 (9.2%), 4/64 (6.3%), 6/40 (15.0%), and 2/33 (6.1%) patients. A total of 243 procedures were performed in 118 patients. No intraoperative complications related to increased capnoperitoneal pressure occurred, but an intraoperative bleeding complication was observed in 1/243 (0.4%) patients. The overall rate of postoperative procedure-related complications was 19.3% (47/243), while 15.3% (37/243), 1.6% (6/243), 1.6% (1/243), 0.4% (1/243), and 0.4% (1/243) were Grade I, II, III, IV, and V complications, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative complications of HP/HD-PIPAC are comparable with standard pressure/dose PIPAC treatment protocols. Prospective studies are warranted to examine potential improvement in therapy outcomes.

Nanotechnology-integrated ovarian cancer metastasis therapy: Insights from the metastatic mechanisms into administration routes and therapy strategies

Ovarian cancer is a kind of malignant tumour which locates in the pelvic cavity without typical clinical symptoms in the early stages. Most patients are diagnosed in the late stage while about 60 % of them have suffered from the cancer cells spreading in the abdominal cavity. The high recurrence rate and mortality seriously damage the reproductive needs and health of women. Although recent advances in therapeutic regimes and other adjuvant therapies improved the overall survival of ovarian cancer, overcoming metastasis has still been a challenge and is necessary for achieving cure of ovarian cancer. To present potential targets and new strategies for curbing the occurrence of ovarian metastasis and the treatment of ovarian cancer after metastasis, the first section of this paper explained the metastatic mechanisms of ovarian cancer comprehensively. Nanomedicine, not limited to drug delivery, offers opportunities for metastatic ovarian cancer therapy. The second section of this paper emphasized the advantages of various administration routes of nanodrugs in metastatic ovarian cancer therapy. Furthermore, the third section of this paper focused on advances in nanotechnology-integrated strategies for targeting metastatic ovarian cancer based on the metastatic mechanisms of ovarian cancer. Finally, the challenges and prospects of nanotherapeutics for ovarian cancer metastasis therapy were evaluated. In general, the greatest emphasis on using nanotechnology-based strategies provides avenues for improving metastatic ovarian cancer outcomes in the future.

Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy in Combination with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in Patients with Gastric Cancer at High Risk of Recurrence-The PIPAC-OPC4 Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) are at high risk of peritoneal recurrence despite perioperative chemotherapy and radical resection. This study evaluated feasibility and safety of laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy in combination with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

This was a prospective, controlled bi-institutional study in patients with GAC at high risk of recurrence treated with PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) after laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy. High risk was defined as a poorly cohesive subtype with predominance of signet-ring cells, clinical stage ≥ T3 and/or ≥ N2, or positive peritoneal cytology. Peritoneal lavage fluid was collected before and after resection. Cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) and doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m²) were aerosolized after anastomosis (flow 0.5-0.8 ml/s, maximum pressure 300 PSI). Treatment was feasible and safe if ≤ 20% had Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3b surgical complications or CTCAE ≥ 4 medical adverse events within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), peritoneal lavage cytology, and completion of postoperative systemic chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were treated with a D2 gastrectomy and PIPAC C/D. The median age was 61 years (range 24-76), there were eleven female patients, and 20 patients had preoperative chemotherapy. There was no mortality. Two patients had grade 3b complications that were potentially related to PIPAC C/D (one anastomotic leakage, and one late duodenal blow-out). One patient had severe neutropenia, and nine patients had moderate pain. The LOS was 6 days (4-26). One patient had positive peritoneal lavage cytology before resection, and none were positive after. Fifteen patients had postoperative chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy in combination with PIPAC C/D is feasible and safe.

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.

Surgical Options for Peritoneal Surface Metastases from Digestive Malignancies-A Comprehensive Review

The peritoneum is a common site for the dissemination of digestive malignancies, particularly gastric, colorectal, appendix, or pancreatic cancer. Other tumors such as cholangiocarcinomas, digestive neuroendocrine tumors, or gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) may also associate with peritoneal surface metastases (PSM). Peritoneal dissemination is proven to worsen the prognosis of these patients. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS), along with systemic chemotherapy, have been shown to constitute a survival benefit in selected patients with PSM. Furthermore, the association of CRS with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) seems to significantly improve the prognosis of patients with certain types of digestive malignancies associated with PSM. However, the benefit of CRS with HIPEC is still controversial, especially due to the significant morbidity associated with this procedure. According to the results of the PRODIGE 7 trial, CRS for PSM from colorectal cancer (CRC) achieved overall survival (OS) rates higher than 40 months, but the addition of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC failed to improve the long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the PROPHYLOCHIP and COLOPEC trials failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of oxaliplatin-based HIPEC for preventing peritoneal metastases development in high-risk patients operated for CRC. In this review, we discuss the limitations of these studies and the reasons why these results are not sufficient to refute this technique, until future well-designed trials evaluate the impact of different HIPEC regimens. In contrast, in pseudomyxoma peritonei, CRS plus HIPEC represents the gold standard therapy, which is able to achieve 10-year OS rates ranging between 70 and 80%. For patients with PSM from gastric carcinoma, CRS plus HIPEC achieved median OS rates higher than 40 months after complete cytoreduction in patients with a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) ≤6. However, the data have not yet been validated in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the controversies regarding the most efficient drugs that should be used for HIPEC and the duration of the procedure. We also discuss the current evidence and controversies related to the benefit of CRS (and HIPEC) in patients with PSM from other digestive malignancies. Although it is a palliative treatment, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) significantly increases OS in patients with unresectable PSM from gastric cancer and represents a promising approach for patients with PSM from other digestive cancers.

Temperature management during cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

In addition to attaining complete or near complete cytoreduction, the instillation of select heated chemotherapeutic agents into the abdominal cavity has offered a chance for cure or longer survival inpatients with peritoneal surface malignancies. While the heating of chemotherapeutic agents enhances cytotoxicity, the resulting systemic hyperthermia has been associated with an increased risk of severe hyperthermia and its associated complications. Factors that have been associated with an increased risk of severe hyperthermia include intraoperative blood transfusions and longer perfusion duration. However, the development of severe hyperthermia still remains largely unpredictable. Thus, at several institutions, cooling protocols are employed during cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Cooling protocols for CRS-HIPEC are not standardized and may be associated with episodes of severe hyperthermia or alternatively hypothermia. In theory, excessive cooling could result in a decreased effectiveness of the intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic agents. This presumption has been supported by a recent study of 214 adults undergoing CRS-HIPEC, where failure to attain a temperature of 38° C at the end of chemo-perfusion was associated with worse survival. Although not statistically significant, failure to maintain a temperature of 38° C for at least 30 minutes was associated with worse survival. Although studies are limited in this regard, the importance of maintaining a steady state of temperature during the hyperthermic phase of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration cannot be disregarded. The following article describes the processes and physiological mechanisms responsible for hyperthermia during CRS-HIPEC. The challenges associated with temperature management during CRS-HIPEC and methods to avoid severe hypothermia and hyperthermia are also described.

Treatment of Peritoneal Metastasis with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: Results from the Prospective PIPAC-OPC2 Study

BACKGROUND

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a local treatment for peritoneal metastasis (PM). Prospective data are scarce and evaluation of treatment response remains difficult. This study evaluated the use of the Peritoneal Regression Grading score (PRGS) and its prognostic value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, controlled phase II trial in patients with PM from gastrointestinal, gynaecological, hepatopancreatobiliary, primary peritoneal, or unknown primary cancer. Patients in performance status 0-1, with a non-obstructed gastrointestinal tract, and a maximum of one extraperitoneal metastasis were eligible. Colorectal or appendiceal PM had PIPAC with oxaliplatin, other primaries had PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Biopsies were taken at each PIPAC and evaluated using the PRGS. Quality-of-life questionnaires were reported at baseline and after three PIPACs.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients were treated with 336 PIPACs (median 3, range 1-12). One hundred patients had prior palliative chemotherapy and 45 patients received bidirectional treatment. Complete or major histological response to treatment (PRGS 1-2) was observed in 38 patients (61%) who had three PIPACs, which was the only independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis. The median overall survival (mOS) from PIPAC 1 was 10 months, while patients with PM from gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer had a mOS of 7.4, 16.7, and 8.2 months, respectively. Global health scores were significantly reduced, but patients were less fatigued, nauseated, constipated, and had better appetite after three PIPACs.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC with oxaliplatin or cisplatin and doxorubicin was able to induce a major or complete histological response during three PIPACs, which may provide significant prognostic information, both at baseline and after treatment.

Nab-PIPAC: a phase IB study protocol of intraperitoneal cisplatin and nab-paclitaxel administered by pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the treatment of advanced malignancies confined to the peritoneal cavity

INTRODUCTION

Intraperitoneal dissemination is a major problem resulting in very poor prognosis and a rapid marked deterioration in the quality of life of patients. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emergent laparoscopic procedure aiming to maximise local efficacy and to reduce systemic side effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Nab-PIPAC, a bicentre open-label phase IB, aims to evaluate safety of nab-paclitaxel and cisplatin association using in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of gastric, pancreatic or ovarian origin as ≥1 prior line of systemic therapy. Using a 3+3 design, sequential intraperitoneal laparoscopic application of nab-paclitaxel (7.5, 15, 25, 37.5, 52.5 and 70 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) through a nebuliser to a high-pressure injector at ambient temperature with a maximal upstream pressure of 300 psi. Treatment maintained for 30 min at a pressure of 12 mm Hg and repeated4-6 weeks intervals for three courses total.A total of 6-36 patients are expected, accrual is ongoing. Results are expected in 2024.The primary objective of Nab-PIPAC trial is to assess tolerability and safety of nab-paclitaxel and cisplatin combination administered intraperitoneally by PIPAC in patients with PC of gastric, pancreatic or ovarian origin. This study will determine maximum tolerated dose and provide pharmacokinetic data.

ETHIC AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committees of Geneva and Vaud (CCER-2018-01327). The study findings will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences and research meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04000906.

Hospitalization cost of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. Very little data is available on the costs of this treatment in France as there is currently no code for PIPAC in the French Common Classification of Medical Acts (CCAM). Our objective was to estimate the mean cost of hospitalization for PIPAC in two French public teaching hospitals.

METHODS

The mean cost of hospitalization was estimated from the mean fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital and the mean additional costs of treatment paid by the hospital. At discharge a patient's hospitalization is classified into a diagnosis related group, which determines the fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital (obtained from the national hospitals database - PMSI). Costs of medical devices and drug treatments specific to PIPAC, not covered by the fixed-rate remuneration, were obtained from the hospital pharmacies.

RESULTS

Between July 2016 and November 2021, 205 PIPAC procedures were performed on 79 patients (mean procedures per patient = 2.6). Mean operating room occupancy was 165 min. The mean fixed-rate remuneration received by the hospitals per PIPAC hospitalization was €4031. The actual mean cost per hospitalization was €6562 for a mean length-of-stay of 3.3 days. Thus, each PIPAC hospitalization cost the hospital €2531 on average.

CONCLUSION

The current reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the national health system is insufficient and represents only 61% of the real cost. The creation of a new fixed-rate remuneration for PIPAC taking into account this cost differential is necessary.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: A systematic review by the PIPAC UK collaborative

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases (GCPM) carries a poor prognosis. Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy (PIPAC) offers pharmacokinetic advantages over intravenous therapy, resulting in higher chemotherapy concentrations in peritoneal deposits, and potentially reduced systemic absorption/toxicity. This review evaluates efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life (QOL) of PIPAC for GCPM.

METHODS

Following registration with PROSPERO (CRD42021281500), MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases, in accordance with PRISMA standards RESULTS: Across 18 included reports representing 751 patients with GCPM (4 prospective, 11 retrospective, 3 abstracts, no phase III studies), median overall survival (mOS) was 8 - 19.1 months, 1-year OS 49.8-77.9%, complete response (PRGS1) 0-35% and partial response (PRGS2/3) 0-83.3%. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was 0.7-25% and 0-4.1% respectively. Three studies assessing QOL reported no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC may offer promising survival benefits, toxicity, and QOL for GCPM.

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.

Treatment Response After Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastases of Colorectal Originf

The objective of this study is to analyze oncological outcomes of patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) of colorectal origin treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Background

PIPAC has been demonstrated to be a feasible and safe novel treatment for patients with PM of various origins. Only small series reports on survival after PIPAC by disease entity.

Methods

International retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with PM of colorectal origin. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), radiological response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), histological response (peritoneal regression grading score [PRGS]: complete response: 1-4: no response), change of peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and symptom control.

Results

Seventeen eligible centers compiled 256 non-selected patients (mean age 61 [50.6-69.2], 43% female) and 606 procedures. Sixty-three percent were treated after 2 lines of chemotherapy, median PCI at PIPAC1 was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-27). Median OS was 19.00 months (IQR = 12.9-29.8) from diagnosis and 9.4 months (IQR = 4.5-16.8) from PIPAC1. One hundred and four of 256 patients (40.6%) had ≥3 procedures (per protocol [pp]) with the following outcomes at PIPAC3: RECIST: 59.3% partial response/stable, 40.7% progression; mean PRGS: 2.1 ± 0.9. Median PCI was 21 (IQR = 15-29) at baseline and 20 (IQR = 12-27) at PIPAC3 (P = 0.02). Fifty-six (54%) and 48 (46%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (P = 0.267). Median OS for the pp cohort was 11.9 months (IQR = 10.7-15.0) from PIPAC1. Independent predictors for survival were radiological response (HR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.6-5.7) and no symptoms (HR = 4.5, 95% CI = 2.2-9.1) at PIPAC3.

Conclusions

Objective treatment response and encouraging survival were demonstrated after PIPAC for colorectal PM. Prospective registry data and comparative studies are now needed in to confirm these data.

Management of peritoneal surface metastases from colorectal cancer: Cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and beyond

This article provides a contemporary review of the current surgical management of peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) of colorectal origin. A brief review of the founding history of surgical intervention for PSM is followed by a focused review of the level I evidence, current clinical questions, and evolving advancements. While not intended to address all the facets of PSM, this review aims to provide the reader with the essential knowledge and resources to effectively provide surgical care for carcinomatosis due to colorectal malignancies.

Assessment of Treatment Response after Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Appendiceal Peritoneal Metastases

Background The aim of this study was to analyse survival and surrogates for oncological response after PIPAC for appendiceal tumours. Methods This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with appendiceal peritoneal metastases (PM) treated in experienced PIPAC centers. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) from the date of diagnosis of PM and from the start of PIPAC. Predefined secondary outcome included radiological response (RECIST criteria), repeat laparoscopy and peritoneal cancer index (PCI), histological response assessed by the Peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS) and clinical response. Results Final analysis included 77 consecutive patients (208 PIPAC procedures) from 15 centres. Median OS was 30 months (23.00-46.00) from time of diagnosis and 19 months (13.00-28.00) from start of PIPAC. 35/77 patients (45%) had ≥3 procedures (pp: per protocol). Objective response at PIPAC3 was as follows: RECIST: complete response 4 (11.4%), 11 (31.4%) partial/stable; mean PRGS at PIPAC3: 1.8 ± 0.9. Median PCI: 21 (IQR 18-27) vs. 22 (IQR 17-28) at baseline (p = 0.59); 21 (60%) and 18 (51%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (p = 0.873). Median OS in the pp cohort was 22.00 months (19.00-NA) from 1st PIPAC. Conclusion Patients with PM of appendiceal origin had objective treatment response after PIPAC and encouraging survival curves call for further prospective evaluation.

Feasibility and Safety of Taxane-PIPAC in Patients with Peritoneal Malignancies-a Retrospective Bi-institutional Study

Taxanes have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile for intraperitoneal application. We report our initial experience with taxane-PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy) for unresectable peritoneal metastases from different primary sites in terms of safety, feasibility, response rate, and conversion to resectability. In this retrospective study, PIPAC was performed alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy. Paclitaxel was used as a single agent, whereas docetaxel was used in combination with cisplatin-adriamycin or oxaliplatin-adriamycin. From December 2019 to December 2021, 47 patients underwent 82 PIPAC procedures (1 PIPAC in 55.3%, 2 in 29.7%, 3 in 14.8%). The most common primary sites were ovarian cancer (31.9%), gastric cancer (23.4%), and colorectal cancer (21.2%). Docetaxel-cisplatin-adriamycin was used in 33 (70.2%) patients, docetaxel-oxaliplatin-adriamycin in 12 (25.5%), and paclitaxel alone in 2 (4.2%) patients. Grade 1-2 complications were observed in 24 (51%) and grade 3-4 complications in 6 (12.7%) patients (8.5% of 82 PIPACs). 16/47 (34.0%) patients had a clinical response to PIPAC. The mean PCI was 25.9 ± 9.2 for the first PIPACs and 22.4 ± 9 for the subsequent PIPACs with an average reduction of 3.6 points [change in PCI ranged from - 14 to + 8]. The PRGS was 1/2 in 4/47 (8.5%) patients (19.0% patients with > 1 PIPAC). A reduction in ascites was observed in 35.4% presenting with ascites. Nine (19.1%) patients had conversion to operability leading to a subsequent cytoreductive surgery in 8 (17%) patients. PIPAC with docetaxel is feasible and safe. The role of PIPAC with both docetaxel and paclitaxel either alone or in combination with other drugs should be investigated in prospective studies.