Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy Enhanced by Electrostatic Precipitation (ePIPAC) for Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

Impact of PIPAC-Oxaliplatin on Functional Recovery, Good Days, and Survival in a Refractory Colorectal and Appendiceal Carcinomatosis: Secondary Analysis of the US PIPAC Collaborative Phase 1 Trial

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel, minimally invasive, safe, and repeatable method to treat carcinomatosis. Evidence regarding the clinical benefit (quality of life and survival) of PIPAC compared with that of conventional standard therapy (ST) is lacking.

METHODS

This is the secondary analysis of the phase 1 US-PIPAC trial for refractory colorectal and appendiceal carcinomatosis. A PIPAC cohort was compared with a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients receiving ST. The primary outcome was number of good days (number of days alive and out of the hospital). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and objective functional recovery (daily step count).

RESULTS

The study included 32 patients (PIPAC, 12; ST, 20) with similar baseline characteristics. Compared with the ST cohort, the PIPAC cohort had lower median inpatient hospital stays (> 24 h) within 6 months (0 vs 1; p = 0.015) and 1 year (1 vs 2; p = 0.052) and higher median good days at 6 months (181 vs 131 days; p = 0.042) and 1 year (323 vs 131 days; p = 0.032). There was no worsening of HRQoL after repeated PIPACs. Step counts diminished immediately after PIPAC but returned to baseline within 2-4 weeks. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a favorable association between receipt of PIPAC and OS (median, 11.3 vs 5.1 months; p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

Compared with ST, PIPAC was associated with higher number of good days, reduced hospitalization burden, and longer OS without a negative impact on HRQoL with repeated PIPACs. These findings are foundational for evaluation of PIPAC in a randomized clinical trial.

How to Implement Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy into a National Health System Scenario: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of Costs and Economic Sustainability at a High-Volume Italian Hospital

PIPAC is a new surgical procedure and a viable treatment option for PSM patients, due to promising therapeutic outcomes, minimal invasiveness, limited surgical morbidity, and systemic toxicity side effects. However, its implementation throughout hospitals is hard to obtain due to its fragile economical sustainability. A retrospective health economic analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the cost of hospitalization for patients undergoing PIPAC treatment at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, in Rome. The average cost of a PIPAC procedure was defined based on the cost of surgery (cost of surgical material, operating room, intraperitoneal chemotherapy), hospital stay, diagnostic examinations, and drugs used during the stay. A total of 493 PIPAC procedures were performed on 222 patients with peritoneal metastases or primary peritoneal cancer from 2017 to 2023. Since the mean remuneration for each PIPAC hospitalization is €5916 and the mean expenditure per hospitalization is €6538, this results in an operating profit per PIPAC hospitalization of -€622. The reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the Italian National Health System currently only partially covers the hospital's costs. Development of specific codes and adequate reimbursement for PIPAC by recognizing this procedure as a proper treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis is essential.

[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.

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).

PIPAC for Gastrointestinal Malignancies

The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood-peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided.

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.

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.

Development of the Peritoneal Metastasis: A Review of Back-Grounds, Mechanisms, Treatments and Prospects

Peritoneal metastasis is a malignant disease which originated from several gastrointestinal and gynecological carcinomas and has been leading to a suffering condition in patients for decades. Currently, as people have gradually become more aware of the severity of peritoneal carcinomatosis, new molecular mechanisms for targeting and new treatments have been proposed. However, due to the uncertainty of influencing factors involved and a lack of a standardized procedure for this treatment, as well as a need for more clinical data for specific evaluation, more research is needed, both for preventing and treating. We aim to summarize backgrounds, mechanisms and treatments in this area and conclude limitations or new aspects for treatments.

Selection Criteria for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Treatment in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

Background: The standard treatment protocol for PIPAC consists of three procedures. Completion of treatment has been shown to be prognostic of improved survival. The aim of this study was to identify predictors for completion of treatment. Methods: Retrospective multicentric cohort study of patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC in three PIPAC expert centers. Per protocol (PP) treatment was defined as patients receiving ≥3 PIPACs and was compared to patients receiving <3. Results: Overall, 183 patients had 517 PIPACs. The main reasons for stopping PIPAC were disease progression in 50% patients, bowel obstruction in 15%, patient’s refusal to pursue in 10%, conversion to cytoreductive surgery in 7%, and medical reasons in 8%. Overall, 95 patients (52%) had PP treatment. The PP median OS was 17 vs. 7 months, p = 0.001. PP patients had r ascites (410 ± 100 mL vs. 960 ± 188 mL, p = 0.001), no prior history of bowel obstruction (12% vs. 24%, p = 0.028), and more bimodal treatment (39% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). After multiple regression, bimodal treatment was found as an independent predictive factor for completing PP (OR = 4.202, 95%CI [1.813, 10.630], p < 0.001), along with prior bowel obstruction (OR = 0.389, 95%CI [0.153, 0.920], p = 0.037). Conclusion: The absence of ascites and prior bowel obstruction can help to select patients suitable for PIPAC. Best results seem to be achieved when PIPAC is combined with systemic chemotherapy.

Feasibility and Safety of Oxaliplatin-Based Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy With or Without Intraoperative Intravenous 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared the feasibility and safety of oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-Ox) with or without intraoperative intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (L).

METHODS

Our study included consecutive patients with histologically proven unresectable and isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases (cPM) treated with PIPAC-Ox in seven tertiary referral centers between January 2015 and April 2020. Toxicity events and oncological outcomes (histological response, progression-free survival, and overall survival) were compared between patients who received intraoperative intravenous 5-FU/L (PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group) and patients who did not (PIPAC-Ox group).

RESULTS

In total, 101 patients (263 procedures) were included in the PIPAC-Ox group and 30 patients (80 procedures) were included in the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 48 of 101 (47.5%) patients in the PIPAC-Ox group and in 13 of 30 (43.3%) patients in the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group (p = 0.73). The complete histological response rates according to the peritoneal regression grading score were 27% for the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group and 18% for the PIPAC-Ox group (p = 0.74). No statistically significant differences were observed in overall or progression-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and feasibility of PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L appears to be similar to the safety and feasibility of PIPAC-Ox alone in patients with unresectable cPM. Oncological outcomes must be evaluated in larger studies.

Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics.

Methods

The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance).

Results

Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m² (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10.

Conclusions

The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.

Patient-reported outcomes during repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

CRC-PIPAC prospectively assessed repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) as a palliative monotherapy (i.e., without concomitant systemic therapy in between subsequent procedures) for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during trial treatment.

METHODS

In this single-arm phase 2 trial in two tertiary centers, patients with isolated unresectable CPM received 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²). PROs (calculated from EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) were compared between baseline and 1 and 4 weeks after the first three procedures using linear mixed modeling with determination of clinical relevance (Cohen's D ≥ 0.50) of statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent 59 procedures (median 3 [range 1-6]). Several PROs solely worsened 1 week after the first procedure (index value - 0.10, p < 0.001; physical functioning - 20, p < 0.001; role functioning - 27, p < 0.001; social functioning - 18, p < 0.001; C30 summary score - 16, p < 0.001; appetite loss + 15, p = 0.007; diarrhea + 15, p = 0.002; urinary frequency + 13, p = 0.004; flatulence + 13, p = 0.001). These PROs returned to baseline at subsequent time points. Other PROs worsened 1 week after the first procedure (fatigue + 23, p < 0.001; pain + 29, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 32, p < 0.001), second procedure (fatigue + 20, p < 0.001; pain + 21, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 20, p = 0.002), and third procedure (pain + 22, p < 0.001; abdominal pain + 22, p = 0.002). Except for appetite loss, all changes were clinically relevant. All analyzed PROs returned to baseline 4 weeks after the third procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving repetitive PIPAC-OX monotherapy for unresectable CPM had clinically relevant but reversible worsening of several PROs, mainly 1 week after the first procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03246321; Netherlands trial register: NL6426.

Consensus guidelines for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: Technical aspects and treatment protocols

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with peritoneal cancer. A recent survey demonstrated considerable diversification of current practice of PIPAC raising issues of concern also regarding safety and efficacy. The study aim was to reach consensus on best practice of PIPAC treatment.

METHODS

Current practice was critically discussed during an expert meeting and the available evidence was scrutinized to elaborate a 33-item closed-ended questionnaire. All active PIPAC centers were then invited to participate in an online two-round Delphi process with 3 reminders at least. Consensus was defined a priori as >70% agreement for a minimal response rate of 70%.

RESULTS

Forty-nine out of 57 invited PIPAC centers participated in Delphi 1 and 2 (86%). Overall, there was agreement for 21/33 items. Consensus was reached for important aspects like advanced OR ventilation system (91.8%), remote monitoring (95.9%), use of the PRGS (85.7%) and use of a safety checklist (98%). The drug regimens oxaliplatin (87.8%) and cisplatin/doxorubicin (81.6%) were both confirmed by the expert panel. Important controversies included number and location of Biopsies during repeated PIPAC and the combination of PIPAC with additional surgical procedures.

CONCLUSION

This consensus statement aims to allow for safe and efficacious PIPAC treatment and to facilitate multi-center analyses of the results. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to resolve the remaining controversies.

Histological regression of gastrointestinal peritoneal metastases after systemic chemotherapy

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Technology development of hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (hPIPAC)

Background

Optimized drug delivery systems are needed for intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to develop a technology for applying pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) under hyperthermic conditions (hPIPAC).

Methods

This is an ex-vivo study in an inverted bovine urinary bladder (IBUB). Hyperthermia was established using a modified industry-standard device (Humigard). Two entry and one exit ports were placed. Warm-humid CO₂ was insufflated in the IBUB placed in a normothermic bath to simulate body thermal inertia. The temperature of the aerosol, tissue, and water bath was measured in real-time.

Results

Therapeutic hyperthermia (target tissue temperature 41–43 °C) could be established and maintained over 30 min. In the first phase (insufflation phase), tissue hyperthermia was created by insufflating continuously warm-humid CO₂. In the second phase (aerosolization phase), chemotherapeutic drugs were heated up and aerosolized into the IBUB. In a third phase (application phase), hyperthermia was maintained within the therapeutic range using an endoscopic infrared heating device. In a fourth phase, the toxic aerosol was discarded using a closed aerosol waste system (CAWS).

Discussion

We introduce a simple and effective technology for hPIPAC. hPIPAC is feasible in an ex-vivo model by using a combination of industry-standard medical devices after modification. Potential pharmacological and biological advantages of hPIPAC over PIPAC should now be evaluated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08567-y.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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