Clinical Outcome for Patients Managed with Low-Dose Cisplatin and Doxorubicin Delivered as Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Metastases of Gastric Cancer

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bidirectional Approach with PIPAC and Systemic Chemotherapy for Patients with Synchronous Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastases (GCPM)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with systemic chemotherapy as a bidirectional approach for gastric cancer (GC) patients with synchronous peritoneal metastases (SPM).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective PIPAC database was queried for patients who underwent a bidirectional approach between October 2019 and April 2022 at two high-volume GC surgery units in Italy (Verona and Siena). Surgical and oncological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between October 2019 and April 2022, 74 PIPAC procedures in 42 consecutive patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were performed-32 patients treated in Verona and 10 in Siena. Twenty-seven patients (64%) were female and median age at first PIPAC was 60.5 years (I-III quartiles: 49-68 years). Median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 16 (I-III quartiles: 8-26) and 25 patients (59%) had at least two PIPAC procedures. Major complications according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE; 3 and 4) occurred in three (4%) procedures, and, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (>3a), one (1%) severe complication occurred. There were no reoperations or deaths within 30 days. Median overall survival (mOS) from diagnosis was 19.6 months (range 14-24), and mOS from first PIPAC was 10.5 months (range 7-13). Excluding cases with very heavy metastatic peritoneal burden, with PCI from 2 to 26, treated with more than one PIPAC, mOS from diagnosis was 22 months (range 14-39). Eleven patients (26%) underwent curative-intent surgery after a bidirectional approach. R0 was achieved in nine (82%) patients and complete pathological response was obtained in three (27%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient selection is associated with bidirectional approach efficacy and feasibility for SPM GC treatment, which may allow potentially curative surgical radicalization in highly selected cases.

Gastric Cancer (GC) with Peritoneal Metastases (PMs): An Overview of Italian PSM Oncoteam Evidence and Study Purposes

Gastric cancer (GC) continues to be one of the leading types of malignancies worldwide, despite an ongoing decrease in incidence. It is the fifth most frequent type of cancer in the world and the fourth leading cause of cancer death. Peritoneal metastases (PMs) occur in 20-30% of cases during the natural history of the disease. Systemic chemotherapy (SC) is undoubtedly the standard of care for patients with GC and PMs. However, with the development of highly effective regimens (SC combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy), significant tumor shrinkage has been observed in many patients with synchronous GC and PMs, allowing some to undergo curative resection "conversion surgery" with long-term survival. In recent years, there has been growing interest in intraperitoneal chemotherapy for PMs, because the reduced drug clearance associated with the peritoneal/plasma barrier allows for direct and prolonged drug exposure with less systemic toxicity. These procedures, along with other methods used for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs), can be used in GCs with PMs as neoadjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant treatments after radical surgery or as palliative treatments delivered either laparoscopically or-more recently-as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. The great heterogeneity of patients with stage IV gastric cancer did not allow us to carry out a systemic review; therefore, we limited ourselves to providing readers with an overview to clarify the indications and outcomes of integrated treatments for GCs with PMs by analyzing reports from the international clinical literature and the specific experiences of our oncoteam.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Objectives

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

Content

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

Summary

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

Outlook

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

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

The Implementation of a PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) Program in Portugal

N/a.

SMYD3 regulates gastric cancer progression and macrophage polarization through EZH2 methylation

SET and MYND domain-containing protein 3 (SMYD3), a known histone methyltransferase, was reported to regulate cancer pathogenesis. However, its role in gastric development and progression remains unclear. EZH2 methylation had been associated with cancer metastasis, but the EZH2 methylation status in gastric cancer (GC) is unknown. Here, we report that EZH2 K421 methylation was responsible for gastric cancer cell soft agar colony formation, in vivo metastasis, and macrophage polarization. Mechanically, we identified SMYD3 as the methyltransferase of EZH2 at K421 residue which accelerates EZH2 Ubiquitin proteasome degradation. Cell harboring non-methylated EZH2 mutants promotes gastric cancer cell metastasis. Taken together, our results showed that SMYD3-EZH2 axis restricts gastric cancer metastasis via integrating epigenetic signaling.