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

Third-line treatment and beyond in metastatic colorectal cancer: What do we have and what can we expect?

Colorectal cancer remains the third most common cancer worldwide and the second cause of cancer-related death. Treatment advances and precision oncological medicine for these tumours have been stalled in comparison to those for other common tumours such as lung and breast cancer. However, the recent publication of the SUNLIGHT trial results with the trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102)-bevacizumab combination and the irruption of new molecular targets with guided treatments have opened new possibilities in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer management. Anti-EGFR rechallenge, anti-HER2 targeted therapies or the promising results of Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), are some of the available options that may modify what is presumably third-line colorectal treatment. Hereby, we present the evidence of the different treatment options in third-line colorectal cancer and beyond, as well as the possibilities of sequencing them.

PIPAC Pharmacologic and Clinical Data

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) emerged as an innovative intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery system to overcome the issue of limited efficacy of systemic therapies to induce response in peritoneal malignancies. Promising results for patients with mesothelioma peritonei and peritoneal metastasis from gastric, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary tumors origin are changing the landscape for patients otherwise just facing palliative treatment. Ongoing trials will shed more light on the actual benefits of PIPAC.

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.

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.

Review on treatment of pleural metastasis and malignant pleural effusion with Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC)

Background

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common and debilitating condition seen in advanced cancer disease, and life-expectancy is short. Symptoms include pain and severe shortness of breath. Current first-line treatment options include pleural drainage using catheters as well as pleurodesis. However, these treatment modalities are often inefficient and patients need repeated procedures. Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC) is a minimally invasive procedure, where antineoplastic agents are nebulized under pressure into the pleural space.

Content

We present the preliminary safety, feasibility, and response assessment data for PITAC based on a comprehensive literature review.

Summary

Five retrospective studies reported data on 38 PITACs in 21 patients. Data were heterogeneous and incomplete on several important aspects such as procedure, safety, local effect and long-term outcomes. PITAC seems technically feasible with a low risk of complications and may provide some reduction in MPE in selected cases.

Outlook

PITAC seems feasible, but prospective phase I and II studies are needed to define safety, indications, and efficacy.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Neoplastic appendiceal mucinous lesions: a narrative review of the literature from an oncologist's perspective

Appendiceal mucinous lesions' classification and nomenclature has been modified several times along the last decades, reflecting their great heterogeneity and making difficult to compare results and draw conclusions. Despite its nearby origin, appendiceal mucinous lesions have a distinctive behaviour compared to colorectal cancer, including their molecular and genetic markers. Due to their low frequency, their management is not well standardised. However, surgery is considered the cornerstone of treatment. Their indolent behaviour has encouraged surgeons to apply more aggressive treatments, such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), that may extend overall survival. Chemotherapy is reserved for unresectable and/or disseminated disease and could play a role in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is recently emerging as a possible alternative for treatment in advanced disease although its results in long-term survival are lacking Hereby, we review the available evidence in the management of appendiceal mucinous lesions, including localised and disseminated disease, with a special emphasis on the oncological perspective, focusing on the lights and shadows of the systemic treatments.

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.

Peritoneal Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Gastric cancers commonly spread to the peritoneum. Its presence significantly alters patient prognosis and treatment-intent; however, current methods of peritoneal staging are inaccurate. Peritoneal tumor DNA (ptDNA) is tumor-derived DNA detectable in peritoneal lavage fluid. ptDNA positivity may indicate peritoneal micrometastasis and may be more sensitive than cytology in staging the peritoneum. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the prognostic potential of ptDNA in gastric cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using PRISMA guidelines. Studies published between January 1, 1990, and April 30, 2023, containing quantitative data relating to ptDNA in gastric cancer were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Six studies were analyzed. Of the total 757 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, 318 (42.0%) were stage I, 311 (41.0%) were stage II/III, 116 (15.3%) were stage IV, and 22 (2.9%) were undetermined. Overall, ptDNA detected cytology-positive cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 85.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 100.0) and 91.5% (95% CI, 86.5 to 96.6), respectively. Additionally, ptDNA was detected in 54 (8.5%) of 634 cytology-negative patients. The presence of ptDNA negatively correlated with pathological stage I (relative risk [RR], 0.29 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.66]) and positively correlated with pathological stage IV (RR, 8.61 [95% CI, 1.86 to 39.89]) disease. Importantly, ptDNA positivity predicted an increased risk of peritoneal-specific metastasis (RR, 13.81 [95% CI, 8.11 to 23.53]) and reduced 3-year progression-free (RR, 5.37 [95% CI, 1.39 to 20.74]) and overall (hazard ratio, 4.13 [95% CI, 1.51 to 11.32]) survival.

CONCLUSION

ptDNA carries valuable prognostic information and can detect peritoneal micrometastases in patients with gastric cancer. Its clinical utility in peritoneal staging for gastric cancer deserves further investigation.

Oncological outcomes of conversion therapy in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis: a large-scale retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data on the long-term oncological outcomes of patients who undergo conversion surgery (CS) in gastric cancer (GC) patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) are limited.

METHODS

GC patients with PM who received intraperitoneal (ip) and systemic chemotherapy between April 2015 and January 2021 were enrolled. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with survival. Clinicopathological and survival outcomes were compared between those with CS and those without CS (NCS). The paclitaxel (PTX) plus tegafur-gimeracil-oteracil potassium capsules (S-1) (PS) + ip PTX and oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) + ip PTX groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. Oncological and survival data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 540 patients who received ip chemotherapy via subcutaneous port and systemic chemotherapy were analyzed and 268 patients were enrolled, including 113 who underwent CS and 155 who did not. Overall survival (OS) were 27.0 months and 11.8 months in the CS and NCS groups (P < 0.0001), respectively. R0 resection was an independent prognostic factor for patients who underwent CS. The OS of patients with or without ovariectomy was 21.3 or 12.0 months (P < 0.0001). No difference of clinicopathological and survival outcomes was found between the PS + ip PTX and SOX + ip PTX groups.

CONCLUSION

Conversion therapy is safe and adverse events were manageable. CS improves the survival of GC patients with PM after ip and systemic chemotherapy. R0 is an important prognostic factor. Furthermore, outcomes are comparable between the PS + ip PTX and SOX + ip PTX groups.

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).

Mechanistic Insights on Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Ovarian Cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer is an aggressive disease of the female reproductive system and a leading cause of cancer death in women. Standard of care includes surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy, yet patients continue to experience a high rate of recurrence and metastasis. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) treatment in highly selective patients extends overall survival by nearly 12 months. The clinical studies are highly supportive of the use of HIPEC in the treatment of ovarian cancer, though the therapeutic approach is limited to academic medical centers. The mechanism underlying HIPEC benefit remains unknown. The efficacy of HIPEC therapy is impacted by several procedural and patient/tumor factors including the timing of surgery, platinum sensitivity, and molecular profiling such as homologous recombination deficiency. The present review aims to provide insight into the mechanistic benefit of HIPEC treatment with a focus on how hyperthermia activates the immune response, induces DNA damage, impairs DNA damage repair pathways, and has a synergistic effect with chemotherapy, with the ultimate outcome of increasing chemosensitivity. Identifying the points of fragility unmasked by HIPEC may provide the key pathways that could be the basis of new therapeutic strategies for ovarian cancer patients.

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.