Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy - PIPAC-OPC2

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis: how many biopsies should be examined?

Objectives

The four-tied peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is increasingly used to evaluate the response of peritoneal metastases (PM) to chemotherapy. The minimal number of peritoneal biopsies needed for PRGS determination remains unclear.

Methods

A prospective cohort of 89 PM patients treated with 210 pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) cycles was investigated. Four biopsies from every abdominal quadrant were recommended. Histological tumor response was defined as a stable or decreasing mean PRGS between therapy cycles, progression increasing. We compared the diagnostic uncertainty induced by missing biopsies to the histological response.

Results

A total of 49 patients had at least two PIPAC and were eligible for therapy response assessment. Mean PRGS decreased from 2.04 (CI 5-95% 1.85-2.27) to 1.79 (CI 5-95% 1.59-2.01), p=0.14, as a proof of therapy effectiveness. 35 (71.4%) patients had a stable or decreasing PRGS (therapy response), 14 (28.6%) a PRGS increase (disease progression). Histology showed agreement between four biopsies in 42/210 laparoscopies (20%), between ≥3 biopsies in 103 (49%), and between ≥2 biopsies in 169 laparoscopies (81%). Mean loss of information with one missing biopsy was 0.11 (95% CI=0.13) PRGS points, with two missing biopsies 0.18 (95% CI 0.21). In 9/49 patients (18.3%), the loss of information with one less biopsy exceeded the change in PRGS under therapy.

Conclusions

A minimum of three biopsies is needed to diagnose PM progression with an accuracy superior to 80%. Missing biopsies often result in a false diagnosis of tumor progression.

Importance of biopsy site selection for peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis treated with repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB).

Methods

Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E.

Results

Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB.

Conclusions

Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.

Review of Regional Therapies for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases

Simple Summary

Gastric cancer is usually diagnosed at late stages and is associated with poor five-year survival rates. Metastasis to the peritoneal cavity is common and leads to even worse outcomes. Currently, the mainstay of treatment for metastatic gastric cancer is systemic chemotherapy or supportive care. These recommendations remain despite evidence that suggests systemic therapy has poor penetration into the abdominal cavity, limiting efficacy against peritoneal disease. Newer treatments have been developed to address this problem, specifically regional therapies aimed at delivering chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal cavity to eradicate tumor cells. These novel therapies include hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy. Regional therapies may also be combined with surgery to remove both macroscopic and microscopic disease. Although more clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy, early studies have shown promising outcomes with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Abstract

Gastric cancer carries a poor prognosis and is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Patients with gastric cancer who develop peritoneal metastases have an even more dismal prognosis, with median survival time measured in months. Since studies have demonstrated that systemic chemotherapy has poor penetration into the peritoneum, multimodal treatment with intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been proposed for the treatment of peritoneal metastases and has become the foundation for newer therapeutic techniques and clinical trials. These include heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), which involves the application of heated chemotherapy into the abdomen with or without tumor debulking surgery; normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC), in which non-heated chemotherapy can be delivered into the abdomen via a peritoneal port allowing for repeat dosing; and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC), a newer technique of pressurized and aerosolized chemotherapy delivered into the abdomen during laparoscopy. Early results with intraperitoneal chemotherapy have shown promise in increasing disease-free and overall survival in select patients. Additionally, there may be a palliative effect of these regional therapies. In this review, we explore and summarize these different intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment regimens for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases.

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.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal malignancy: initial experience of the first program in the Baltic countries

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal malignancies include primary and metastatic cancer of the peritoneal cavity. The most common origin for peritoneal metastasis is ovarian, gastric, and colorectal cancers. Irrespective of the origin, peritoneal metastases represent the advanced disease and are associated with poor long-term outcomes. The minimally invasive approach of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) allows repeated applications and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing histological samples. This study aimed to investigate the initial experience with PIPAC in the Baltic region.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PIPAC at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos between 2015 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS) in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by PIPAC. The secondary outcomes included postoperative morbidity; peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) and ascites reduction after treatment by PIPAC.

RESULTS

In total, 15 patients underwent 34 PIPAC procedures. PIPAC-related intraoperative and postoperative morbidity occurred in 3 (8.8%) of 34 procedures. Following PIPAC, the median PCI decreased from 8 (4; 15) to 5 (1; 16) in GC patients, although, the difference failed for significance, p = 0.581. In OC patients, PCI after PIPAC remained stable. Median overall survival after PIPAC procedure was 25 (95% CI 5-44) months. Ovarian cancer patients (22; 95% CI 12-44 months) had significantly higher OS, compared to gastric cancer patients (8; 95% CI 4-16 months), p = 0.018.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC is safe and feasible for patients with gastric and ovarian cancers peritoneal metastases.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy-Related Clinical Trials in the Treatment of Peritoneal Metastases

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a treatment option for patients with peritoneal metastases. We evaluated the current status of ongoing prospective clinical trials investigating PIPAC to provide an overview and predict trends in this field.

METHODS

All 367,494 records of clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for trials dealing with PIPAC. Active or unpublished trials were further analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 22 clinical trials were identified and selected for further analyses. Most trials had a single-arm design and were phase I or II. No phase III trials were registered. Academic centers were recorded as primary sponsors in the majority of trials (63.6%). Every year, between 2 and 5 new trials were initiated. In 17 trials (81.8%), PIPAC was used in a palliative setting only, 2 trials performed PIPAC in a neoadjuvant setting, and 2 trials performed PIPAC in an adjuvant setting. Six different drugs (doxorubicin, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, nab-paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and docetaxel) were used in these clinical trials. Most trials investigated the efficacy (n = 15) or safety (n = 7) of PIPAC therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ongoing clinical trials will bring specific information on indications for PIPAC as well as the impact of PIPAC on quality of life and overall survival.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases-a systematic review

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) is increasingly used as a palliative treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study aimed to systematically review all clinical studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of PIPAC-OX in patients with CPM. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify all clinical studies that included at least one patient with CPM treated with PIPAC-OX and reported one of the following outcomes: adverse events, tumor response, quality of life, secondary cytoreductive surgery, progression-free survival, overall survival, and environmental safety of PIPAC-OX. Results were narratively described. Of 28 included studies, only 14 non-comparative studies separately reported at least one outcome of PIPAC-OX for CPM, of which only two studies specifically focused on this group. These 14 studies reported adverse events (5 studies), tumor response (5 studies), secondary cytoreductive surgery (4 studies), progression-free survival (1 study), overall survival (5 studies), and environmental safety (2 studies). Except for 5 studies (describing 26 patients), none of the included studies stratified their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and none of the studies reporting survival outcomes stratified results for line of palliative treatment, complicating interpretation. No PIPAC-OX related deaths were reported. No occupational platinum was detected during PIPAC-OX. The available evidence regarding PIPAC-OX for CPM is limited and difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, PIPAC-OX appears safe in patients with CPM and safe for operating personnel. To increase insight in the role of PIPAC-OX in this setting, investigators of ongoing and future studies are encouraged to report separate outcomes of PIPAC-OX for CPM, to stratify their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and to stratify survival results for line of palliative treatment.

The emergence of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy as a palliative treatment option for patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases: a narrative review

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases. Potential advantages of PIPAC over current treatment options are a homogeneous intraperitoneal distribution, low local and systemic toxicity, and enhanced tumour penetration. Given these possible benefits, PIPAC is increasingly implemented in many centres worldwide. Scientific research into PIPAC is currently available from in vitro/in vivo/in animal studies, retrospective cohorts in humans, and phase I and II studies in humans. There are no results from randomised trials comparing PIPAC with conventional treatment, such as palliative systemic therapy. This narrative review aimed to provide an overview of the currently available literature on PIPAC. In general, repetitive PIPAC was feasible and safe for patients and operating room personnel. Primary and secondary non-access rates varied from 0-17% and 0-15%, respectively. Iatrogenic bowel injury was observed in 0-3% of PIPAC procedures. CTCAE grade 1-2 complications were common, mostly consisting of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. CTCAE grade 3-4 complications were uncommon, occurring on 0-15% of PIPAC procedures. Post-operative mortality rates of 0-2% were reported. The risk of occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs was very low when strict safety guidelines were followed. Clinical heterogeneity was high in most studies, since, in general, patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases from a variety of primary tumours were included. Also, patients received either PIPAC monotherapy or PIPAC combined with concomitant systemic therapy, and were able to receive PIPAC in any line of palliative treatment. Since the results were generally not stratified for these three important factors, this severely complicates the interpretation of results. Based on the current literature, PIPAC may be regarded as a promising palliative treatment option in patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases. Initial results show that it is feasible and safe. However, well designed and (ideally) randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to determine the additional value of PIPAC in this setting. Until then, PIPAC should preferably be performed in the setting of clinical trials.

First-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (oxaliplatin) for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a multicentre, single-arm, phase II study (CRC-PIPAC-II)

INTRODUCTION

Despite its increasing use, first-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX), hereinafter referred to as first-line bidirectional therapy, has never been prospectively investigated in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). As a first step to address this evidence gap, the present study aims to assess the safety, feasibility, antitumour activity, patient-reported outcomes, costs and systemic pharmacokinetics of first-line bidirectional therapy in patients with isolated unresectable CPM.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this single-arm, phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 20 patients are enrolled. Key eligibility criteria are a good performance status, pathologically proven isolated unresectable CPM, no previous palliative systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, no (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy ≤6 months prior to enrolment and no previous pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Patients receive three cycles of bidirectional therapy. Each cycle consists of 6 weeks first-line palliative systemic therapy at the medical oncologists' decision (CAPOX-bevacizumab, FOLFOX-bevacizumab, FOLFIRI-bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab) followed by ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²) with an intraoperative bolus of intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m²). Study treatment ends after the third ePIPAC-OX. The primary outcome is the number of patients with-and procedures leading to-grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) up to 4 weeks after the last procedure. Key secondary outcomes include the number of bidirectional cycles in each patient, treatment-related characteristics, grade ≤2 adverse events, tumour response (histopathological, cytological, radiological, biochemical, macroscopic and ascites), patient-reported outcomes, systemic pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, costs, progression-free survival and overall survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Dutch competent authority, a medical ethics committee and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL8303.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (Oxaliplatin) for Unresectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Phase II Trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

Despite its increasing use, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) has never been prospectively investigated as a palliative monotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases in clinical trials. This trial aimed to assess the safety (primary aim) and antitumor activity (key secondary aim) of PIPAC-OX monotherapy in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases.

METHODS

In this two-center, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in any line of palliative treatment underwent 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²). Key outcomes were major treatment-related adverse events (primary outcome), minor treatment-related adverse events, hospital stay, tumor response (radiological, biochemical, pathological, ascites), progression-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Twenty enrolled patients underwent 59 (median 3, range 1-6) PIPAC-OX procedures. Major treatment-related adverse events occurred in 3 of 20 (15%) patients after 5 of 59 (8%) procedures (abdominal pain, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, iatrogenic pneumothorax, transient liver toxicity), including one possibly treatment-related death (sepsis of unknown origin). Minor treatment-related adverse events occurred in all patients after 57 of 59 (97%) procedures, the most common being abdominal pain (all patients after 88% of procedures) and nausea (65% of patients after 39% of procedures). Median hospital stay was 1 day (range 0-3). Response rates were 0% (radiological), 50% (biochemical), 56% (pathological), and 56% (ascites). Median progression-free and overall survival were 3.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-5.7) and 8.0 months (IQR 6.3-12.6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC-OX monotherapy, some major adverse events occurred and minor adverse events were common. The clinical relevance of observed biochemical, pathological, and ascites responses remains to be determined, especially since radiological response was absent.

PIPAC-OX: A Phase I Study of Oxaliplatin-Based Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel laparoscopic, intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery technique aiming to improve drug distribution and tissue penetration to treat peritoneal metastases. Thus far, PIPAC oxaliplatin is conducted at an arbitrary dose of 92 mg/m². We conducted a phase I study to establish safety and tolerability.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a 3+3 dose-escalation design of PIPAC oxaliplatin for patients with peritoneal metastases from gastrointestinal tumors, after failure of at least first-line chemotherapy. Dose levels were planned at 45, 60, 90, and 120 mg/m².

RESULTS

This study included 16 patients with 24 PIPAC procedures (8 gastric; 5 colorectal; and 1 gallbladder, pancreas, and appendix cancer each). Median age and peritoneal cancer index (PCI) score were 62 years and 17, respectively. Two patients developed pancreatitis (grade 2 and 3) at 45 mg/m², necessitating cohort expansion. Another patient developed grade 2 pancreatitis at 90 mg/m². There were no other dose-limiting toxicities, and the highest-dose cohort (120 mg/m²) tolerated PIPAC well. Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated good linearity between dose and maximum concentration (r ² = 0.95) and AUC (r ² = 0.99). On the basis of RECIST, 62.5% and 50% had stable disease after one and two PIPAC procedures, respectively. A total of 8 patients underwent two PIPAC procedures, with improvement of median PCI and peritoneal regression grade score from 15 to 12 and 2.5 to 2.0, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommended phase II dose is 120 mg/m². Future studies should further delineate the efficacy and role of PIPAC oxaliplatin for peritoneal metastases.See related commentary by de Jong et al., p. 1830.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed treatment of peritoneal metastasis in end-stage colo-rectal cancer patients

Background

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) represents a novel approach to intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Hereby results, obtained with PIPAC in patients with advanced peritoneal metastasis (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC), are presented.

Methods

Data from CRC patients (n = 24) included in the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 trials are reported. Oxaliplatin 92 mg/m² was administered at 4-6-week intervals. A CE certified nebulizer was used to aerosolize the chemotherapeutics. Outcome criteria were objective tumor response, survival and adverse events.

Results

Retrospective analysis of 74 PIPAC procedures carried out in 24 consecutive patients with PM from CRC included from October 2015 to February 2019. Five patients had still the primary tumor in situ, and 22 patients had received palliative systemic chemotherapy. Nineteen patients completed more than two PIPAC procedures, and objective tumor response according to the histological Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) was observed in 67% of the patients, while 21% had stable disease. Four patients (21%) had complete response (mean PRGS = 1 and negative cytology). We recorded a median survival of 37.6 (range 7.3–48.9) months from the time of PM diagnosis, whereas it was 20.5 (range 0.13–34.7) months following the first PIPAC session. Minor postoperative complications were noted, and few were considered causally related to the PIPAC treatment. However, two cases of severe postoperative complications were recorded (urosepsis and iatrogenic bowel perforation).

Conclusions

PIPAC with low-dose oxaliplatin can induce objective tumor regression in selected patients with advanced PM from colorectal cancer.

Next-generation sequencing and histological response assessment in peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with PIPAC

Background

Peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer (PM-PC) may be treated with repeated pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect cancer-related mutations in peritoneal quadrant biopsies (QBs) and peritoneal fluid (PF) after systemic and PIPAC treatment has not been evaluated. Around 90% of pancreatic cancers (PCs) harbour a KRAS mutation, making PC ideal for the evaluation of this aspect.

Aims

Evaluation of PM-PC in terms of (1) histological response to PIPAC using Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), (2) clinical characteristics and (3) frequency of mutations in QBs and PF before and after PIPAC.

Methods

Peritoneal QBs and PF were obtained prior to each PIPAC. NGS for 22 cancer-related genes was performed on primary tumours, QBs and PFs. Response was assessed by the four-tiered PRGS.

Results

Sixteen patients treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures were included. The mean PRGS was reduced from 1.91 to 1.58 (p=0.02). Fifty-seven specimens (13 primary tumours, 2 metastatic lymph nodes, 16 PFs and 26 QB sets) were analysed with NGS. KRAS mutation was found in 14/16 patients (87.50%) and in QBs, primary tumours and PF in 8/12 (66.67%), 8/13 (61.53%) and 6/9 (66.67%). The median overall survival was 9.9 months (SE 1.5, 95% CI 4.9 to 13.9).

Conclusion

PIPAC induces histological response in the majority of patients with PM-PC. KRAS mutation can be found in PM-PC after PIPAC at a frequency similar to the primaries. NGS may be used to detect predictive mutations in PM-PC of various origins, also when only post-PIPAC QBs or PFs are available.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a review of the introduction of a new surgical technology using the IDEAL framework

BACKGROUND

The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, Long-term study) framework is a scheme of investigation for innovative surgical therapeutic interventions. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure based on laparoscopy to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastases, introduced in 2011. The aim of this article was to review literature on PIPAC and assess whether development of the technique has followed the IDEAL framework.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and Embase was carried out to identify scientific reports on PIPAC published between January 2000 and February 2019. The studies were categorized according to the IDEAL stages.

RESULTS

Eighty-six original research papers on PIPAC were identified. There were 23 stage 0, 18 stage 1, 25 stage 2a and six stage 2b studies. Protocol papers for stage 1, 2b and 3 studies, and trial registrations for stage 2a studies, were also identified. The number of centres publishing reports and the number of publications has increased each year. Overall, there has been progression through the IDEAL stages; however, about 60 per cent of clinical reports published in 2018 were stage 1 Idea-type studies.

CONCLUSION

Since its introduction, studies investigating PIPAC have progressed in line with the IDEAL framework. However, the majority of studies reported recently were stage 0 and 1 studies.

Overcoming Drug Resistance by Taking Advantage of Physical Principles: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Theoretical considerations as well as comprehensive preclinical and clinical data suggest that optimizing physical parameters of intraperitoneal drug delivery might help to circumvent initial or acquired resistance of peritoneal metastasis (PM) to chemotherapy. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel minimally invasive drug delivery system systematically addressing the current limitations of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The rationale behind PIPAC is: (1) optimizing homogeneity of drug distribution by applying an aerosol rather than a liquid solution; (2) applying increased intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure to counteract elevated intratumoral interstitial fluid pressure; (3) limiting blood outflow during drug application; (4) steering environmental parameters (temperature, pH, electrostatic charge etc.) in the peritoneal cavity for best tissue target effect. In addition, PIPAC allows repeated application and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing biopsies between chemotherapy cycles. Although incompletely understood, the reasons that allow PIPAC to overcome established chemoresistance are probably linked to local dose intensification. All pharmacological data published so far show a superior therapeutic ratio (tissue concentration/dose applied) of PIPAC vs. systemic administration, of PIPAC vs. intraperitoneal liquid chemotherapy, of PIPAC vs. Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) or PIPAC vs. laparoscopic HIPEC. In the initial introduction phase, PIPAC has been used in patients who were quite ill and had already failed multiple treatment regimes, but it may not be limited to that group of patients in the future. Rapid diffusion of PIPAC in clinical practice worldwide supports its potential to become a game changer in the treatment of chemoresistant isolated PM of various origins.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with one minute of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC) is feasible, but the histological tumor response in peritoneal metastasis is insufficient

INTRODUCTION

Electrostatic precipitation Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has shown superior penetration depth and tissue uptake compared to standard PIPAC. We investigated the feasibility and objective tumor response to ePIPAC with 1 min of precipitation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with PM from various abdominal cancers were included in an amendment to the ongoing prospective PIPAC-OPC2 trial. Colorectal and appendiceal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with PM from other primaries were treated with a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin. Three ePIPAC procedures were planned in each patient including repeated peritoneal biopsies for response evaluation. After emission to the peritoneal cavity, the aerosolized chemotherapeutics were precipitated for 1 min followed by immediate exsufflation and abdominal closure. Histological regression from the first to the third ePIPAC was evaluated according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and compared to data from the PIPAC-OPC1 trial. Complications and toxicities were recorded according to Dindo-Clavien and CTCAE.

RESULTS

Sixty-five ePIPAC procedures were performed in 33 patients (median 2, range 1-6). Ten patients were eligible for response evaluation based on biopsies from the first and third ePIPAC procedure. Four patients had disease progression, four patients had regressive disease, and two patients had stable disease according to PRGS. No life threatening adverse reactions and no mortality was observed following ePIPAC.

CONCLUSION

One minute ePIPAC was feasible and safe, but the histological tumor response was insufficient compared to standard PIPAC directed therapy with 30 min passive diffusion time.

Reproducibility of the peritoneal regression grading score for assessment of response to therapy in peritoneal metastasis

AIMS

The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) assesses the response to chemotherapy in peritoneal metastasis (PM). The PRGS is used, for example, to assess the response to pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). However, the reproducibility of the PRGS is currently unknown. We aimed to evaluate the inter- and intraobserver variability of the PRGS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-three patients who underwent at least three PIPAC treatments as part of the PIPAC-OPC1 or PIPAC-OPC2 clinical trials at Odense University Hospital, Denmark, were included. Prior to each therapy cycle, peritoneal quadrant biopsies were obtained and three haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained step sections were scanned and uploaded to a pseudonymised web library. For determining interobserver variability, eight pathologists assessed the PRGS for each quadrant biopsy, and Krippendorff's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. For determining intraobserver variability, three pathologists repeated their own assessments and Cohen's kappa and ICCs were calculated. A total of 331 peritoneal biopsies were analysed. Interobserver variability for PRGS of each biopsy and for the mean and maximum PRGS per biopsy set was moderate to good/substantial. The intraobserver variability for PRGS of each biopsy and for the mean and maximum PRGS per biopsy set was good to excellent/almost perfect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the PRGS as a reproducible and useful tool to assess response to intraperitoneal chemotherapy in PM. Future studies should evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of the PRGS.