Randomized control trial comparing quality of life of patients with end-stage peritoneal metastasis treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and intravenous chemotherapy

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Hospitalization cost of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic Heated Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Carcinomatosis of Gastric Adenocarcinoma Origin

The use of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in conjunction with cytoreductive surgery has been gaining increasing traction in treating gastric adenocarcinoma with metastasis to the peritoneum in recent years. The addition of laparoscopic HIPEC (LS-HIPEC) to these treatment algorithms has increased the flexibility and adaptability of HIPEC integrating into treatment sequencing, allowing for iterative protocols of LS-HIPEC prior to cytoreduction as neoadjuvant treatment, as well as in the palliation of patients with unresectable disease and uncontrolled ascites. As the use of HIPEC in gastric adenocarcinoma continues to be refined, LS-HIPEC algorithms should continue to be considered and utilized both in curative treatment algorithms as well as in patients in the palliative setting. Given that LS-HIPEC remains a relatively nascent treatment modality, we advocate for its use in the setting of a clinical trial when feasible.

PIPAC for the Treatment of Gynecologic and Gastrointestinal Peritoneal Metastases: Technical and Logistic Considerations of a Phase 1 Trial

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases (PM) from ovarian, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal origin can be treated via cytoreductive surgery with or without the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for selected patients. Unfortunately, not all patients are candidates for aggressive surgical debulking. For these patients, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as an alternative method for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy administration. This report presents the design and implementation of the first phase 1 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PIPAC in the United States.

METHODS

This is an ongoing prospective phase 1 clinical trial of PIPAC for patients who have histologically confirmed ovarian, uterine, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal cancer with PM and have progressed to at least one evidence-based chemotherapeutic regimen. The trial has two clinical arms. The patients in arm 1 have gynecologic and gastric malignancies treated with IP cisplatin and doxorubicin, and the arm 2 patients have colorectal and appendiceal malignancies treated with intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin followed by IP oxaliplatin. All the patients are monitored for dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events.

RESULTS

Practical and technical considerations for the phase 1 PIPAC trial are presented. These considerations include patient selection, operating room setup, and technical details for successful aerosolized chemotherapy delivery. The phase 1 study results will be reported separately at completion of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The PIPAC treatment is a feasible, minimally invasive approach that permits IP delivery of chemotherapy. Once completed, the ongoing phase 1 trial will help to provide safety and initial efficacy data.

Systemic Chemotherapy Including Ramucirumab in Combination With Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy Is a Safe Treatment Option for Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopic technique for local chemotherapy. It has been used for treatment of peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer (PM GC) in combination with systemic therapy. VEGFR2 antagonist ramucirumab is a second-line therapy for GC, and has been suspected to cause wound healing disorders.

Methods

This is a retrospective single center cohort study of patients with PM GC, who received PIPAC treatment in combination with systemic chemotherapy with and without ramucirumab. Data on patients’ characteristics and their perioperative courses were collected and complication rates were compared with regard to preoperative use of ramucirumab and time between last dose of systemic therapy and PIPAC treatment.

Results

Fifty patients underwent 90 PIPAC treatments for PM GC in 3 years. Overall postoperative morbidity was 11% with 6% severe complications. The mean interval between systemic therapy and PIPAC was 20 days. Neither the length of interval nor the use of ramucirumab had an effect on complication rates.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that addition of ramucirumab to pre-PIPAC systemic therapy, irrespective of the length of the treatment-free interval before PIPAC, does not increase the risk of postoperative complications and is therefore a safe option for treatment of PM GC.

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.

Restricted access to innovative surgical technique related to a specific training, is it ethical? Example of the PIPAC procedure. A systematic review and an experts survey

OBJECTIVE

Using the example of Pressurized Intra Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), we analyse the development model of this procedure and provide an ethical analysis of the involvement of the industry in a new development.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In the case of breakthrough innovation, medical training is essential for safe use of the new procedure. In some cases, pharmaceutical companies decide to organise this training. But when it becomes the only training opportunity to use the device, scientists and clinicians could be exposed to a conflict of interest?

METHODS

We performed a literature review of PIPAC publications using the STROBE criteria. Then, we conducted interviews with an expert panel to analyse the ethical impact of involvement of the industry in the development of the PIPAC procedure.

RESULTS

The number of publications has increased every year since the first publication in Germany, where the technology was developed in 2013. The scientific production was of good quality, with a mean STROBE score of 18.2 ± 2.4 out of 22 points. Ten of the 33 included studies declared a conflict of interest. From the interviews, the main axe concerning the implication of the industry was the training model. The company had decided that only trained and approval surgeon could perform the PIPAC procedure. All four interviewed practitioners agreed that it was initially a good way to implement the procedure safely, but later they felt uncomfortable about the control and validation by the industry.

CONCLUSION

Based on the growing number of published papers from a growing number of international centres, the controlled training model is not limiting. However, the different levels of conflict of interest complicate transparency, and we postulated that this development model is limited to the beginning of the procedure diffusion. CLINICALTRIAL.

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT04341337.

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.

Increased Tissue Penetration of Doxorubicin in Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) after High-Intensity Ultrasound (HIUS)

BACKGROUND

High-intensity ultrasound (HIUS) has been studied for the past two decades as a new therapeutic option for solid tumor direct treatment and a method for better chemotherapy delivery and perfusion. This treatment approach has not been tested to our knowledge in peritoneal metastatic therapy, where limited tissue penetration of intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been a main problem. Both liquid instillations and pressurized aerosols are affected by this limitation. This study was performed to evaluate whether HIUS improves chemotherapy penetration rates.

METHODS

High-intensity ultrasound (HIUS) was applied for 0, 5, 30, 60, 120, and 300 seconds on the peritoneal tissue samples from fresh postmortem swine. Samples were then treated with doxorubicin via pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) under 12 mmHg and 37°C temperature. Tissue penetration of doxorubicin was measured using fluorescence microscopy on frozen thin sections.

RESULTS

Macroscopic structural changes, identified by swelling of the superficial layer of the peritoneal surface, were observed after 120 seconds of HIUS. Maximum doxorubicin penetration was significantly higher in peritoneum treated with HIUS for 300 seconds, with a depth of 962.88 ± 161.4 μm (p < 0.05). Samples without HIUS had a penetration depth of 252.25 ± 60.41. Tissue penetration was significantly increased with longer HIUS duration, with up to 3.8-fold increased penetration after 300 sec of HIUS treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that HIUS may be used as a method to prepare the peritoneal tissue for intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Higher tissue penetration rates can be achieved without increasing chemotherapy concentrations and preventing structural damage to tissue using short time intervals. More studies need to be performed to analyze the effect of HIUS in combination with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.