Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy vs. intravenous chemotherapy for unresectable peritoneal metastases secondary to platinum resistant ovarian cancer - study protocol for a randomized control trial

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.

Molecular biology as a driver in therapeutic choices for ovarian cancer

The majority of patients with ovarian cancer relapse within 3 years of first line chemotherapy. Therefore, choosing the most appropriate treatment in the recurrence setting has a fundamental role in defining a patient's prognosis. Treatment options include systemic and intra-peritoneal chemotherapy, secondary cytoreductive surgery, and stereotactic body radiotherapy. The best therapeutic choice depends on multiple factors and not only on treatment-free interval. For systemic therapy, prior lines therapy, residual toxicities, comorbidities, performance status, and patient preferences should be taken into account. Secondary cytoreductive surgery can be proposed in patients in which complete tumor resectability can be predicted and in those with oligometastatic disease. Stereotactic body radiotherapy represents a valid alternative to surgery for oligometastatic disease with high local control and minimal toxicity. Current evidence has demonstrated an emerging role of BRCA mutational status and molecular profiling in the impacting response to systemic and local treatments. Therefore, these could provide guidance in the treatment decision process and help identify patients who respond better to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors or immunotherapy or to a combined approach with surgery rather than to platinum-based chemotherapy. Current knowledge in this field could help widen therapeutic options, especially for platinum-resistant patients. In this review, we offer an overview of the state of the art regarding the role of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in this setting and their implications in clinical practice and in the treatment decision process, so as to provide the best tailored therapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

A multi-nozzle nebuliser does not improve tissue drug delivery during PIPAC

BACKGROUND

Multi-nozzle nebulisers for pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are implemented in clinical practice to improve the homogeneity of tissue drug delivery. Nonetheless, the advantages of such devices over one-nozzle nebulisers have not been demonstrated thus far. In this study, we compared the performance of multi- and one-nozzle nebulisers by conducting physical and ex vivo pharmacological experiments.

METHODS

The one-nozzle nebuliser Capnopen® and the multi-nozzle nebuliser were the subjects of this study. In physical experiments, the aerosol droplet size was measured by laser diffraction spectroscopy. Spatial spray patterns were depicted on blotting paper. Pharmacological experiments were performed on the enhanced inverted bovine urinary bladder model, demonstrating real-time tissue drug delivery, aerosol sedimentation and homogeneity of doxorubicin and cisplatin tissue distribution.

RESULTS

The multi-nozzle nebuliser had a sixfold greater aerosolisation flow and a threefold greater angle of aerosolisation than Capnopen®. The aerosol particle size and distribution range were higher than that of Capnopen®. Spray patterns on blotting paper were more extensive with the multi-nozzle nebuliser. Real-time tissue drug delivery with the multi-nozzle nebuliser was over 100 ml within 1 min, and the aerosol sedimentation was 48.9% ± 21.2%, which was not significantly different from that of Capnopen®. The doxorubicin and cisplatin tissue concentrations were greater with Capnopen®. Although there was no significant difference in the homogeneity of doxorubicin distribution between the two devices, the homogeneity of cisplatin distribution was significantly higher with Capnopen®.

CONCLUSION

The multi-nozzle PIPAC nebuliser did not fulfil expectations. Even though the surface spray patterns were broader with the multi-nozzle nebuliser, the tissue drug homogeneity and concentration were greater with Capnopen®.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) experience in patients with recurrent low grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC): sub-cohort report of phase 1 clinical trial

Introduction

Low grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) is a rare subtype of ovarian cancer (OC) that is challenging to treat due to its relative chemoresistance. Given that LGSOC patients often recur in the peritoneal cavity, novel intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy should be explored. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a method that has demonstrated peritoneal disease control in cancers with peritoneal metastases.

Methods

NCT04329494 is a US multicenter phase 1 trial evaluating the safety of PIPAC in recurrent ovarian, uterine, and GI cancers with peritoneal metastases. This analysis describes the outcomes of a sub-cohort of four LGSOC patients treated with IP cisplatin 10.5 mg/m2, doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m2 PIPAC q4-6 weeks. Primary endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and incidence of adverse events (AE). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and treatment response based on radiographic, intraoperative, and pathological findings.

Results

Four patients with LGSOC were enrolled of which three were heavily pretreated. Median prior lines of therapy was 5 (range 2-10). Three patients had extraperitoneal metastases, and two patients had baseline partial small bowel obstructive (SBO) symptoms. Median age of patients was 58 (38-68). PIPAC completion rate (≥2 PIPACs) was 75%. No DLTs or Clavien-Dindo surgical complications occurred. No G4/G5 AEs were observed, and one G3 abdominal pain was reported. One patient had a partial response after 3 cycles of PIPAC and completed an additional 3 cycles with compassionate use amendment. Two patients came off study after 2 cycles due to extraperitoneal progressive disease. One patient came off study after 1 cycle due to toxicity. Median decrease in peritoneal carcinomatosis index between cycles 1 and 2 was 5.0%. Ascites decreased in 2 out of 3 patients who had ≥2 PIPACs. Median PFS was 4.3 months (1.7-21.6), median overall survival was 11.6 months (5.4-30.1), and objective response rate was 25%.

Conclusion

PIPAC with cisplatin/doxorubicin is well tolerated in LGSOC patients without baseline SBO symptoms. IP response was seen in 2 out of 3 patients that completed ≥2 PIPAC cycles. Further study of PIPAC for patients with recurrent disease limited to the IP cavity and with no partial SBO symptoms should be considered.

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.

Performance of different nebulizers in clinical use for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

OBJECTIVE

Technical ex-vivo comparison of commercial nebulizer nozzles used for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

The performance of four different commercial nebulizer nozzles (Nebulizer; HurriChemTM; MCR-4 TOPOL®; QuattroJet) was analysed concerning: i) technical design and principle of operation, ii) operational pressure as function of the liquid flow rate, iii) droplet size distribution via laser diffraction spectrometry, iv) spray cone angle, spray cone form as well as horizontal drug deposition by image-metric analyses and v) chemical resistance via exposing to a cytostatic solution and chemical composition by means of spark optical emission spectral analysis.

RESULTS

The Nebulizer shows quasi an identical technical design and thus also a similar performance (e.g., mass median droplet size of 29 μm) as the original PIPAC nozzles (MIP/ CapnoPen). All other nozzles show more or less a performance deviation to the original PIPAC nozzles. The HurriChemTM has a similar design and principle of operation as the Nebulizer, but provides a finer aerosol (22 μm). The principle of operation of MCR-4 TOPOL® and QuattroJet differ significantly from that of the original PIPAC nozzle technology. The MCR-4 TOPOL® offers a hollow spray cone with significantly larger droplets (50 μm) than the original PIPAC nozzles. The QuattroJet generates an aerosol (22 μm) similar to that of the HurriChemTM but with improved spatial drug distribution.

CONCLUSION

The availability of new PIPAC nozzles is encouraging but can also have a negative impact if their performance and efficacy is unknown. It is recommended that PIPAC nozzles that deviate from the current standard should be subject to bioequivalence testing and implementation in accordance with the IDEAL-D framework prior to routine clinical use.

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.

Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients

Introduction

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the primary cause of mortality in women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Our study assessed pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as treatment for peritoneal surface metastases (PSM) from recurrent or progressive OC and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors.

Material and methods

This retrospective cohort study, conducted across 18 international centers, analyzed the clinical practices of patients receiving palliative treatment for PSM from OC who underwent PIPAC. All patients were initially treated appropriately outside any clinical trial setting. Feasibility, safety, and morbidity were evaluated along with objective endpoints of oncological response. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic factors for OS and PFS.

Results

From 2015-2020, 234 consecutive patients were studied, from which 192 patients were included and stratified by platinum sensitivity for analysis. Patients with early recurrence, within one postoperative month, were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding platinum sensitivity (platinum sensitive (PS) and resistant (PR)), but chemotherapy frequency differed, as did PCI before PIPAC. Median PCI decreased in both groups after three cycles of PIPAC (PS 16 vs. 12, p < 0.001; PR 24 vs. 20, p = 0.009). Overall morbidity was 22%, with few severe complications (4-8%) or mortality (0-3%). Higher pathological response and longer OS (22 vs. 11m, p = 0.012) and PFS (12 vs. 7m, p = 0.033) were observed in the PS group. Multivariate analysis (OS/PFS) identified ascites (HR 4.02, p < 0.001/5.22, p < 0.001), positive cytology at first PIPAC (HR 3.91, p = 0.002/1.96, p = 0.035), and ≥ 3 PIPACs (HR 0.30, p = 0.002/0.48, p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors of overall survival/progression-free survival.

Conclusions

With low morbidity and mortality rates, PIPAC is a safe option for palliative treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Promising results were observed after 3 PIPAC, which did improve the peritoneal burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of PIPAC as an independent prognostic factor.

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.

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.