Current practice and perceptions of safety protocols for the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating room: results of the IP-OR international survey

Advances in the management of peritoneal malignancies

Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs) are usually associated with a poor prognosis. Nonetheless, in line with advances in the management of most abdominopelvic metastatic diseases, considerable progress has been made over the past decade. An improved understanding of disease biology has led to the more accurate prediction of neoplasia aggressiveness and the treatment response and has been reflected in the proposal of new classification systems. Achieving complete cytoreductive surgery remains the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment of PSMs. Alongside centralization in expert centres, enabling the delivery of multimodal and multidisciplinary strategies, preoperative management is a crucial step in order to select patients who are most likely to benefit from surgery. Depending on the specific PSM, the role of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and of perioperative systemic chemotherapy, in particular, in the neoadjuvant setting, is established in certain scenarios but questioned in several others, although more prospective data are required. In this Review, we describe advances in all aspects of the management of PSMs including disease biology, assessment and improvement of disease resectability, perioperative management, systemic therapy and pre-emptive management, and we speculate on future research directions.

Perception, knowledge and protective practices for surgical staff handling antineoplastic drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC

Objectives

Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.

Methods

This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions.

Results

Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC.

Conclusions

This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.

Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics.

Methods

The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance).

Results

Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m² (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10.

Conclusions

The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.

Consensus statement on safety measures for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising treatment for peritoneal cancer that entails, however, potential risks for the caregivers in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to reach a consensus within the PIPAC community on a comprehensive safety protocol.

Methods

Active PIPAC centers were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi process on 43 predefined items: concise summaries of the existing evidence were presented together with questions formulated using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the strength of recommendation was voted by panelists, accepting a consensus threshold of ≥50% of the agreement for any of the four grading options, or ≥70% in either direction.

Results

Forty-seven out of 66 invited panelists answered both rounds (response rate 76%). The consensus was reached for 41 out of 43 items (95.3%). Strong and weak recommendations were issued for 30 and 10 items, respectively. A positive consensual recommendation was issued to activate laminar airflow without specific strength, neither strong nor weak. No consensus was reached for systematic glove change for caregivers with a high risk of exposure and filtering facepiece mask class 3 for caregivers with low risk of exposure.

Conclusions

A high degree of consensus was reached for a comprehensive safety protocol for PIPAC, adapted to the risk of exposure for the different caregivers in the OR. This consensus can serve as a basis for education and help reach a high degree of adherence in daily practice.

Evaluation of the environmental contamination and exposure risk in medical/non-medical staff after oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a technique to directly deliver chemotherapeutic drugs in the abdomen for the treatment of peritoneal metastases. Pressurization improves the treatment efficacy but increases the risk of exposure for the medical/non-medical staff who can be exposed by dermal or ocular contact, or inhalation of aerosols containing the cytotoxic drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of exposure for the medical/non-medical staff (nurses, surgeons, anaesthesiologists and cleaning personnel; n = 13) during PIPAC with oxaliplatin performed according to the protocol recommended in France. Blood samples were collected 1 h before and immediately after PIPAC, and urine samples 1 h before, and then 3 h and the morning after PIPAC. In the control, non-exposed group (n = 7), only one urine and blood sample were collected. Surface contamination in the operating room was assessed in water- and Surfanios-impregnated wipe samples. The total elemental platinum in each sample was quantified by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, using a method adapted to quantify trace amounts (ng.L^-1) in very low volumes (100 μl). No surface contamination was detected. Although 25% of urine samples in the exposed group contained platinum, no statistical difference was observed in urine and plasma samples collected before and after PIPAC and with the control group samples. These findings suggest that the French PIPAC protocol does not increase the risk of exposure to platinum in all staff categories involved. This protocol could be considered in future occupational policies and consensus statements. Trial registration: NCT04014426.