The ISSPP PIPAC database: design, process, access, and first interim analysis

First-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: A single-arm phase II trial (CRC-PIPAC-II)

BACKGROUND

Palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic precipitation oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has never been prospectively investigated in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The CRC-PIPAC-II study aimed to assess safety, feasibility and efficacy of such bidirectional therapy.

METHODS

This two-center, single-arm, phase II trial enrolled chemotherapy-naïve patients to undergo three treatment cycles, consisting of systemic therapy (CAPOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or FOLFOXIRI, all with bevacizumab) and oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC (92 mg/m2) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2). Primary outcome were major treatment-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included minor events, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Twenty patients completed 52 treatment cycles. Fifteen major events occurred in 7 patients (35 %): 5 events (33 %) related to systemic therapy; 5 (33 %) related to ePIPAC; and 5 (33 %) were biochemical events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. All patients experienced minor events, mostly abdominal pain, nausea and peripheral sensory neuropathy. After treatment, radiological, pathological, cytological, and biochemical response was observed in 0 %, 88 %, 38 %, and 31 % of patients respectively. Curative surgery was achieved in one patient. Median PFS was 10.0 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.0-13.0) and median OS was 17.5 months (95 % CI 13.0-not reached).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining palliative systemic therapy with oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC in patients with unresectable CPM was feasible and showed an acceptable safety profile. Treatment-induced response and survival are promising, yet further research is required to determine the additional value of ePIPAC to systemic therapy.

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.

Novel Multi-Modal Therapies and Their Prognostic Potential in Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer has a poor prognosis and involves metastasis to the peritoneum in over 40% of patients. The optimal treatment modalities have not been established for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (GC/PC). Although studies have reported favourable prognostic factors, these have yet to be incorporated into treatment guidelines. Hence, our review aims to appraise the latest diagnostic and treatment developments in managing GC/PC.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) in GC/PC. A meta-analysis of studies reporting on overall survival (OS) in HIPEC and comparing the extent of cytoreduction as a prognostic factor was also carried out.

RESULTS

The database search yielded a total of 2297 studies. Seventeen studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Eight studies reported the short-term OS at 1 year as the primary outcome measure, and our analysis showed a significantly higher OS for the HIPEC/CRS cohort compared to the CRS cohort (pooled OR = 0.53; p = 0.0005). This effect persisted longer term at five years as well (pooled OR = 0.52; p < 0.0001). HIPEC and CRS also showed a longer median OS compared to CRS (pooled SMD = 0.61; p < 0.00001). Three studies reporting on PIPAC demonstrated a pooled OS of 10.3 (2.2) months. Prognostic factors for longer OS include a more complete cytoreduction (pooled OR = 5.35; p < 0.00001), which correlated with a peritoneal carcinomatosis index below 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel treatment strategies, such as HIPEC and PIPAC, are promising in the management of GC/PC. Further work is necessary to define their role within the treatment algorithm and identify relevant prognostic factors that will assist patient selection.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a local treatment for peritoneal metastasis (PM). Prospective data are scarce and evaluation of treatment response remains difficult. This study evaluated the use of the Peritoneal Regression Grading score (PRGS) and its prognostic value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, controlled phase II trial in patients with PM from gastrointestinal, gynaecological, hepatopancreatobiliary, primary peritoneal, or unknown primary cancer. Patients in performance status 0-1, with a non-obstructed gastrointestinal tract, and a maximum of one extraperitoneal metastasis were eligible. Colorectal or appendiceal PM had PIPAC with oxaliplatin, other primaries had PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Biopsies were taken at each PIPAC and evaluated using the PRGS. Quality-of-life questionnaires were reported at baseline and after three PIPACs.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients were treated with 336 PIPACs (median 3, range 1-12). One hundred patients had prior palliative chemotherapy and 45 patients received bidirectional treatment. Complete or major histological response to treatment (PRGS 1-2) was observed in 38 patients (61%) who had three PIPACs, which was the only independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis. The median overall survival (mOS) from PIPAC 1 was 10 months, while patients with PM from gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer had a mOS of 7.4, 16.7, and 8.2 months, respectively. Global health scores were significantly reduced, but patients were less fatigued, nauseated, constipated, and had better appetite after three PIPACs.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC with oxaliplatin or cisplatin and doxorubicin was able to induce a major or complete histological response during three PIPACs, which may provide significant prognostic information, both at baseline and after treatment.

The Implementation of a PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) Program in Portugal

N/a.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: A systematic review by the PIPAC UK collaborative

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases (GCPM) carries a poor prognosis. Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy (PIPAC) offers pharmacokinetic advantages over intravenous therapy, resulting in higher chemotherapy concentrations in peritoneal deposits, and potentially reduced systemic absorption/toxicity. This review evaluates efficacy, tolerability and impact on quality of life (QOL) of PIPAC for GCPM.

METHODS

Following registration with PROSPERO (CRD42021281500), MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched for PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases, in accordance with PRISMA standards RESULTS: Across 18 included reports representing 751 patients with GCPM (4 prospective, 11 retrospective, 3 abstracts, no phase III studies), median overall survival (mOS) was 8 - 19.1 months, 1-year OS 49.8-77.9%, complete response (PRGS1) 0-35% and partial response (PRGS2/3) 0-83.3%. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was 0.7-25% and 0-4.1% respectively. Three studies assessing QOL reported no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC may offer promising survival benefits, toxicity, and QOL for GCPM.

Is Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosolized Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Effective in Ovarian Cancer With Peritoneal Metastasis?

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common causes of mortality in women and is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage. Ovarian cancer has a high recurrence rate, with most cases being peritoneal metastasis. The standard treatment of peritoneal metastasis is systemic chemotherapy, but naturally, the peritoneum is poorly vascularized, making this standard of treatment frequently ineffective. Hence, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) introduced a new type of intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) in November 2011. Positive feedback on its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy has encouraged medical communities worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a new drug delivery technique. This study's objective is to review previously conducted research on the efficacy of PIPAC treatment for peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer.

Selection Criteria for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Treatment in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

Background: The standard treatment protocol for PIPAC consists of three procedures. Completion of treatment has been shown to be prognostic of improved survival. The aim of this study was to identify predictors for completion of treatment. Methods: Retrospective multicentric cohort study of patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC in three PIPAC expert centers. Per protocol (PP) treatment was defined as patients receiving ≥3 PIPACs and was compared to patients receiving <3. Results: Overall, 183 patients had 517 PIPACs. The main reasons for stopping PIPAC were disease progression in 50% patients, bowel obstruction in 15%, patient’s refusal to pursue in 10%, conversion to cytoreductive surgery in 7%, and medical reasons in 8%. Overall, 95 patients (52%) had PP treatment. The PP median OS was 17 vs. 7 months, p = 0.001. PP patients had r ascites (410 ± 100 mL vs. 960 ± 188 mL, p = 0.001), no prior history of bowel obstruction (12% vs. 24%, p = 0.028), and more bimodal treatment (39% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). After multiple regression, bimodal treatment was found as an independent predictive factor for completing PP (OR = 4.202, 95%CI [1.813, 10.630], p < 0.001), along with prior bowel obstruction (OR = 0.389, 95%CI [0.153, 0.920], p = 0.037). Conclusion: The absence of ascites and prior bowel obstruction can help to select patients suitable for PIPAC. Best results seem to be achieved when PIPAC is combined with systemic chemotherapy.

Early postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy for peritoneal metastases with or without pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced for palliative treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) and is currently tested also in the neoadjuvant and prophylactic setting. The aim was therefore to compare safety and tolerance of staging laparoscopy with or without PIPAC.

Methods

This retrospective analysis compared consecutive patients undergoing staging laparoscopy alone for oesogastric cancer with patients having PIPAC for suspected PSM of various origins from January 2015 until January 2020. Safety was assessed by use of the Clavien classification for complications and CTCAE for capturing of adverse events. Pain and nausea were documented by use of a visual analogue scale (VAS: 0–10: maximal intensity).

Results

Overall, 25 PIPAC procedures were compared to 24 staging laparoscopies. PIPAC procedures took a median of 35 min (IQR: 25–67) longer. Four patients experienced at least one complication in either group (p = 0.741). No differences were noted for postoperative nausea (p = 0.961) and pain levels (p = 0.156). Median hospital stay was 2 (IQR: 1–3) for PIPAC and 1 (IQR: 1–2) for the laparoscopy group (p = 0.104).

Conclusions

The addition of PIPAC did not jeopardize safety and postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy alone. Further studies need to clarify its oncological benefits.