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

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.

Standardizing eligibility and patient selection for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Delphi consensus statement

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure for minimally invasive drug administration in patients with peritoneal metastasis. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of uniformity in treatment protocols and standardization of this practice. This study aimed to reach a consensus on eligibility, patient selection, and choice of chemotherapy for PIPAC.

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. A steering group formulated a list of baseline statements, addressing the objectives. The steering group consisted of seven expert surgical and medical oncologists. Available evidence and published key opinions were critically reviewed. An international expert panel scored those statements on a 4-point Likert scale. The statements were submitted electronically and anonymously. Consensus was reached if the agreement rate was ≥75%. A minimum Cronbach's alpha of >0.8 was set.

RESULTS

Forty-five (45/58; 77.6%) experts participated and completed all rounds. Experts were digestive surgeons (n = 28), surgical oncologists (n = 7), gynecologists (n = 5), medical oncologists (n = 4), and one clinical researcher. Their assessment of 81 preliminary statements in the first round resulted in 41 consolidated statements. In round two, consensus was reached on 40 statements (40/41; 97.6%) with a consensus of ≥80% for each individual statement. In the third round, 40 statements were unanimously approved as definitive. The choice of first- and second-line chemotherapy remained controversial and could not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This International Delphi study provides practical guidance on eligibility and patient selection for PIPAC. Ongoing trial data and long-term results that could contribute to the further standardization of PIPAC are eagerly awaited.

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.

Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy-Results from the First Hundred Consecutive Procedures

PIPAC is a new and promising technique for the intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy. It can be used in patients with various peritoneal cancer metastases. It is mainly a palliative treatment, but there is some neoadjuvant treatment potential. We have operated on 41 patients with various intra-abdominal cancers. PIPAC was performed every 6 weeks. The indication was extension of peritoneal carcinomatosis beyond the criteria for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. The effect was evaluated according to the peritoneal cancer index, the peritoneal regression grading score and the amount of ascites. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. We have performed 100 PIPAC procedures. There were two major complications, classified as Clavien Dindo III (2%). The number of procedures varied from 1 to 6. Five patients switched to cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, and one was indicated for the watch and wait strategy due to total regression according to PRGS. Three patients are still continuing treatment. The others stopped treatment mainly because of progression of the disease and loss of metastases. We observed a reduction in ascites production soon after PIPAC application. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated treatment modality. It is mainly a palliative treatment that can improve the quality of life by reducing the production of ascites, but in about 10% of cases, it can reduce the extent of the disease and allow for further radical treatment.

The role of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for the treatment of primary and secondary peritoneal malignancies-experience from a tertiary care center in Germany

PURPOSE

Peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) are commonly known to have a dismal prognosis. Over the past decades, novel techniques such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) have been introduced for the treatment of PSM which could improve the overall survival and quality of life of patients with PSM. The decision to proceed with CRS and HIPEC is often challenging due the complexity of the disease, the extent of the procedure, associated side effects, and potential risks. Here, we present our experience with CRS and HIPEC to add to the ongoing discussion about eligibility criteria, technical approach, and expected outcomes and contribute to the evolution of this powerful and promising tool in the multidisciplinary treatment of patients with primary and secondary PSM.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review was conducted and included a total of 40 patients treated with CRS and HIPEC from April 2020 to September 2022 at the University Hospital Münster Department of Surgery. All patients had histologically confirmed primary or secondary peritoneal malignancies of various primary origins.

RESULTS

Our study included 22 patients with peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer (55%), 8 with pseudomyxoma peritonei (20%), 4 with mesothelioma of the peritoneum (10%), and 6 patients with PSM originating from other primary tumor locations. Median PCI at time of cytoreduction was 4 (0-25). Completeness of cytoreduction score was 0 in 37 patients (92.5%), 1 in two patients (5%), and 2 in one patient (2.5%). Median overall survival across all patients was 3.69 years.

CONCLUSION

Complete cytoreduction during CRS and HIPEC can be achieved for patients with low PCI, for patients with high PCI in low-grade malignancies, and even for patients with initially high PCI in high-grade malignancies following a significant reduction of cancer burden due to extensive preoperative treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy.

Peritoneal Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Local Treatment Options and Recommendations

Peritoneal metastasis is a common finding in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Beyond systemic chemotherapy, additive local treatments such as cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy are considered an inherent part of different multimodal treatment concepts for selected patients with peritoneal metastatic gastric cancer. This review article discusses the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy, including HIPEC, NIPS, and PIPAC, as additive therapeutic options with curative and palliative intent.

[Contribution of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinoma. HIPEC, PIPAC, state of the art and future directions]

After more than a decade of good results using the combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in the treatment of peritoneal carcinosis of colorectal origin, the PRODIGE7 study, which specifically evaluated the role of HIPEC, failed to show any superiority in terms of overall and disease-free survival for the CRS+HIPEC combination compared with CRS alone. This study constituted a radical change in the knowledge and therapeutic attitudes observed to date. After reviewing the literature and the consensus of national and international experts, a synthesis is provided, together with an outlook on the questions raised and the therapeutic trials and innovations of the near future. An analysis of recent advances due to the advent of a new technique, PIPAC, is also proposed, as well as a review of current therapeutic trials in this field.

Intraperitoneal irinotecan with concomitant FOLFOX and bevacizumab for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of the multicentre, open-label, phase II, INTERACT-II trial

INTRODUCTION

The peritoneum is the second most affected organ for the dissemination of colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) face a poor prognosis, despite the majority of patients being treated with palliative systemic therapy. The efficacy of palliative systemic therapy is limited due to the plasma-peritoneum barrier. The poor prognosis of unresectable CPM patients has resulted in the development of new treatment strategies where systemic therapy is combined with local, intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In the recently published phase I study, the maximum tolerated dose and thus the recommended phase II dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was investigated and determined to be 75 mg. In the present study, the overall survival after treatment with 75 mg irinotecan with concomitant mFOLFOX4 and bevacizumab will be investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-arm phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 85 patients are enrolled. Eligibility criteria are an adequate performance status and organ function, histologically confirmed microsatellite stable and unresectable CPM, no previous palliative therapy for CRC, no systemic therapy<6 months for CRC prior to enrolment and no previous cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS and HIPEC). Patients will undergo a diagnostic laparoscopy as standard work-up for CPM and if the peritoneal disease is considered unresectable (eg, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI)>20, too extensive small bowel involvement), a peritoneal access port and a port-a-cath are placed for administration of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy, respectively. Patients may undergo up to 12 cycles of study treatment. Each cycle consists of intravenous mFOLFOX4 with bevacizumab and concomitant intraperitoneal irinotecan (75 mg), which is repeated every 2 weeks, with a maximum of 12 cycles. Modified FOLFOX-4 regimen consists of 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin plus 200 mg/m2 LV and 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by 1600 mg/m2 5-FU as a 46 hours infusion. Study treatment ends after the 12th cycle, or earlier in case of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome is overall survival and key secondary outcomes are progression-free survival, safety (measured by the amount of grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0)), patient-reported outcomes and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan. It is hypothesised that the trial treatment will lead to a 4 month increase in overall survival; from a median of 12.2 to 16.2 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Dutch Authority (CCMO, the Hague, the Netherlands), by a central medical ethics committee (MEC-U, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands) and by the institutional research boards of both research centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06003998.

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.

Reasons for stopping Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A retrospective study to improve future patient selection

To improve the prognosis and maintain quality of life in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM), a novel treatment has been introduced-pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The majority of teams propose at least 3 PIPAC procedures. However, for many patients PIPAC is stopped after only one or two procedures. The aim of this study was to identify the reasons for stopping PIPAC after only one or two procedures and to establish a profile of poor candidates. This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all patients who underwent PIPAC in three French expert centers between 2015 and 2021. A total of 268 PIPAC procedures were performed in 89 patients. Of them, 48.3% of patients underwent fewer than three procedures: 28.1% had one, 20.2% two and 51.7% three or more PIPAC procedures. The main reason for stopping PIPAC, regardless of the number of procedures, was disease progression, in 55.8% of cases. Other reasons for stopping PIPAC were non-access to the abdominal cavity (7.9%), conversion to cytoreductive surgery (13.5%), post-PIPAC adverse events (7.9%), patients' wishes (10.1%) and death (2.2%). In univariate analysis, patients who received fewer than three PIPACs less frequently had chemotherapy beforehand (91% vs 100%, p = 0.05), less frequently had bimodal treatment (70% vs 87%, p = 0.04), had more ascites (median 80 ml vs 50 ml, p = 0.05) and more frequently had carcinomatosic ascites (48.8% vs 23.9%, p < 0.01). Performing PIPAC alone in chemotherapy-naïve patients with ascites should be avoided.

10 Years of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper-Pearson exact CIs in all instances.

RESULTS

A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3-4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61-0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I² 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.

PIPAC nebulizer: How to test the new devices in the market, expert recommendations

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, named PIPAC, is now used in many centers around the world and as an intraperitoneal drug delivery system for treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Recently, many of us have encountered problems during PIPAC procedures due to changes in material and production features of the original PIPAC nebulizer. Concomitantly, new PIPAC nebulizers proposed by other manufacturers are being launched on the market; which claim that they are the same as the original device in delivering PIPAC. However, these new devices are all different in terms of materials, technical characteristics and costs. We have considered that, to maintain the acquired results of PIPAC, we must ensure that the new systems are equivalent. The characteristics deemed essential by the expert group are as follows: 1: The nebulizer must be able to create droplets through an injector pressure between 10 and 20 bars, 2: The mean droplet size must be 3 micrometers, with 95% of the droplets between 0 and 10 micrometers, 3: The diffusion angle must be 70 degrees, which is the minimum.

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.

Treatment Response After Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastases of Colorectal Originf

The objective of this study is to analyze oncological outcomes of patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) of colorectal origin treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Background

PIPAC has been demonstrated to be a feasible and safe novel treatment for patients with PM of various origins. Only small series reports on survival after PIPAC by disease entity.

Methods

International retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with PM of colorectal origin. Outcome measures were overall survival (OS), radiological response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), histological response (peritoneal regression grading score [PRGS]: complete response: 1-4: no response), change of peritoneal cancer index (PCI), and symptom control.

Results

Seventeen eligible centers compiled 256 non-selected patients (mean age 61 [50.6-69.2], 43% female) and 606 procedures. Sixty-three percent were treated after 2 lines of chemotherapy, median PCI at PIPAC1 was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-27). Median OS was 19.00 months (IQR = 12.9-29.8) from diagnosis and 9.4 months (IQR = 4.5-16.8) from PIPAC1. One hundred and four of 256 patients (40.6%) had ≥3 procedures (per protocol [pp]) with the following outcomes at PIPAC3: RECIST: 59.3% partial response/stable, 40.7% progression; mean PRGS: 2.1 ± 0.9. Median PCI was 21 (IQR = 15-29) at baseline and 20 (IQR = 12-27) at PIPAC3 (P = 0.02). Fifty-six (54%) and 48 (46%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (P = 0.267). Median OS for the pp cohort was 11.9 months (IQR = 10.7-15.0) from PIPAC1. Independent predictors for survival were radiological response (HR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.6-5.7) and no symptoms (HR = 4.5, 95% CI = 2.2-9.1) at PIPAC3.

Conclusions

Objective treatment response and encouraging survival were demonstrated after PIPAC for colorectal PM. Prospective registry data and comparative studies are now needed in to confirm these data.

Assessment of Treatment Response after Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Appendiceal Peritoneal Metastases

Background The aim of this study was to analyse survival and surrogates for oncological response after PIPAC for appendiceal tumours. Methods This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with appendiceal peritoneal metastases (PM) treated in experienced PIPAC centers. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) from the date of diagnosis of PM and from the start of PIPAC. Predefined secondary outcome included radiological response (RECIST criteria), repeat laparoscopy and peritoneal cancer index (PCI), histological response assessed by the Peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS) and clinical response. Results Final analysis included 77 consecutive patients (208 PIPAC procedures) from 15 centres. Median OS was 30 months (23.00-46.00) from time of diagnosis and 19 months (13.00-28.00) from start of PIPAC. 35/77 patients (45%) had ≥3 procedures (pp: per protocol). Objective response at PIPAC3 was as follows: RECIST: complete response 4 (11.4%), 11 (31.4%) partial/stable; mean PRGS at PIPAC3: 1.8 ± 0.9. Median PCI: 21 (IQR 18-27) vs. 22 (IQR 17-28) at baseline (p = 0.59); 21 (60%) and 18 (51%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (p = 0.873). Median OS in the pp cohort was 22.00 months (19.00-NA) from 1st PIPAC. Conclusion Patients with PM of appendiceal origin had objective treatment response after PIPAC and encouraging survival curves call for further prospective evaluation.

Feasibility and Safety of Taxane-PIPAC in Patients with Peritoneal Malignancies-a Retrospective Bi-institutional Study

Taxanes have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile for intraperitoneal application. We report our initial experience with taxane-PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy) for unresectable peritoneal metastases from different primary sites in terms of safety, feasibility, response rate, and conversion to resectability. In this retrospective study, PIPAC was performed alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy. Paclitaxel was used as a single agent, whereas docetaxel was used in combination with cisplatin-adriamycin or oxaliplatin-adriamycin. From December 2019 to December 2021, 47 patients underwent 82 PIPAC procedures (1 PIPAC in 55.3%, 2 in 29.7%, 3 in 14.8%). The most common primary sites were ovarian cancer (31.9%), gastric cancer (23.4%), and colorectal cancer (21.2%). Docetaxel-cisplatin-adriamycin was used in 33 (70.2%) patients, docetaxel-oxaliplatin-adriamycin in 12 (25.5%), and paclitaxel alone in 2 (4.2%) patients. Grade 1-2 complications were observed in 24 (51%) and grade 3-4 complications in 6 (12.7%) patients (8.5% of 82 PIPACs). 16/47 (34.0%) patients had a clinical response to PIPAC. The mean PCI was 25.9 ± 9.2 for the first PIPACs and 22.4 ± 9 for the subsequent PIPACs with an average reduction of 3.6 points [change in PCI ranged from - 14 to + 8]. The PRGS was 1/2 in 4/47 (8.5%) patients (19.0% patients with > 1 PIPAC). A reduction in ascites was observed in 35.4% presenting with ascites. Nine (19.1%) patients had conversion to operability leading to a subsequent cytoreductive surgery in 8 (17%) patients. PIPAC with docetaxel is feasible and safe. The role of PIPAC with both docetaxel and paclitaxel either alone or in combination with other drugs should be investigated in prospective studies.