Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases-a systematic review

Third-line treatment and beyond in metastatic colorectal cancer: What do we have and what can we expect?

Colorectal cancer remains the third most common cancer worldwide and the second cause of cancer-related death. Treatment advances and precision oncological medicine for these tumours have been stalled in comparison to those for other common tumours such as lung and breast cancer. However, the recent publication of the SUNLIGHT trial results with the trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102)-bevacizumab combination and the irruption of new molecular targets with guided treatments have opened new possibilities in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer management. Anti-EGFR rechallenge, anti-HER2 targeted therapies or the promising results of Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), are some of the available options that may modify what is presumably third-line colorectal treatment. Hereby, we present the evidence of the different treatment options in third-line colorectal cancer and beyond, as well as the possibilities of sequencing them.

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.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Feasibility, Efficacy and Safety-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); p < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; p = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; p < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions: PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.

Colorectal cancer: a comprehensive review of carcinogenesis, diagnosis, and novel strategies for classified treatments

Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the second deadliest cancer worldwide. To date, colorectal cancer becomes one of the most important challenges of the health system in many countries. Since the clinical symptoms of this cancer appear in the final stages of the disease and there is a significant golden time between the formation of polyps and the onset of cancer, early diagnosis can play a significant role in reducing mortality. Today, in addition to colonoscopy, minimally invasive methods such as liquid biopsy have received much attention. The treatment of this complex disease has been mostly based on traditional treatments including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy; the high mortality rate indicates a lack of success for current treatment methods. Moreover, disease recurrence is another problem of traditional treatments. Recently, new approaches such as targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and nanomedicine have opened new doors for cancer treatment, some of which have already entered the market, and many methods have shown promising results in clinical trials. The success of immunotherapy in the treatment of refractory disease, the introduction of these methods into neoadjuvant therapy, and the successful results in tumor shrinkage without surgery have made immunotherapy a tough competitor for conventional treatments. It seems that the combination of those methods with such targeted therapies will go through promising changes in the future of colorectal cancer treatment.

Progress in Biological Research and Treatment of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare disease characterized by extensive peritoneal implantation and mass secretion of mucus after primary mucinous tumors of the appendix or other organ ruptures. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is currently the preferred treatment, with excellent efficacy and safety, and is associated with breakthrough progress in long-term disease control and prolonged survival. However, the high recurrence rate of PMP is the key challenge in its treatment, which limits the clinical application of multiple rounds of CRS-HIPEC and does not benefit from conventional systemic chemotherapy. Therefore, the development of alternative therapies for patients with refractory or relapsing PMP is critical. The literature related to PMP research progress and treatment was searched in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, and a literature review was conducted. The overview of the biological research, treatment status, potential therapeutic strategies, current research limitations, and future directions associated with PMP are presented, focuses on CRS-HIPEC therapy and alternative or combination therapy strategies, and emphasizes the clinical transformation prospects of potential therapeutic strategies such as mucolytic agents and targeted therapy. It provides a theoretical reference for the treatment of PMP and the main directions for future research.

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.

UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (NCT03868228)

Objectives

This is the first UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases. This trial aimed to assess the impact of PIPAC in combination with standard of care systemic treatment on: progression free survival (PFS); quality of life (QoL); and short-term complications. In addition, this trial set out to demonstrate that PIPAC can be performed safely in operating theatres within a National Health Service (NHS) setting.

Methods

Single-centre clinical trial with prospective data collection for patients undergoing 8-weekly PIPAC with oxaliplatin at 92 mg/m2 from January 2019 till January 2022. Progression free survival was assessed using peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) by CT scans and laparoscopy. Quality of life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Adverse events were recorded using CTCAE.

Results

Five patients underwent a total of ten PIPAC administrations (median 2, range 1-4). Median PFS was 6.0 months. QoL was maintained across repeat PIPAC procedures but a decrease in social functioning and increased fatigue were evident. Three incidences of grade 3 adverse events occurred but PIPAC was well tolerated.

Conclusions

The presented data demonstrates that PIPAC is feasible and can be safely delivered within the NHS for patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases, but caution must also be exercised given a risk of adverse events. Systemic chemotherapy can be safely administered at a different unit to the PIPAC procedure if both groups have clear lines of communication and timely data sharing.

What is long-term survival in patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer? A study of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

A definition of long-term survival (LTS) in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), pancreatic cancer (PC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is lacking. We aimed to define LTS and investigate characteristics and treatment response in patients who reached LTS in data from two prospective trials.

Methods

Retrospective study of patients with GC-, PC-, or CRC-PM from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies. The definition of LTS was based on published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. LTS was defined at the time point where 25 % of the patients were alive in these studies. Histology based response was evaluated by the mean Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) using biopsies obtained prior to PIPAC 3, and defined by a mean PRGS of ≤2.0 or a decrease of mean PRGS of ≥1, compared to baseline.

Results

LTS was defined at 21 (GC), 15 (PC), and 24 (CRC) months. Fifty-one (47.2 %) patients (nine GC, 17 PC, 25 CRC) reached LTS calculated from the date of PM diagnosis. All but one received palliative chemotherapy before PIPAC, and 37 % received bidirectional treatment. More than 90 % of the LTS patients had response according to PRGS. The mOS from PIPAC 1 was 23.3, 12.4, and 28.5 months for GC, PC, and CRC LTS patients.

Conclusions

Patients with PM from GC, PC, and CRC treated with systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC can reach LTS and most show histological response. Causality must be further investigated.

Comparing patient reported abdominal pain between patients treated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) and primary colorectal cancer surgery

Oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases. Previously, our study group reported that patients experienced abdominal pain for several weeks after PIPAC-OX. However, it is unknown how this compares to abdominal pain after regular colorectal cancer surgery. To provide some perspective, this study compared the presence of abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX to the presence of abdominal pain after primary tumor surgery. Patient reported abdominal pain scores (EORTC QLQ-CR-29), from two prospective, Dutch cohorts were used in this study. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, a higher score represents more abdominal pain. Abdominal pain at baseline and at four weeks after treatment were compared between the two groups. Twenty patients who underwent PIPAC-OX and 322 patients who underwent primary tumor surgery were included in the analysis. At baseline, there were no differences in abdominal pain between both groups (mean 20 vs. 18, respectively; p = 0.688). Four weeks after treatment, abdominal pain was significantly worse in the PIPAC group (39 vs 15, respectively; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.99). The differential effect over time for abdominal pain differed significantly between both groups (mean difference: 19 vs - 3, respectively; p = 0.004; Cohen's d = 0.88). PIPAC-OX resulted in significantly worse postoperative abdominal pain than primary tumor surgery. These results can be used for patient counseling and stress the need for adequate analgesia during and after PIPAC-OX. Further research is required to prevent or reduce abdominal pain after PIPAC-OX.Trial registration CRC-PIPAC: Clinicaltrails.gov NCT03246321 (01-10-2017).

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.

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.

Comprehensive Understanding and Evolutional Therapeutic Schemes for Pseudomyxoma Peritonei: A Literature Review

Pseudomyxoma peritonei is an infrequent solid tumor in clinical practice. The low morbidity and deficient understanding of this mucus-secreting malignant disease increase the risks of delayed identification or uncontrollable deterioration. In quite a lot cases, patients go through complete cytoreduction surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy could receive a long time survival over 5 years. But the recurrence rate is also hard to overlook. Unlike other types of cancer, the standard treatment for this considerable groups has not been confirmed yet. With the advanced medical progression, studies have been carrying out based on pathogenesis, biological characters, and mutated gene location. All but a few get statistical survival benefits, let alone the breaking progress on research or therapeutic practice in the field. We try to give a comprehensive exposition of pseudomyxoma peritonei around the epidemiology, radiologic features, clinical manifestation, present treatment and promising schemes, hoping to arise much attention and reflection on the feasible solutions, especially for the recrudescent part.

Feasibility and Safety of Oxaliplatin-Based Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy With or Without Intraoperative Intravenous 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared the feasibility and safety of oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-Ox) with or without intraoperative intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (L).

METHODS

Our study included consecutive patients with histologically proven unresectable and isolated colorectal peritoneal metastases (cPM) treated with PIPAC-Ox in seven tertiary referral centers between January 2015 and April 2020. Toxicity events and oncological outcomes (histological response, progression-free survival, and overall survival) were compared between patients who received intraoperative intravenous 5-FU/L (PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group) and patients who did not (PIPAC-Ox group).

RESULTS

In total, 101 patients (263 procedures) were included in the PIPAC-Ox group and 30 patients (80 procedures) were included in the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grade 2 or higher adverse events occurred in 48 of 101 (47.5%) patients in the PIPAC-Ox group and in 13 of 30 (43.3%) patients in the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group (p = 0.73). The complete histological response rates according to the peritoneal regression grading score were 27% for the PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L group and 18% for the PIPAC-Ox group (p = 0.74). No statistically significant differences were observed in overall or progression-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and feasibility of PIPAC-Ox + 5-FU/L appears to be similar to the safety and feasibility of PIPAC-Ox alone in patients with unresectable cPM. Oncological outcomes must be evaluated in larger studies.