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.

Nutritional assessment in surgical oncology: An ESSO-EYSAC global survey

INTRODUCTION

The majority of cancer patients report malnutrition, with a significant impact on patient's outcome. This study aimed to compare how nutritional assessment is conducted across different surgical oncology sub-specialties.

METHODS

Survey modules were designed for breast, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), upper-gastrointestinal (UGI), sarcoma, peritoneal and surface malignancies (PSM) and colorectal cancer (CRC) surgeries to describe 4 domains: participants' setting, evaluation of clinical factors, use of screening tools and clinical practice. Results were compared among sub-specialties and according to human development index (HDI) in the largest cohorts.

RESULTS

Out of 457 answers from 377 global participants (62% European), 35.0% were from breast and 28.9% were from CRC surgeons. Although MDTs management is consistently reported (64-88%), the presence of a nutritionist/dietician ranges from 14.1% to 44.2%. Breast surgeons seldom evaluate albumin (25.6%) and weight loss (30.6%), opposite to HPB, PSM and UGI groups (>70%, p 0.044). Overall, responders declared that the use of screening tools is largely neglected, that nutritional status is often assessed by the surgeons and that nutrition is not consistently modified according to risk factors (range among groups respectively: 1.9%-25.6%, 33.1%-51.4%, 33.1%-60.5%). Less than 20% of breast surgeons assess patients before/after surgery, comparing to >60% of PSM surgeons. However, no statistical differences were documented comparing groups for the majority of the items of the 4 domains. Nutritional evaluation is more often conducted by breast surgeons in medium/low HDI countries comparing very high/high HDI (p 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional assessment is largely neglected. These results identify target-issues for the implementation of clinical practice.

Nanoparticle as a novel tool in hyperthermic intraperitoneal and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotheprapy to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis

The treatment of peritoneal surface malignances has changed considerably over the last thirty years. Unfortunately, the palliative is the only current treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Two primary intraperitoneal chemotherapeutic methods are used. The first is combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC), which has become the gold standard for many cases of PC. The second is Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotheprapy (PIPAC), which is promising direction to minimally invasive as safedrug delivery. These methods were improved through multicenter studies and clinical trials that yield important insights and solutions. Major method development has been made through nanomedicine, specifically nanoparticles. Here, we are presenting the latest advances of nanoparticles and their application to precision diagnostics and improved treatment strategies for PC. These advances will likely develop both HIPEC and PIPAC methods that used for in vitro and in vivo studies. Several benefits of using nanoparticles will be discussed including: 1) Nanoparticles as drug delivery systems; 2) Nanoparticles and Near Infrred (NIR) Irradiation; 3) use of nanoparticles in perioperative diagnostic and individualized treatment planning; 4) use of nanoparticles as anticancer dressing's, hydrogels and as active beeds for optimal reccurence prevention; and 5) finally the curent in vitro and in vivo studies and clinical trials of nanoparticles. The current review highlighted use of nanoparticles as novel tools in improving drug delivery to be effective for treatment patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis.