|
1
|
Hoskovec D, Krška Z, Vočka M, Argalácsová S, Dytrych P. Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosolised Chemotherapy-Results from the First Hundred Consecutive Procedures. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1559. [PMID: 38672641 PMCID: PMC11048649 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16081559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2024] [Revised: 04/16/2024] [Accepted: 04/17/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Hoskovec
- 1st Department of Surgery, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic; (Z.K.); (P.D.)
- 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (M.V.); (S.A.)
| | - Zdeněk Krška
- 1st Department of Surgery, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic; (Z.K.); (P.D.)
- 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (M.V.); (S.A.)
| | - Michal Vočka
- 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (M.V.); (S.A.)
- Department of Oncology, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Soňa Argalácsová
- 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (M.V.); (S.A.)
- Department of Oncology, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Petr Dytrych
- 1st Department of Surgery, General University Hospital, 128 08 Prague, Czech Republic; (Z.K.); (P.D.)
- 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University, 120 00 Prague, Czech Republic; (M.V.); (S.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Ionescu S, Marincas M, Madge OL, Dicu-Andreescu IG, Chitoran E, Rotaru V, Cirimbei C, Gherghe M, Ene A, Rosca R, Radu M, Simion L. Ovarian Causes of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP)-A Literature Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1446. [PMID: 38672528 PMCID: PMC11047873 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16081446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2024] [Revised: 04/04/2024] [Accepted: 04/06/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare, progressive, slowly growing, inadequately understood neoplasm with a 5-year progression-free survival rate of as low as 48%. It is characterized by varying degrees of malignancy and the production of mucinous and gelatinous structures. Typically, the development of pseudomyxoma peritonei is associated with the rupture of appendiceal mucinous tumors and other gastrointestinal or ovarian mucinous tumors. The goal of our literature review was to identify various aspects that characterize the ovarian causes of pseudomyxoma peritonei. MATERIALS AND METHODS The authors performed an extensive literature search between 1 February 2024 and 2 March 2024 on the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Oxford Journals, and Reaxys, and the findings were summarized into seven main clinical and paraclinical situations. RESULTS According to our research, the main instances in which pseudomyxoma peritonei can be triggered by an ovarian cause are the following: (1) mucinous cystadenoma; (2) mucinous ovarian cancer; (3) colon cancer with ovarian metastasis; (4) malignant transformation of an ovarian primary mature cystic teratoma; (5) appendiceal mucocele with peritoneal dissemination mimicking an ovarian tumor with peritoneal carcinomatosis; (6) mucinous borderline tumor developing inside an ovarian teratoma; and (7) the association between a mucinous bilateral ovarian cancer and a colonic tumor. CONCLUSIONS In our study, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the ovarian causes of pseudomyxoma peritonei, including its epidemiology, imagery characteristics, symptoms, current treatment, and promising future therapies, in the hopes of finding feasible solutions, as a lack of understanding of this mucus-secreting malignant disease increases the risk of delayed diagnosis or uncontrolled deterioration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sinziana Ionescu
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| | - Marian Marincas
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| | - Octavia Luciana Madge
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
- Faculty of Letters, University of Bucharest, 030018 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Irinel Gabriel Dicu-Andreescu
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| | - Elena Chitoran
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| | - Vlad Rotaru
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| | - Ciprian Cirimbei
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| | - Mirela Gherghe
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- The Clinical Nuclear Medicine Laboratory, Oncological Institute “Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania
| | - Adina Ene
- Pathology Department, Oncological Institute “Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (A.E.); (M.R.)
| | - Robert Rosca
- Pathology Department, Bucharest Emergency University Hospital, 050098 Bucharest, Romania;
| | - Madalina Radu
- Pathology Department, Oncological Institute “Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (A.E.); (M.R.)
| | - Laurentiu Simion
- Surgery Department, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; (S.I.); (E.C.); (V.R.); (C.C.); (L.S.)
- General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Department I, Bucharest Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Al. Trestioreanu”, 022328 Bucharest, Romania; (O.L.M.); (I.G.D.-A.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Baake J, Nadiradze G, Archid R, Königsrainer A, Bösmüller H, Reymond M, Solass W. Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS): first evidence for independent predictive and prognostic significance. Pleura Peritoneum 2023; 8:55-63. [PMID: 37304164 PMCID: PMC10249756 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2023-0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2023] [Accepted: 05/03/2023] [Indexed: 06/13/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janina Baake
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Department of General and Transplant Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Giorgi Nadiradze
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Department of General and Transplant Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Rami Archid
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Department of General and Transplant Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Alfred Königsrainer
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Department of General and Transplant Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Hans Bösmüller
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Institute of Pathology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Marc Reymond
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Department of General and Transplant Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Wiebke Solass
- National Center for Pleura and Peritoneum, Comprehensive Cancer Center South-Western Germany, Tübingen-Stuttgart, Germany
- Institute of Pathology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Institute of Tissue Medicine and Pathology, University Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Di Giorgio A, Macrì A, Ferracci F, Robella M, Visaloco M, De Manzoni G, Sammartino P, Sommariva A, Biacchi D, Roviello F, Pastorino R, Pires Marafon D, Rotolo S, Casella F, Vaira M. 10 Years of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041125. [PMID: 36831468 PMCID: PMC9954579 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2022] [Revised: 01/17/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/12/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Di Giorgio
- Surgical Unit of Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli—IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Macrì
- U.O.C.—P.S.G. con O.B.I. Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria “G. Martino”—Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy
| | - Federica Ferracci
- Surgical Unit of Peritoneum and Retroperitoneum, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli—IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
- Correspondence: or ; Tel.: +39-0630157255
| | - Manuela Robella
- Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO—IRCCS, Candiolo, 10060 Torino, Italy
| | - Mario Visaloco
- U.O.C.—P.S.G. con O.B.I. Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria “G. Martino”—Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy
| | | | - Paolo Sammartino
- CRS and HIPEC Unit, Pietro Valdoni, Umberto I Policlinico di Roma, 00161 Roma, Italy
| | - Antonio Sommariva
- Advanced Surgical Oncology Unit, Surgical Oncology of the Esophagus and Digestive Tract, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, 35128 Padova, Italy
| | - Daniele Biacchi
- CRS and HIPEC Unit, Pietro Valdoni, Umberto I Policlinico di Roma, 00161 Roma, Italy
| | - Franco Roviello
- Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Roberta Pastorino
- Sezione di Igiene, Dipartimento Universitario Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health—Public Health Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli—IRCCS, 00168 Roma, Italy
| | - Denise Pires Marafon
- Sezione di Igiene, Dipartimento Universitario Scienze della Vita e Sanità Pubblica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy
| | - Stefano Rotolo
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy
| | - Francesco Casella
- Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy
| | - Marco Vaira
- Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO—IRCCS, Candiolo, 10060 Torino, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Roensholdt S, Detlefsen S, Mortensen MB, Graversen M. Response Evaluation in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis Treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12041289. [PMID: 36835824 PMCID: PMC9963217 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041289] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 01/28/2023] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed therapy emerged as a treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) a decade ago. The response assessment of PIPAC is not uniform. This narrative review describes non-invasive and invasive methods for response evaluation of PIPAC and summarizes their current status. PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible publications, and data were reported on an intention-to-treat basis. The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) showed a response in 18-58% of patients after two PIPACs. Five studies showed a cytological response in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid in 6-15% of the patients. The proportion of patients with malignant cytology decreased between the first and third PIPAC. A computed tomography showed stable or regressive disease following PIPAC in 15-78% of patients. The peritoneal cancer index was mainly used as a demographic variable, but prospective studies reported a response to treatment in 57-72% of patients. The role of serum biomarkers of cancer or inflammation in the selection of candidates for and responders to PIPAC is not fully evaluated. In conclusion, response evaluation after PIPAC in patients with PM remains difficult, but PRGS seems to be the most promising response evaluation modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Signe Roensholdt
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Sönke Detlefsen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 15, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsloews Vej 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Michael Bau Mortensen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsloews Vej 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| | - Martin Graversen
- Odense PIPAC Center, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Odense Pancreas Center (OPAC), Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsloews Vej 19, 5000 Odense, Denmark
- Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Baggaley AE, Lafaurie GBRC, Tate SJ, Boshier PR, Case A, Prosser S, Torkington J, Jones SEF, Gwynne SH, Peters CJ. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework. Br J Surg 2022; 110:10-18. [PMID: 36056893 PMCID: PMC10364525 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac284] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Alice E Baggaley
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - Sophia J Tate
- Department of Anaesthesia, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Piers R Boshier
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Amy Case
- Department of Cancer Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Susan Prosser
- Department of Library Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Jared Torkington
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sadie E F Jones
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sarah H Gwynne
- Department of Cancer Services, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, UK
| | - Christopher J Peters
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Toussaint L, Teixeira Farinha H, Barras JL, Demartines N, Sempoux C, Hübner M. Histological regression of gastrointestinal peritoneal metastases after systemic chemotherapy. Pleura Peritoneum 2021; 6:113-119. [PMID: 34676284 PMCID: PMC8482450 DOI: 10.1515/pp-2021-0118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives Peritoneal metastases (PM) are relatively resistant to systemic chemotherapy, and data on histological response to therapy is rare. The aim of this study was to quantify the treatment response of PM after systemic chemotherapy. Methods Retrospective monocentric cohort study of 47 consecutive patients with PM from gastrointestinal origin undergoing surgery (cytoreduction: CRS + Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy [HIPEC] or Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy [PIPAC]) after prior systemic chemotherapy from 1.2015 to 3.2019. Tumor response was assessed using the 4-scale Peritoneal Regression Grading System (PRGS) (4: vital tumor to 1: complete response). Results Patients had a median of 2 (range: 1-7) lines and 10 (3-39) cycles of prior systemic chemotherapy. A median of four biopsies (range: 3-8) was taken with a total of 196 analyzed specimens. Twenty-four biopsies (12%) showed no histological regression (PRGS4), while PRGS 3, two and one were diagnosed in 37 (19%), 39 (20%), and 69 (49%) specimens, respectively. A significant heterogeneity was found between peritoneal biopsies in 51% patients. PRGS correlated strongly with peritoneal spread (PCI, p<0.0001), and was improved in patients with more than nine cycles of systemic chemotherapy (p=0.04). Median survival was higher in patients with PRGS < 1.8 (Quartiles one and 2) than higher (Q3 and Q4), but the difference did not reach significance in this small cohort. Conclusions PRGS is an objective too to describe histological response of PM of GI origin after systemic chemotherapy. This response differs significantly between patients, allowing to distinguish between chemosensitive and chemoresistant tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Toussaint
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Hugo Teixeira Farinha
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean-Luc Barras
- Institute of Pathology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Nicolas Demartines
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Christine Sempoux
- Institute of Pathology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Martin Hübner
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Lurvink RJ, Rovers KP, Nienhuijs SW, Creemers GJ, Burger JWA, de Hingh IHJ. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases-a systematic review. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 12:S242-S258. [PMID: 33968441 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-20-257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) is increasingly used as a palliative treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study aimed to systematically review all clinical studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of PIPAC-OX in patients with CPM. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify all clinical studies that included at least one patient with CPM treated with PIPAC-OX and reported one of the following outcomes: adverse events, tumor response, quality of life, secondary cytoreductive surgery, progression-free survival, overall survival, and environmental safety of PIPAC-OX. Results were narratively described. Of 28 included studies, only 14 non-comparative studies separately reported at least one outcome of PIPAC-OX for CPM, of which only two studies specifically focused on this group. These 14 studies reported adverse events (5 studies), tumor response (5 studies), secondary cytoreductive surgery (4 studies), progression-free survival (1 study), overall survival (5 studies), and environmental safety (2 studies). Except for 5 studies (describing 26 patients), none of the included studies stratified their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and none of the studies reporting survival outcomes stratified results for line of palliative treatment, complicating interpretation. No PIPAC-OX related deaths were reported. No occupational platinum was detected during PIPAC-OX. The available evidence regarding PIPAC-OX for CPM is limited and difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, PIPAC-OX appears safe in patients with CPM and safe for operating personnel. To increase insight in the role of PIPAC-OX in this setting, investigators of ongoing and future studies are encouraged to report separate outcomes of PIPAC-OX for CPM, to stratify their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and to stratify survival results for line of palliative treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin J Lurvink
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Koen P Rovers
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Simon W Nienhuijs
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Geert-Jan Creemers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - Ignace H J de Hingh
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.,GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Initial Single-center Experience of PIPAC in Patients With Unresectable Peritoneal Metastasis. Cir Esp 2020; 99:354-360. [PMID: 32762956 DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2020.06.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Revised: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 06/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Peritoneal carcinomatosis remains a condition with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Pressurized Intrapertioneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been developed as a new tool for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy with low morbidity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial experience of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis at our hospital. METHODS A prospective study between January 2019 and February 2020 was carried at a tertiary public hospital. Primary tumor, ascites volume, PCI, chemotherapy regimen, operative time, morbidity, length of hospital stay and mortality were recorded for analysis. RESULTS We analyzed 9 PIPAC procedures performed in 5patients. Median PCI was 27.6 (24-35). Median surgical time was 93minutes (70-125). Only one adverse event occurred out of 9 procedures (Clavien-DindoII). Median length of hospital stay was 2days (1-4). Mortality was 0%. CONCLUSION PIPAC seems to be a feasible and safe procedure to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis, with low morbidity and short hospital stay.
Collapse
|