Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastases of pancreas and biliary tract cancer

Management of Peritoneal Metastasis in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

The peritoneum is the second most common site of metastasis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Up to half of all patients that undergo curative-intent resection eventually develop peritoneal metastasis (PM), which accounts for significant morbidity and drives mortality. Despite recent advances in management, PM is associated with very poor prognosis, which is often measured in weeks to months. Clinical manifestations including bowel obstruction, ascites, and urinary obstruction have profound impact on quality of life. Even with relatively advanced disease, PM often remains occult on imaging and thus tend to be underdiagnosed and understudied. Many patients with peritoneal-only PM are excluded from clinical trials because response cannot be measured by standard radiographic criteria. Furthermore, as patients with PM are not eligible for surgical resection and low-volume peritoneal disease is often not amenable to percutaneous biopsy, tissue samples for peritoneal-specific translational studies are limited. Intraperitoneal therapeutics have been proposed as an attractive option for PM, as better penetration of tumor tissue can be achieved with less systemic toxicity compared with intravenous chemotherapy. Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), typically combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), is an option for select patients with PM from gynecologic or gastrointestinal primary, and for patients with primary peritoneal mesothelioma. However, the incorporation of locoregional therapy for PM in patients with PDAC has been poorly studied given the aggressive nature of pancreatic cancer and overall poor prognosis. With recent advances in existing treatment options, there may be a subset of patients who may derive benefits from locoregional control with cytoreduction and/or intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Critically, additional work is needed to determine PM-favorable clinical and tumoral predictive biomarkers to identify patients who may benefit from a more aggressive approach. We describe the current state of management of patients with peritoneal metastasis from PDAC and review the available data exploring peritoneal-directed therapy with cytoreductive surgery and/or intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

PIPAC Pharmacologic and Clinical Data

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) emerged as an innovative intraperitoneal chemotherapy delivery system to overcome the issue of limited efficacy of systemic therapies to induce response in peritoneal malignancies. Promising results for patients with mesothelioma peritonei and peritoneal metastasis from gastric, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and hepatobiliary tumors origin are changing the landscape for patients otherwise just facing palliative treatment. Ongoing trials will shed more light on the actual benefits of PIPAC.

Combined Nabpaclitaxel pressurized intraPeritoneal aerosol chemotherapy with systemic Nabpaclitaxel-Gemcitabine chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer peritoneal metastases: protocol of single-arm, open-label, phase II trial (Nab-PIPAC trial)

Objectives

Current therapies show limited efficacy against peritoneal metastases (PM) from pancreatic cancer. Pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method. Recently, a dose-escalation study identified the safe dose of Nabpaclitaxel for PIPAC administration, an ideal intraperitoneal chemotherapy agent against pancreatic cancer. Combining systemic NabPaclitaxel-Gemcitabine with NabPaclitaxel-PIPAC may enhance disease control in pancreatic cancer patients with PM.

Methods

The Nab-PIPAC trial is a single-center, prospective, open-label, phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05371223). Its primary goal is to evaluate the antitumor activity of the combined treatment based on Disease Control Rate (DCR) using RECISTv.1.1 criteria. Secondary objectives include feasibility, safety, pathological response, progression-free and overall survival, nutritional status, quality of life, pharmacokinetics of NabPaclitaxel-PIPAC, and PM molecular evolution via translational research. The treatment protocol consists of three courses, each with two cycles of intravenous NabPaclitaxel-Gemcitabine and one cycle of NabPaclitaxel-PIPAC, with standard metastatic pancreatic cancer doses for the former and 112.5 mg/m2 for the latter. Sample size follows Simon's two-stage design: 12 patients in stage one and 26 in stage two (80 % power, 0.1 alpha).

Results

Partial results will be available after first stage enrollment.

Conclusions

This trial aims to determine the antitumor efficacy and safety of combining NabPaclitaxel-PIPAC with systemic NabPaclitaxel-Gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer patients with PM.

Modified scoring system for the quantitative assessment of histological regression in peritoneal carcinomatosis after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: A pilot study

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is one of the leading causes of death in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Newer locoregional treatment concepts include pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), the regional application of pressurized chemotherapeutic agents to the abdominal cavity, which is usually performed every 4 to 8 weeks. One of the main challenges of PIPAC therapy remains the objective assessment of treatment response. The present study describes a new scoring system to histologically assess the regression of peritoneal cancer following PIPAC therapy, quantitative assessment of histological regression in peritoneal carcinomatosis (QARP). Peritoneal biopsies from 27 patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC were obtained and processed in a standardized fashion. Biopsies were scored according to the QARP grading system. The five-tiered system was graded as follows, Grade 0, no residual tumor cells with regressive changes present; grade 1, 1-25% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with regressive changes present; grade 2, 26-50% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with regressive changes present; grade 3, 51-75% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with few regressive changes; grade 4, >75% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with minimal or no regressive changes. Based on the new grading system, the study cohort was divided into QARP responders and QARP non-responders following PIPAC treatment. Higher QARP scores were significantly correlated with higher PCI scores (r=0.32; P=0.007). However, no difference in overall survival was detected between QARP responders and QARP non-responders. Further studies are required to ascertain the reproducibility and prognostic significance of QARP.

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.

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.

Progress in the Treatment of Peritoneal Metastatic Cancer and the Application of Therapeutic Nanoagents

Peritoneal metastatic cancer is a cancer caused by the direct growth of cancer cells from the primary site through the bloodstream, lymph, or peritoneum, which is a difficult part of current clinical treatment. In the abdominal cavity of patients with metastatic peritoneal cancer, there are usually nodules of various sizes and malignant ascites. Among them, nodules of different sizes can obstruct intestinal movement and form intestinal obstruction, while malignant ascites can cause abdominal distension and discomfort, and even cause patients to have difficulty in breathing. The pathology and physiology of peritoneal metastatic cancer are complex and not fully understood. The main hypothesis is "seed" and "soil"; i.e., cells from the primary tumor are shed and implanted in the peritoneal cavity (peritoneal metastasis). In the last two decades, the main treatment modalities used clinically are cytoreductive surgery (CRS), systemic chemotherapy, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and combined treatment, all of which help to improve patient survival and quality of life (QOL). However, the small-molecule chemotherapeutic drugs used clinically still have problems such as rapid drug metabolism and systemic toxicity. With the rapid development of nanotechnology in recent years, therapeutic nanoagents for the treatment of peritoneal metastatic cancer have been gradually developed, which has improved the therapeutic effect and reduced the systemic toxicity of small-molecule chemotherapeutic drugs to a certain extent. In addition, nanomaterials have been developed not only as therapeutic agents but also as imaging agents to guide peritoneal tumor CRS. In this review, we describe the etiology and pathological features of peritoneal metastatic cancer, discuss in detail the clinical treatments that have been used for peritoneal metastatic cancer, and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the different clinical treatments and the QOL of the treated patients, followed by a discussion focusing on the progress, obstacles, and challenges in the use of therapeutic nanoagents in peritoneal metastatic cancer. Finally, therapeutic nanoagents and therapeutic tools that may be used in the future for the treatment of peritoneal metastatic cancer are prospected.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, reasons for interrupting treatment: a systematic review of the literature

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) gives encouraging results in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The current recommendations require at least 3 sessions of PIPAC. However, some patients do not complete the full treatment course and stop after only 1 or 2 procedures, hence the limited benefit. A literature review was performed, with search terms including "PIPAC" and "pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy."

Content

Only articles describing the causes for premature termination of the PIPAC treatment were analysed. The systematic search identified 26 published clinical articles related to PIPAC and reporting causes for stopping PIPAC.

Summary

The series range from 11 to 144 patients, with a total of 1352 patients treated with PIPAC for various tumours. A total of 3088 PIPAC treatments were performed. The median number of PIPAC treatments per patient was 2.1, the median PCI score at the time of the first PIPAC was 19 and the number of patients who did not complete the recommended 3 sessions of PIPAC was 714 (52.8%). Disease progression was the main reason for early termination of the PIPAC treatment (49.1%). The other causes were death, patients' wishes, adverse events, conversion to curative cytoreductive surgery and other medical reasons (embolism, pulmonary infection, etc…).

Outlook

Further investigations are necessary to better understand the causes for interrupting PIPAC treatment and also improving the selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from PIPAC.

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.

Response Evaluation in Patients with Peritoneal Metastasis Treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

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.

Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Surface Malignancies

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease.

Synopsis of a clinical practice guideline for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with peritoneal dissemination in Japan; Japan Peritoneal Malignancy Study Group

Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with peritoneal dissemination have a dismal prognosis because discontinuation of systemic chemotherapy is required for massive ascites or poor performance status. The natural history, diagnosis and treatment of PDAC with peritoneal dissemination have not been fully investigated. We systematically reviewed published information on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of PDAC with peritoneal dissemination using the PubMed database (2000-2020) and provided recommendations in response to clinical questions. This guideline was created according to the "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Guide 2017". The literature quality and body of evidence were evaluated with the GRADE System and classified into four levels ("strong", "medium", "weak", "very weak"). The strength of each final recommendation was decided by a vote of committee members based on the GRADE Grid method. These guidelines address three subjects: diagnostic, chemotherapeutic, and surgical approaches. They include nine clinical questions and statements with recommendation strengths, evidence levels, and agreement rates, in addition to one "column". This is the English synopsis of the 2021 Japanese clinical practice guideline for PDAC with peritoneal dissemination. It summarizes the clinical evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of PDAC with peritoneal dissemination and provides future perspectives.

Development of rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy to enhance drug delivery into the peritoneum

This study aims to evaluate the drug distribution, tissue concentrations, penetration depth, pharmacokinetic properties, and toxicities after rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (RIPAC) in pigs. Because relevant medical devices have not been introduced, we developed our prototype of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and RIPAC by adding a conical pendulum motion device for rotating the nozzle. RIPAC and PIPAC were conducted using 150 ml of 1% methylene blue to evaluate the drug distribution and 3.5 mg of doxorubicin in 50 ml of 0.9% NaCl to evaluate the tissue concentrations and penetration depth, pharmacokinetic properties, and toxicities. All agents were sprayed as aerosols via the nozzle, DreamPen^® (Dalim Biotech, Gangwon, South Korea), with a velocity of 5 km/h at a flow rate of 30 ml/min under a pressure of 7 bars, and capnoperitoneum of 12 mmHg was maintained for 30 min. As a result, RIPAC showed a wider distribution and stronger intensity than PIPAC. Compared with PIPAC, RIPAC demonstrated high values of the tissue concentration in the central, right upper, epigastrium, left upper, left lower, right lower, and right flank regions (median, 375.5-2124.9 vs. 161.7-1240 ng/ml; p ≤ .05), and higher values of the depth of concentrated diffusion and depth of maximal diffusion (median, 232.5-392.7 vs. 116.9-240.1 μm; 291.2-551.2 vs. 250.5-362.4 μm; p ≤ .05) in all regions except for bowels. In RIPAC, the pharmacokinetic properties reflected hemodynamic changes during capnoperitoneum, and there were no related toxicities. Conclusively, RIPAC may have the potential to enhance drug delivery into the peritoneum compared to PIPAC.

The emergence of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy as a palliative treatment option for patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases: a narrative review

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases. Potential advantages of PIPAC over current treatment options are a homogeneous intraperitoneal distribution, low local and systemic toxicity, and enhanced tumour penetration. Given these possible benefits, PIPAC is increasingly implemented in many centres worldwide. Scientific research into PIPAC is currently available from in vitro/in vivo/in animal studies, retrospective cohorts in humans, and phase I and II studies in humans. There are no results from randomised trials comparing PIPAC with conventional treatment, such as palliative systemic therapy. This narrative review aimed to provide an overview of the currently available literature on PIPAC. In general, repetitive PIPAC was feasible and safe for patients and operating room personnel. Primary and secondary non-access rates varied from 0-17% and 0-15%, respectively. Iatrogenic bowel injury was observed in 0-3% of PIPAC procedures. CTCAE grade 1-2 complications were common, mostly consisting of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. CTCAE grade 3-4 complications were uncommon, occurring on 0-15% of PIPAC procedures. Post-operative mortality rates of 0-2% were reported. The risk of occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs was very low when strict safety guidelines were followed. Clinical heterogeneity was high in most studies, since, in general, patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases from a variety of primary tumours were included. Also, patients received either PIPAC monotherapy or PIPAC combined with concomitant systemic therapy, and were able to receive PIPAC in any line of palliative treatment. Since the results were generally not stratified for these three important factors, this severely complicates the interpretation of results. Based on the current literature, PIPAC may be regarded as a promising palliative treatment option in patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases. Initial results show that it is feasible and safe. However, well designed and (ideally) randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to determine the additional value of PIPAC in this setting. Until then, PIPAC should preferably be performed in the setting of clinical trials.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for rare gynecologic indications: peritoneal metastases from breast and endometrial cancer

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) in patients with breast (BC) and endometrial cancer (EC) is rare and treatment options are limited. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) has demonstrated efficacy against PM from various cancers, but its efficacy in BC/EC patients is unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with PM from BC/EC undergoing PIPAC with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² and cisplatin 7.5 mg/m². Data were collected within an international prospective PIPAC registry. Study outcomes were microscopic tumor regression grade (TRG), survival, adverse events (CTCAE), and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

150 PIPAC procedures in 44 patients (BC/EC = 28/16; mean age 58.8 ± 10.1 and 63.2 ± 10.1 years, respectively) were analyzed. The mean number of PIPACs per patient was 3 (range 0-9) and 3.5 (range 0-10), respectively. Primary/secondary non-access occurred in 4/3 of 150 (5%) procedures. PIPAC induced objective tumor regression as demonstrated by repetitive PM biopsies in 73% (32/44) of patients. Peri- and postoperative CTCAE grade 3 and 4 complications were observed in 12/150 (8%) of procedures. No grade 5 event was observed. After a median follow up of 5.7 (IQR 2.7-13.0) months, overall median survival was 19.6 (95% CI: 7.8-31.5) months (from first PIPAC). QoL indicators (general health, nausea, fatigue, constipation, pain, dyspnea, social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning) all improved or were maintained throughout PIPAC treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive intraperitoneal chemotherapy with PIPAC is feasible and safe in patients with PM from BC and EC. PIPAC induces significant histological regression of PM while maintaining QoL.

Systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): A case report of a multimodal treatment for peritoneal metastases of pancreatic origin

•

Integration of PIPAC to systemic chemotherapy can have good tolerance profile.

•

Repeated biopsies performed during PIPAC allowed therapy-response monitoring.

•

Analysis of biopsies performed during PIPAC allowed tailoring of chemotherapy.

•

Integration of PIPAC to systemic chemotherapy can permit good quality of life.

Introduction

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with peritoneal metastases (PM) has a dismal prognosis and palliative systemic chemotherapy, which represents the standard treatment option, has significant pharmacokinetics limitations and low efficacy. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new method of drug delivery that is expected to maximize exposure of peritoneal nodules to antiblastic agents. A combination of systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC may be valuable.

Presentation of case

A 55 years old male affected by PDAC with synchronous PM underwent a multimodal treatment comprising systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC without any procedural-related adverse events. Tumor genomic profiling evaluation from peritoneal biopsies addressed further tailored systemic chemotherapy.

Discussion

The presented case illustrates the possibility of adding PIPAC to systemic chemotherapy with a fair tolerance profile and good quality of life while allowing monitoring of therapy-response and tailoring of the antiblastic treatment.

Restricted access to innovative surgical technique related to a specific training, is it ethical? Example of the PIPAC procedure. A systematic review and an experts survey

OBJECTIVE

Using the example of Pressurized Intra Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), we analyse the development model of this procedure and provide an ethical analysis of the involvement of the industry in a new development.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

In the case of breakthrough innovation, medical training is essential for safe use of the new procedure. In some cases, pharmaceutical companies decide to organise this training. But when it becomes the only training opportunity to use the device, scientists and clinicians could be exposed to a conflict of interest?

METHODS

We performed a literature review of PIPAC publications using the STROBE criteria. Then, we conducted interviews with an expert panel to analyse the ethical impact of involvement of the industry in the development of the PIPAC procedure.

RESULTS

The number of publications has increased every year since the first publication in Germany, where the technology was developed in 2013. The scientific production was of good quality, with a mean STROBE score of 18.2 ± 2.4 out of 22 points. Ten of the 33 included studies declared a conflict of interest. From the interviews, the main axe concerning the implication of the industry was the training model. The company had decided that only trained and approval surgeon could perform the PIPAC procedure. All four interviewed practitioners agreed that it was initially a good way to implement the procedure safely, but later they felt uncomfortable about the control and validation by the industry.

CONCLUSION

Based on the growing number of published papers from a growing number of international centres, the controlled training model is not limiting. However, the different levels of conflict of interest complicate transparency, and we postulated that this development model is limited to the beginning of the procedure diffusion. CLINICALTRIAL.

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT04341337.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin or oxaliplatin for peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma

Background

Systemic chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) with peritoneal metastases (PM) is affected by several pharmacological shortcomings and low clinical efficacy. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is expected to maximize exposure of peritoneal nodules to antiblastic agents. This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of PIPAC for PM of PDAC and CC origin.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC and CC cases with PM treated with PIPAC at two European referral centers for peritoneal disease. We prospectively recorded from August 2016 to May 2019 demographic, clinical, surgical, and oncological data. We performed a feasibility and safety assessment and an efficacy analysis based on clinical and pathological regression.

Results

Twenty patients with PM from PDAC (14) and CC (six) underwent 45 PIPAC administrations. Cisplatin-doxorubicin or oxaliplatin were administered to eight and 12 patients, respectively. We experienced one intraoperative complication (small bowel perforation) and 18 grade 1-2 postoperative adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. A pathological regression was recorded in 50% of patients (62% in the cisplatin-doxorubicin cohort and 42% in the oxaliplatin one). Median survival from the first PIPAC was 9.7 and 10.9 months for PDAC and CC, respectively.

Conclusion

PIPAC resulted feasible and safe without relevant toxicity issues, with both cisplatin-doxorubicin and oxaliplatin. The pathological response observed supports the evidence of antitumoral activity. Despite the study limitations, these outcomes are encouraging, recommending PIPAC in prospective, controlled trials in the palliative setting or the first line chemotherapy for PM from PDAC and CC.

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: rationale, evidence, and potential indications

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was introduced as a new treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases in November, 2011. Reports of its feasibility, tolerance, and efficacy have encouraged centres worldwide to adopt PIPAC as a novel drug delivery technique. In this Review, we detail the technique and rationale of PIPAC and critically assess its evidence and potential indications. A systematic search was done to identify all relevant literature on PIPAC published between Jan 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2019. A total of 106 articles or reports on PIPAC were identified, and 45 clinical studies on 1810 PIPAC procedures in 838 patients were included for analysis. Repeated PIPAC delivery was feasible in 64% of patients with few intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications (3% for each in prospective studies). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events greater than grade 2) occurred after 12-15% of procedures, and commonly included bowel obstruction, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Repeated PIPAC did not have a negative effect on quality of life. Using PIPAC, an objective clinical response of 62-88% was reported for patients with ovarian cancer (median survival of 11-14 months), 50-91% for gastric cancer (median survival of 8-15 months), 71-86% for colorectal cancer (median survival of 16 months), and 67-75% (median survival of 27 months) for peritoneal mesothelioma. From our findings, PIPAC has been shown to be feasible and safe. Data on objective response and quality of life were encouraging. Therefore, PIPAC can be considered as a treatment option for refractory, isolated peritoneal metastasis of various origins. However, its use in further indications needs to be validated by prospective studies.

Systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): A bidirectional approach for gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis

BACKGROUND

Few patients affected by gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) are offered locoregional treatment, despite several proof-of-efficacy trials. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged in recent years as a promising tool to control peritoneal carcinomatosis. The combination of PIPAC with systemic chemotherapy may offer a greater clinical benefit than standard treatment alone.

METHODS

A single-center cohort of 28 consecutive patients affected by GCPM was scheduled for bidirectional treatment, comprising PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy, from September 2017 to September 2019. Data recorded included safety, efficacy and survival outcomes. Ascite volumes, the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) and pathological response through the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) were compared in those patients who underwent more than one PIPAC procedure.

RESULTS

Forty-six PIPAC procedures were administered, with a mean of 1.7 PIPAC procedures per patient. The median time to resume systemic chemotherapy after PIPAC was 6 days (range 4-7). Concerning safety, two grade 3-4 CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) toxicity events and one intraoperative complication were recorded. Thirteen patients repeated PIPAC. A pathological response was recorded in 61.5% of patients (one with complete and seven with partial regression). The median overall survival was 12.3 months in the overall population and 15.0 months in patients undergoing more than one PIPAC procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

A bidirectional approach for GCPM was feasible and safe, as the PIPAC procedure integrates well with several systemic chemotherapy regimens. The pathological response demonstrated the antitumoral efficacy of PIPAC. The proposed bidirectional approach may be further investigated in the first-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer.

Next-generation sequencing and histological response assessment in peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with PIPAC

Background

Peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer (PM-PC) may be treated with repeated pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect cancer-related mutations in peritoneal quadrant biopsies (QBs) and peritoneal fluid (PF) after systemic and PIPAC treatment has not been evaluated. Around 90% of pancreatic cancers (PCs) harbour a KRAS mutation, making PC ideal for the evaluation of this aspect.

Aims

Evaluation of PM-PC in terms of (1) histological response to PIPAC using Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), (2) clinical characteristics and (3) frequency of mutations in QBs and PF before and after PIPAC.

Methods

Peritoneal QBs and PF were obtained prior to each PIPAC. NGS for 22 cancer-related genes was performed on primary tumours, QBs and PFs. Response was assessed by the four-tiered PRGS.

Results

Sixteen patients treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures were included. The mean PRGS was reduced from 1.91 to 1.58 (p=0.02). Fifty-seven specimens (13 primary tumours, 2 metastatic lymph nodes, 16 PFs and 26 QB sets) were analysed with NGS. KRAS mutation was found in 14/16 patients (87.50%) and in QBs, primary tumours and PF in 8/12 (66.67%), 8/13 (61.53%) and 6/9 (66.67%). The median overall survival was 9.9 months (SE 1.5, 95% CI 4.9 to 13.9).

Conclusion

PIPAC induces histological response in the majority of patients with PM-PC. KRAS mutation can be found in PM-PC after PIPAC at a frequency similar to the primaries. NGS may be used to detect predictive mutations in PM-PC of various origins, also when only post-PIPAC QBs or PFs are available.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a review of the introduction of a new surgical technology using the IDEAL framework

BACKGROUND

The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, Long-term study) framework is a scheme of investigation for innovative surgical therapeutic interventions. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure based on laparoscopy to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastases, introduced in 2011. The aim of this article was to review literature on PIPAC and assess whether development of the technique has followed the IDEAL framework.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and Embase was carried out to identify scientific reports on PIPAC published between January 2000 and February 2019. The studies were categorized according to the IDEAL stages.

RESULTS

Eighty-six original research papers on PIPAC were identified. There were 23 stage 0, 18 stage 1, 25 stage 2a and six stage 2b studies. Protocol papers for stage 1, 2b and 3 studies, and trial registrations for stage 2a studies, were also identified. The number of centres publishing reports and the number of publications has increased each year. Overall, there has been progression through the IDEAL stages; however, about 60 per cent of clinical reports published in 2018 were stage 1 Idea-type studies.

CONCLUSION

Since its introduction, studies investigating PIPAC have progressed in line with the IDEAL framework. However, the majority of studies reported recently were stage 0 and 1 studies.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy, a Palliative Treatment Approach for Patients With Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Description of Method and Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal metastases arise in patients with a variety of primary cancers, and are associated with a poor prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment; however, the morbidity is considerable and the survival benefit is modest. Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy is a potentially curative treatment available to a minority of patients; however, most develop recurrent disease. A novel palliative treatment for peritoneal metastases, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, has recently been introduced. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy utilizes an aerosol of chemotherapy in carbon dioxide gas. It is instilled into the abdomen under pressure via laparoscopic ports. No cytoreduction is performed. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy can be repeated at 6-week intervals. Oxaliplatin or cis-platinum and doxorubicin have been used to date.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review and evaluate the method, and the preclinical and early clinical results of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and the Cochrane Library were the data sources for the study.

STUDY SELECTION

Peer-reviewed series of greater than 10 patients, with sufficient patient data, through April 2019, were selected.

INTERVENTION

Patients with peritoneal metastases underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient dropout, histologic tumor response, adverse events, and 30-day mortality were the primary outcomes measured.

RESULTS

A total of 921 patients with peritoneal metastases were brought to the operating room for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. The number of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy treatments administered was as follows: 1 treatment, 862 (94%); 2 treatments, 645 (70%); and 3 treatments, 390 patients (42%). Initial laparoscopic access was not possible in 59 patients (6.4%). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were noted in 13.7% of the patients who, collectively, underwent a total of 2116 treatments. The 30-day mortality was 2.4% (22/921).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the heterogeneity of reported data and primary tumor types and by the lack of long-term survival data.

CONCLUSIONS

Early clinical results are encouraging, but tumor-specific, prospective, randomized trials are needed to compare pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy to systemic chemotherapy. This method has yet to be introduced to the United States. It is another therapeutic option for patients with peritoneal metastases and will broaden the patient base for future clinical trials.