Multicentric initial experience with the use of the pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the management of unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis

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.

Impact of Body Mass Index on Postoperative Pain and Opioid Administration After Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique, developed for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). In this retrospective observational study we assessed the impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.

METHODS

We analyzed pain scores after 100 PIPAC procedures using either oxaliplatin or doxorubicin-cisplatin performed in 49 patients with PC between July 2016 and September 2020. The patients were divided into 3 groups (BMI <18.5, 18.5 ≥ BMI < 25, BMI≥25). Pain was self-rated on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

Univariate logistic regression analysis identified oxaliplatin and PCI score to be associated with moderate to severe pain (VAS 4-10 at 8 am D1) after adjustment on BMI (OR [95% CI]; 3.26[1.00 - 10.65] p=0.050) and (OR [95% CI]; 1.09[1.01 - 1.17] p=0.019). The level of pain appeared significantly different between the treatment groups (median 2.5[0; 5] vs 0[0; 2.5] p=0.0017) irrespective of BMI (p =0.705 and p=0.118). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified moderate to severe pain and synchronous PC to be associated with greater use of opioids (OR [95% CI]: 3.91 [1.24 - 12.32]) and (OR [95% CI]: 5.16 [1.71 - 15.58]; respectively. Opioids were administered after 45 procedures (45%) and was comparable between the treatment groups. Opioid administration and length-of-stay were similar among BMI bands.

CONCLUSION

BMI is not related to postoperative pain or opioid use, howevermoderate to severe pain and synchronous PC are factors associated with requiring opioids.

Regional Therapy Approaches for Gastric Cancer with Limited Peritoneal Disease

PURPOSE

Despite advances in systemic therapy, outcomes of patients with gastric cancer (GC) peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) remain poor, in part because of poor penetrance of systemic therapy into peritoneal metastasis due to the plasma-peritoneal barrier and anarchic intra-tumoral circulation. Hence, regional treatment approach with administration of chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal cavity (intraperitoneal, IP) under various conditions, combined with or without cytoreductive surgery (CRS) has remained an area of significant research interest. The purpose of this review is to provide high-level evidence for regional treatment approaches in the management of GCPC with limited peritoneal disease.

METHODS

A review of the current literature and ongoing clinical trials for regional IP therapies for GCPC was performed. Studies included in this review comprise of phase III randomized controlled trials, non-randomized phase II studies, high-impact retrospective studies, and active ongoing clinical trials for each available IP modality.

RESULTS

The three common IP approaches are heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC) and more recently introduced, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC). These IP approaches have been combined with systemic therapy and/or CRS with varying degrees of promising results, demonstrating evidence of improvements in survival rates and peritoneal disease control. Patient selection, optimization of systemic therapy, and completeness of cytoreduction have emerged as major factors influencing the design of contemporary and ongoing trials.

CONCLUSION

IP chemotherapy has a clear role in the management of patients with GCPC, and when combined with CRS in appropriately selected patients has the potential to significantly improve survival. Ongoing and upcoming IP therapy clinical trials hold great promise to shape the treatment paradigm for GCPC.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

PIPAC consists in delivering normothermic chemotherapy solution directly into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. Currently PIPAC is considered as a palliative treatment for patients suffering from non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. We performed a SR to assess tolerance and response of this novel method among patient with OC.

METHODS

We searched electronic database PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinical Trials.gov. We only included clinical studies reporting PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin in patients with ovarian cancer.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 4 studies. In 3 studies all patients were pretreated with cytoreductive surgery, in 1 study surgery was performed in 8/34 (23 %) patients. Mean PCI at first PIPAC procedure ranged from 16.3 to 19.6. All studies reported the proportion of patients with ascites at the first PIPAC with a pooled rate of 48,3 %. Pooled rate of CTCAE Grade 3 toxicity calculated on the total number of PIPAC was 6 % and Grade 4 was 0.9 %. One study reported two cases of small bowel perforation related or potentially related to PIPAC. On study reported a cumulative survival after 400 days of 62 % and a mean actuarial survival time of all patients who underwent PIPAC of 442 days. In another study the mean time to progression was 144 days (95 % CI 122-168 days).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin appear to have a good safety profile with low toxicity and encouraging trend in terms of overall survival.

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

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

PIPAC for Gastrointestinal Malignancies

The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood-peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided.

Bidirectional Approach with PIPAC and Systemic Chemotherapy for Patients with Synchronous Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastases (GCPM)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with systemic chemotherapy as a bidirectional approach for gastric cancer (GC) patients with synchronous peritoneal metastases (SPM).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective PIPAC database was queried for patients who underwent a bidirectional approach between October 2019 and April 2022 at two high-volume GC surgery units in Italy (Verona and Siena). Surgical and oncological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between October 2019 and April 2022, 74 PIPAC procedures in 42 consecutive patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were performed-32 patients treated in Verona and 10 in Siena. Twenty-seven patients (64%) were female and median age at first PIPAC was 60.5 years (I-III quartiles: 49-68 years). Median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 16 (I-III quartiles: 8-26) and 25 patients (59%) had at least two PIPAC procedures. Major complications according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE; 3 and 4) occurred in three (4%) procedures, and, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (>3a), one (1%) severe complication occurred. There were no reoperations or deaths within 30 days. Median overall survival (mOS) from diagnosis was 19.6 months (range 14-24), and mOS from first PIPAC was 10.5 months (range 7-13). Excluding cases with very heavy metastatic peritoneal burden, with PCI from 2 to 26, treated with more than one PIPAC, mOS from diagnosis was 22 months (range 14-39). Eleven patients (26%) underwent curative-intent surgery after a bidirectional approach. R0 was achieved in nine (82%) patients and complete pathological response was obtained in three (27%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient selection is associated with bidirectional approach efficacy and feasibility for SPM GC treatment, which may allow potentially curative surgical radicalization in highly selected cases.

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.

Localized chemotherapy approaches and advanced drug delivery strategies: a step forward in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a common outcome of epithelial ovarian carcinoma and is the leading cause of death for these patients. Tumor location, extent, peculiarities of the microenvironment, and the development of drug resistance are the main challenges that need to be addressed to improve therapeutic outcome. The development of new procedures such as HIPEC (Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy) and PIPAC (Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) have enabled locoregional delivery of chemotherapeutics, while the increasingly efficient design and development of advanced drug delivery micro and nanosystems are helping to promote tumor targeting and penetration and to reduce the side effects associated with systemic chemotherapy administration. The possibility of combining drug-loaded carriers with delivery via HIPEC and PIPAC represents a powerful tool to improve treatment efficacy, and this possibility has recently begun to be explored. This review will discuss the latest advances in the treatment of PC derived from ovarian cancer, with a focus on the potential of PIPAC and nanoparticles in terms of their application to develop new therapeutic strategies and future prospects.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM): a prospective single-center registry study

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new, palliative approach for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs). Its main goals are to control symptoms and ascites. For this experimental procedure, treatment efficacy and patient safety need to be closely monitored.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry study for patients with PSMs. Cisplatin (C) (7.5 mg/m² body surface) and doxorubicin (D) (1.5 mg/m²) were administered laparoscopically via PIPAC.

RESULTS

Between November 2015 and June 2020, we recorded data from 108 patients and 230 scheduled procedures. Tumor burden, patient fitness, quality of life, operating time and in-hospital stay remained stable over consecutive procedures. We recorded 21 non-access situations and 14 intraoperative complications (11 intestinal injuries, and three aspirations while inducing anesthesia). Three or more previous abdominal surgeries or cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) were risk factors for non-access and intestinal injuries (χ², p ≤ 0.01). Five Grade IV and three Grade V postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) occurred. Median overall survival was 264 days (interquartile range 108-586). Therapies were primarily discontinued because of death (34%), progressive (26%), or regressive (16%) disease.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC is effective in stabilizing PSMs and retaining quality of life in selected patients. Earlier abdominal surgeries and CRS with HIPEC should be considered when determining the indication for PIPAC. Randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate PIPAC's therapeutic benefits compared to systemic chemotherapy (sCHT) alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03100708 (April 2017).

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.

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.

Multicenter dose-escalation Phase I trial of mitomycin C pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy in combination with systemic chemotherapy for appendiceal and colorectal peritoneal metastases: rationale and design

Objectives

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from appendiceal cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) has significant morbidity and limited survival. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach to treat PM. We aim to conduct a dose-escalation trial of mitomycin C (MMC)-PIPAC combined with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI) in patients with PM from appendiceal cancer or CRC.

Methods

This is a multicenter Phase I study of MMC-PIPAC (NCT04329494). Inclusion criteria include treatment with at least 4 months of first- or second-line systemic chemotherapy with ineligibility for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Exclusion criteria are: progression on chemotherapy; extraperitoneal metastases; systemic chemotherapy intolerance; bowel obstruction; or poor performance status (ECOG>2). Escalating MMC-PIPAC doses (7-25 mg/m2) will be administered in combination with standard dose systemic FOLFIRI. Safety evaluation will be performed on 15 patients (dose escalation) and six expansion patients: 21 evaluable patients total.

Results

The primary endpoints are recommended MMC dose and safety of MMC-PIPAC with FOLFIRI. Secondary endpoints are assessment of response (by peritoneal regression grade score; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST 1.1], and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), progression free survival, overall survival, technical failure rate, surgical complications, conversion to curative-intent CRS-HIPEC, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Longitudinal blood and tissue specimens will be collected for translational correlatives including pharmacokinetics, circulating biomarkers, immune profiling, and single-cell transcriptomics.

Conclusions

This Phase I trial will establish the recommended dose of MMC-PIPAC in combination with FOLFIRI. Additionally, we expect to detect an early efficacy signal for further development of this therapeutic combination.

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.

Comprehensive Treatment Algorithms of the Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group for Peritoneal Cancer of Gastrointestinal Origin

Peritoneal cancer (PC) is a dire finding, yet in selected patients, long-term survival is possible. Complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) together with combination immunochemotherapy is essential to achieve cure. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are increasingly added to the multimodal treatment. The Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group (SPCG) is an interdisciplinary group of expert clinicians. It has developed comprehensive treatment algorithms for patients with PC from pseudomyxoma peritonei, peritoneal mesothelioma, gastric, and colorectal origin. They include multimodal neoadjuvant treatment, surgical resection, and palliative care. The indication for and results of CRS HIPEC and PIPAC are discussed in light of the current literature. Institutional volume and clinical expertise required to achieve best outcomes are underlined, while inclusion of patients considered for CRS HIPEC and PIPAC in a clinical registry is strongly advised. The present recommendations are in line with current international guidelines and provide the first comprehensive treatment proposal for patients with PC including intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The SPCG comprehensive treatment algorithms provide evidence-based guidance for the multimodal care of patients with PC of gastrointestinal origin that were endorsed by all Swiss clinicians routinely involved in the multimodal care of these challenging patients.

Assessment of postoperative pain after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis

PURPOSE

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique, for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal metastasis (PM). Our objective was to assess postoperative pain and morbidity.

METHODS

Between July 2016 and September 2020, data from 100 consecutive PIPAC procedures with oxaliplatin (PIPAC Ox) or doxorubicin-cisplatin (PIPAC C/D) in 49 patients with PM (all etiologies) were analyzed. Pain was self-assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-10.

RESULTS

The median PIPAC procedures per patient were 2 [1-3]. Patients indicated greatest pain at 4 pm on the day of the procedure (D0) and on postoperative D1 at 8 am and 4 pm. Postprocedural moderate-to-severe pain (VAS 4-10) was more frequent with PIPAC Ox than with PIPAC C/D, respectively 14 (36.8%) vs 7 (13.5%); p = 0.010. Hospitalization was longer for patients with moderate-to-severe pain than for others (median 4 days [3-7] vs 3 days [2-4], p = 0.004). Multivariate analysis identified oxaliplatin as a factor associated with greater pain (OR [95% CI], 2.95 [1.10-7.89]. Opiate administration was similar after PIPAC Ox and PIPAC C/D procedures, p = 0.477.

CONCLUSION

PIPAC was well-tolerated, and pain was well-controlled in the majority of patients. Pain was greatest at 4 pm on D0 and 8 am and 4 pm on D1. PIPAC Ox is associated with greater pain than PIPAC C/D, independently of opiate treatment. Moderate-to-severe pain was associated with longer hospital stays.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in multimodal therapy for patients with oligometastatic peritoneal gastric cancer: a randomized multicenter phase III trial PIPAC VEROne

Objectives

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is the most frequent site of metastases in patients with gastric cancer. Current standard treatment is palliative systemic chemotherapy with very poor prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) resulted in long-term benefits in selected patients. Among patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, a distinctive subset is oligometastatic disease which is characterized by low metastatic burden. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recent technique of intraperitoneal chemotherapy used in combination with systemic chemotherapy with promising results.

Methods

PIPAC VER-One is a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase III clinical trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of PIPAC in combination with systemic chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer and synchronous positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal metastases (peritoneal cancer index [PCI] ≤6). Patients will be randomized into two arms: arm A (control) treated with standard systemic chemotherapy and arm B (experimental) treated with a bidirectional scheme including PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy.

Results

Primary endpoint is the secondary resectability rate. Secondary endpoints are: overall survival (OS), pregression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), histological response assessed both on primary tumor and peritoneal lesions, quality of life (QoL), complication rate (CTCAE v5), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

Conclusions

The role of PIPAC in multimodal treatment for oligometastatic gastric cancer will be investigated in this trial.

Gastric Cancer With Peritoneal Metastasis-A Comprehensive Review of Current Intraperitoneal Treatment Modalities

The treatment of patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer continues to evolve. With various forms of intraperitoneal drug delivery available, it is now possible to reach the sites of peritoneal metastases, which were otherwise sub-optimally covered by systemic chemotherapy, owing to the blood peritoneal barrier. We conducted a narrative review based on an extensive literature research, highlighting the current available intraperitoneal treatment options, which resulted in improved survival in well-selected patients of peritoneally metastasized gastric cancer. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy showed promising results in four different treatment modalities: prophylactic, neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and palliative. It is now possible to choose the type of intraperitoneal treatment/s in combination with systemic treatment/s, depending on patients' general condition and peritoneal disease burden, thus providing individualized treatment to these patients. Randomized controlled trials for the different treatment modalities were mainly conducted in Asia and lack further validation in the other parts of the world. Most recent application tools, such as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, seem promising and need to pass the ongoing clinical trials.

Early postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy for peritoneal metastases with or without pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced for palliative treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) and is currently tested also in the neoadjuvant and prophylactic setting. The aim was therefore to compare safety and tolerance of staging laparoscopy with or without PIPAC.

Methods

This retrospective analysis compared consecutive patients undergoing staging laparoscopy alone for oesogastric cancer with patients having PIPAC for suspected PSM of various origins from January 2015 until January 2020. Safety was assessed by use of the Clavien classification for complications and CTCAE for capturing of adverse events. Pain and nausea were documented by use of a visual analogue scale (VAS: 0–10: maximal intensity).

Results

Overall, 25 PIPAC procedures were compared to 24 staging laparoscopies. PIPAC procedures took a median of 35 min (IQR: 25–67) longer. Four patients experienced at least one complication in either group (p = 0.741). No differences were noted for postoperative nausea (p = 0.961) and pain levels (p = 0.156). Median hospital stay was 2 (IQR: 1–3) for PIPAC and 1 (IQR: 1–2) for the laparoscopy group (p = 0.104).

Conclusions

The addition of PIPAC did not jeopardize safety and postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy alone. Further studies need to clarify its oncological benefits.

Review of Regional Therapies for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases

Simple Summary

Gastric cancer is usually diagnosed at late stages and is associated with poor five-year survival rates. Metastasis to the peritoneal cavity is common and leads to even worse outcomes. Currently, the mainstay of treatment for metastatic gastric cancer is systemic chemotherapy or supportive care. These recommendations remain despite evidence that suggests systemic therapy has poor penetration into the abdominal cavity, limiting efficacy against peritoneal disease. Newer treatments have been developed to address this problem, specifically regional therapies aimed at delivering chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal cavity to eradicate tumor cells. These novel therapies include hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy. Regional therapies may also be combined with surgery to remove both macroscopic and microscopic disease. Although more clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy, early studies have shown promising outcomes with intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Abstract

Gastric cancer carries a poor prognosis and is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Patients with gastric cancer who develop peritoneal metastases have an even more dismal prognosis, with median survival time measured in months. Since studies have demonstrated that systemic chemotherapy has poor penetration into the peritoneum, multimodal treatment with intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been proposed for the treatment of peritoneal metastases and has become the foundation for newer therapeutic techniques and clinical trials. These include heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), which involves the application of heated chemotherapy into the abdomen with or without tumor debulking surgery; normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC), in which non-heated chemotherapy can be delivered into the abdomen via a peritoneal port allowing for repeat dosing; and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC), a newer technique of pressurized and aerosolized chemotherapy delivered into the abdomen during laparoscopy. Early results with intraperitoneal chemotherapy have shown promise in increasing disease-free and overall survival in select patients. Additionally, there may be a palliative effect of these regional therapies. In this review, we explore and summarize these different intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment regimens for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases.

Clinical Outcome for Patients Managed with Low-Dose Cisplatin and Doxorubicin Delivered as Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Metastases of Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used to manage gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM).

METHODS

This study analyzed a prospective database of GCPM patients treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin PIPAC (PIPAC-C/D). The outcome criteria were adverse events, pathologic response [peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS)], and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The PIPAC-C/D procedure was scheduled for 144 patients with a median age of 57 years (range 22-88 years). Access to the abdominal cavity for the first PIPAC failed in 11 patients (7.7 %). A total of 296 procedures were performed for 131 patients. Of the 144 patients, 52 (36.1%) underwent one PIPAC, 32 (22.2%) underwent two PIPACs, 24 (16.7%) underwent three PIPACs, and 21 (14.6%) underwent four or more PIPACs. The overall morbidity/mortality was grade 1 for 22 patients (15.3%), grade 2 for 32 patients (22.2%), grade 3 for 7 patients (4.9%), grade 4 for no patients (0%), and grade 5 for 2 patients (1.4%). Of the 37 patients who had three or more PIPACs eligible for histopathologic response analysis, 27 (73%) had major or complete regression (PRGS 1/2). A median OS of 11 months (range 0-61 months) for the total study population and 16 months (range 2-61 months) for the patients with three or more PIPACs was observed. For 10 patients (7%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, the median OS was 15 months (minimum, 4 months; maximum, 27 months). Multivariate analysis showed three or more PIPACs to be an independent prognostic factor for improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.36; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive PIPAC-C/D ± systemic chemotherapy is associated with low morbidity and mortality rates. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm whether three or more PIPAC-C/Ds improve clinical outcome.

Study Protocol: Phase I Dose Escalation Study of Oxaliplatin, Cisplatin and Doxorubicin Applied as PIPAC in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases

Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel laparoscopic intraperitoneal chemotherapy approach offered in selected patients affected by non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. Drugs doses currently established for nebulization are very low: oxaliplatin (OXA) 120 mg/sm, cisplatin (CDDP) 10.5 mg/sm and doxorubicin (DXR) 2.1 mg/sm. A model-based approach for dose-escalation design in a single PIPAC procedure and subsequent dose escalation steps is planned. The starting dose of oxaliplatin is 100 mg/sm with a maximum estimated dose of 300 mg/sm; an escalation with overdose and under-dose control (for probability of toxicity less than 16% in case of under-dosing and probability of toxicity greater than 33% in case of overdosing) will be further applied. Cisplatin is used in association with doxorubicin: A two-dimensional dose-finding design is applied on the basis of the estimated dose limiting toxicity (DLT) at all combinations. The starting doses are 15 mg/sm for cisplatin and 3 mg/sm for doxorubicin. Safety is assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.03). Secondary endpoints include radiological response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (version 1.1) and pharmacokinetic analyses. This phase I study can provide the scientific basis to maximize the optimal dose of cisplatin, doxorubicin and oxaliplatin applied as PIPAC.

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

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.

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 for recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a narrative review

For recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), it is challenging to resect tumors completely or to get complete remission by intravenous (IV) chemotherapy, and many patients show the resistance to various chemotherapeutic agents for IV chemotherapy ultimately. As an alternative, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced for treating the disease, which delivers chemotherapeutic agents as an aerosol form while maintaining high intraperitoneal (IP) pressure. Based on preclinical studies, PIPAC showed better penetration depth and distribution of drugs into the peritoneum in comparison to conventional IP chemotherapy. Tumor regression on histology and peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) has also been shown in relevant studies. In addition, most of the PIPAC procedures were completed successfully with acceptable toxicity due to the use of a low dose of chemotherapeutic agents. For considering these advantages of PIPAC, we review the current status of PIPAC for treating recurrent ovarian, fallopian or primary peritoneal cancer through literature review.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (Oxaliplatin) for Unresectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Phase II Trial (CRC-PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

Despite its increasing use, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) has never been prospectively investigated as a palliative monotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases in clinical trials. This trial aimed to assess the safety (primary aim) and antitumor activity (key secondary aim) of PIPAC-OX monotherapy in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases.

METHODS

In this two-center, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in any line of palliative treatment underwent 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m²). Key outcomes were major treatment-related adverse events (primary outcome), minor treatment-related adverse events, hospital stay, tumor response (radiological, biochemical, pathological, ascites), progression-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Twenty enrolled patients underwent 59 (median 3, range 1-6) PIPAC-OX procedures. Major treatment-related adverse events occurred in 3 of 20 (15%) patients after 5 of 59 (8%) procedures (abdominal pain, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, iatrogenic pneumothorax, transient liver toxicity), including one possibly treatment-related death (sepsis of unknown origin). Minor treatment-related adverse events occurred in all patients after 57 of 59 (97%) procedures, the most common being abdominal pain (all patients after 88% of procedures) and nausea (65% of patients after 39% of procedures). Median hospital stay was 1 day (range 0-3). Response rates were 0% (radiological), 50% (biochemical), 56% (pathological), and 56% (ascites). Median progression-free and overall survival were 3.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-5.7) and 8.0 months (IQR 6.3-12.6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC-OX monotherapy, some major adverse events occurred and minor adverse events were common. The clinical relevance of observed biochemical, pathological, and ascites responses remains to be determined, especially since radiological response was absent.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

The benefit of repetitive PIPAC specifically in CPM patients has yet to be demonstrated in terms of oncological and functional outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with non-resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of a prospective single-center database of all CPM patients who underwent PIPAC with oxaliplatin 92 mg/m² body surface (PIPAC-Ox). The outcome criteria were adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0), Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), and survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 patients with a median age of 64 years (33-88) were scheduled for PIPAC-Ox. Access to the abdominal cavity for the first application failed in 22/102 (21.6%) patients. A total of 185 PIPACs were performed, with 26/102 (25.5%), 20/102 (19.6%), 17/102 (16.7%), and 17/102 (16.7%) patients undergoing one, two, three, and four or more PIPACs, respectively. Perioperative overall morbidity/mortality Grade I-V occurred in 14 (7.6%), 29 (15.8%), 6 (3.2%), 1 (0.5%), and 1 (0.5%) patient without significant differences between each cycle. Of 27 patients who underwent three or more PIPACs, 20/102 (19.6%) had major/complete CPM regression (PRGS 1-2). In a multivariate analysis, independent predictive factors for > 12 months' survival following the first PIPAC-Ox administration were three or more PIPACs (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-15.2; p = 0.014) and younger patient age (OR 1.058, 95% CI 1.00-1.12; p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitive PIPAC-Ox for CPM patients, alone or combined with perioperative systemic chemotherapy, is feasible. Our data suggest that three or more consecutive PIPAC-Ox cycles for advanced CPM can improve survival.

Role of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Plasticity in Pseudomyxoma Peritonei: Implications for Locoregional Treatments

The mechanisms by which neoplastic cells disseminate from the primary tumor to metastatic sites, so-called metastatic organotropism, remain poorly understood. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) plays a role in cancer development and progression by converting static epithelial cells into the migratory and microenvironment-interacting mesenchymal cells, and by the modulation of chemoresistance and stemness of tumor cells. Several findings highlight that pathways involved in EMT and its reverse process (mesenchymal-epithelial transition, MET), now collectively called epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity (EMP), play a role in peritoneal metastases. So far, the relevance of factors linked to EMP in a unique peritoneal malignancy such as pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) has not been fully elucidated. In this review, we focus on the role of epithelial-mesenchymal dynamics in the metastatic process involving mucinous neoplastic dissemination in the peritoneum. In particular, we discuss the role of expression profiles and phenotypic transitions found in PMP in light of the recent concept of EMP. A better understanding of EMP-associated mechanisms driving peritoneal metastasis will help to provide a more targeted approach for PMP patients selected for locoregional interventions involving cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Prognostic impact of combined progression index based on peritoneal grading regression score and peritoneal cytology in peritoneal metastasis

AIMS

The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) and peritoneal cytology (PC) assess response to chemotherapy in peritoneal metastasis (PM) in a setting of palliative treatment by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Progression has been defined as an increase of PRGS between first and third PIPAC procedures (iPRGS). iPRGSand positive peritoneal cytology were not associated with prognostic impact. These results may be explained by a lack of statistical power. Also, it is not known whether the mean or the highest PRGS among taken peritoneal biopsies bears the highest clinical value. We therefore conducted the largest prospective study to investigate the prognostic impact of PGRS, PC, and their combination, designated as combined progression index (CPI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with PM who underwent >3 PIPAC (n = 112) between December 2016 and February 2019 were prospectively included. A significant difference in OS and PFS according to CPI (used highest value of PRGS) was found (OS: CPI-, 83.3, 95% CI [49.8; NA] vs. CPI+, 48.1, 95% CI [38.5; 66.4] months; and PFS (respectively, 59.7, 95% CI [43.0; 96.0] vs. 33.7, 95% CI [30.4; 44.2] months). PRGS or PC had no independent prognostic impact. CPI+ was an independent predictor of worse prognosis, in OS (HR = 5.24, 95% CI [2.07; 13.26]), and PFS (HR = 4.41, 95% CI [1.40; 13.88]).

CONCLUSIONS

The CPI based on highest PRGS and PC was found to be independently associated with a worse prognosis for OS and for PFS in the setting of peritoneal metastasis. These results indicate that it should be of interest to systematically take peritoneal fluid for cytological examination and to implement the CPI in the therapeutic decision-making process in the context of PIPAC.

Current practice of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): Still standardized or on the verge of diversification?

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a new treatment modality for peritoneal cancer which has been practiced and evaluated until very recently by few academic centers in a highly standardized manner. Encouraging oncological outcomes and the safety profile have led to widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess current PIPAC practice in terms of technique, treatment and safety protocol, and indications.

METHODS

A standardized survey with 82 closed-ended questions was sent online to active PIPAC centers which were identified by help of PIPAC training centers and the regional distributors of the PIPAC-specific nebulizer. The survey inquired about center demographics (n = 8), technique (n = 34), treatment and safety protocol (n = 34), and indications (n = 6).

RESULTS

Overall, 62 out of 66 contacted PIPAC centers answered the survey (response rate 93%). 27 centers had performed >60 PIPAC procedures. A consensus higher than 70% was reached for 37 items (50%), and higher than 80% for 28 items (37.8%). The topics with the highest degree of consensus were safety and installation issues (93.5% and 80.65%) while chemotherapy and response evaluation were the least consensual topics (63.7 and 59.6%). The attitudes were not influenced by volume, PIPAC starting year, type of activity, or presence of peritoneal metastases program.

CONCLUSION

Homogeneous treatment standards of new techniques are important to guarantee safe implementation and practice but also to allow comparison between cohorts and multi-center analysis of merged data including registries. Efforts to avoid diversification of PIPAC practice include regular update of the PIPAC training curriculum, targeted research and a consensus statement.

Initial Single-center Experience of PIPAC in Patients With Unresectable Peritoneal Metastasis

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.

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.

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.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for unresectable peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

PIPAC is a recent approach with promising results for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). We aimed to evaluate survival and postoperative outcome of patients with unresectable PM from gastric origin treated with chemotherapy and PIPAC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective maintained PIPAC database was queried for all patients diagnosed with unresectable PM from gastric cancer who underwent PIPAC before 2018. PIPAC with Cisplatin 7.5 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2 were given for 30 min at 6-week intervals. Outcome criteria were overall survival and adverse events according to (CTCAE) version4.0.

RESULTS

One hundred Sixty-three PIPAC were done in 42 consecutive patients. Twenty-two (52%) of the patients were female. Signet-ring cells were observed in 33/42 patients (78.6%). At the first PIPAC, median age was 51.5 years (32-74). Median PCI was 17 (1-39). Twenty (47.6%) patients underwent more than 2 lines of pre-PIPAC chemotherapy. All patients had systemic chemotherapy alternating with PIPAC. Median consecutive PIPAC procedures were 3 (1-12). Overall and major complications (CTCAE - III, IV) occurred in 10 (6.1%) and 5 procedures (3.1%), respectively. Two patients (4.7%) died within 30 days of a PIPAC procedure, one related to small bowel obstruction and a pulmonary embolism for the other. Overall Survival was 19.1 months. Six (14.3%) patients became resectable during treatment and underwent curative intent CRS and HIPEC.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin is safe and feasible in association with systemic chemotherapy for gastric PM. Survival data are encouraging and justify further clinical studies in this indication.

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.

Medium-throughput Drug Screening of Patient-derived Organoids from Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases to Direct Personalized Therapy

PURPOSE

Patients with colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (CRPMs) have limited treatment options and the lowest colorectal cancer survival rates. We aimed to determine whether organoid testing could help guide precision treatment for patients with CRPMs, as the clinical utility of prospective, functional drug screening including nonstandard agents is unknown.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

CRPM organoids (peritonoids) isolated from patients underwent parallel next-generation sequencing and medium-throughput drug panel testing ex vivo to identify specific drug sensitivities for each patient. We measured the utility of such a service including: success of peritonoid generation, time to cultivate peritonoids, reproducibility of the medium-throughput drug testing, and documented changes to clinical therapy as a result of the testing.

RESULTS

Peritonoids were successfully generated and validated from 68% (19/28) of patients undergoing standard care. Genomic and drug profiling was completed within 8 weeks and a formal report ranking drug sensitivities was provided to the medical oncology team upon failure of standard care treatment. This resulted in a treatment change for two patients, one of whom had a partial response despite previously progressing on multiple rounds of standard care chemotherapy. The barrier to implementing this technology in Australia is the need for drug access and funding for off-label indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach is feasible, reproducible, and can guide novel therapeutic choices in this poor prognosis cohort, where new treatment options are urgently needed. This platform is relevant to many solid organ malignancies.

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.

Bidirectional treatment of peritoneal metastasis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy: a systematic review

Background

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is used in the palliative treatment of peritoneal metastasis. The combination of intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy seems rational, and the aim of this systematic review was to compare PIPAC directed monotherapy with a bidirectional treatment approach (PIPAC in combination with systemic chemotherapy). Main outcomes were survival and quality of life.

Methods

A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the “Pleura and Peritoneum” was conducted and analyzed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English reporting on bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy and published before April 2019 were included.

Results

Twelve studies with a total of 386 patients were included. None were specifically designed to compare mono- versus bidirectional treatment, but 44% of the patients received bidirectional treatment. This was more frequent in women (non-gynecological cancers) and one-third of the bidirectional treated patients had received no prior chemotherapy. Data from the included studies provided no conclusions regarding survival or quality of life.

Conclusion

Bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy is practised and feasible, and some patients are enrolled having received no prior systemic chemotherapy for their PM.

The difficulty in drawing any conclusions based on this systematic review has highlighted the urgent need to improve and standardize reports on PIPAC directed therapy. We have, therefore, constructed a list of items to be considered when reporting on clinical PIPAC research.

Trial registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO. Registration number: 90352, March 5, 2018.

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.

Overall clinical and trichoscopic analysis performed in patients who underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis - initial trial preliminary report

Introduction

Cutaneous adverse events are among the remaining problematic issues of current oncology. The term peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) refers to the advanced cancer stage. The innovative treatment of PC includes the use of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Aim

To present a preliminary report from an initial trial aimed at an overall clinical and trichoscopic analysis performed in patients who underwent PIPAC treatment due to PC.

Material and methods

For all steps of this study we obtained the consent of the local bioethics commission #KB 196/2018. Three different hair assessment methods were used in our study: 1) general clinical and patient self-feeling assessment; 2) hair pull test; 3) and trichoscopic analysis.

Results

No hair or scalp disorders were noted in the observation period. In the self-feeling test assessment the vast majority recognized their hair as being of comparable quality or even better in quality compared to previous forms of chemotherapy they had undergone. In all patients we observed a reduction of hair loss in the pull test in the hospitalization period. In trichoscopic analysis we found all determinants and signs of hair disorders in the assessed group.

Conclusions

The PIPAC is safe and is not a burdensome or aggressive form of therapy, especially according to the very important factors influencing the potential quality of hair and hair loss. The authors, however, realize that to obtain comprehensive results and evaluate this novel and promising method we need to perform more research without any limitations like those in our study.

The use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric malignancies

Introduction: Gastric cancer is the fourth/fifth most common malignancy worldwide, with only a quarter of patients achieving a 5-year survival rate. It has been estimated that 15-50% or more of patients have peritoneal disease upon surgical exploration. Until the early 1990s, peritoneal metastasis was considered as terminal stage of the disease; in the late 1990s, selected patients with peritoneal metastasis were recategorized as local disease. Over the past two decades, the treatment of peritoneal involvement has transformed, and cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal therapy have drastically altered the natural course of several malignancies. Areas covered: We performed a review of studies available on PubMed from 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2019 and the analysis of their reference citations. We describe the most current intraperitoneal chemotherapy opportunities in the treatment of gastric cancer: hyperthermic intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (LHIPEC), neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), LHIPEC + NIPS, extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL), early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Expert opinion: Comprehensive treatment consisting of CRS combined with perioperative intraperitoneal/systemic chemotherapy can, today, be considered an effective strategy to improve the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with peritoneal metastasized colorectal, appendiceal and small bowel cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with intestinal cancer (colorectal, appendiceal, and small bowel) with peritoneal metastases (PM) have a poor prognosis. We assessed whether pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) together with systemic chemotherapy is an effective treatment option for these entities in palliative intent.

METHODS

Between November 2015 and February 2018, prospective data registry was performed (NCT03100708). Thirteen patients with intestinal cancer (median age 61 years [range 49-77]) underwent 26 PIPAC procedures with a median number of 2 interventions per patient (range 1-6). A chemoaerosol consisting of cisplatin/doxorubicin was administered during standard laparoscopy.

RESULTS

The median peritoneal carcinomatosis index according to Sugarbaker before the first PIPAC was 14 (range 2-27), and the median ascites volume was 10 mL (range 0-6300 mL). Six patients who received 2 or more PIPAC procedures had decreased and stable ascites volumes, while only 1 patient displayed increased ascites. The median overall survival was 303 days (range 30-490) after the first PIPAC procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PIPAC offers a novel treatment option for patients with PM. Our data show that PIPAC is safe and well-tolerated. Ascites production can be controlled by PIPAC in patients with intestinal cancer. Further studies are required to document the significance of PIPAC within palliative therapy concepts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03100708.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with one minute of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC) is feasible, but the histological tumor response in peritoneal metastasis is insufficient

INTRODUCTION

Electrostatic precipitation Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has shown superior penetration depth and tissue uptake compared to standard PIPAC. We investigated the feasibility and objective tumor response to ePIPAC with 1 min of precipitation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with PM from various abdominal cancers were included in an amendment to the ongoing prospective PIPAC-OPC2 trial. Colorectal and appendiceal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with PM from other primaries were treated with a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin. Three ePIPAC procedures were planned in each patient including repeated peritoneal biopsies for response evaluation. After emission to the peritoneal cavity, the aerosolized chemotherapeutics were precipitated for 1 min followed by immediate exsufflation and abdominal closure. Histological regression from the first to the third ePIPAC was evaluated according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and compared to data from the PIPAC-OPC1 trial. Complications and toxicities were recorded according to Dindo-Clavien and CTCAE.

RESULTS

Sixty-five ePIPAC procedures were performed in 33 patients (median 2, range 1-6). Ten patients were eligible for response evaluation based on biopsies from the first and third ePIPAC procedure. Four patients had disease progression, four patients had regressive disease, and two patients had stable disease according to PRGS. No life threatening adverse reactions and no mortality was observed following ePIPAC.

CONCLUSION

One minute ePIPAC was feasible and safe, but the histological tumor response was insufficient compared to standard PIPAC directed therapy with 30 min passive diffusion time.

Assessment of the aerosol distribution pattern of a single-port device for intraperitoneal administration of therapeutic substances

BACKGROUND

In the last 20 years, intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) has been explored as a modality for the management of peritoneal metastases of gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and primary peritoneal tumors. Direct delivery of chemotherapeutic agents to the peritoneal cavity space has proved superior to systemic chemotherapy when evaluating characteristics such as drug concentration reached in the peritoneal space, penetration into peritoneal metastases, and chemotherapy-related toxicity. Traditionally, IPC is delivered by peritoneal lavage with a liquid solution. This form of delivery has limitations, including inhomogeneous intraperitoneal distribution and limited ability to penetrate tissues and metastatic nodules. An alternative mode of delivery is so-called pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Within this context, the present study sought to identify the pattern of spatial distribution of therapeutic solutions aerosolized into the peritoneal space using a single-port PIPAC device and ascertain whether the aerosolized method is superior to the traditional (liquid) mode of IPC delivery.

METHODS

Analysis of the rate of intra-abdominal staining with aerosolized 2% silver nitrate in five porcine models.

RESULTS

Assessment of differences in stain impregnation between the upper, middle, and lower abdomen did not reveal significant differences (p = 0.42). The median sum scores were 1 for the upper abdomen and 3 for the middle and lower abdomen.

CONCLUSIONS

Aerosolization does not reach all regions of the abdomen homogeneously. However, adequate exposure of the upper abdomen, mid-abdomen, and lower abdomen to chemotherapeutic agents can be achieved with PIPAC.

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) with oxaliplatin as a palliative monotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a Dutch, multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study (CRC-PIPAC)

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX) is offered as a palliative treatment option for patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in several centres worldwide. However, little is known about its feasibility, safety, tolerability, efficacy, costs and pharmacokinetics in this setting. This study aims to explore these parameters in patients with isolated unresectable colorectal PM who receive repetitive ePIPAC-OX as a palliative monotherapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals for the surgical treatment of colorectal PM. Eligible patients are adults who have histologically or cytologically proven isolated unresectable PM of a colorectal or appendiceal carcinoma, a good performance status, adequate organ functions and no symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction. Instead of standard palliative treatment, enrolled patients receive laparoscopy-controlled ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m² body surface area (BSA)) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m² BSA) and bolus 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m² BSA) every 6 weeks. Four weeks after each procedure, patients undergo clinical, radiological and biochemical evaluation. ePIPAC-OX is repeated until disease progression, after which standard palliative treatment is (re)considered. The primary outcome is the number of patients with major toxicity (grade ≥3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) up to 4 weeks after the last ePIPAC-OX. Secondary outcomes are the environmental safety of ePIPAC-OX, procedure-related characteristics, minor toxicity, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmissions, quality of life, costs, pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, progression-free survival, overall survival, and the radiological, histopathological, cytological, biochemical and macroscopic tumour response.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by an ethics committee, the Dutch competent authority and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and for presentation to patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03246321, Pre-results; ISRCTN89947480, Pre-results; NTR6603, Pre-results; EudraCT: 2017-000927-29, Pre-results.