Operating personnel safety during the administration of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Oncological outcomes and hospitalization cost of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) open and closed abdomen techniques: Results from two French expert centers

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) associated with CC0 excision is performed using either an open (OPEN_HIPEC) or closed abdominal technique (CLOSED_HIPEC). However, little data is available on the costs of this treatment, as there is no code for HIPEC in the French Classification of Medical Acts. Oncological outcomes and the mean cost of hospitalization were compared.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2021, 144 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (all etiologies) were included (OPEN_HIPEC, n = 70; CLOSED_HIPEC, n = 74) in this retrospective two-center study. Morbi-mortality, overall survival (OS), recurrence-free-survival (RFS) and mean cost of hospitalization were compared.

RESULTS

The median OS and RFS were 71.3 months [63-71.5] and 26.8 months [20-35.3] respectively, and were similar for both techniques; and after stratification by histology. Multivariate analysis adjusted on PCI score of OS identified mitomycin as a protective factor (HR = 0.31 [0.10-0.90], p = 0.032) and ASA score>2 (HR = 2.32 [1.32- 4.06], p = 0.003) and number of resection (HR = 1.21 [1.06-1.39], p = 0.006) as a risk factors of RFS. Complication rates at day 30 were similar between OPEN and CLOSED_HIPEC, 31 (44.3 %) vs 42 (56.8 %); p = 0.135. OPEN_HIPEC had more severe complications (11 (35.5 %) vs 6 (14.3 %); p = 0.034). The mean cost of hospitalization was estimated as €15,627 for OPEN_HIPEC and €14,211 for CLOSED_HIPEC for a mean length-of-stay of 12.7 and 16.7 days respectively. The mean amount received by the hospital per hospitalization was estimated at €16,399 and €15,536 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OS and RFS were similar for open and closed HIPEC. Severe complications at day 30 were more frequent in OPEN_HIPEC group. The amount received by hospital for both HIPEC techniques is sufficient.

Developing a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) gynecologic oncology program: a Canadian experience

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a treatment option for epithelial ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery. The intraperitoneal spread of the disease makes the peritoneal cavity an ideal target for drug delivery. HIPEC has shown promising results in improving overall survival in epithelial ovarian cancer patients when performed during interval cytoreductive surgery. Recent studies have provided level 1 evidence supporting increased overall survival in stage III ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC during interval cytoreduction. Meta-analyses have further confirmed the survival improvement in women receiving HIPEC. Despite its inclusion in guidelines, many centers have been hesitant to implement HIPEC programs due to perceived obstacles, such as increased morbidity, cost, and resource requirements. Studies have shown that morbidity rates are acceptable in selected patients, and the addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery is cost effective. Therefore, the main barrier to implementing HIPEC programs is related to resource requirements and logistics, but with proper preparation, these challenges can be overcome. Establishing a successful HIPEC program requires institutional support, a knowledgeable and dedicated team, adequate resources and equipment, and proper training and audit. This review aims to provide evidence based information to guide the development of successful HIPEC programs, including preoperative, anesthetic, and surgical considerations. It also reviews the different equipment and protocols for the perfusion and common postoperative events.

Knowledge and practices about safe handling regarding the risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs for caregivers in compounding units and in operating rooms performing HIPEC/PIPAC

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the late 1970s, occupational exposure associated with the handling of antineoplastic drugs (ADs) in the healthcare environment has been highlighted and demonstrated. Contamination was detected in both operating rooms (OR) and compounding units (CU), where healthcare workers handle and are exposed to ADs in different ways. In the OR, the risk of exposure is higher and the staff receives less training in handling ADs than in the CU. This study aimed to assess and compare knowledge and practices about the safe handling of ADs by caregivers working in these two locations, namely the CU and OR.

METHODS

Two questionnaires (one each for the OR and CU) were created by two investigator pharmacists and were completed during a personal interview of 20 min. The questions were related to the following topics: training, knowledge about occupational exposure and questions related to protective practices. A scoring system was implemented to assess the knowledge and practices of each participant.

RESULTS

In total, 38 caregivers working in the OR and 39 in the CU were included in our study. Significantly more CU staff had specific initial training (p < 0.001) and ongoing training (p < 0.001) in handling ADs. Concerning the knowledge score, OR caregivers had a significantly lower median score for contamination routes (p < 0.001), contamination surfaces (p < 0.001), existing procedures (p < 0.001) and total knowledge (p < 0.001) than CU caregivers. Concerning protective handling practices of ADs, the two locations had nonsignificantly different median scores (p = 0.892).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is still room for improvement in terms of knowledge and protection practices when handling ADs. An appropriate and tailored training program should be developed and provided to all caregivers who handle or come in contact with ADs.Clinical trial registrationStudy CONTACT, ref. 19-504.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): An Overview of the Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Actions and Effects on Epithelial Ovarian Cancers

Most patients with epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are at advanced stages (stage III–IV), for which the recurrence rate is high and the 5-year survival rate is low. The most effective treatment for advanced diseases involves a debulking surgery followed by adjuvant intravenous chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Nevertheless, systemic treatment with intravenous chemotherapeutic agents for peritoneal metastasis appears to be less effective due to the poor blood supply to the peritoneal surface with low drug penetration into tumor nodules. Based on this reason, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) emerges as a new therapeutic alternative. By convection and diffusion, the hyperthermic chemotherapeutic agents can directly contact intraperitoneal tumors and produce cytotoxicity. In a two-compartment model, the peritoneal–plasma barrier blocks the leakage of chemotherapeutic agents from peritoneal cavity and tumor tissues to local vessels, thus maintaining a higher concentration of chemotherapeutic agents within the tumor tissues to facilitate tumor apoptosis and a lower concentration of chemotherapeutic agents within the local vessels to decrease systemic toxicity. In this review, we discuss the molecular and cellular mechanisms of HIPEC actions and the effects on EOCs, including the progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). For primary advanced ovarian cancers, more studies are agreeing that patients undergoing HIPEC have better surgical and clinical (PFS; OS) outcomes than those not, although one study reported no differences in the PFS and OS. For recurrent ovarian cancers, studies have revealed better DFS and OS in patients undergoing HIPEC than those in patients not undergoing HIPEC, although one study reported no differences in the PFS. HIPEC appears comparable to traditional intravenous chemotherapy in treating advanced EOCs. Overall, HIPEC has demonstrated some therapeutic benefits in many randomized phase III trials when combined with the standard cytoreductive surgeries for advanced EOCs. Nevertheless, many unknown aspects of HIPEC, including detailed mechanisms of actions, along with the effectiveness and safety for the treatment of EOCs, warrant further investigation.

Current Trends in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Peritoneal Disease from Appendiceal and Colorectal Malignancies

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a poor prognostic factor for all malignancies. This extent of metastatic disease progression remains difficult to treat with systemic therapies due to poor peritoneal vascularization resulting in limited drug delivery and penetration into tissues. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are surgical interventions that directly target peritoneal tumors and have improved outcomes for PC resulting from appendiceal and colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite these radical therapies, long-term survival remains infrequent, and recurrence is common. The reasons for these outcomes are multifactorial and signal the need for the continued development of novel therapeutics, techniques, and approaches to improve outcomes for these patients. Here, we review landmark historical studies that serve as the foundation for current recommendations, recent discoveries, clinical trials, active research, and areas of future interest in CRS/HIPEC to treat PC originating from appendiceal and colorectal malignancies.

Perception, knowledge and protective practices for surgical staff handling antineoplastic drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC

Objectives

Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.

Methods

This descriptive study, led in two hospitals from two distant French regions, was performed through a face-to-face interview and assessed the perception, knowledge and handling practices of ADs by a questionnaire consisting of 52 questions.

Results

Fifty-one professionals participated in this survey. A total of 29.4% (n=15) professionals were afraid to handle ADs. Very few workers have been trained on handling ADs during initial training dedicated to all caregiver (5.9%; n=3). HIPEC is considered to involve a higher risk of exposure to ADs than PIPAC (81.6% (n=31) vs. 57.9% (n=22), respectively, p=0.022, agreement 65.8%). Protective equipment is considered to be less suitable for HIPEC than for PIPAC (29% (n=11) vs. 10.5% (n=4), respectively, p=0.016, agreement 81.6%). Concerning the potential AD contamination location, the participants identified a significant difference between these two practices. During HIPEC, 15.7% (n=6) of caregivers indicated that they had negative symptoms perceived in their practice vs. 2.6% (n=1) during PIPAC.

Conclusions

This study shows that perception, knowledge and protection practices are different between HIPEC and PIPAC. It also shows a difference between the worker categories. In view of the difficulties in making operating room staff available, the related training programmes must have an adapted format.

Noncoding RNAs and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant tumors globally. About 20-30% of patients with gastric cancer show peritoneal implantation metastasis at the first diagnosis. Peritoneal metastasis is responsible for 70% of deaths of patients with advanced gastric cancer. Although there are many ways to treat advanced gastric cancer, the prognosis of patients with recurrence is unsatisfactory. An auxiliary treatment with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), is an internationally recognized recommended treatment for advanced gastric cancer. A series of clinical trials have shown that HIPEC significantly improves the overall survival of patients with cancer. Compared with the cytoreductive surgery (CRS) alone, HIPEC combined with CRS markedly reduced the rate of peritoneal metastasis in patients with ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer. It has been demonstrated that HIPEC alters transcription of many genes by affecting non-coding RNAs, which may contribute to the suppressive effect of HIPEC on the synthesis of nucleic acids and proteins in cancer cells. This paper reviews the recent advances in understanding the role of non-coding RNAs in tumor invasion and metastasis of advanced gastric cancer. We also consider changes in noncoding RNA levels and other molecules in advanced gastric cancer cases treated with HIPEC. We hope that our review will provide a reference for future research on molecular epidemiology and etiology of advanced gastric cancer and promote precise treatment of this malignancy using HIPEC.

Consensus statement on safety measures for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy

Objectives

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising treatment for peritoneal cancer that entails, however, potential risks for the caregivers in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to reach a consensus within the PIPAC community on a comprehensive safety protocol.

Methods

Active PIPAC centers were invited to participate in a two-round Delphi process on 43 predefined items: concise summaries of the existing evidence were presented together with questions formulated using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the strength of recommendation was voted by panelists, accepting a consensus threshold of ≥50% of the agreement for any of the four grading options, or ≥70% in either direction.

Results

Forty-seven out of 66 invited panelists answered both rounds (response rate 76%). The consensus was reached for 41 out of 43 items (95.3%). Strong and weak recommendations were issued for 30 and 10 items, respectively. A positive consensual recommendation was issued to activate laminar airflow without specific strength, neither strong nor weak. No consensus was reached for systematic glove change for caregivers with a high risk of exposure and filtering facepiece mask class 3 for caregivers with low risk of exposure.

Conclusions

A high degree of consensus was reached for a comprehensive safety protocol for PIPAC, adapted to the risk of exposure for the different caregivers in the OR. This consensus can serve as a basis for education and help reach a high degree of adherence in daily practice.

Safety and Effectiveness of High-Precision Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Perfusion Chemotherapy in Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Real-World Study

Background

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been reported to effectively control peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in various patient populations, but there is a lack of real-world data. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of HIPEC in patients with PC in a real-world setting.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with PC treated with the high-precision BR-TRG-I type HIPEC device between December 2006 and December 2016. Vital signs during HIPEC and adverse events were recorded. Effectiveness was evaluated by total objective remission rate (ORR), which was based on ascites’ remission 4 weeks after HIPEC.

Results

A total of 1,200 patients were included. There were 518 males and 682 females, with a mean age of 58.6 ± 6.5 years (range, 32–76 years). Among the patients, 93.6% of the patients (1123/1200) successfully received the three sessions of HIPEC, 158 had massive ascites. The changes of vital signs during HIPEC were within acceptable ranges, and patients only had a transient fever and abdominal distension. Regarding the HIPEC-related complications, hemorrhage was observed in seven (0.6%) patients, anastomotic leakage in four (0.5%), and intestinal obstruction in eight (0.7%). Nine (0.8%, 9/1200) patients had CTCAE grade IV bone marrow suppression, and three (0.3%, 3/1200) patients had severe renal failure (SRF), which were considered to be drug-related. The ORR of malignant ascites was 95.6% (151/158).

Conclusion

This real-world study strongly suggests that HIPEC was safe in treating PC patients with a low rate of adverse events and leads to benefits in PC patients with massive malignant ascites.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Ovarian and Colorectal Cancer: A Review

Importance

The peritoneal surface is a common site of disease in ovarian and colorectal cancer. Peritoneal metastases carry a poor prognosis, despite maximal therapeutic efforts, including surgical removal of tumor deposits and intravenous chemotherapy. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a single intraoperative procedure that delivers chemotherapy directly into the abdominal cavity, leading to high intracellular drug concentration at the peritoneal surface. This review describes the current knowledge regarding the mechanism of action, safety, and efficacy of HIPEC in the treatment of peritoneal metastases from epithelial ovarian and colorectal cancers and explores current knowledge gaps.

Observations

Toxic effects of HIPEC are limited. Evidence from a randomized trial shows improved recurrence-free and overall survival after HIPEC in patients with ovarian cancer who are ineligible for primary cytoreductive surgery (CRS). The effect of HIPEC for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing primary CRS or CRS for recurrent disease has not yet been determined, and results of ongoing trials must be awaited. A recent study in patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer did not show a benefit of HIPEC when added to perioperative chemotherapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

Based on available evidence, various international guidelines include the option to add HIPEC to interval CRS for patients with stage III ovarian cancer. The role of HIPEC in colorectal cancer is less well defined. Future studies will need to tailor patient selection, timing, and optimal regimens of HIPEC to improve the effectiveness of this specialized treatment in ovarian, colorectal, and other tumor types.

A Roadmap for Navigating Occupational Exposures for Surgeons: A Special Consideration for the Pregnant Surgeon

SUMMARY

Surgeons are exposed to occupational hazards daily. Risks include chemical, biological, and physical hazards that place providers at risk of serious harm. Departmental policies or written guides to help pregnant surgeons navigate the hospital are lacking. In response to the scarcity in the literature, the authors have summarized current guidelines and recommendations to aid surgeons in making an informed decision. In addition, the authors present a brief narrative of the impact of these exposures during pregnancy and methods of transmission and, where relevant, include specialties that are at risk of these exposures.

Occupational exposures in the operating room: Are surgeons well-equipped?

Background

Occupational health hazards are ubiquitously found in the operating room, guaranteeing an inevitable risk of exposure to the surgeon. Although provisions on occupational health and safety in healthcare exist, they do not address non-traditional hazards found in the operating room. In order to determine whether surgeons or trainees receive any form of occupational health training, we examine the associations between occupational health training and exposure rate.

Study design

A cross-sectional survey was distributed. Respondent characteristics included academic level, race/ethnicity, and gender. The survey evaluated seven surgical disciplines and 13 occupational hazards. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between academic level, surgical specialty, and exposure rate.

Results

Our cohort of 183 respondents (33.1% response rate) consisted of attendings (n = 72, 39.3%) and trainees (n = 111, 60.7%). Surgical trainees were less likely to have been trained in cytotoxic drugs (OR 0.22, p<0.001), methylmethacrylate (OR 0.15, p<0.001), patient lifting (OR 0.43, p = 0.009), radiation (OR 0.40, p = 0.007), and surgical smoke (OR 0.41, p = 0.041) than attending surgeons. Additionally, trainees were more likely to experience frequent exposure to bloodborne pathogens (OR 5.26, p<0.001), methylmethacrylate (OR 2.86, p<0.001), cytotoxic drugs (OR 3.03, p<0.001), and formaldehyde (2.08, p = 0.011), to name a few.

Conclusion

Although surgeon safety is not a domain in residency training, standardized efforts to educate and change the culture of safety in residency programs is warranted. Our study demonstrates a disparity between trainees and attendings with a recommendation to provide formal training to trainees independent of their anticipated risk of exposure.

Current practice and perceptions of safety protocols for the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating room: results of the IP-OR international survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

METHODS

A multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).

RESULTS

Ten centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Experience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.

Evaluation of exposure risk for healthcare personnel performing the open technique HIPEC procedure using cisplatin

OBJECTIVE

To perform an evaluation of the risk to healthcare personnel of exposure to cisplatin during a Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) procedure in an operating room environment.

METHODS

Breathing zone air samples were taken from the operating room (OR) before, during and after the procedure of HIPEC filter membrane adsorption and the liquid impact method was applied to collect air samples. The samples of surface wipe from the floor of the OR were taken after the procedure. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry(ICP-MS) was used to detect the content of cisplatin in all the samples.

RESULTS

Thirty-six air samples and three surface wipes were collected from three different locations of healthcare personnel breathing zones. All the breathing zone air samples were negative for cisplatin; however, cisplatin contamination was detected on three surface wipes from the floor, but in a lowconcentration(≤ 2.25 ng).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the risk of inhalation of cisplatin was extremely low for the healthcare personnel during the procedure of HIPEC, but the contamination of the OR floor should be taken into consideration.

The role of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a systematic review including evidence from Japan

The prognosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis is poor. However, the emergence of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC) as a treatment option has prolonged survival and it can even potentially cure patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Randomized controlled studies and other observational studies indicated that this combined therapy potentially improved the prognosis of patients with colon, gastric, and ovarian cancers with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. Even in rarer diseases, such as pseudomyxoma peritonei and malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, CRS + HIPEC markedly improved the prognoses over those with conventional treatment. Based on the accumulated evidence, clinical guidelines recommend CRS + HIPEC for selected patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. However, several issues still need to be overcome. A standard method for HIPEC has not yet been established. Furthermore, the criteria employed for patient selection need to be clarified to achieve real benefits. The peritoneal cancer index, chemo-sensitivity and several biological markers are considered to be key factors.

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM)

Objectives

Perception of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for treating peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) differ widely among physicians.

Methods

This on-site survey performed during a major oncology congress in 2019 evaluated the current opinion, perceptions, knowledge and practice of HIPEC and PIPAC among oncologists in India.

Results

There were 147 respondents (gynecologists (30%), surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons (64%), and medical oncologists (6%)). Whereas most respondents considered CRS and HIPEC an appropriate therapeutic option, 25% would not recommend CRS and HIPEC. The main barriers to referral to an expert center were inaccessibility to such a center (37.8%), non-inclusion of CRS and HIPEC in clinical practice guidelines (32.4%), and a high morbidity/mortality (21.6%). Variations were found in the various practice patterns of CRS/HIPEC like eligibility criteria, HIPEC protocols and safety measures. Although PIPAC awareness as a novel therapeutic option was high, only a limited number of centers offered PIPAC, mainly because of non-access to technology and missing training opportunities (76.2%).

Conclusions

Lack of widespread acceptance, poor accessibility and low utilization presents a significant challenge for HIPEC and PIPAC in India. There is a need to raise the awareness of curative and palliative therapeutic options for PSM. This might be achieved by the creation of expert centers, specialized training curricula and of a new sub-speciality in oncology.

Anaesthesia in a Toxic Environment: Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new type of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinosis via minimally invasive surgery. This technique's specificity is the remote application of the therapy because of the potential risk of exposure to toxic products. The present paper summarises the important aspects of PIPAC and analyses the anaesthetic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients undergoing PIPAC treatment between January 2015 and February 2018. Data on protocol adherence and perioperative anaesthetic complications and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain levels (visual analogue scale 0-10) from recovery room to 72 h were analysed.

RESULTS

The overall analysis included 193 PIPAC procedures on 87 patients. Protocol adherence was high as regards the use of propofol (100%), rocuronium (98%), antiemetic prophylaxis (99%) and lidocaine intravenous (i.v.) (87%). No accidental exposure to chemotherapy occurred during the study period. Of the 87 patients, 6.3% suffered delayed recovery, 58% due to hypothermia and 42% due to excessive sedation or curarisation. In the recovery room, 16% of patients suffered moderate to severe pain, requiring >8 mg of morphine i.v., with average doses of 13.7 mg. Median postoperative pain scores were 1 and 3 at 12 h and 0 and 0 at 72 h at rest and mobilisation, respectively. PONV was observed in <10% of patients during the first 12 h, but in 40% at 72 h.

CONCLUSION

A dedicated anaesthetic protocol and intraoperative safety checklist facilitates safe, well-tolerated anaesthesia for PIPAC treatments.

Occupational exposure to cytostatic fumes during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)-heated, intra-abdominal chemotherapy-has become the treatment of choice for treating peritoneal metastases from ovarian, stomach or colorectal cancers. HIPEC has several advantages and disadvantages. The major benefit is minimal systemic toxicity for the patient, but there is a risk of occupational exposure for operating room staff. We have not found any reports of workers with chronic aplastic anaemia as a result of exposure to cytostatic fumes during HIPEC. The aim of this case report is to raise the awareness of potential negative health effects of inhalation exposure to cytostatic drugs. We present a rare case of a 43-year-old woman, suffering from aplastic anaemia as a long-term consequence of exposure to cytostatics. During the HIPEC procedure, surgical revision of the peritoneal cavity was undertaken which resulted in release of cytostatic fumes. Despite awareness of the health effects of occupational exposure to cytostatic drugs and well-developed procedures for safely handling them, unexpected exposure may occur causing serious medical conditions. These may develop in sensitive subjects although accidental high-level exposure may lead to unexpected long-term consequences in all workers. Medical staff need to be informed of the risks of HIPEC and safety guidelines to reduce the risk of exposure.

Establishing of Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Treatment Program: Background in Ukraine, Patient Selection, Staff Schedule, Perioperative Outcomes of First 28 Patients

A combination of cytoreductive intervention with the intrahepatic hyperthermic chemotherapy is a well-established treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. There are many challenges in establishing a new peritoneal surface malignancy program in a low-income country regarding perioperative safety and resource allocation. We analyzed the retrospective database to determine the immediate surgical outcomes of the first 28 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and the impact of the program on allocation of general hospital and human resources. During the preparatory stage, web conferences with international experts established the goals and general requirements of the program, formalized in a written document; and a peritoneal surface malignancy multidisciplinary team was established. The team created the patient selection criteria, perioperative management checklists, and suggested material and staff requirements for surgical and anesthesia services. Twenty-nine cytoreduction were carried out, of which 18 were followed by HIPEC. The average operative time was 6.2 h. The median blood loss was 350 mL, which did not result in additional blood transfusion requirements for the blood bank. No additional nursing and supportive staff were provided for the ICU and the surgical unit. The average postoperative stay was 8.7 days. One patient died with 30-day mortality rate of 3%. Ten patients (34.5%) developed postoperative complications, of which 6 (20.6%) had grade III and higher Clavien-Dindo complications. Establishing a peritoneal surface malignancy program is possible via staged planning, liberal use of international mentors, and thoughtful resource allocation. This new program did not result in a significant redistribution of resources among other service lines of cancer care within the same institution.

A Protocol for the Safe Use of Hazardous Drugs in the OR

Hazardous drug (HD) use in the perioperative environment poses unique challenges and risks for exposure that can have adverse consequences for perioperative personnel. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention has implemented new standards to address the safe handling and administration of HDs by health care workers. To comply with these standards and minimize perioperative personnel's occupational exposure to HDs, a multidisciplinary team at an academic medical center in Boston that was performing an increased number and variety of operative and other invasive procedures using antineoplastic agents updated their protocol for the safe use of HDs in the OR. This article discusses HDs and the risks they pose to health care workers and outlines the new HD safety protocol for the OR that was part of a performance improvement plan to ensure compliance with new standards and staff member safety in the perioperative setting.

Non-medical caregivers and the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the operating theatre: A survey on the perception of safety

BACKGROUND

In the last two decades, intraperitoneal(IP) chemotherapy during surgery achieved recognition in the management of peritoneal metastases. Occupational hazard became a concern leading to standardized safety measures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the perceived level of information and protection among the non-medical caregivers involved in HIPEC and PIPAC in a high-volume center.

METHODS

All non-medical caregivers in the operating theatre of our institution were asked to answer a questionnaire between April and May 2018. The questionnaire included multiple choice questions and open questions structured in four parts: demographic variables, perceived level of information, perceived level of protection, interest in further education.

RESULTS

Forty-nine caregivers agreed to answer the questionnaire. All identified IP chemotherapy as an occupational risk. Thirty-eight persons (77.55%) trusted the protective value of safety measures during HIPEC compared to 32 (65.3%) during PIPAC. A total of 29 persons (59.18%) used some of the measures while 16 (32.65%) used all of them. Main reasons of non-use were slips and lapses (7 persons) and lack of comfort (4 persons). A total of 34 caregivers considered the level of information about safety protocols as good or very good (69%). A total of 46 persons considered the level of protection as satisfying or excellent (93.87%). A total of 36 (73.47%) interviewees expressed the need of receiving more information.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that non-medical caregivers in the operating theatres are aware of the occupational hazards related to the use of IP chemotherapy. The use of protective measures is associated with decreased level of perceived risk. However there is a high need of continuous education on this subject for the involved personnel.

Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients at High-Risk of Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Selection of patients for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) continues to evolve. We hypothesized that adjuvant HIPEC for patients at high-risk of peritoneal progression is safe and associated with favorable outcomes.

METHODS

The institutional database of a high-volume center was queried for patients with high-risk disease undergoing HIPEC with a peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) of 0. High-risk patients were defined as those with ruptured primary tumors or locally advanced (T₄) disease.

RESULTS

37 patients underwent adjuvant HIPEC, with a median follow-up of 5.2 years. 54% had low-grade (LG) tumors while 46% had high-grade (HG) tumors. No patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, while eleven patients (32.4%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. There were no perioperative mortalities, and the overall complication rate was 43%. For the entire cohort, five year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 77% and 100%, respectively. Five year RFS and OS were 75% and 100% for LG patients and 81% and 100% for HG patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant HIPEC for patients at high-risk of peritoneal progression, with PCI 0, is safe and associated with favorable long-term survival. Additional prospective investigation is needed to identify patient populations who may benefit most from HIPEC.

Occupational exposure to platinum drugs during intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Biomonitoring and surface contamination

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been introduced over the last decade for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. In this procedure, heated cytotoxic drugs are administered directly into the abdominal cavity, ensuring cancer cells to be exposed while reducing systemic toxicity. More recently, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), where the chemotherapeutic drug is injected into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure, has been proposed to patients in palliative situation, as a new approach. The amount of drug used is up to 10 fold lower than in HIPEC. The use of cytotoxic drugs poses an occupational risk for the operating room personnel. This study investigated the potential exposure of the medical staff by biomonitoring and surface contamination measurements, during a HIPEC procedure and a PIPAC procedure.

METHOD

Wipe samples were collected from various locations in operating rooms including gloves, hands, devices and floor. Urines samples were collected from 10 volunteers of the medical staff and from a control group. The platinum analysis was performed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Significant contaminations were observed on the floor, gloves, shoes and devices. However, urinary platinum was below the limit of quantification (<10 ng/L) for more than 50% of samples from the healthcare workers performing HIPEC and PIPAC. Concentrations did not differ significantly from those reported for the control group.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be little risk of exposure to platinum drugs during HIPEC and PIPAC providing the adequate safety measures are implemented.

HIPEC in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer: Is there a role? A systematic review of short- and long-term outcomes

A systematic review of the studies where HIPEC combined with cytoreductive surgery was used in patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer was performed to understand is there a role for this treatment modality not only in recurrent but in primary advanced ovarian cancer. The results are controversial but there is a strong trend for improvement of the long-term outcomes of patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer after HIPEC.

A case report of acute pulmonary hypertension after hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) poses a widely used and accepted treatment option for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastrointestinal tumors. In contrast to the well-described risks and complications of intravenous cytostatic drugs, literature offers only scarce information of serious complications following HIPEC. To our knowledge no other description of rapid progressive pulmonary hypertension (PH) and consecutive respiratory failure following HIPEC have been described in current literature.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 48-year-old female suffering from a recurrent appendix-carcinoma developed progressive dyspnea and fatigue six weeks after multivisceral abdominal resection and HIPEC. Medical examinations included laboratory-checks, non-invasive imaging, scintigraphy as well as invasive examinations (left-/right-heart-catheterization) and confirmed PH of unknown origin to be the cause of dyspnea. The patient died nine days after admission of respiratory failure and rapid deterioration as a result of aggravating PH.

CONCLUSION

Rapid progressive respiratory insufficiency due to PH following HIPEC procedure might represent a rare complication, but must be considered because of the high clinical impact. Further studies are necessary to investigate the correlation between HIPEC and PH.

Occupational safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a novel method to treat extensive, small volume peritoneal metastases. The clinical use of chemotherapy containing aerosols represents a potential occupational health hazard. We report the results of toxicological analysis during the first two clinical PIPAC procedures performed at Ghent University Hospital.

METHODS

After extensive preparation and in vitro testing, two patients were treated with PIPAC: the first using doxorubicin (2.86 mg in 51.43 mL) and cisplatin (14.28 mg in 164.3 mL), the second using oxaliplatin (182.10 mg in 186.42 mL). A standardized safety checklist was developed and used. Aerosol delivery was combined with electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC). The following samples were obtained at several time points and locations: environmental air, floor surface wipes, surgeon's gloves, surgeon's hand wipes, circuit filters, and fluid from the water seal collection chamber container placed along the closed aerosol waste evacuating line. Platinum concentration was measured in these samples using voltammetry. Sample collection and analysis were performed by an independent external laboratory.

RESULTS

Platinum was not detected on the four floor locations after both procedures (detection limit 0.02 ng/cm2). Similarly, no platinum was detected in environmental air during both PIPACs at the surgeon's or anesthesiologist's position (detection limit 4.0-27 ng/m3). No platinum contamination was detected on the hands, outer pair of gloves, or inner pair of gloves of the surgeon (detection limit 70 and 50 ng respectively). Platinum was not detected on the filters and in the air-seal container liquid.

CONCLUSIONS

With adequate preparation and precautions, a clinical PIPAC program can be established without measurable chemotherapy exposure to the operating room environment or healthcare workers.