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.

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.

Peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer: results from the German database.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer have a poor prognosis with a median survival of 7 months. A benefit of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) could be shown in several selected patient cohorts but remains controversial. The aim of this study was, to reflect the results of a national German HIPEC registry initiated by the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV). METHODS: The DGAV HIPEC registry StuDoQ|Peritoneum documents patients with peritoneal malignancy contributed from 52 hospitals. All consecutive documented patients from 2011 until 2016 (n = 3078) were treated with CRS and HIPEC and were analysed. A total of 315 (10%) suffered from gastric cancer and were analysed. RESULTS: A complete data set of 235 patients was available for this study, including 113 male (48.1%) and 122 female (51.9%) patients with a median age of 53.4 years (SD ± 11.9). The median PCI was 8.0 (range 1-30). A complete cytoreduction was achieved in 121 patients (71.6%). Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 3-4) occurred in 40 patients (17%). The median overall survival (OS) time was 13 months. The 5-year survival rate was 6%. According to the PCI from 0-6 (n = 74); 7-15 (n = 70) and 16-39 (n = 24) the median OS differs significantly (18 months vs. 12 months vs. 5 months; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: CRS and HIPEC in selected patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal spread can improve survival when they are treated in centers. An accurate staging and patient selection are of major importance to achieve long-term survival.

Comparison of Tissue and Blood Concentrations of Oxaliplatin Administrated by Different Modalities of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new technology for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy. It is generally assumed that with PIPAC, the ratio of peritoneal to systemic drug concentration is superior to liquid hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). To date, no direct comparative data are available supporting such an assumption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve 65-day-old pigs were randomly separated into three groups of four pigs each, all of which received intraperitoneal chemotherapy using the following administration methods: PIPAC with oxaliplatin 92 mg in 150 ml dextrose 5% (Group 1); PIPAC with electrostatic aerosol precipitation (ePIPAC; Group 2); or laparoscopic HIPEC (L-HIPEC) with oxaliplatin 400 mg in 4 L dextrose 5% at 42 °C (Group 3). Serial blood and peritoneal tissue concentrations of oxaliplatin were determined by spectrometry. RESULTS: In all three groups, the maximum concentration of oxaliplatin in blood was detected 50-60 min after onset of the chemotherapy experiments, with no significant differences among the three groups (p = 0.7994). Blood oxaliplatin concentrations (0-30 min) were significantly higher in the L-HIPEC group compared with the ePIPAC group (p < 0.05). No difference was found for the overall systemic oxaliplatin absorption (area under the curve). Overall concentrations in the peritoneum were not different among the three groups (p = 0.4725), but were significantly higher in the visceral peritoneum in the PIPAC group (p = 0.0242). CONCLUSIONS: Blood and tissue concentrations were comparable between all groups; however, depending on the intraperitoneal area examined and the time points of drug delivery, the concentrations differed significantly between the three groups.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for the treatment of malignant mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent malignant epithelioid mesothelioma (MM) after surgery and standard chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed have limited treatment options. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent MM undergoing Pressurized IntraPeritoneal/Thoracal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC/PITAC) with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2 and cisplatin 7.5 mg/m2. Data were retrospectively collected in a prospective registry of patients undergoing PIPAC/PITAC. Study outcomes were microscopic tumor regression grade (TRG), survival and adverse events (v4.0 CTCAE). RESULTS: A total of 29 patients (m/f = 17/12) with MM with a mean age of 62.4 (range: 42 to 84) years were analyzed. A total of 74 PIPAC and 5 PITAC procedures were performed. The mean number of PIPAC applications was 2.5 (range: 0 to 10) per patient. Twenty patients (69%) had > 2 PIPAC procedure and were eligible for TRG analysis. TRG 1 to 4 was observed in 75% (15/20) of patients. Major regression (TRG 3) or complete regression (TRG 4) was observed in 20% and 10%, respectively. PIPAC induced significant tumor regression in 51.7% (15/29) of patients with a cumulative effect after repetitive PIPACs (PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #2: p = 0.001; PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #3: p = 0.001; PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #4: p = 0.001). Postoperative CTCAE grade 4 complications were observed in two patients (6.9%) who had cytoreductive surgery (CC2) and intraoperative PIPAC. One patient (3.4%) died due to postoperative kidney insufficiency. After a follow up of 14.4 (95% CI: 8.1 to 20.7) months after the last PIPAC/PITAC application, median overall survival was 26.6 (95% CI: 9.5 to 43.7) months (from the first application). CONCLUSION: After prior abdominal surgery and systemic chemotherapy, repetitive PIPAC applications are feasible and safe for patients with end-stage MM. Furthermore, PIPAC induces significant histological regression of malignant mesothelioma in the majority of patients. PITAC is feasible, but its safety and efficacy to control malignant pleural effusion remain unclear.

First Clinical Data of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) as Salvage Therapy for Peritoneal Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from peritoneal metastasis of biliary tract cancer were treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a study carried out at a single institution, tertiary referral center certified for therapy of peritoneal disease. Retrospective data analysis was performed of prospective data for PIPAC with intra-peritoneal low-dose doxorubicin (1.5 mg/m2) and cisplatin (7.5 mg/m2) delivered at intervals of 6 weeks. The outcome criteria were microscopic pathological response, survival, and adverse events [Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (v4.0)]. RESULTS: A total of 13 patients (male/female=8/5) with a mean age of 58 (range=37-75) years underwent 17 PIPAC procedures without intraoperative complications. The mean number of PIPAC applications was 1.3 (range=0-3). Due to non-accessibility of the abdominal cavity in two patients (15.4%) and rapid clinical deterioration in six patients (46%), five patients underwent two or more PIPAC applications and were, therefore, eligible for histological analysis to assess carcinoma regression. Overall tumor regression of any degree was determined in 4/5 patients. An overall median survival of 85 days (95% confidence interval(CI)=59.2-110.4 days) after the first PIPAC application was observed. No complications greater than Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (v4.0) level 2 occurred. CONCLUSION: PIPAC can induce objective regression of systemic chemotherapy-resistant peritoneal metastasis of biliary tract cancer. However, due to a rapid clinical deterioration of the patients, almost two-thirds of the patients cannot undergo repetitive PIPAC courses.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as a neoadjuvant therapy before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel drug delivery system able to induce regression of peritoneal metastasis (PM) in the salvage situation. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical characteristics, tumor histology, and extent of disease of the patients having undergone cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) after "neoadjuvant" PIPAC. METHODS: This study was performed at a single institution, tertiary center. In a prospective registry, retrospective analysis was done. PIPAC indication was restricted to patients in the salvage situation who were not eligible for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). RESULTS: Nine-hundred sixty-one PIPAC sessions were successfully performed in 406 patients: 21 patients (5.2 %) were scheduled for CRS and HIPEC. Twelve of these patients had a low PCI (mean 5.8 ± 5.6). The remaining nine patients showed an advanced peritoneal disease (mean PCI 14.3 ± 5.3) at initial laparoscopy. After repeated PIPAC (mean number of cycles 3.5 ± 0.9), radiological tumor regression was observed in 7/9 patients and major histological regression was observed in 8/9 patients, so that secondary CRS and HIPEC became possible. CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC might be used as a neoadjuvant therapy before CRS and HIPEC in order to improve the outcome of CRS and HIPEC, to select patients with chemosensitive, biologically favorable tumors, to extent the indications of CRS and HIPEC in the presence of diffuse small bowel involvement, and to reduce the extent of cytoreductive surgery.

In Vivo Feasibility of Electrostatic Precipitation as an Adjunct to Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC).

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is limited by tissue penetration. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been shown to improve drug uptake by utilizing the physical properties of gas and pressure. This study investigated the effect of adding electrostatic precipitation to further enhance the pharmacologic properties of this technique. METHODS: A comparative study was performed using an in vivo porcine model. There were 3 cases in each group, PIPAC and electrostatic precipitation pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC), plus 1 negative control comparing intraperitoneal distribution and tissue uptake of 2 tracer substances (toluidine blue and DT01). Tracer uptake was determined by measuring DT01 in tissue and peritoneal fluid at the end of each procedure. RESULTS: Electrostatic precipitation of the aerosol was technically feasible in all ePIPAC animals. The aerosol was cleared completely from the visual field within 15 s in the ePIPAC group versus 30 min in the PIPAC group. The peritoneal surface was homogeneously stained in both groups. After 30 min, 1.5 % remaining DT01 was measured in samples of ePIPAC-treated peritoneal fluid versus 15 % in PIPAC animals (p = 0.01). Tissue concentration was increased after ePIPAC versus PIPAC (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: ePIPAC is technically feasible and improves tissue uptake of 2 tracer substances compared to PIPAC by up to tenfold. Intraperitoneal distribution was homogeneous in both groups. ePIPAC has the potential to allow more efficient drug uptake, further dose reduction, a significant shortening of the time required for PIPAC application, and improved health and safety measures.