Outcome of patients with peritoneal metastasis from ovarian cancer treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: There are few data on Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) in women with primary unresectable or recurrent platinum-resistant peritoneal metastasis (PM) from ovarian cancer (OC). We evaluated survival, histological and cytological response, Quality of Life (QoL) and toxicity after PIPAC C/D in these patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and -OPC2 studies. The histological response was evaluated by the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). QoL questionnaires were collected at baseline and after third PIPAC or 60 days. Adverse events were collected until 30 days after the last PIPAC. Demographic and survival data were analysed based on intention to treat. Response, QoL and toxicity were analysed per protocol (≥1 PIPAC). Results: Twenty-nine patients were included. Five patients (17 %) were non-accessible at PIPAC 1. One patient was excluded due to liver metastases at PIPAC 1. Thus, 23 patients had 76 PIPACs (median 2, range 1-12). Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95 % CI 4.4-10.3) from PIPAC 1. Biopsy data were available for 22 patients, and seven (32 %) patients had a major/complete histological response (PRGS≤2) at PIPAC 3. No cytological conversions were registered. Symptoms and function scores worsened, while emotional scores improved. Three patients had severe adverse reactions (two ileus, one pulmonary embolism); no life-threatening reactions or treatment-related mortality was observed. Conclusions: PIPAC C/D was feasible and induced histological regression in a substantial proportion of patients with platinum-resistant PM from OC. Larger studies are needed to evaluate impact on survival.

RNA expression profiling of peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an experimental treatment option in peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer (PM-PC). Aims were to examine mRNA profile of fibrosis due to response after systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC (Regression) compared to treatment-naïve PM-PC and chronic cholecystitis-related peritoneal fibrosis (Controls). Methods: Peritoneal biopsies (PBs) from PM-PC patients who had undergone systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC were evaluated with Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). We extracted RNA from PBs with Regression (PRGS 1, n=11), treatment-naïve PM-PC (n=10), and Controls (n=10). Profiling of 800 mRNAs was performed (NanoString nCounter, PanCancer Immuno-Oncology 360 (IO-360) and 30 additional stroma-related mRNAs). Results: Regression vs. PM-PC identified six up-regulated and 197 down-regulated mRNAs (FDR≤0.05), linked to TNF-α signaling via NF-kB, G2M checkpoint, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, estrogen response, and coagulation. Regression vs. Controls identified 43 significantly up-regulated mRNAs, linked to interferon-α response, and down-regulation of 99 mRNAs, linked to TNF-α signaling via NF-kB, inflammatory response, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, KRAS signaling, and hypoxia (FDR≤0.05). Conclusions: In regressive fibrosis of PM-PC after systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC (Regression), downregulation of mRNAs related to key tumor biological pathways was identified. Regression also showed transcriptional differences from unspecific, benign fibrosis (Controls). Future studies should explore whether mRNA profiling of PBs with PM from PC or other primaries holds prognostic or predictive value.

First Clinical Safety and Feasibility Data of Whole-body Hyperthermia Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (WBH-PIPAC) for Peritoneal Surface Malignancies.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of whole-body hyperthermia pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (WBH-PIPAC) in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed a database of 28 patients who had received one cycle of normothermic PIPAC prior to repetitive WBH-PIPACs. WBH (39-40°C) was induced using a Water-filtered infrared A device. Doxorubicin plus cisplatin or oxaliplatin was nebulized into a constant capnoperitoneum of 20 mmHg for 30 min at doses of 6.0 mg, 30.0 mg, or 120 mg per m2 body surface area, respectively. The primary outcome measures were feasibility and perioperative complications. RESULTS: The median age was 62 years (range=45-78 years). Primary tumor sites included the upper gastrointestinal tract (n=9), colon/rectum (n=7), hepato-pancreato-biliary system (n=3), peritoneum (n=2), ovaries (n=2), and unknown primary (n=5). The induction of WBH failed in one patient (6 liters ascites). After a median warming period of 95 min (53-117 min), the median rectal temperature (Trec) was 39.5°C (39.2-39.9°C). No hyperthermia-related side effects were observed. Twenty-seven patients received 50 WBH-PIPACs. The median time of therapeutic capnoperitoneum and treatment time with Trec ≥39°C was 39 min (37-43 min) and 66 min (53-69 min), respectively. The overall rate of postoperative procedure-related complications was 9/50, including seven grade I and two grade II complications. There were no grade III-V complications. CONCLUSION: In a highly selected group of patients, the feasibility and perioperative safety of WBH-PIPAC was comparable to normothermic PIPAC.

The Future of Interventions for Stage IV Colorectal Cancers.

Future options for the management of stage IV colorectal cancer are primarily focused on personalized and directed therapies. Interventions include precision cancer medicine, utilizing nanocarrier platforms for directed chemotherapy, palliative pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), adjunctive oncolytic virotherapy, and radioembolization techniques. Comprehensive genetic profiling provides specific tumor-directed therapy based on individual genetics. Biomimetic magnetic nanoparticles as chemotherapy delivery systems may reduce systemic side effects of traditional chemotherapy by targeting tumor cells and sparing healthy cells. PIPAC is a newly emerging option for patients with peritoneal metastasis from colorectal cancer and is now being used internationally, showing promising results as a palliative therapy for colorectal cancer. Oncolytic virotherapy is another emerging potential treatment option, especially when combined with standard chemotherapy and/or radiation, as well as immunotherapy. And finally, radioembolization with yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) microspheres has shown some success in treating patients with unresectable liver metastasis from colorectal cancer via selective arterial injection.

Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases: a single center outline and comparison of different surgical and intraperitoneal treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) has an unfavourable prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are promising treatment options that have been shown to improve survival. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different treatments such as systemic chemotherapy, systemic chemotherapy + PIPAC, and CRS + HIPEC in patients with GCPM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single-centre retrospective study included 82 patients with GCPM treated between January 2016 and June 2021. After first-line chemotherapy, depending on disease response and burden, the patients were divided into three treatment groups: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy + PIPAC, and CRS + HIPEC. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis, which was compared among the treatment groups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven (45.1%) patients were administered systemic chemotherapy alone, 25 (30.4%) received chemotherapy + PIPAC, and 20 (24.4%) underwent CRS + HIPEC. The CRS + HIPEC group had better OS (median 24 months) than the PIPAC group (15 months, p = 0.01) and chemotherapy group (5 months, p = 0.0001). Following CRS + HIPEC, the postoperative grade 3-4 complication rate was 25%, and no postoperative in-hospital deaths occurred. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 12 months. Multivariate analysis identified peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) > 7 as an independent predictor of worse DFS. No independent predictors of OS were identified. CONCLUSION: Among patients with GCPM, we identified a highly selected population with oligometastatic disease. In this group, CRS + HIPEC provided a significant survival advantage with an acceptable major complication rate compared with other available therapies (systemic chemotherapy alone or in combination with PIPAC).

The role of cytology in patients undergoing pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Objectives: Cytology of ascites or peritoneal washing is a routine part of staging of peritoneal metastases (PM). We aim to determine value of cytology in patients undergoing pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients having PIPAC for PM of different primary between January 2015 and January 2020. Results: A total of 75 patients (median 63 years (IQR 51-70), 67 % female) underwent a total of 144 PIPAC. At PIPAC 1 59 % patients had positive and 41 % patients had negative cytology. Patients with negative and positive cytology only differed in terms of symptoms of ascites (16% vs. 39 % respectively, p=0.04), median ascites volume (100 vs. 0 mL, p=0.01) and median PCI (9 vs. 19, p<0.01). Among 20 patients who completed 3 PIPACs (per protocol), cytology changed in one from positive to negative, and in two from negative to positive. Median overall survival was 30.9 months in the per protocol group and 12.9 months in patients having <3 PIPACs (=0.519). Conclusions: Positive cytology under PIPAC treatment is more frequently encountered in patients with higher PCI and symptomatic ascites. Cytoversion was rarely observed and cytology status had no impact on treatment decisions in this cohort.

10 Years of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper-Pearson exact CIs in all instances. RESULTS: A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3-4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61-0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I2 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%. CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.

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

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed therapy emerged as a treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM) a decade ago. The response assessment of PIPAC is not uniform. This narrative review describes non-invasive and invasive methods for response evaluation of PIPAC and summarizes their current status. PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for eligible publications, and data were reported on an intention-to-treat basis. The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) showed a response in 18-58% of patients after two PIPACs. Five studies showed a cytological response in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid in 6-15% of the patients. The proportion of patients with malignant cytology decreased between the first and third PIPAC. A computed tomography showed stable or regressive disease following PIPAC in 15-78% of patients. The peritoneal cancer index was mainly used as a demographic variable, but prospective studies reported a response to treatment in 57-72% of patients. The role of serum biomarkers of cancer or inflammation in the selection of candidates for and responders to PIPAC is not fully evaluated. In conclusion, response evaluation after PIPAC in patients with PM remains difficult, but PRGS seems to be the most promising response evaluation modality.

Oncological Outcomes After Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in the Treatment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Our objective was to assess its oncological outcomes. METHODS: Between July 2016 and September 2020, data from 100 PIPAC procedures with oxaliplatin or doxorubicin-cisplatin in 49 patients with PC (all etiologies) were analyzed. We studied the evolution of the peritoneal cancer index (PCI), the need for radical surgery (R0), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The patients' median age was 65 (59; 71) years, and 55.1% were women. Median PIPAC procedures per patient were 2 (1-3), and 28 (57.1%) underwent more than one PIPAC procedure. Median PCI at the first PIPAC was 19 (15-22). PCI decreased for 37%, remained stable for 29.6%, and increased for 33.4% patients. Four (8.3%) underwent radical R0 surgery after PIPAC. After a median follow-up of 16.1 months (1.5-90.1), the median overall survival from PC diagnosis was 29.1 months (14.8-34.3), with a median gastric and colorectal PC survival of 11.3 (7.2-34.3) and 29.1 months (16.1-31) respectively. Overall survival after the first PIPAC session was 11.6 months (6-17.3), with median survival after gastric and colorectal PCs being 6 (2.9-15.5) and 13.3 months (5-17.6), respectively. Stratification of patients according to the number of lines of systemic chemotherapy, PIPAC procedures, and the chronology of PC onset did not result in a significant difference in survival. CONCLUSION: The OS was in line with the literature. PIPAC could delay oncological progression and improve survival. These encouraging results justify the ongoing and future evaluations of PIPAC by prospective randomized trials.

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).

Hospitalization cost of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

INTRODUCTION: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. Very little data is available on the costs of this treatment in France as there is currently no code for PIPAC in the French Common Classification of Medical Acts (CCAM). Our objective was to estimate the mean cost of hospitalization for PIPAC in two French public teaching hospitals. METHODS: The mean cost of hospitalization was estimated from the mean fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital and the mean additional costs of treatment paid by the hospital. At discharge a patient's hospitalization is classified into a diagnosis related group, which determines the fixed-rate remuneration paid to the hospital (obtained from the national hospitals database - PMSI). Costs of medical devices and drug treatments specific to PIPAC, not covered by the fixed-rate remuneration, were obtained from the hospital pharmacies. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and November 2021, 205 PIPAC procedures were performed on 79 patients (mean procedures per patient = 2.6). Mean operating room occupancy was 165 min. The mean fixed-rate remuneration received by the hospitals per PIPAC hospitalization was €4031. The actual mean cost per hospitalization was €6562 for a mean length-of-stay of 3.3 days. Thus, each PIPAC hospitalization cost the hospital €2531 on average. CONCLUSION: The current reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the national health system is insufficient and represents only 61% of the real cost. The creation of a new fixed-rate remuneration for PIPAC taking into account this cost differential is necessary.

Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis: how many biopsies should be examined?

Objectives: The four-tied peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is increasingly used to evaluate the response of peritoneal metastases (PM) to chemotherapy. The minimal number of peritoneal biopsies needed for PRGS determination remains unclear. Methods: A prospective cohort of 89 PM patients treated with 210 pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) cycles was investigated. Four biopsies from every abdominal quadrant were recommended. Histological tumor response was defined as a stable or decreasing mean PRGS between therapy cycles, progression increasing. We compared the diagnostic uncertainty induced by missing biopsies to the histological response. Results: A total of 49 patients had at least two PIPAC and were eligible for therapy response assessment. Mean PRGS decreased from 2.04 (CI 5-95% 1.85-2.27) to 1.79 (CI 5-95% 1.59-2.01), p=0.14, as a proof of therapy effectiveness. 35 (71.4%) patients had a stable or decreasing PRGS (therapy response), 14 (28.6%) a PRGS increase (disease progression). Histology showed agreement between four biopsies in 42/210 laparoscopies (20%), between ≥3 biopsies in 103 (49%), and between ≥2 biopsies in 169 laparoscopies (81%). Mean loss of information with one missing biopsy was 0.11 (95% CI=0.13) PRGS points, with two missing biopsies 0.18 (95% CI 0.21). In 9/49 patients (18.3%), the loss of information with one less biopsy exceeded the change in PRGS under therapy. Conclusions: A minimum of three biopsies is needed to diagnose PM progression with an accuracy superior to 80%. Missing biopsies often result in a false diagnosis of tumor progression.

Importance of biopsy site selection for peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis treated with repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB). Methods: Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E. Results: Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB. Conclusions: Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.

Feasibility of pressurized intra peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy using an ultrasound aerosol generator (usPIPAC).

BACKGROUND: We tested the feasibility of ultrasound technology for generating pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (usPIPAC) and compared its performance vs. comparator (PIPAC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A piezoelectric ultrasound aerosolizer (NextGen, Sinaptec) was compared with the available technology (Capnopen, Capnomed). Granulometry was measured for water, Glc 5%, and silicone oil using laser diffraction spectrometry. Two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) spraying patterns were determined with methylene blue. Tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) was measured by fluorescence microscopy in the enhanced inverted Bovine Urinary Bladder model (eIBUB). Tissue DOX concentration was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). RESULTS: The droplets median aerodynamic diameter was (usPIPAC vs. PIPAC): H20: 40.4 (CI 10-90%: 19.0-102.3) vs. 34.8 (22.8-52.7) µm; Glc 5%: 52.8 (22.2-132.1) vs. 39.0 (23.7-65.2) µm; Silicone oil: 178.7 (55.7-501.8) vs. 43.0 (20.2-78.5) µm. 2D and 3D blue ink distribution pattern of usPIPAC was largely equivalent with PIPAC, as was DOX tissue concentration (usPIPAC: 0.65 (CI 5-95%: 0.44-0.86) vs. PIPAC: 0.88 (0.59-1.17) ng/ml, p = 0.29). DOX tissue penetration with usPIPAC was inferior to PIPAC: usPIPAC: 60.1 (CI 5.95%: 58.8-61.5) µm vs. PIPAC: 1172 (1157-1198) µm, p < 0.001). The homogeneity of spatial distribution (top, middle and bottom of the eIBUB) was comparable between modalities. DISCUSSION: usPIPAC is feasible, but its performance as a drug delivery system remains currently inferior to PIPAC, in particular for lipophilic solutions.

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.

Effect of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy on the Survival Rate of Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis of Gastric Origin.

INTRODUCTION: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical technique for the treatment of initially unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). Our objective was to compare the results of PIPAC associated with systemic chemotherapy (PIPAC_CHEM) with those of systemic chemotherapy alone (ONLY_CHEM) in patients with gastric PC without metastasis other than peritoneal, and the WHO performance status < 3. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single center, comparative non-randomized study. Seventeen PIPAC_CHEM patients were compared to 29 ONLY_CHEM patients. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 6 months from diagnosis of PC. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were screened and 46 were included (PIPAC_CHEM, n = 17; ONLY_CHEM, n = 29). The PIPAC_ CHEM population was significantly younger (median 64 years [56; 68] vs 74 years [61; 79]; p = 0.0054). Median PIPAC session per patient is 2 [1-3]. Six-month survival was significantly higher in the PIPAC_CHEM group than in the ONLY_CHEM group 16/17 (94.1% [65-99.2]) vs 19/29 (65.5% [45.4-79.7]), respectively; p = 0.029. Over the entire follow-up, median survival [95% CI] was 12.8 months [7.2-34.3] with PIPAC vs 9.1 months [5.4-11.5] without, p = 0.056. At 6 months, median length of additional hospitalization was significantly less for PIPAC_CHEM (median 2 days [2-7]) than without PIPAC (median 11 days [3-21]) (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: The overall survival at 6 months after the diagnosis of carcinomatosis was significantly better for PIPAC_CHEM patients. This difference appears to continue until at least 18 months. At 6 months, days of additional hospitalization was significantly less in the PIPAC_CHEM group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 04,879,953.

Role of immunohistochemistry for interobserver agreement of Peritoneal Regression Grading Score in peritoneal metastasis.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed therapy is a new treatment option for peritoneal metastasis (PM). The 4-tiered Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) has been proposed for assessment of histological treatment response. We aimed to evaluate the effect of immunohistochemistry (IHC) on interobserver agreement of the PRGS. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained and IHC-stained slides (n = 662) from 331 peritoneal quadrant biopsies (QBs) taken prior to 99 PIPAC procedures performed on 33 patients were digitalized and uploaded to a web library. Eight raters (five consultants and three residents) assessed the PRGS, and Krippendorff's alpha coefficients (α) were calculated. Results (IHC-PRGS) were compared with data published in 2019, using H&E-stained slides only (H&E-PRGS). Overall, agreement for IHC-PRGS was substantial to almost perfect. Agreement (all raters) regarding single QBs after treatment was substantial for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66-0.72) and moderate for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.56-0.64). Agreement (all raters) regarding the mean PRGS per QB set after treatment was higher for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.73-0.83) than for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.64-0.78). Among residents, agreement was almost perfect for IHC-PRGS and substantial for H&E-PRGS. Agreement (all raters) regarding maximum PRGS per QB set after treatment was substantial for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.54-0.68) and moderate for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.53-0.66). Among residents, agreement was substantial for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.57-0.75) and moderate for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.45-0.64). Additional IHC seems to improve the interobserver agreement of PRGS, particularly between less experienced raters.

Review of management and treatment of peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer origin.

Gastric cancer (GC) is the third cause of cancer-related deaths in the world, with less than 25% survivors at 5 years. These results are largely related to the high incidence of peritoneal metastases (PM) in these patients. Nowadays, the standard treatment for GC with PM is palliative systemic chemotherapy (SCT) with a survival of 6 months. From the 2000s, the combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been gaining popularity for different neoplastic diseases that involve the peritoneal surface. The use of CRS and HIPEC has been studied for GC with PM, with promising results in selected patients, obtaining survival rates never seen before. Moreover, HIPEC and other intraperitoneal chemotherapy techniques have been used to prevent peritoneal recurrences in patients diagnosed on locally advanced GC without macroscopic PM (adjuvant or prophylactic HIPEC). Even, intraperitoneal chemotherapy [laparoscopic HIPEC and neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS)] has been used as neoadjuvant treatment to reduce peritoneal disease burden in order to improve the rate of patients in whom complete cytoreduction can be achieved. Finally, patients with high volume peritoneal disease can be treated by palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy to control the symptoms resulting from malignant ascites, using laparoscopic HIPEC or pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). This review aims to update the management of PM from GC origin in these different clinical scenarios, based on the literature and the experience of the authors.

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 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.