Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): Initial Experience from Indian Centers and a Review of Literature.

Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC is a therapeutic option that benefits only selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM). New treatments like pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) have been developed to overcome some limitations of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and treat patients who are not eligible for a curative approach. The safety and feasibility of the procedure in the first few Indian patients treated with PIPAC, and the technique and the set-up required for PIPAC are described here. From May 2017 to August 2017, data was collected prospectively for all patients undergoing PIPAC at three Indian centers. The patients' characteristic, operative findings, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Seventeen procedures were performed in 16 patients with peritoneal metastases from various primary sites using standard drug regimens developed for the procedure. The median hospital stay was 1 day, minor and major complications were seen in two patients each (11.7%), and there was one post-operative death. Of the six patients who completed at least 6 weeks of follow-up, there was disease progression in two, unrelated problems in two patients, and a second procedure was performed in one patient. One patient underwent subsequent CRS and HIPEC. Our results show the feasibility and safety of PIPAC in Indian patients with a low morbidity and mortality and short hospital stay. While clinical trials will determine its role in addition to systemic chemotherapy, it can be used in patients who have progressed on one or more lines of systemic chemotherapy and those who have chemotherapy-resistant ascites.

Treading the beaten path with old and new obstacles: a report from the Indian HIPEC registry.

BACKGROUND: The Indian HIPEC registry is a self-funded registry instituted by a group of Indian surgeons for patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) undergoing surgical treatment. This work was performed to • Evaluate outcomes of cytoreductive surgery ± HIPEC in patients enrolled in the registry. • Identify operational problems. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in the registry from March 2016 to September 2017 was performed. An online survey was performed to study the surgeons' attitudes and existing practices pertaining to the registry and identify operational problems. RESULTS: During the study period, 332 patients were enrolled in 8 participating centres. The common indication was ovarian cancer for three centres and pseudomyxoma peritonei for three others. The median PCI ranged from 3 to 23. A CC-0/1 resection was obtained in 94.7%. There was no significant difference in the morbidity (p = .25) and mortality (p = .19) rates between different centres. There was a high rate of failure-to-rescue (19.3%) patients with complications and the survival in patients with colorectal PM was inferior. A lack of dedicated personnel for data collection and entry was the main reason for only 10/43 surgeons contributing data. The other problem was the lack of complete electronic medical record systems at all centres. CONCLUSIONS: These results validate existing practices and identify country-specific problems that need to be addressed. Despite operational problems, the registry is an invaluable tool for audit and research. It shows the feasibility of fruitful collaboration between surgeons in the absence of any regulatory body or funding for the project.

Can low grade PMP be divided into prognostically distinct subgroups based on histological features? A retrospective study and the importance of using the appropriate classification.

INTRODUCTION: The pathological classification of PMP of appendiceal origin has prognostic and treatment implications. Our goals were to • Classify low grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei (LGMCP) into prognostically distinct subgroups based on histological features. • Compare the reproducibility of the WHO and the PSOGI classifications for both PMP and the appendiceal primary tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC or debulking surgery was done. All the tumors were re-classified according to the PSOGI classification. LGMCP was further classified into three histological subgroups and the impact on survival was evaluated. RESULTS: From Jun 2011 to June 2016, 101 patients underwent CRS with HIPEC (n = 89) or debulking surgery (n=12). The median PCI was 28 (3-39) and 74.1% patients had CC-0/1 resections. Of the 76.2% patients who had LGMCP, 4 patients (5.1%) were classified as group 1, 54 (70.1%) as group 2 and 19 patients (24.6%) as group 3. At a median follow up of 21 months, the disease free survival was not reached, 30 months and 14 months for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (p = 0.09). There was no difference in overall survival. Using the WHO classification, there was a discordance in the grade of the primary tumor and the peritoneal lesions in 19.8% and conflicting terminology was used in 62% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The subgroups of LGMCP described here are prognostically different though this needs further prospective evaluation in larger series. The PSOGI classification is more uniformly reproducible and should be preferred to the WHO classification.

The "homemade" HIPEC machine - a cost-effective alternative in low-resource countries.

BACKGROUND: HIPEC using custom-made machines (CMM) remains unaffordable for many patients in low-income countries. We describe the assembly and use homemade HIPEC machine (HMM) as a cost-effective alternative. METHODS: We evaluated the cost of setting up the HMM, maintenance, expenses per procedure as well as technical aspects including target temperature and flow rate, safety aspects, technical failures and the technical support required. The comparison with CMM was based on the manufacturer information and published reports and not on personal experience. RESULTS: Form 2011 to 2017, we performed HIPEC (Coliseum technique) in 81 patients using HMM. HMM was a cardiopulmonary bypass machine available in our institution, with an additional water bath. Flow rate was 2 L/min and target temperature between 41 and 43 °C could be achieved in all cases. There were no technical failures and there was no safety issue recorded. Routine maintenance was provided yearly by an in-house technician. Chemotherapy costs (between 20 and 500 USD) were independent from the devices used. Cost of consumables was 450 USD/procedure, as compared to 1800 to 3500 USD/procedure for commercially available products. Investment cost for CMM is between 70,000 and 1,35,000 USD. CONCLUSIONS: The HMM is a cost-effective option allowing access to HIPEC to patients in low-resource countries without loss of efficacy or additional safety concerns. The initial cost and cost per procedure were substantially less for HMM while the maintenance of both systems was similar in terms of complexity and cost. The CMM are more user-friendly and require less technical support.