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.

Review on treatment of pleural metastasis and malignant pleural effusion with Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC).

Background: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common and debilitating condition seen in advanced cancer disease, and life-expectancy is short. Symptoms include pain and severe shortness of breath. Current first-line treatment options include pleural drainage using catheters as well as pleurodesis. However, these treatment modalities are often inefficient and patients need repeated procedures. Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy (PITAC) is a minimally invasive procedure, where antineoplastic agents are nebulized under pressure into the pleural space. Content: We present the preliminary safety, feasibility, and response assessment data for PITAC based on a comprehensive literature review. Summary: Five retrospective studies reported data on 38 PITACs in 21 patients. Data were heterogeneous and incomplete on several important aspects such as procedure, safety, local effect and long-term outcomes. PITAC seems technically feasible with a low risk of complications and may provide some reduction in MPE in selected cases. Outlook: PITAC seems feasible, but prospective phase I and II studies are needed to define safety, indications, and efficacy.

What is long-term survival in patients with peritoneal metastasis from gastric, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer? A study of patients treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: A definition of long-term survival (LTS) in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), pancreatic cancer (PC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is lacking. We aimed to define LTS and investigate characteristics and treatment response in patients who reached LTS in data from two prospective trials. Methods: Retrospective study of patients with GC-, PC-, or CRC-PM from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies. The definition of LTS was based on published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. LTS was defined at the time point where 25 % of the patients were alive in these studies. Histology based response was evaluated by the mean Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) using biopsies obtained prior to PIPAC 3, and defined by a mean PRGS of ≤2.0 or a decrease of mean PRGS of ≥1, compared to baseline. Results: LTS was defined at 21 (GC), 15 (PC), and 24 (CRC) months. Fifty-one (47.2 %) patients (nine GC, 17 PC, 25 CRC) reached LTS calculated from the date of PM diagnosis. All but one received palliative chemotherapy before PIPAC, and 37 % received bidirectional treatment. More than 90 % of the LTS patients had response according to PRGS. The mOS from PIPAC 1 was 23.3, 12.4, and 28.5 months for GC, PC, and CRC LTS patients. Conclusions: Patients with PM from GC, PC, and CRC treated with systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC can reach LTS and most show histological response. Causality must be further investigated.

Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic D2 Gastrectomy in Combination with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in Patients with Gastric Cancer at High Risk of Recurrence-The PIPAC-OPC4 Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) are at high risk of peritoneal recurrence despite perioperative chemotherapy and radical resection. This study evaluated feasibility and safety of laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy in combination with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). METHODS: This was a prospective, controlled bi-institutional study in patients with GAC at high risk of recurrence treated with PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) after laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy. High risk was defined as a poorly cohesive subtype with predominance of signet-ring cells, clinical stage ≥ T3 and/or ≥ N2, or positive peritoneal cytology. Peritoneal lavage fluid was collected before and after resection. Cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2) and doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m2) were aerosolized after anastomosis (flow 0.5-0.8 ml/s, maximum pressure 300 PSI). Treatment was feasible and safe if ≤ 20% had Dindo-Clavien ≥ 3b surgical complications or CTCAE ≥ 4 medical adverse events within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), peritoneal lavage cytology, and completion of postoperative systemic chemotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were treated with a D2 gastrectomy and PIPAC C/D. The median age was 61 years (range 24-76), there were eleven female patients, and 20 patients had preoperative chemotherapy. There was no mortality. Two patients had grade 3b complications that were potentially related to PIPAC C/D (one anastomotic leakage, and one late duodenal blow-out). One patient had severe neutropenia, and nine patients had moderate pain. The LOS was 6 days (4-26). One patient had positive peritoneal lavage cytology before resection, and none were positive after. Fifteen patients had postoperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic D2 gastrectomy in combination with PIPAC C/D is feasible and safe.

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.

Treatment of Peritoneal Metastasis with Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy: Results from the Prospective PIPAC-OPC2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a local treatment for peritoneal metastasis (PM). Prospective data are scarce and evaluation of treatment response remains difficult. This study evaluated the use of the Peritoneal Regression Grading score (PRGS) and its prognostic value. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, controlled phase II trial in patients with PM from gastrointestinal, gynaecological, hepatopancreatobiliary, primary peritoneal, or unknown primary cancer. Patients in performance status 0-1, with a non-obstructed gastrointestinal tract, and a maximum of one extraperitoneal metastasis were eligible. Colorectal or appendiceal PM had PIPAC with oxaliplatin, other primaries had PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Biopsies were taken at each PIPAC and evaluated using the PRGS. Quality-of-life questionnaires were reported at baseline and after three PIPACs. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients were treated with 336 PIPACs (median 3, range 1-12). One hundred patients had prior palliative chemotherapy and 45 patients received bidirectional treatment. Complete or major histological response to treatment (PRGS 1-2) was observed in 38 patients (61%) who had three PIPACs, which was the only independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis. The median overall survival (mOS) from PIPAC 1 was 10 months, while patients with PM from gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer had a mOS of 7.4, 16.7, and 8.2 months, respectively. Global health scores were significantly reduced, but patients were less fatigued, nauseated, constipated, and had better appetite after three PIPACs. CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC with oxaliplatin or cisplatin and doxorubicin was able to induce a major or complete histological response during three PIPACs, which may provide significant prognostic information, both at baseline and after treatment.

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.

Phase I study of intraperitoneal aerosolized nanoparticle albumin based paclitaxel (NAB-PTX) for unresectable peritoneal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel method to treat patients with peritoneal metastases (PM). We aimed to study the tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and tumour response of nanoparticle albumin bound paclitaxel (NAB-PTX) during PIPAC in a Phase I study. METHODS: Eligible patients with biopsy-proven PM from ovarian, breast, gastric, hepatobiliary, or pancreatic origin underwent three PIPAC treatments using NAB-PTX with a four-week interval. The dose of NAB-PTX was escalated from 35 to 140 mg/m2 using a Bayesian design to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). FINDINGS: Twenty-three patients were included; thirteen (65%) patients combined PIPAC therapy with continued systemic chemotherapy. The most frequent toxicities were liver toxicity and anaemia. Treatment resulted in seven (35%) responders, six (30%) non-responders and seven (35%) patients with stable PM. Systemic absorption of NAB-PTX was slow, with median peak plasma concentrations reached after 3 to 4 h. Median NAB-PTX tumour tissue concentrations suggested accumulation: 14.6 ng/mg, 19.2 ng/mg and 40.8 ng/mg after the first, second and third PIPAC procedure respectively. EORTC QoL and VAS scores remained stable. Overall survival after one year was 57%. INTERPRETATION: PIPAC with NAB-PTX results in a favourable PK profile and promising anticancer activity in patients with unresectable PM. The MTD and recommended Phase II clinical trial dose are 140 mg/m2. In patients with impaired hepatobiliary function, a dose of 112.5 mg/m2 is recommended. FUNDING: Kom op tegen Kanker (Flemish League against Cancer).

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.

Next-generation sequencing and histological response assessment in peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with PIPAC.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer (PM-PC) may be treated with repeated pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Utility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect cancer-related mutations in peritoneal quadrant biopsies (QBs) and peritoneal fluid (PF) after systemic and PIPAC treatment has not been evaluated. Around 90% of pancreatic cancers (PCs) harbour a KRAS mutation, making PC ideal for the evaluation of this aspect. AIMS: Evaluation of PM-PC in terms of (1) histological response to PIPAC using Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), (2) clinical characteristics and (3) frequency of mutations in QBs and PF before and after PIPAC. METHODS: Peritoneal QBs and PF were obtained prior to each PIPAC. NGS for 22 cancer-related genes was performed on primary tumours, QBs and PFs. Response was assessed by the four-tiered PRGS. RESULTS: Sixteen patients treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures were included. The mean PRGS was reduced from 1.91 to 1.58 (p=0.02). Fifty-seven specimens (13 primary tumours, 2 metastatic lymph nodes, 16 PFs and 26 QB sets) were analysed with NGS. KRAS mutation was found in 14/16 patients (87.50%) and in QBs, primary tumours and PF in 8/12 (66.67%), 8/13 (61.53%) and 6/9 (66.67%). The median overall survival was 9.9 months (SE 1.5, 95% CI 4.9 to 13.9). CONCLUSION: PIPAC induces histological response in the majority of patients with PM-PC. KRAS mutation can be found in PM-PC after PIPAC at a frequency similar to the primaries. NGS may be used to detect predictive mutations in PM-PC of various origins, also when only post-PIPAC QBs or PFs are available.

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed treatment of peritoneal metastasis in end-stage colo-rectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) represents a novel approach to intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Hereby results, obtained with PIPAC in patients with advanced peritoneal metastasis (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC), are presented. METHODS: Data from CRC patients (n = 24) included in the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 trials are reported. Oxaliplatin 92 mg/m2 was administered at 4-6-week intervals. A CE certified nebulizer was used to aerosolize the chemotherapeutics. Outcome criteria were objective tumor response, survival and adverse events. RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of 74 PIPAC procedures carried out in 24 consecutive patients with PM from CRC included from October 2015 to February 2019. Five patients had still the primary tumor in situ, and 22 patients had received palliative systemic chemotherapy. Nineteen patients completed more than two PIPAC procedures, and objective tumor response according to the histological Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) was observed in 67% of the patients, while 21% had stable disease. Four patients (21%) had complete response (mean PRGS = 1 and negative cytology). We recorded a median survival of 37.6 (range 7.3-48.9) months from the time of PM diagnosis, whereas it was 20.5 (range 0.13-34.7) months following the first PIPAC session. Minor postoperative complications were noted, and few were considered causally related to the PIPAC treatment. However, two cases of severe postoperative complications were recorded (urosepsis and iatrogenic bowel perforation). CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC with low-dose oxaliplatin can induce objective tumor regression in selected patients with advanced PM from colorectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is used in the palliative treatment of peritoneal metastasis. The combination of intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy seems rational, and the aim of this systematic review was to compare PIPAC directed monotherapy with a bidirectional treatment approach (PIPAC in combination with systemic chemotherapy). Main outcomes were survival and quality of life. METHODS: A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the "Pleura and Peritoneum" was conducted and analyzed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English reporting on bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy and published before April 2019 were included. RESULTS: Twelve studies with a total of 386 patients were included. None were specifically designed to compare mono- versus bidirectional treatment, but 44% of the patients received bidirectional treatment. This was more frequent in women (non-gynecological cancers) and one-third of the bidirectional treated patients had received no prior chemotherapy. Data from the included studies provided no conclusions regarding survival or quality of life. CONCLUSION: Bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy is practised and feasible, and some patients are enrolled having received no prior systemic chemotherapy for their PM. The difficulty in drawing any conclusions based on this systematic review has highlighted the urgent need to improve and standardize reports on PIPAC directed therapy. We have, therefore, constructed a list of items to be considered when reporting on clinical PIPAC research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO. Registration number: 90352, March 5, 2018.

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

INTRODUCTION: Electrostatic precipitation Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has shown superior penetration depth and tissue uptake compared to standard PIPAC. We investigated the feasibility and objective tumor response to ePIPAC with 1 min of precipitation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with PM from various abdominal cancers were included in an amendment to the ongoing prospective PIPAC-OPC2 trial. Colorectal and appendiceal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with PM from other primaries were treated with a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin. Three ePIPAC procedures were planned in each patient including repeated peritoneal biopsies for response evaluation. After emission to the peritoneal cavity, the aerosolized chemotherapeutics were precipitated for 1 min followed by immediate exsufflation and abdominal closure. Histological regression from the first to the third ePIPAC was evaluated according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and compared to data from the PIPAC-OPC1 trial. Complications and toxicities were recorded according to Dindo-Clavien and CTCAE. RESULTS: Sixty-five ePIPAC procedures were performed in 33 patients (median 2, range 1-6). Ten patients were eligible for response evaluation based on biopsies from the first and third ePIPAC procedure. Four patients had disease progression, four patients had regressive disease, and two patients had stable disease according to PRGS. No life threatening adverse reactions and no mortality was observed following ePIPAC. CONCLUSION: One minute ePIPAC was feasible and safe, but the histological tumor response was insufficient compared to standard PIPAC directed therapy with 30 min passive diffusion time.

[Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for the treatment of peritoneal metastases].

Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was introduced in Denmark in 2015. More than 100 Danish patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) have received PIPAC-directed treatment within the PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 trials. PIPAC-directed treatment is feasible and safe, and there are no occupational risks for the involved healthcare professionals. An objective tumour response is seen in two out of three patients, and the survival data warrant further evaluation in large-scale randomised trials in patients with PM from different primary tumours.

Detection of free intraperitoneal tumour cells in peritoneal lavage fluid from patients with peritoneal metastasis before and after treatment with pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

AIMS: In this study, we investigated whether free intraperitoneal tumour cells (FITC) were detectable in ascites or peritoneal lavage fluid (PLF) from patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) before and after treatment with pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). METHODS: Ascites or PLF retrieved at the first and third PIPAC procedures was analysed by conventional cytology, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and total protein concentration, and quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) for mRNA expression of CEA, epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). Conventional cytology and qRT-PCR were also performed in a negative control group (benign PLF specimens and inflammatory ascites). The treatment response was compared with the histological response based on repeated peritoneal biopsies evaluated by the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with PM of various origins were included from 2015 to 2016. At the first PIPAC procedure, FITC were detected by conventional cytology (sensitivity 0.58, specificity 1.00), CEA protein (cut-off 0.4 µg/L, sensitivity 0.71), CEA mRNA (sensitivity 0.75, specificity 1.00), EpCAM mRNA (sensitivity 0.71, specificity 1.00) and CA-125 mRNA (sensitivity 0.43, specificity 1.00). The combination of CEA/EpCAM mRNA had a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 1.00. The evaluation of ascites or PLF retrieved at the third PIPAC procedure failed to detect treatment response, when compared with the histological PRGS. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of CEA and EpCAM mRNA detects FITC with a high sensitivity and an excellent specificity, but is not useful for response evaluation in patients treated with PIPAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02320448.

Prospective, single-center implementation and response evaluation of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a laparoscopy-guided administration of aerosolized chemotherapy. PIPAC seems to improve objective tumor response, survival and quality of life in patients with peritoneal metastasis. We assessed feasibility and efficacy of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). METHODS: Patients were included in a prospective PIPAC protocol. Patients with colorectal PM were treated with oxaliplatin, patients with other primary tumors were treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Any chemotherapy exposure for healthcare workers was monitored by environmental and biological sampling. Feasibility was quantified by completion and complication rates. Response evaluation was documented by the peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) and by peritoneal lavage cytology. Biopsy sites were marked by clips. Quality of life questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 60, 120 and 180 days. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients with PM were treated with a median of three PIPAC procedures (range 1-9). Intraperitoneal access and completion of PIPAC was achieved in all patients. Few complications and adverse events were noted. There was no risk of chemotherapy exposure for healthcare workers. The mean PRGS was reduced significantly and a reduction of the PRGS was seen in 67% of the patients. Conversion from positive to negative cytology was achieved in 23% of the patients. Quality of life was stabilized from baseline to day 60. CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC is feasible and well tolerated, may stabilize the quality of life in patients with end-stage PM and may induce histological and cytological regression.This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02320448].

Adjuvant Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in resected high-risk colon cancer patients - study protocol for the PIPAC-OPC3 Trial. A prospective, controlled phase 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) is the second most common site of recurrence in colon cancer (CC) patients and accounts for approximately one-third of all recurrences. Patients with T4 or intraperitoneal perforated colon cancers have an increased risk of developing PM, and since manifest PM is difficult to treat, high-risk patients should be offered prophylactic treatment. Here, we propose a study of adjuvant oxaliplatin administered as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC OX) in patients with high-risk colon cancer (T4, perforated tumors, ovarian metastasis). METHODS: PIPAC-OPC3 CC is a non-randomized, non-blinded phase 2 cohort study designed to treat high-risk colon cancer patients with adjuvant PIPAC-directed therapy. Based on an expected 90 % peritoneal recurrence-free survival with adjuvant PIPAC against the estimated 75 % without, 60 patients are needed (α: 0.05, power: 0.8). Eligible patients will receive two PIPAC treatments with oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) at 4-6 week intervals. During laparoscopy, the peritoneum is biopsied at two locations, and peritoneal lavage with 500 mL of saline and laparoscopic ultrasound is performed. The patients are screened for adverse medical events and surgery-related complications after each PIPAC procedure. After the second PIPAC procedure, the patients will be examined in the outpatient clinic and followed with CT scans 12, 24 and 36 months after resection. The primary outcome of the PIPAC-OPC3 CC trial is to evaluate if PIPAC-directed adjuvant therapy can reduce the risk of PM. Secondary outcomes include the number of conversions from positive to negative peritoneal lavage cytology after one PIPAC procedure, completion rate of two adjuvant PIPAC treatments, toxicity and complication rate and recurrence-free and overall survival rates after 1, 3 and 5 years. RESULTS: It is expected that PIPAC-directed adjuvant therapy can provide an absolute risk reduction of 15 % regarding the development of PM in high-risk colon cancer patients, and that this may result in increased survival rates. We expect that free intraperitoneal tumor cells (FITC) may be detected by peritoneal lavage performed just prior to the administration of PIPAC-directed therapy, and that this treatment may convert FITC-positive patients to a FITC-negative status. CONCLUSIONS: This study may provide important knowledge to be used in designing additional studies on PIPAC in the adjuvant setting of other primary cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03280511 (2017-09-12). European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) 2017-002637-37.

Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy - PIPAC-OPC2.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a common endpoint in both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cancers, and PC is treated as other systemic metastases - unfortunately with disappointing results and considerable side-effects. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new method of applying traditional chemotherapy, and preliminary data indicate that PIPAC is safe, able to stabilize or improve quality of life, and can induce an objectively measurable reduction in disease burden in PC. METHODS: PIPAC-OPC2 is a prospectively controlled Phase II, single center, one-arm, open-label clinical trial investigating the treatment effect of PIPAC in patients with histological or cytological proven PC from gastrointestinal, ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. Eligible patients will receive PIPAC in series of three using a combination of doxorubicin (1.5 mg/m2) and cisplatin (7.5 mg/m2) for non-colorectal cancer patients (PIPAC C/D), and oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) in patients with PC of colorectal origin (PIPAC OX). Patients are monitored by: (1) repeated measurements of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) in biopsies obtained from metal clips marked areas, (2) Quality-of-Life (QoL) questionnaires, (3) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and (4) Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI). Adverse events and surgical complications will be recorded according to the 30 days definition. RESULTS: The primary outcome of PIPAC-OPC2 is to evaluate if PIPAC can induce major or complete response (PRGS 1 or 2) within a series of three PIPAC procedures. Secondarily this study investigates changes in QoL and MRI as a staging and response evaluation tool. The secondary outcomes will be used to create a model that may predict which of the patients will benefit from PIPAC treatment. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that PIPAC directed therapy can induce major or complete response in 50 % of patients with PC of colorectal origin and in 30 % of patients with PC of non-colorectal origin - and at the same time stabilize or even improve quality of life. This trial may provide data regarding the utility of MRI as a staging and response evaluation tool in patients with PC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03287375 and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2016-003394-18.