Acidic ascites inhibits ovarian cancer cell proliferation and correlates with the metabolomic, lipidomic and inflammatory phenotype of human patients.

BACKGROUND: The poor prognosis of ovarian cancer patients is strongly related to peritoneal metastasis with the production of malignant ascites. However, it remains largely unclear how ascites in the peritoneal cavity influences tumor metabolism and recurrence. This study is an explorative approach aimed at for a deeper molecular and physical-chemical characterization of malignant ascites and to investigate their effect on in vitro ovarian cancer cell proliferation. METHODS: This study included 10 malignant ascites specimens from patients undergoing ovarian cancer resection. Ascites samples were deeply phenotyped by 1H-NMR based metabolomics, blood-gas analyzer based gas flow analysis and flow cytomertry based a 13-plex cytokine panel. Characteristics of tumor cells were investigated in a 3D spheroid model by SEM and metabolic activity, adhesion, anti-apoptosis, migratory ability evaluated by MTT assay, adhesion assay, flowcytometry and scratch assay. The effect of different pH values was assessed by adding 10% malignant ascites to the test samples. RESULTS:  The overall extracellular (peritoneal) environment was alkaline, with pH of ascites at stage II-III = 7.51 ± 0.16, and stage IV = 7.78 ± 0.16. Ovarian cancer spheroids grew rapidly in a slightly alkaline environment. Decreasing pH of the cell culture medium suppressed tumor features, metabolic activity, adhesion, anti-apoptosis, and migratory ability. However, 10% ascites could prevent tumor cells from being affected by acidic pH. Metabolomics analysis identified stage IV patients had significantly higher concentrations of alanine, isoleucine, phenylalanine, and glutamine than stage II-III patients, while stage II-III patients had significantly higher concentrations of 3-hydroxybutyrate. pH was positively correlated with acetate, and acetate positively correlated with lipid compounds. IL-8 was positively correlated with lipid metabolites and acetate. Glutathione and carnitine were negatively correlated with cytokines IL-6 and chemokines (IL-8 & MCP-1). CONCLUSION: Alkaline malignant ascites facilitated ovarian cancer progression. Additionally, deep ascites phenotyping by metabolomics and cytokine investigations allows for a refined stratification of ovarian cancer patients. These findings contribute to the understanding of ascites pathology in ovarian cancer.

PIPAC for the Treatment of Gynecologic and Gastrointestinal Peritoneal Metastases: Technical and Logistic Considerations of a Phase 1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastases (PM) from ovarian, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal origin can be treated via cytoreductive surgery with or without the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for selected patients. Unfortunately, not all patients are candidates for aggressive surgical debulking. For these patients, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as an alternative method for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy administration. This report presents the design and implementation of the first phase 1 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PIPAC in the United States. METHODS: This is an ongoing prospective phase 1 clinical trial of PIPAC for patients who have histologically confirmed ovarian, uterine, gastric, appendiceal, or colorectal cancer with PM and have progressed to at least one evidence-based chemotherapeutic regimen. The trial has two clinical arms. The patients in arm 1 have gynecologic and gastric malignancies treated with IP cisplatin and doxorubicin, and the arm 2 patients have colorectal and appendiceal malignancies treated with intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin followed by IP oxaliplatin. All the patients are monitored for dose-limiting toxicities and adverse events. RESULTS: Practical and technical considerations for the phase 1 PIPAC trial are presented. These considerations include patient selection, operating room setup, and technical details for successful aerosolized chemotherapy delivery. The phase 1 study results will be reported separately at completion of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The PIPAC treatment is a feasible, minimally invasive approach that permits IP delivery of chemotherapy. Once completed, the ongoing phase 1 trial will help to provide safety and initial efficacy data.

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.

Reprogramming of Mesothelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Chronic Peritoneal Diseases by Estrogen Receptor Modulation and TGF-ß1 Inhibition.

In chronic peritoneal diseases, mesothelial-mesenchymal transition is determined by cues from the extracellular environment rather than just the cellular genome. The transformation of peritoneal mesothelial cells and other host cells into myofibroblasts is mediated by cell membrane receptors, Transforming Growth Factor ß1 (TGF-ß1), Src and Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF). This article provides a narrative review of the reprogramming of mesothelial mesenchymal transition in chronic peritoneal diseases, drawing on the similarities in pathophysiology between encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis and peritoneal metastasis, with a particular focus on TGF-ß1 signaling and estrogen receptor modulators. Estrogen receptors act at the cell membrane/cytosol as tyrosine kinases that can phosphorylate Src, in a similar way to other receptor tyrosine kinases; or can activate the estrogen response element via nuclear translocation. Tamoxifen can modulate estrogen membrane receptors, and has been shown to be a potent inhibitor of mesothelial-mesenchymal transition (MMT), peritoneal mesothelial cell migration, stromal fibrosis, and neoangiogenesis in the treatment of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis, with a known side effect and safety profile. The ability of tamoxifen to inhibit the transduction pathways of TGF-ß1 and HIF and achieve a quiescent peritoneal stroma makes it a potential candidate for use in cancer treatments. This is relevant to tumors that spread to the peritoneum, particularly those with mesenchymal phenotypes, such as colorectal CMS4 and MSS/EMT gastric cancers, and pancreatic cancer with its desmoplastic stroma. Morphological changes observed during mesothelial mesenchymal transition can be treated with estrogen receptor modulation and TGF-ß1 inhibition, which may enable the regression of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis and peritoneal metastasis.

Chemosensitivity of various peritoneal cancer cell lines to HIPEC and PIPAC: comparison of an experimental duplex drug to standard drug regimens in vitro.

We performed an in-vitro study testing the chemosensitivity of peritoneal cancer cell lines (SW620, HCT116, MKN45, 23,132/87, OAW42) to various cytostatic drug regimens. A duplex drug, characterized by reversible linking of the antimetabolites 2'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine (5-FdU) and 3'-C-ethynylcytidine (ECyd), was compared to oxaliplatin or to cisplatin plus doxorubicin. The experiments were designed to reflect the conditions of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. CASY® (Cell Analysis System) technology was used to compare the impact of incubation temperature/duration and drug concentration on the viability of the cancer cell lines versus normal human dermal fibroblasts. Two incubation scenarios were explored: (i) hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with 1 h of incubation at 42 °C, and (ii) pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with several successive incubations at 37 °C. Under HIPEC conditions, oxaliplatin induced a potent temperature-dependent growth inhibition of colon cancer cells not seen with the duplex drug. Under PIPAC conditions, the duplex drug achieved the same growth inhibition at a fraction of the dose level required with oxaliplatin. Gastric and ovarian cancer cells were more sensitive to cisplatin plus doxorubicin than to the duplex drug under PIPAC conditions. The duplex drug suggests itself, notably in cases of platinum resistance, as an alternative or addition to intraperitoneal chemotherapies when platinum-based PIPAC technology is used. Using it with HIPEC technology is not recommended. Higher doses of the duplex drug will enhance growth inhibition, albeit at the cost of a severely reduced difference in chemosensitivity between tumor and normal cells. Our findings provide orientation for PIPAC-based personalized intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Cachexia Anorexia Syndrome and Associated Metabolic Dysfunction in Peritoneal Metastasis.

: Patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) of gastrointestinal and gynecological origin present with a nutritional deficit characterized by increased resting energy expenditure (REE), loss of muscle mass, and protein catabolism. Progression of peritoneal metastasis, as with other advanced malignancies, is associated with cancer cachexia anorexia syndrome (CAS), involving poor appetite (anorexia), involuntary weight loss, and chronic inflammation. Eventual causes of mortality include dysfunctional metabolism and energy store exhaustion. Etiology of CAS in PM patients is multifactorial including tumor growth, host response, cytokine release, systemic inflammation, proteolysis, lipolysis, malignant small bowel obstruction, ascites, and gastrointestinal side effects of drug therapy (chemotherapy, opioids). Metabolic changes of CAS in PM relate more to a systemic inflammatory response than an adaptation to starvation. Metabolic reprogramming is required for cancer cells shed into the peritoneal cavity to resist anoikis (i.e., programmed cell death). Profound changes in hexokinase metabolism are needed to compensate ineffective oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria. During the development of PM, hypoxia inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) plays a key role in activating both aerobic and anaerobic glycolysis, increasing the uptake of glucose, lipid, and glutamine into cancer cells. HIF-1α upregulates hexokinase II, phosphoglycerate kinase 1 (PGK1), pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK), pyruvate kinase muscle isoenzyme 2 (PKM2), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and glucose transporters (GLUT) and promotes cytoplasmic glycolysis. HIF-1α also stimulates the utilization of glutamine and fatty acids as alternative energy substrates. Cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity interact with cancer-associated fibroblasts and adipocytes to meet metabolic demands and incorporate autophagy products for growth. Therapy of CAS in PM is challenging. Optimal nutritional intake alone including total parenteral nutrition is unable to reverse CAS. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) stabilized nutritional status in a significant proportion of PM patients. Agents targeting the mechanisms of CAS are under development.

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.

Dynamic changes of tumor gene expression during repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with peritoneal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is used to treat peritoneal cancer. The pattern of gene expression changes of peritoneal cancer during intraperitoneal chemotherapy has not been studied before. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy is a new form of intraperitoneal chemotherapy using repeated applications and allowing repeated tumor sampling during chemotherapy. Here, we present the analysis of gene expression changes during pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cisplatin using a 22-gene panel. METHODS: Total RNA was extracted from 152 PC samples obtained from 63 patients in up to six cycles of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Quantitative real-time PCR was used to determine the gene expression levels. For select genes, immunohistochemistry was used to verify gene expression changes observed on the transcript level on the protein level. Observed (changes in) expression levels were correlated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Gene expression profiles differed significantly between peritoneal cancer and non- peritoneal cancer samples and between ascites-producing and non ascites-producing peritoneal cancers. Changes of gene expression patterns during repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy cycles were prognostic of overall survival, suggesting a molecular tumor response of peritoneal cancer. Specifically, downregulation of the whole gene panel during intraperitoneal chemotherapy was associated with better treatment response and survival. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, molecular changes of peritoneal cancer during pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy can be documented and may be used to refine individual treatment and prognostic estimations.

Pressurized intraluminal aerosol chemotherapy with Dbait in the distal esophagus of swine.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A novel therapeutic concept, pressurized intraluminal aerosol chemotherapy (PILAC), and a corresponding device for distributing drugs to the mucosa and submucosa of the distal esophagus are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The endoscopic device that was designed consisted of (i) a double-balloon catheter, similar to a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube; (ii) a carbon dioxide (CO2) line, used to create a gaseous, pressurized environment; and (iii) a micropump, used to generate a therapeutic aerosol. The device was inserted into the distal esophagus in three narcotized Landrace pigs. Dbait (short interfering DNA, or siDNA) was aerosolized under pressure (12 mmHg) in CO2 at 37 °C for 30 minutes. RESULTS: The procedure was well tolerated by all animals. At autopsy, no mucosal or muscular tear was observed. Fluorescence microscopy revealed a homogeneous intramural distribution of Dbait-cyanine 5 in the esophageal wall down to the circular muscular layer (400 - 600 µm). CONCLUSIONS: PILAC is feasible in a large animal model and appears to be safe. Therapy of the entire "tissue at risk" for the development of cancer in the distal esophagus is possible without the prior endoscopic identification of diseased tissue.

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.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer: A phase 2 study.

OBJECTIVE: Recurrent ovarian, fallopian or peritoneal cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis (ROCPC) is resistant to systemic chemotherapy. We assessed the safety and activity of laparoscopic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with this cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm phase 2 study, patients underwent 3 courses q 28-42 days of PIPAC with doxorubicin 1·5 mg/m(2) followed by cisplatin 7·5 mg/m(2). A pressure of 12 mm Hg and a temperature of 37 °C were applied for 30 min/course. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective tumor response (OTR) according to RECIST version 1.1 criteria. Analysis was by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were tumor regression on histology, PC Index improvement on repeated video-laparoscopy, and quality of life measured with the EORTC QLQ-30 questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Laparoscopic non-access rate was 11/64 (17%). 53 patients were eligible for analyses. 33/53 (62%) patients had an OTR - three had a partial response and 30 patients had stable disease. Tumor regression on histology and PC Index improvement were observed in 26/34 (76%) and in 26/34 (76%) patients who underwent all 3 PIPACs. There were no treatment-related deaths. No grade 4 toxicity was observed. Grade 3 toxicities were trocar hernia (n=2), bowel obstruction (n=2), abdominal pain (n=2), hematoma (n=1), intraoperative bleeding (n=1), and cystitis with urosepsis (n=1). EORTC QLQ-30 global physical health scores, nausea/vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, and constipation improved during therapy. CONCLUSION: PIPAC is well tolerated and active in women with ROCPC and warrants further investigation in these patients.

Intraperitoneal chemotherapy of peritoneal carcinomatosis using pressurized aerosol as an alternative to liquid solution: first evidence for efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is an unmet medical need. Despite recent improvements, systemic chemotherapy has limited efficacy. We report the first application of intraperitoneal chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in human patients. METHODS: Three end-stage patients with advanced PC from gastric, appendiceal, and ovarian origin were treated as a compassionate therapy. All patients had received previous systemic chemotherapy. A pressurized aerosol of CO2 loaded with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 7.5 mg/m(2) (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, PIPAC) was applied into the abdomen for 30 min at a pressure of 12 mmHg and a temperature of 37 °C. RESULTS: No side-effects >2 CTCAE were observed, and the procedures were well tolerated. Early hospital discharge was possible (days 2-5). Nuclear presence of doxorubicin was documented throughout the peritoneum, reaching high local concentration (≤4.1 µmol/g) and plasma concentration was low (4.0-6.2 ng/ml). PIPAC created no significant adhesions, could be repeated, and was applied 6×, 4×, and 2×. Two patients showed a complete and one a partial histological remission. Mean survival after the first PIPAC was 288 days. One patient is alive after 567 days. CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC shows superior pharmacological properties with high local concentration and low systemic exposure. PIPAC can induce regression of PC in chemoresistant tumors, using 10% of a usual systemic dose.

Activity of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) with cisplatin and doxorubicin in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: preliminary clinical experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the activity of laparoscopic Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: Prospective case series using repeated courses q 28-42 days of PIPAC containing cisplatin 7.5 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m(2) at 12 mmHg and 37°C for 30 min. Objective tumor response was defined as tumor regression on histology and peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) improvement on repeated video-laparoscopy. RESULTS: 34 PIPAC procedures were performed in 18 women, in 8 instances combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Eight women had repeated PIPAC and objective tumor response was observed in 6 (complete remission: 1; partial remission: 2; stable disease: 3). Five adverse events WHO grade ≥ 2 were noted, 3 of them after combined CRS. No perioperative mortality occurred. Median follow-up was 192 days (min. 13-max. 639). Cumulative survival after 400 days was 62% and mean actuarial survival time was 442 days. In a multivariable regression analysis with objective tumor response (yes vs. no) as the dependent variable and PIPAC (1 vs.>1), patient age (<75 vs.≥75 years), serum CA-125 (<1000 vs.>1000 U/mL), and the presence of ascites (yes vs. no) as independent variables, PIPAC independently predicted objective tumor response. CONCLUSION: PIPAC has activity in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and should be investigated in prospective clinical trials.

Pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with gynecologic malignancies: a review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide an overview of published and ongoing trials of pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy (PIPAC) in ovarian cancer. DESIGN: The study comprised a systematic literature review. RESULTS: We identified 10 studies, including 2 ex vivo and in vitro studies, 6 clinical studies, and 2 ongoing clinical trials using PIPAC in women with recurrent ovarian cancer and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Experimental evidence and clinical study data demonstrate that PIPAC increases peritoneal cavity coverage and depth of peritoneal infiltration, and is technically feasible. Occupational safety has been established. PIPAC has demonstrated antitumor activity based on histological, radiological, and clinical evidence. The toxicity of PIPAC is manageable and restricted to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 2-3 events when used without concomitant cytoreductive surgery. Further clinical trials assessing efficacy and dose escalation are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC is technically feasible, has a safe local and systemic safety profile, and has antitumor activity in women with peritoneal carcinomatosis from recurrent ovarian cancer.

Renal and hepatic toxicities after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

BACKGROUND: Both in animal models and in human patients, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been shown to improve local bioavailability of chemotherapy in peritoneal nodules, as compared with conventional peritoneal lavage. Pharmacokinetic studies show a low drug concentration in peripheral venous blood. However, hepatic and renal toxicities induced by delivering chemotherapeutic drugs into the abdomen as a pressurized aerosol have not yet been investigated. METHODS: Liver and renal function as well as toxicity parameters were monitored after eight PIPAC applications with doxorubicin (1.5 mg/m(2) body surface) and cisplatin (7.5 mg/m(2) body surface) in three end-stage patients suffering therapy-resistant peritoneal carcinomatosis. PIPAC was repeated at 4-week intervals (three times in two patients, twice in one patient). Peripheral venous blood was collected preoperatively and then daily until the 5th postoperative day, and sent to the hospital's clinical chemistry laboratory. Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Gamma-glutamyltransferase was significantly elevated (p < 0.05) in the early postoperative phase. Glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase [aspartate aminotransferase], glutamic pyruvic transaminase [alanine aminotransferase], and bilirubin levels were not influenced by the procedure. Quick-test remained normal. Serum creatinine levels were not altered. CONCLUSIONS: Under the above conditions, PIPAC did not induce clinically relevant liver cytotoxicity. Liver metabolism and function were not altered. Renal function remained within the normal range. No cumulative toxicity was observed after repeated PIPAC. PIPAC appears to be associated with very limited hepatic and renal toxicity, which might be a significant advantage over other administration routes.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): occupational health and safety aspects.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel approach for treating peritoneal carcinomatosis. First encouraging results have been obtained in human patients. However, delivering chemotherapy as an aerosol might result in an increased risk of exposure to health care workers, as compared with other administration routes. METHODS: PIPAC was applied in two human patients using chemotherapeutic drugs (doxorubicin and cisplatin), and air contamination levels were measured under real clinical conditions. Air was collected on a cellulose nitrate filter with a flow of 22.5 m(3)/h. To exclude any risk for health care workers, both procedures were remote controlled. Toxicological research of cisplatin was performed according to NIOSH 7300 protocol. Sampling and analysis were performed by an independent certification organization. RESULTS: The following safety measures were implemented: closed abdomen, laminar airflow, controlled aerosol waste, and protection curtain. No cisplatin was detected in the air (detection limit < 0.000009 mg/m(3)) at the working positions of the surgeon and the anesthesiologist under real PIPAC conditions. CONCLUSIONS: For the drugs tested, PIPAC is in compliance with European Community working safety law and regulations. Workplace contamination remains below the tolerance margin. The safety measures and conditions as defined above are sufficient. Further protecting devices, such as particulate (air purifying) masks, are not necessary. PIPAC can be used safely in the clinical setting if the conditions specified above are met. However, a toxicological workplace analysis must be performed to confirm that the procedure as implemented complies with local regulations.

The Role of Additional Staining in the Assessment of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) in Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Origin.

INTRODUCTION: The Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) is a 4-tied histologic regression grading score for determining the response of peritoneal metastasis to chemotherapy. Peritoneal biopsies in every abdominal quadrant are recommended. A positive therapy response is defined as a decreasing or stable mean PRGS between 2 therapy cycles. The added value of periodic acid satin (PAS) and Ber-EP4 staining over HE staining for diagnosing PRGS1 (the absence of vital tumor cells) is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 339 biopsies obtained during 76 laparoscopies in 33 patients with peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer were analyzed. Biopsies classified as PRGS 1 (no residual tumor, n=95) or indefinite (n=50) were stained with PAS, and remaining indefinite or PRGS1 cases additionally stained with BerEP4. RESULTS: After PAS-staining tumor cells were detected in 28 out of 145 biopsies (19%), the remaining 117 biopsies were immunostained with Ber-EP4. Tumor cells were detected in 22 biopsies (19%). In total, additional staining allowed the detection of residual tumor cells in 50 out of 339 biopsies (15%) and changed the therapy response assessment in 7 out of 33 (21%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, 25% (24 out of 95) of initially tumor-free samples (PRGS1) showed residual tumor cells after additional staining with PAS and/or BerEp4. Immunohistochemistry provided important additional information (the presence of tumor cells) in 22 of all 339 biopsies (11.2%). Further staining reduced the instances of unclear diagnosis from 50 to 0 and changed the therapy response assessment in 7 out of 33 patients (21%). We recommend additional staining in PRGS1 or unclear cases.

Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS): first evidence for independent predictive and prognostic significance.

Objectives: The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is a four-tied pathologic score measuring tumor regression in biopsies from patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) receiving chemotherapy. Methods: This retrospective analysis of a prospective registry (NCT03210298) analyses 97 patients with isolated PM under palliative chemotherapy. We examined the predictive value of the initial PRGS for overall survival (OS) and the prognostic value of PRGS in repeated peritoneal biopsies. Results: The 36 (37.1 %) patients with an initial mean PRGS≤2 had a longer median OS (12.1 months, CI 95 % 7.8-16.4) vs. 8.0 months (CI 95 % 5.1-10.8 months) in 61 (62.9 %) patients with PRGS≥3 (p=0.02) After stratification, the initial PRGS was an independent predictor of OS (Cox-regression, p<0.05). Out of 62 patients receiving≥two chemotherapy cycles, 42 (67.7 %) had a histological response (defined as a lower or stable mean PRGS in successive therapy cycles), and 20 (32.3 %) progressed (defined as an increasing mean PRGS). PRGS response was associated with a longer median OS (14.6 months, CI 5-95 % 6.0-23.2) vs. 6.9 (CI 5-95 % 0.0-15.9) months. PRGS response was prognostic in the univariate analysis (p=0.017). Thus, PRGS had both a predictive and prognostic significance in patients with isolated PM receiving palliative chemotherapy in this patient cohort. Conclusions: This is the first evidence for the independent predictive and prognostic significance of PRGS in PM. These encouraging results need validation in an adequately powered, prospective study.

Descriptive review of current practices and prognostic factors in patients with ovarian cancer treated by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): a multicentric, retrospective, cohort of 234 patients.

Introduction: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the primary cause of mortality in women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Our study assessed pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as treatment for peritoneal surface metastases (PSM) from recurrent or progressive OC and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors. Material and methods: This retrospective cohort study, conducted across 18 international centers, analyzed the clinical practices of patients receiving palliative treatment for PSM from OC who underwent PIPAC. All patients were initially treated appropriately outside any clinical trial setting. Feasibility, safety, and morbidity were evaluated along with objective endpoints of oncological response. Multivariate analysis identified prognostic factors for OS and PFS. Results: From 2015-2020, 234 consecutive patients were studied, from which 192 patients were included and stratified by platinum sensitivity for analysis. Patients with early recurrence, within one postoperative month, were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding platinum sensitivity (platinum sensitive (PS) and resistant (PR)), but chemotherapy frequency differed, as did PCI before PIPAC. Median PCI decreased in both groups after three cycles of PIPAC (PS 16 vs. 12, p < 0.001; PR 24 vs. 20, p = 0.009). Overall morbidity was 22%, with few severe complications (4-8%) or mortality (0-3%). Higher pathological response and longer OS (22 vs. 11m, p = 0.012) and PFS (12 vs. 7m, p = 0.033) were observed in the PS group. Multivariate analysis (OS/PFS) identified ascites (HR 4.02, p < 0.001/5.22, p < 0.001), positive cytology at first PIPAC (HR 3.91, p = 0.002/1.96, p = 0.035), and ≥ 3 PIPACs (HR 0.30, p = 0.002/0.48, p = 0.017) as independent prognostic factors of overall survival/progression-free survival. Conclusions: With low morbidity and mortality rates, PIPAC is a safe option for palliative treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. Promising results were observed after 3 PIPAC, which did improve the peritoneal burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate the potential role of PIPAC as an independent prognostic factor.

Description of a novel approach for intraperitoneal drug delivery and the related device.

BACKGROUND: Two significant limitations of intraperitoneal drug therapy are limited drug distribution and poor penetration into peritoneal nodules. A possible solution is the application of the so-called "therapeutic pneumoperitoneum," taking advantage of the gaseous nature and the pressure of capnoperitoneum during laparoscopy. Our objective was to develop a device able to apply such therapeutic pneumoperitoneum. METHODS: The technology presented here is a spraying device and can be introduced through a trocar. It is driven by mechanical pressure and consists of an injector, a line, and a nozzle. An in vivo experimental study was performed in five pigs. A transvaginal cholecystectomy was performed. At the end of the procedure, a standard dose of methylene blue was sprayed/infused into the abdominal cavity for 30 min (4 test animals w/therapeutic pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg CO(2)) and 1 control animal w/conventional lavage (2 l intra-abdominal volume with extracorporeal circulation)). At the end of the procedure, all animals were autopsied and the peritoneum was analyzed. Outcome criteria were: (1) drug distribution (as assessed by the stained peritoneal surface at autopsy), and (2) diffusion into the peritoneum (presence or not of macroscopic staining of the outer aspect of the peritoneum immediately after surgery). RESULTS: Stained peritoneal surface was larger after aerosol application compared with peritoneal lavage, and staining more intense. Hidden peritoneal surfaces and the anterior abdominal wall were stained only in the aerosol group. In contrast to peritoneal lavage, the outer aspect of peritoneal membrane was immediately stained after pressurized spraying. CONCLUSIONS: This device and the related approach significantly improve both distribution and penetration of a test substance into the peritoneal cavity in a large animal model. This might be a significant progress in treating intraperitoneal disease, in particular peritoneal carcinomatosis.