ASO Author Reflections: Is There Still a Role for Intraperitoneal Oxaliplatin for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases?

International audienc

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy Enhanced by Electrostatic Precipitation (ePIPAC) for Patients with Peritoneal Metastases.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new mode of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration that can potentially be improved by the addition of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC). This study aimed to describe the procedural details of ePIPAC and to analyze its safety for patients with nonresectable peritoneal metastasis as well as their tolerance and response to this treatment. This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients treated with ePIPAC in three centers from April 2019 to April 2020. The toxicities of each patient were assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Complications were documented according to the Clavien classification. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) was used to grade histologic responses. Further surrogates for responses were the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), ascites, and symptoms. Overall, 69 patients received 147 ePIPACs with oxaliplatin (n = 34) or cisplatin/doxorubicin (n = 35) mainly for colorectal (n = 25), ovarian (n = 14), and gastric (n = 13) primary cancers. Systemic chemotherapy was used in the treatment of 54 patients (76%). The median electrostatic therapy time was 12 min (range 6-30 min). The overall and major CTCAE toxicity rates were respectively 24.6% and 15.9%. The postoperative complications rate according to Clavien classification was 4.7%. The responses of 22 patients who had three or more ePIPAC treatments were evaluated as follows: PCI (16 vs 14; p = 0.4), ascites (320 vs 98 ml; p = 0.1), and PRGS (2.23 vs 1.73; p = 0.15). The complete (PRGS1) and major (PRGS2) histologic responses at the third ePIPAC were respectively 38.5% and 53.8%. Overall QoL was stable during the first ePIPACs. Repetitive ePIPACs were safe and well tolerated for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastasis

Selection Criteria for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) Treatment in Patients with Peritoneal Metastases.

The standard treatment protocol for PIPAC consists of three procedures. Completion of treatment has been shown to be prognostic of improved survival. The aim of this study was to identify predictors for completion of treatment. Retrospective multicentric cohort study of patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC in three PIPAC expert centers. Per protocol (PP) treatment was defined as patients receiving ≥3 PIPACs and was compared to patients receiving <3. Overall, 183 patients had 517 PIPACs. The main reasons for stopping PIPAC were disease progression in 50% patients, bowel obstruction in 15%, patient's refusal to pursue in 10%, conversion to cytoreductive surgery in 7%, and medical reasons in 8%. Overall, 95 patients (52%) had PP treatment. The PP median OS was 17 vs. 7 months, p = 0.001. PP patients had r ascites (410 ± 100 mL vs. 960 ± 188 mL, p = 0.001), no prior history of bowel obstruction (12% vs. 24%, p = 0.028), and more bimodal treatment (39% vs. 13%, p < 0.001). After multiple regression, bimodal treatment was found as an independent predictive factor for completing PP (OR = 4.202, 95%CI [1.813, 10.630], p < 0.001), along with prior bowel obstruction (OR = 0.389, 95%CI [0.153, 0.920], p = 0.037). The absence of ascites and prior bowel obstruction can help to select patients suitable for PIPAC. Best results seem to be achieved when PIPAC is combined with systemic chemotherapy

Oxaliplatin use in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is safe and effective: A multicenter study.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new drug delivery method used in patients with peritoneal cancer (PC) of primary or secondary origin. Intraperitoneal use of oxaliplatin raises concerns about toxicity, especially abdominal pain. The objective of this study was to assess the tolerance of PIPAC with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-Ox) in a large cohort of patients and to identify the risk factors for high grade toxicity, discontinuation of treatment and impaired survival. This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with PIPAC-Ox (92 mg/m <sup>2</sup> ) in five centers specialized in the treatment of PC. The procedure was repeated every 6 weeks. Outcomes of interest were Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), symptoms and survival (Kaplan-Meier). Univariate risk factors were included in a multinominal regression model to control for bias. Overall, 251 PIPAC-Ox treatments were performed in 101 patients (45 female) having unresectable PC of various origins: 66 colorectal, 15 gastric, 5 ovarian, 3 mesothelioma, 2 pseudomyxoma, 10 other malignancies (biliary, pancreatic, endocrine) respectively. The median PCI was 19 (IQR: 10-28). Postoperative abdominal pain was present in 23 patients. Out of the 9 patients with grade 3 abdominal pain, only 3 needed a change of PIPAC drug. CTCAE 4.0 toxicity grade 4 or higher was encountered in 16(15.9%) patients. The patients had a mean of 2.5 procedures/patient (SD = 1.5). 50 subjects presented with symptom improvement. Oxaliplatin-based PIPAC appears to be a safe treatment that offers good symptom control and promising survival for patients with advanced peritoneal disease

Primary and metastatic peritoneal surface malignancies

Peritoneal surface malignancies comprise a heterogeneous group of primary tumours, including peritoneal mesothelioma, and peritoneal metastases of other tumours, including ovarian, gastric, colorectal, appendicular or pancreatic cancers. The pathophysiology of peritoneal malignancy is complex and not fully understood. The two main hypotheses are the transformation of mesothelial cells (peritoneal primary tumour) and shedding of cells from a primary tumour with implantation of cells in the peritoneal cavity (peritoneal metastasis). Diagnosis is challenging and often requires modern imaging and interventional techniques, including surgical exploration. In the past decade, new treatments and multimodal strategies helped to improve patient survival and quality of life and the premise that peritoneal malignancies are fatal diseases has been dismissed as management strategies, including complete cytoreductive surgery embedded in perioperative systemic chemotherapy, can provide cure in selected patients. Furthermore, intraperitoneal chemotherapy has become an important part of combination treatments. Improving locoregional treatment delivery to enhance penetration to tumour nodules and reduce systemic uptake is one of the most active research areas. The current main challenges involve not only offering the best treatment option and developing intraperitoneal therapies that are equivalent to current systemic therapies but also defining the optimal treatment sequence according to primary tumour, disease extent and patient preferences. New imaging modalities, less invasive surgery, nanomedicines and targeted therapies are the basis for a new era of intraperitoneal therapy and are beginning to show encouraging outcomes

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin or oxaliplatin for peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma

Background: Systemic chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) with peritoneal metastases (PM) is affected by several pharmacological shortcomings and low clinical efficacy. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is expected to maximize exposure of peritoneal nodules to antiblastic agents. This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of PIPAC for PM of PDAC and CC origin. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC and CC cases with PM treated with PIPAC at two European referral centers for peritoneal disease. We prospectively recorded from August 2016 to May 2019 demographic, clinical, surgical, and oncological data. We performed a feasibility and safety assessment and an efficacy analysis based on clinical and pathological regression. Results: Twenty patients with PM from PDAC (14) and CC (six) underwent 45 PIPAC administrations. Cisplatin–doxorubicin or oxaliplatin were administered to eight and 12 patients, respectively. We experienced one intraoperative complication (small bowel perforation) and 18 grade 1–2 postoperative adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. A pathological regression was recorded in 50% of patients (62% in the cisplatin–doxorubicin cohort and 42% in the oxaliplatin one). Median survival from the first PIPAC was 9.7 and 10.9 months for PDAC and CC, respectively. Conclusion: PIPAC resulted feasible and safe without relevant toxicity issues, with both cisplatin–doxorubicin and oxaliplatin. The pathological response observed supports the evidence of antitumoral activity. Despite the study limitations, these outcomes are encouraging, recommending PIPAC in prospective, controlled trials in the palliative setting or the first line chemotherapy for PM from PDAC and CC

Standardizing training for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy.

PIPAC is a novel mode of intraperitoneal drug delivery for patients with peritoneal cancer (PC). PIPAC is a safe treatment with promising oncological results. Therefore, a structured training program is needed to maintain high standards and to guarantee safe implementation. An international panel of PIPAC experts created by means of a consensus meeting a structured 2-day training course including essential theoretical content and practical exercises. For every module, learning objectives were defined and structured presentations were elaborated. This structured PIPAC training program was then tested in five courses. The panel consisted of 12 experts from 11 different centres totalling a cumulative experience of 23 PIPAC courses and 1880 PIPAC procedures. The final program was approved by all members of the panel and includes 12 theoretical units (45 min each) and 6 practical units including dry-lab and live surgeries. The panel finalized and approved 21 structured presentations including the latest evidence on PIPAC and covering all mandatory topics. These were organized in 8 modules with clear learning objectives to be tested by 12 multiple-choice questions. Lastly, a structured quantifiable (Likert scale 1-5) course evaluation was created. The new course was successfully tested in five courses with 85 participants. Mean overall satisfaction with the content was rated at 4.79 (±0.5) with at 4.71 (±0.5) and at 4.61 (±0.7), respectively for course length and the balance between theory and practice. The proposed PIPAC training program contains essential theoretical background and practical training enabling the participants to safely implement PIPAC

Feasibility and safety of PIPAC combined with additional surgical procedures: PLUS study.

PIPAC (Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy) is a minimally invasive approach relying on physical principles for improving intraperitoneal drug delivery, including optimizing the homogeneity of drug distribution through an aerosol. Feasibility and safety of the new approach are now consolidated and data on its effectiveness are continuously increasing. Although any surgical procedure associated with PIPAC had always been discouraged due to the high risk of complications, surgical practice is constantly changing: with growing expertise, more and more surgical teams associate PIPAC with surgery. PLUS study is part of the retrospective international cohort studies including 10 centers around the world (India, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland) and 96 cases of combined approaches evaluated through a propensity score analysis. the procedures most frequently associated with PIPAC were not only adhesiolysis, omentectomy, adnexectomy, umbilical/inguinal hernia repairs, but also more demanding procedures such as intestinal resections, gastrectomy, splenectomy, bowel repair/stoma creation. Although the evidence is currently limited, PLUS study demonstrated that PIPAC associated with additional surgical procedures is linked to an increase of surgical time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001) and medical complication rate (p < 0.001); the most frequently reported medical complications were mild or moderate in severity, such as abdominal pain, nausea, ileus and hyperthermia. No difference in terms of surgical complications was registered; neither reoperation or postoperative deaths were reported. these results suggest that PIPAC can be safely combined in expert centers with additional surgeries. Widespread change of practice should be discouraged before the results of ongoing prospective studies are available

Integration of robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration, and decision making: A realist process evaluation protocol

Background: Robotic surgery offers many potential benefits for patients. While an increasing number of healthcare providers are purchasing surgical robots, there are reports that the technology is failing to be introduced into routine practice. Additionally, in robotic surgery, the surgeon is physically separated from the patient and the rest of the team, with the potential to negatively impact teamwork in the operating theatre. The aim of this study is to ascertain: how and under what circumstances robotic surgery is effectively introduced into routine practice; and how and under what circumstances robotic surgery impacts teamwork, communication and decision making, and subsequent patient outcomes. Methods and design: We will undertake a process evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Realist evaluation provides an overall framework for the study. The study will be in three phases. In Phase I, grey literature will be reviewed to identify stakeholders' theories concerning how robotic surgery becomes embedded into surgical practice and its impacts. These theories will be refined and added to through interviews conducted across English hospitals that are using robotic surgery for rectal cancer resection with staff at different levels of the organisation, along with a review of documentation associated with the introduction of robotic surgery. In Phase II, a multi-site case study will be conducted across four English hospitals to test and refine the candidate theories. Data will be collected using multiple methods: the structured observation tool OTAS (Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery); video recordings of operations; ethnographic observation; and interviews. In Phase III, interviews will be conducted at the four case sites with staff representing a range of surgical disciplines, to assess the extent to which the results of Phase II are generalisable and to refine the resulting theories to reflect the experience of a broader range of surgical disciplines. The study will provide (i) guidance to healthcare organisations on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation and integration of robotic surgery, and (ii) guidance on how to ensure effective communication and teamwork when undertaking robotic surgery