Assessment of Treatment Response after Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Appendiceal Peritoneal Metastases

Background The aim of this study was to analyse survival and surrogates for oncological response after PIPAC for appendiceal tumours. Methods This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with appendiceal peritoneal metastases (PM) treated in experienced PIPAC centers. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) from the date of diagnosis of PM and from the start of PIPAC. Predefined secondary outcome included radiological response (RECIST criteria), repeat laparoscopy and peritoneal cancer index (PCI), histological response assessed by the Peritoneal regression grading system (PRGS) and clinical response. Results Final analysis included 77 consecutive patients (208 PIPAC procedures) from 15 centres. Median OS was 30 months (23.00–46.00) from time of diagnosis and 19 months (13.00–28.00) from start of PIPAC. 35/77 patients (45%) had ≥3 procedures (pp: per protocol). Objective response at PIPAC3 was as follows: RECIST: complete response 4 (11.4%), 11 (31.4%) partial/stable; mean PRGS at PIPAC3: 1.8 ± 0.9. Median PCI: 21 (IQR 18–27) vs. 22 (IQR 17–28) at baseline (p = 0.59); 21 (60%) and 18 (51%) patients were symptomatic at baseline and PIPAC3, respectively (p = 0.873). Median OS in the pp cohort was 22.00 months (19.00–NA) from 1st PIPAC. Conclusion Patients with PM of appendiceal origin had objective treatment response after PIPAC and encouraging survival curves call for further prospective evaluation

Qualité de vie et résultat à court terme après chimiothérapie intra- Peritoneale vaporisée (PIPAC) chez les patients atteints de carcinose péritonéale.

Background. Peritoneal cancer treatment aims to prolong survival, but preserving Quality of Life (QoL) under treatment is also a priority. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel minimally invasive repeatable treatment modality. The aim of the present study was to assess QoL in our cohort of PIPAC patients. Methods. Analysis of all consecutive patients included from the start of PIPAC program (January 2015). QoL (0-100: optimal) and symptoms (no symptom: 0-100) were measured prospectively before and after every PIPAC procedure using EORTC QLQ-C30. Results. Forty-two patients (M :F = 8: 34, median age 66 (59-73) years) had 91 PIPAC procedures in total (1: 4x, 17: 3x, 12:2x, and 12 : lx). Before first PIPAC, baseline QoL was measured as median of 66 ± 2.64. Prominent complaints were fatigue (32 ± 4.3) and digestive symptoms as diarrhea (17 ± 3.75), constipation (17 ± 4.13), and nausea (7 ± 2.54). Overall Quality of Life was 64 ± 3.75 after PIPAC#l (p = 0.57), 61 ± 4.76 after PIPAC#2 (p = 0.89), and 70 ± 6.67 after PIPAC#3 (p = 0.58). Fatigue symptom score was 44 ± 4.86 after PIPAC#l and 47 ± 6.69 and 34 ± 7.85 after second and third applications, respectively (p = 0.40). Diarrhea (p = 0.31), constipation (p = 0.76), and nausea (p = 0.66) did not change significantly under PIPAC treatment. Conclusion. PIPAC treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis had no negative impact on patients' overall QoL and its components or on main symptoms. This study was registered online on Research Registry (UIN: 1608)

Immunotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: State-of-the Art in 2021

The management of esophageal cancer (EC) has experienced manifold changes during the last decades. Centralization of EC treatment has been introduced in many countries, subsequently allowing the development of specialized high-volume centers. Minimal invasive surgery has replaced open surgery in many centers, whereas more potent systemic treatments have been introduced in clinical practice. Newer chemotherapy regimens increase long-term survival. Nevertheless, the overall survival of EC patients remains dismal for advanced tumor stages. In this direction, a wide range of targeted biologic agents (immunotherapy) is currently under assessment. Anti- Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER-2) monoclonal antibodies are used in HER2 (+) tumors, predominantly well-differentiated adenocarcinomas, and are currently assessed in the neoadjuvant setting (TRAP, INNOVATION trials). Immune checkpoint inhibitors Nivolumab (ATTRACTION-03) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-181), have demonstrated a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy in heavily pre-treated progressive disease. More recently, CheckMate-577 showed very promising results for nivolumab in a curative adjuvant setting, improving disease-free survival mainly for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Several ongoing trials are investigating novel targeted agents in the preoperative setting of locally advanced EC. In addition, other immunomodulatory approaches such as peptide vaccines and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are currently under development and should be increasingly integrated into clinical practice

Immunotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: State-of-the Art in 2021

Simple Summary The aim of this review was to describe the rationale for immunotherapy in different stages of esophageal cancer (EC) treatment, with a particular accent on curative intent treatment of locally advanced disease for the two predominant histological types (adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer). In addition to the already existing literature on immunotherapy for advanced and metastatic stages of EC, the current study provides a comprehensive review of the leading ongoing trials in 2021 with a focus on earlier stages of treatment in neo adjuvant and adjuvant settings. The management of esophageal cancer (EC) has experienced manifold changes during the last decades. Centralization of EC treatment has been introduced in many countries, subsequently allowing the development of specialized high-volume centers. Minimal invasive surgery has replaced open surgery in many centers, whereas more potent systemic treatments have been introduced in clinical practice. Newer chemotherapy regimens increase long-term survival. Nevertheless, the overall survival of EC patients remains dismal for advanced tumor stages. In this direction, a wide range of targeted biologic agents (immunotherapy) is currently under assessment. Anti- Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER-2) monoclonal antibodies are used in HER2 (+) tumors, predominantly well-differentiated adenocarcinomas, and are currently assessed in the neoadjuvant setting (TRAP, INNOVATION trials). Immune checkpoint inhibitors Nivolumab (ATTRACTION-03) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-181), have demonstrated a survival benefit compared with conventional chemotherapy in heavily pre-treated progressive disease. More recently, CheckMate-577 showed very promising results for nivolumab in a curative adjuvant setting, improving disease-free survival mainly for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Several ongoing trials are investigating novel targeted agents in the preoperative setting of locally advanced EC. In addition, other immunomodulatory approaches such as peptide vaccines and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are currently under development and should be increasingly integrated into clinical practice

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy versus Chemotherapy for Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma; Which Is the Optimal Treatment Option?

Background: Locally advanced gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJ) is treated with either perioperative chemotherapy (CT) or preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) followed by surgery. The aim of this study was to compare pathologic response and long-term outcomes in junction adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant RCT versus CT. Methods: All patients with locally advanced GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) followed by surgery between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: A total of 94 patients were included, 67 (71.2%) RCT and 27 (28.8%) CT. Complete pathologic response was more frequent in RCT patients (13.4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.009) with a trend to better lymph node control (ypN0) (55.2% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.057). RCT offered no benefit in R0 resection (66.7% vs. 72.1% CT, p = 0.628) and was related to higher postoperative cardiovascular complications (35.8% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.017). Long-term overall and disease-free survival were similar (5-year OS 61.1% RCT vs. 75.7% CT, p = 0.259; 5-year DFS 33.5% RCT vs. 22.8% CT; p = 0.763). NAT type was neither independently associated with pathologic response nor long-term survival. Discussion: Patients with locally advanced GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with RCT had more postoperative cardiovascular complications but higher rates of complete pathologic response and a trend to superior locoregional lymph node control. This did not translate in a survival or recurrence benefit