Search

Simple Summary: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a viable treatment for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) who are not eligible for cytoreductive surgery (CRS). The literature suggests that a minimum of three PIPAC procedures (empirical standard treatment) should be administered to optimize oncological outcomes. However, many patients are not able to complete three treatments for various reasons. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify causes and predictive factors for incomplete PIPAC treatment and, hence, to improve patient selection. Background: Since 2011, Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a promising treatment option for patients with peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) who are not eligible for cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Repeated minimal-invasive treatment is one of the key features and the current empirical standard treatment (ST) consists of at least three administrations over about three months. However, many patients are unable to complete the full course, limiting the potential benefits of PIPAC. Method: This retrospective, single-center study assessed the completion rate of ST and identified the main causes and predictive factors for discontinuation. This study also evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC and investigated whether improved patient selection over the years has resulted in better oncological outcomes. Result: Data from 168 patients treated with PIPAC between January 2017 and March 2023 for a total of 336 procedures showed that only 29% completed ST. Multivariate analysis identified ascites >500 mL and a prior history of bowel obstruction as significant predictors of discontinuation. Conclusions: Patients with radiological or clinical signs of obstruction should not be considered for PIPAC treatment, and ascites increases the risk of incomplete treatment. Larger studies are eagerly awaited to corroborate these findings and refine the selection criteria by disease entity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new surgical procedure used in the treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies (PSMs). Despite encouraging clinical results, the high costs of PIPAC and the need to repeat the treatment multiple times make the procedure difficult to sustain economically. A retrospective study was conducted in order to evaluate the cost of hospitalization for patients undergoing PIPAC treatment at a high-volume center in Italy. Currently, the Italian National Health System only partially covers the hospitals' costs. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an economical redefinition of this procedure, by creating dedicated reimbursement codes. PIPAC is a new surgical procedure and a viable treatment option for PSM patients, due to promising therapeutic outcomes, minimal invasiveness, limited surgical morbidity, and systemic toxicity side effects. However, its implementation throughout hospitals is hard to obtain due to its fragile economical sustainability. A retrospective health economic analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the cost of hospitalization for patients undergoing PIPAC treatment at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, in Rome. The average cost of a PIPAC procedure was defined based on the cost of surgery (cost of surgical material, operating room, intraperitoneal chemotherapy), hospital stay, diagnostic examinations, and drugs used during the stay. A total of 493 PIPAC procedures were performed on 222 patients with peritoneal metastases or primary peritoneal cancer from 2017 to 2023. Since the mean remuneration for each PIPAC hospitalization is €5916 and the mean expenditure per hospitalization is €6538, this results in an operating profit per PIPAC hospitalization of −€622. The reimbursement of PIPAC treatment by the Italian National Health System currently only partially covers the hospital's costs. Development of specific codes and adequate reimbursement for PIPAC by recognizing this procedure as a proper treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis (GCPM) has an unfavourable prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are promising treatment options that have been shown to improve survival. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different treatments such as systemic chemotherapy, systemic chemotherapy + PIPAC, and CRS + HIPEC in patients with GCPM. Material and methods: This single-centre retrospective study included 82 patients with GCPM treated between January 2016 and June 2021. After first-line chemotherapy, depending on disease response and burden, the patients were divided into three treatment groups: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy + PIPAC, and CRS + HIPEC. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis, which was compared among the treatment groups. Results: Thirty-seven (45.1%) patients were administered systemic chemotherapy alone, 25 (30.4%) received chemotherapy + PIPAC, and 20 (24.4%) underwent CRS + HIPEC. The CRS + HIPEC group had better OS (median 24 months) than the PIPAC group (15 months, p = 0.01) and chemotherapy group (5 months, p = 0.0001). Following CRS + HIPEC, the postoperative grade 3–4 complication rate was 25%, and no postoperative in-hospital deaths occurred. The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 12 months. Multivariate analysis identified peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) > 7 as an independent predictor of worse DFS. No independent predictors of OS were identified. Conclusion: Among patients with GCPM, we identified a highly selected population with oligometastatic disease. In this group, CRS + HIPEC provided a significant survival advantage with an acceptable major complication rate compared with other available therapies (systemic chemotherapy alone or in combination with PIPAC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In recent years, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a feasible method of intraperitoneal drug administration in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC. Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper–Pearson exact CIs in all instances. Results: A total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3–4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61–0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I2 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%. Conclusions: PIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Ovarian cancer is still the most lethal gynecologic malignancy with a median 5-year survival of less than 50%. Most cases are diagnosed at the advanced stages and only limited improvements in overall survival are achieved by standard treatments. Despite the paucity of randomized clinical trials, combined cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) show encouraging survival outcomes in primary ovarian cancer with peritoneal metastases. It gives rise to the definite need to redefine not only the best treatment option, but also the optimal treatment sequence based on the primary tumor and the extent of disease. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common neoplasm in women with a high mortality rate mainly due to a marked propensity for peritoneal spread directly at diagnosis, as well as tumor recurrence after radical surgical treatment. Treatments for peritoneal metastases have to be designed from a patient's perspective and focus on meaningful measures of benefit. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), a strategy combining maximal cytoreductive surgery with regional chemotherapy, has been proposed to treat advanced ovarian cancer. Preliminary results to date have shown promising results, with improved survival outcomes and tumor regression. As knowledge about the disease process increases, practice guidelines will continue to evolve. In this review, we have reported a broad overview of advanced ovarian cancer management, and an update of the current evidence. The future perspectives of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO) are discussed conclusively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peritoneal carcinomatosis frequently occurs in advanced gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers. As factors such as poor drug uptake and distribution cause chemotherapy to be less effective, alternative therapies have been explored. Introduced in 2013, PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) uses aerosolized chemotherapeutics sprayed into the patient's peritoneal cavity using a laparoscopic approach. Despite the literature showing encouraging data regarding the tolerability and efficacy of PIPAC, there is a lack of articles on the role that imaging plays in selecting patients suitable for PIPAC. The aim of this study is to combine literature-based evidence and clinical experience to provide information able to support training radiologists, as well as experienced radiologists interested in innovative therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Background: b Peritoneal metastases (PM) affects nearly 5-10% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) at diagnosis and 30-50% at the time of recurrence. We demonstrated a pathological response to PIPAC-Ox in PDAC and CC PM not significantly different from the PIPAC-CD response rates reported in literature. PIPAC drug-choice can be tailored based on systemic chemotherapy response. [Extracted from the article]

However, limited data are available on the combination of PIPAC with systemic chemotherapy for patients affected by peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer (GCPM). Ascites volumes increased in one patient, reduced in 2 patients and did not developed in 5 more patients. [Extracted from the article]