Search

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]

Gastric cancer carries a poor prognosis and is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Patients with gastric cancer who develop peritoneal metastases have an even more dismal prognosis, with median survival time measured in months. Since studies have demonstrated that systemic chemotherapy has poor penetration into the peritoneum, multimodal treatment with intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been proposed for the treatment of peritoneal metastases and has become the foundation for newer therapeutic techniques and clinical trials. These include heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), which involves the application of heated chemotherapy into the abdomen with or without tumor debulking surgery; normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC), in which non-heated chemotherapy can be delivered into the abdomen via a peritoneal port allowing for repeat dosing; and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC), a newer technique of pressurized and aerosolized chemotherapy delivered into the abdomen during laparoscopy. Early results with intraperitoneal chemotherapy have shown promise in increasing disease-free and overall survival in select patients. Additionally, there may be a palliative effect of these regional therapies. In this review, we explore and summarize these different intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment regimens for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases.

Background: The prognosis of patients with peritoneal metastases is poor. Treatment options are limited because systemically delivered chemotherapy is not usually effective in this type of disease. Pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently developed alternative technology for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, potentially enhancing treatment efficacy. Here, we assess the feasibility of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised virotherapy (PIPAV) to deliver a different class of anticancer agents, oncolytic adenoviruses, in vitro and in vivo., Methods: Adenoviral vectors expressing reporter genes green fluorescence protein (Ad5.GFP) or firefly luciferase (Ad5.Luc) were subject to pressurised aerosolisation. The ability of the virus to survive PIPAV was assessed in vitro and in vivo by monitoring reporter gene activity. Wistar rats subjected to PIPAV were assessed for any adverse procedure related events., Results: In vitro transduction assays demonstrated that Ad5 retained viability following pressurised aerosolisation and could transduce permissive cells equally effectively as non-aerosolised control vector. PIPAV was well tolerated in rats, although minimal transduction was observed following intraperitoneal administration., Conclusions: PIPAV appears viable and well tolerated, though in vivo efficacy requires further optimisation.

Simple Summary: This study is one of the very few phase I trials on intraperitoneal chemotherapy applied as PIPAC. Cisplatin and doxorubicin may be safely used as PIPAC at a dose of 30 mg/m2 and 6 mg/m2, respectively; oxaliplatin can be used at an intraperitoneal dose of 135 mg/m2. No serious adverse event was reported. The dosages achieved to date are the highest ever used in PIPAC. The results of these investigations should be the starting point for further clinical phase II trials regarding repeated PIPAC, possibly associated with systemic chemotherapy. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative laparoscopic intraperitoneal chemotherapy approach with the advantage of a deeper tissue penetration. Thus far, oxaliplatin has been administered at an arbitrary dose of 92 mg/m2, cisplatin at 7.5 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2. This is a model-based approach phase I dose escalation study with the aim of identifying the maximum tolerable dose of the three different drugs. The starting dose of oxaliplatin was 100 mg/m2; cisplatin was used in association with doxorubicin: 15 mg/m2 and 3 mg/m2 were the respective starting doses. Safety was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.03). Thirteen patients were submitted to one PIPAC procedure. Seven patients were treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin and 6 patients with oxaliplatin; no dose limiting toxicities and major side effects were found. Common adverse events included postoperative abdominal pain and nausea. The maximum tolerable dose was not reached. The highest dose treated cohort (oxaliplatin 135 mg/m2; cisplatin 30 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 6 mg/m2) tolerated PIPAC well. Serological analyses revealed no trace of doxorubicin at any dose level. Serum levels of cis- and oxaliplatin reached a peak at 60–120 min after PIPAC and were still measurable in the circulation 24 h after the procedure. Cisplatin and doxorubicin may be safely used as PIPAC at a dose of 30 mg/m2 and 6 mg/m2, respectively; oxaliplatin can be used at an intraperitoneal dose of 135 mg/m2. The dosages achieved to date are the highest ever used in PIPAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Peritoneal metastases (PM) are relatively resistant to systemic chemotherapy, and data on histological response to therapy is rare. The aim of this study was to quantify the treatment response of PM after systemic chemotherapy., Methods: Retrospective monocentric cohort study of 47 consecutive patients with PM from gastrointestinal origin undergoing surgery (cytoreduction: CRS + Hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal Chemotherapy [HIPEC] or Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy [PIPAC]) after prior systemic chemotherapy from 1.2015 to 3.2019. Tumor response was assessed using the 4-scale Peritoneal Regression Grading System (PRGS) (4: vital tumor to 1: complete response)., Results: Patients had a median of 2 (range: 1-7) lines and 10 (3-39) cycles of prior systemic chemotherapy. A median of four biopsies (range: 3-8) was taken with a total of 196 analyzed specimens. Twenty-four biopsies (12%) showed no histological regression (PRGS4), while PRGS 3, two and one were diagnosed in 37 (19%), 39 (20%), and 69 (49%) specimens, respectively. A significant heterogeneity was found between peritoneal biopsies in 51% patients. PRGS correlated strongly with peritoneal spread (PCI, p<0.0001), and was improved in patients with more than nine cycles of systemic chemotherapy (p=0.04). Median survival was higher in patients with PRGS < 1.8 (Quartiles one and 2) than higher (Q3 and Q4), but the difference did not reach significance in this small cohort., Conclusions: PRGS is an objective too to describe histological response of PM of GI origin after systemic chemotherapy. This response differs significantly between patients, allowing to distinguish between chemosensitive and chemoresistant tumors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest., (© 2021 Laura Toussaint et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: Icodextrin (IDX) is an antiadhesive polymer that can be used as a carrier solution for intraperitoneal (IP) delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs., Methods: We investigated the suitability of IDX solution as a carrier of Cisplatin and Doxorubicin for delivery as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). We examined the sprayability of IDX, the aerosol characteristics, the stability of the molecule after aerosolization, the effects of IDX on the adhesion of MKN45 human gastric cancer cells, the synergistic effect of aerosolized IDX with Cisplatin and Doxorubicin, and the chemical stability of IDX, Cisplatin, and Doxorubicin in combination., Results: Delivery of IDX as PIPAC is feasible with no particular restrictions. The median droplet size of 35.7 μm did not change at increasing concentrations. IDX withstood the shear forces applied by the nebulizer and remained stable after aerosolization (ANOVA, p = 0.97). IDX did not impair the cytotoxic effects of Cisplatin and Doxorubicin (ns). IDX had a significant antiadhesive impact alone (p < 0.03) and in combination with Cisplatin and Doxorubicin (p < 0.02). IDX as a carrier for Cisplatin and Doxorubicin remained stable at 4 °C for three months and did not cause degradation of those two substances., Conclusion: The proposed combination takes advantage of the antiadhesive properties of IDX, the cytotoxic effect of Cisplatin and Doxorubicin, and an advanced drug delivery system., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest RS is an employee of Capnomed GmbH. MAR is a holder of several patents on PIPAC technology and receives royalties from Capnomed GmbH. The remaining authors confirm that there are no financial or non-financial competing interests to report., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel laparoscopic intraperitoneal chemotherapy approach offered in selected patients affected by non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis. Drugs doses currently established for nebulization are very low: oxaliplatin (OXA) 120 mg/sm, cisplatin (CDDP) 10.5 mg/sm and doxorubicin (DXR) 2.1 mg/sm. A model-based approach for dose-escalation design in a single PIPAC procedure and subsequent dose escalation steps is planned. The starting dose of oxaliplatin is 100 mg/sm with a maximum estimated dose of 300 mg/sm; an escalation with overdose and under-dose control (for probability of toxicity less than 16% in case of under-dosing and probability of toxicity greater than 33% in case of overdosing) will be further applied. Cisplatin is used in association with doxorubicin: A two-dimensional dose-finding design is applied on the basis of the estimated dose limiting toxicity (DLT) at all combinations. The starting doses are 15 mg/sm for cisplatin and 3 mg/sm for doxorubicin. Safety is assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE version 4.03). Secondary endpoints include radiological response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (version 1.1) and pharmacokinetic analyses. This phase I study can provide the scientific basis to maximize the optimal dose of cisplatin, doxorubicin and oxaliplatin applied as PIPAC.

Introduction: Peritoneal carcinomatosis remains a condition with poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Pressurized Intrapertioneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been developed as a new tool for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy with low morbidity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the initial experience of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis at our hospital., Methods: A prospective study between January 2019 and February 2020 was carried at a tertiary public hospital. Primary tumor, ascites volume, PCI, chemotherapy regimen, operative time, morbidity, length of hospital stay and mortality were recorded for analysis., Results: We analyzed 9 PIPAC procedures performed in 5patients. Median PCI was 27.6 (24-35). Median surgical time was 93minutes (70-125). Only one adverse event occurred out of 9 procedures (Clavien-DindoII). Median length of hospital stay was 2days (1-4). Mortality was 0%., Conclusion: PIPAC seems to be a feasible and safe procedure to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis, with low morbidity and short hospital stay., (Copyright © 2020 AEC. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative treatment against peritoneal carcinomatosis. Doxorubicin is a common intra-venous chemotherapy used for peritoneal carcinomatosis and for PIPAC. This study evaluated the impact of increased PIPAC intraperitoneal pressure on the distribution and cell penetration of doxorubicin in a sheep model., Methods: Doxorubicin was aerosolized using PIPAC into the peritoneal cavity of 6 ewes (pre-alpes breed): N = 3 with 12 mmHg intraperitoneal pressure ("group 12") and N = 3 with 20 mmHg ("group 20"). Samples from peritoneum (N = 6), ovarian (N = 1), omentum (N = 1) and caecum (N = 1) were collected for each ewe. The number of doxorubicin positive cells was determined using the ratio between doxorubicine fluorescence-positive cell nuclei (DOXO+) over total number of DAPI positive cell nuclei (DAPI+). Penetration depth (μm) was defined as the distance between the luminal surface and the location of the deepest DOXO+ nuclei over the total number of cell nuclei that were stained with DAPI. Penetration depth (μm) was defined as the distance between the luminal surface and the location of the deepest DOXO+ nuclei., Results: DOXO+ nuclei were identified in 87% of samples. All omental samples, directly localized in front of the nebulizer head, had 100% DOXO+ nuclei whereas very few nuclei were DOXO+ for caecum. Distribution patterns were not different between the two groups but penetration depth in ovary and caecum samples was significantly deeper in group 20., Conclusions: This study showed that applying a higher intra-peritoneal pressure during PIPAC treatment leads to a deeper penetration of doxorubicin in ovarian and caecum but does not affect distribution patterns.

Objectives: Several trials have documented the favorable safety profile, and promising clinical results of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) directed treatment in different types of peritoneal malignancies. However, until the results of randomized trials are available, the quality of documentation and acceptance by the users may be improved through a worldwide registry. The International Society for the Study of Pleura and Peritoneum (www.ISSPP.org) facilitated this process by creating a dedicated focus group and providing the funding needed for the creation and implementation of an international database. This article describes the design and the journey of establishing this international database and the first, preliminary results from the ISSPP PIPAC online database., Methods: In 2019 the ISSPP PIPAC Registry Group started to create a database with a minimal dataset relevant to many diseases and applicable in different framework conditions. The task was divided into three phases including design, testing, implementation, protocol, handbook, legal requirements, as well as registry rules and bylaws for the registry group., Results: The ISSPP PIPAC online database has six key elements (patient, consent, treatment, complications, response evaluation and follow-up). Following design, testing and implementation the database was successfully launched in June 2020. Ten institutions reported on 459 PIPAC procedures in 181 patients during the first 6 months, and the recorded data were comparable to the present literature., Conclusions: A new international multicenter PIPAC database has been developed, tested and implemented under the auspices of ISSPP. The database is accessible through the ISSPP website (www.ISSPP.org), and PIPAC institutions worldwide are highly encouraged to participate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Olivier Glehen is consultant for GAMIDA. All other authors state no conflict of interest., (© 2021 Michael Bau Mortensen et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: This study compares an endoscopic microcatheter and a nebulizer for delivering Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC)., Methods: This is an in vitro and ex vivo study in an established model (inverted bovine urinary bladder). Four parameters were compared to determine the performance of a micro-perforated endoscopic spray catheter vs. state-of-the art, nozzle technology: (1) surface coverage and pattern with methylene blue on blotting paper at three different distances; (2) median aerodynamic diameter (MAD) of aerosol droplets with three different solutions (H 2 O, Glc 5% and silicon oil); (3) depth of tissue penetration of doxorubicin (DOX) and (4) tissue concentration of cisplatin (CIS) and DOX using standard clinical solutions., Results: The spray area covered by the microcatheter was larger (p < 0.001) but its pattern was inhomogenous than with the nozzle technology. We found that aerosol droplets were larger in the test group than in the control group for all three solutions tested. Median tissue penetration of DOX was lower (980 µm) with the microcatheter than with the nebulizer (1235 µm) and distribution was more heterogeneous ( = 0.003) with the microcatheter. The median tissue concentration of DOX and CIS was lower and concentration of DOX was more heterogeneous with the microcatheter (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: This investigation has revealed that microcatheter technology generates larger aerosol droplet size, less drug tissue penetration and lower drug tissue concentration than the current nozzle technology. In the absence of clinical studies, use of microcatheters for delivering PIPAC can not be recommended at this stage.

Aims: To investigate the potential of curcumin-loaded polylactic-co-glycolic acid nanoparticles (CUR-PLGA-NPs), alone and with electrostatic precipitation, for improving tissue uptake during pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Methods: Positively and negatively charged CUR-PLGA-NPs were delivered as PIPAC into inverted bovine urinary bladders ex vivo . The experiment was repeated with the additional use of electrostatic precipitation pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (electrostatic PIPAC). Results: Positively charged CUR-PLGA-NPs increased depth of tissue penetration by 81.5% and tissue concentration by 80%. Electrostatic precipitation further improved the uptake of positively charged CUR-PLGA-NPs by 41.8%. Conclusion: The combination of positive charge and electrostatic precipitation have significant potential to improve tissue uptake of nanoparticles during intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Background: PIPAC is a recent approach with promising results for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). We aimed to evaluate survival and postoperative outcome of patients with unresectable PM from gastric origin treated with chemotherapy and PIPAC., Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospective maintained PIPAC database was queried for all patients diagnosed with unresectable PM from gastric cancer who underwent PIPAC before 2018. PIPAC with Cisplatin 7.5 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2 were given for 30 min at 6-week intervals. Outcome criteria were overall survival and adverse events according to (CTCAE) version4.0., Results: One hundred Sixty-three PIPAC were done in 42 consecutive patients. Twenty-two (52%) of the patients were female. Signet-ring cells were observed in 33/42 patients (78.6%). At the first PIPAC, median age was 51.5 years (32-74). Median PCI was 17 (1-39). Twenty (47.6%) patients underwent more than 2 lines of pre-PIPAC chemotherapy. All patients had systemic chemotherapy alternating with PIPAC. Median consecutive PIPAC procedures were 3 (1-12). Overall and major complications (CTCAE - III, IV) occurred in 10 (6.1%) and 5 procedures (3.1%), respectively. Two patients (4.7%) died within 30 days of a PIPAC procedure, one related to small bowel obstruction and a pulmonary embolism for the other. Overall Survival was 19.1 months. Six (14.3%) patients became resectable during treatment and underwent curative intent CRS and HIPEC., Conclusions: PIPAC with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin is safe and feasible in association with systemic chemotherapy for gastric PM. Survival data are encouraging and justify further clinical studies in this indication., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: PIPAC is a recent method of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of the patients who became amenable to CRS & HIPEC after PIPAC treatment., Methods: All patients diagnosed with unresectable PM who became resectable throughout PIPAC treatment were included. Outcome criteria were adverse events following PIPAC procedure and rate of secondary CRS and HIPEC., Results: Four hundred thirty-seven PIPAC were done in 146 consecutive patients. Among them, 26 patients (17.8%) who underwent 76 PIPAC were scheduled for CRS and HIPEC after reduction of the peritoneal burden. PM were from gastric, peritoneal mesothelioma, ovarian, colorectal and small bowel in 13, 7, 4, 1 and 1 patients, respectively. At the time of the first PIPAC, median age was 58.6 years (32-76.3). Median PCI was 16 (1-39). All patients had systemic chemotherapy in between PIPAC session. Median consecutive PIPAC procedure was 3 (1-8). Complications occurred in 3 PIPAC session (4%) and there was no major complication (CTCAE III or higher). Complete CRS and HIPEC was achieved in 21 patients of the 26 scheduled (14.4%). The remaining 5 patients were considered unresectable at the exploratory laparotomy. Among patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC, with median follow-up of 7 (1-26) months, 14 patients (66.7%) were alive without recurrence, 2 patients (9.5%) were alive with recurrence and 5 patients (23.8%) died., Conclusions: Complete CRS and HIPEC can be achieved in strictly selected patient with unresectable PM at diagnosis after repeated PIPAC session with palliative intent., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising technic for unresectable peritoneal metastasis (PM). Targeted therapies such as bevacizumab have demonstrated their efficacy in advanced colorectal and ovarian cancer. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this bidimensional therapeutic association., Methods: A prospectively maintained PIPAC database was retrospectively analyzed from December 2015 to March 2018. All patients who underwent PIPAC for unresectable PM were selected. Patients with systemic chemotherapy including bevacizumab (BEVA group) were compared with patients with systemic chemotherapy without bevacizumab (NON-BEVA group). Major morbidity and mortality were analyzed., Results: 134 patients underwent 397 PIPAC in Lyon Sud University Hospital. 26 Patients had 88 PIPAC in the BEVA group were compared to 108 patients who had 309 PIPAC in the NON-BEVA group. Patients in the BEVA group demonstrated a higher Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI 20 vs. 16, p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in overall 30-day morbidity (BEVA: 13 (14.8%) vs NON-BEVA: 29 (9.4%); p = 0.147). There was no statistical difference for grade III-IV complications (BEVA: 4 (4.5%) vs NON-BEVA 10 (3.2%); P = 0.521). Major complications from BEVA group were as follow, 2 bowel obstructions, one hematoma and one severe hypersensitivity reaction to platinum compound. There was no 30-day mortality in the BEVA group compared to 6 (5.5%) mortality in the NON-BEVA group., Conclusion: PIPAC associated with bevacizumab is feasible, safe and well tolerated. The potential oncologic benefit of the concomitant use of bevacizumab and PIPAC remains to be evaluated., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) constitutes a recently described surgical technique to administer chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum, under pressure, for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The purpose of an oncological treatment is to improve survival but without altering the patient's quality of life. The aim of this review was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after PIPAC for patients with PM. This systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2020, studies were selected according to the following criteria: "pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy" OR "PIPAC" AND "patient-reported outcomes" OR "PRO" OR "Quality of life". In this review, 959 PIPAC and five PITAC (Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy) were performed in 425 patients. We highlight the prominent application of generic EORTC QLQ-C30 followed by SF-36 in this review. The PROs according to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score and based on symptom and function scores were stable across most studies. Moreover, PIPAC has improved the PRO of altered patients in two studies. Among 425 patients, the mortality rate was 0.7% and adverse events of Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events grade 3 and grade 4 were 9.6% and 1.6%, respectively. We synthesised current research on PROs among patients with PM. This review increases our understanding of the PIPAC strategy from the patient perspective. The implementation of PROs can be complex but will be essential in delivering quality care., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: In the last two decades, intraperitoneal(IP) chemotherapy during surgery achieved recognition in the management of peritoneal metastases. Occupational hazard became a concern leading to standardized safety measures. The aim of this study is to evaluate the perceived level of information and protection among the non-medical caregivers involved in HIPEC and PIPAC in a high-volume center., Methods: All non-medical caregivers in the operating theatre of our institution were asked to answer a questionnaire between April and May 2018. The questionnaire included multiple choice questions and open questions structured in four parts: demographic variables, perceived level of information, perceived level of protection, interest in further education., Results: Forty-nine caregivers agreed to answer the questionnaire. All identified IP chemotherapy as an occupational risk. Thirty-eight persons (77.55%) trusted the protective value of safety measures during HIPEC compared to 32 (65.3%) during PIPAC. A total of 29 persons (59.18%) used some of the measures while 16 (32.65%) used all of them. Main reasons of non-use were slips and lapses (7 persons) and lack of comfort (4 persons). A total of 34 caregivers considered the level of information about safety protocols as good or very good (69%). A total of 46 persons considered the level of protection as satisfying or excellent (93.87%). A total of 36 (73.47%) interviewees expressed the need of receiving more information., Conclusions: The present study shows that non-medical caregivers in the operating theatres are aware of the occupational hazards related to the use of IP chemotherapy. The use of protective measures is associated with decreased level of perceived risk. However there is a high need of continuous education on this subject for the involved personnel., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: The proposed PIPAC training program contains essential theoretical background and practical training enabling the participants to safely implement PIPAC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The PIPAC course consensus meeting was supported by the International Society for the Study of Pleura and Peritoneum (ISSPP). Participants received no honorary or other personal sponsoring., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objectives were to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety profile and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin delivered by pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal tract cancers., Methods: PIPAC was applied every 4-6 weeks, for 5 cycles, in a phase I dose-escalation study using a 3 + 3 design. The first dose level was 90 mg/m 2 with planned increases of 50 mg/m 2 per level. Platinum concentration was measured in plasma, tissues and intraperitoneal fluid samples. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03294252)., Results: Ten patients with 33 PIPAC sessions were included. No dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at 90 mg/m 2 and two at 140 mg/m 2 . The MTD was therefore set at 90 mg/m 2 . Overall treatment included a median number of three PIPAC sessions (range: 1-5) and secondary complete cytoreductive surgery for two patients. Overall safety showed 67 grade I-II and 11 grade III-IV toxicities, usually haematologic, digestive (nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain), and fatigue. Oxaliplatin concentrations were three- to four-fold higher in tissue in contact with aerosol than in muscle without contact. At 140 mg/m 2 , the plasma oxaliplatin concentration was high with Cmax and area under the curve (AUC) 0-48h of 1035 μg/l and 9028 μg h/L, respectively., Conclusions: The MTD of oxaliplatin during PIPAC is 90 mg/m 2 . PK data demonstrate a high tumour concentration and a significant systemic absorption., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement O.G. received honoraria from Gamida. The others authors have no interest conflict to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Using the example of Pressurized Intra Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), we analyse the development model of this procedure and provide an ethical analysis of the involvement of the industry in a new development., Summary Background Data: In the case of breakthrough innovation, medical training is essential for safe use of the new procedure. In some cases, pharmaceutical companies decide to organise this training. But when it becomes the only training opportunity to use the device, scientists and clinicians could be exposed to a conflict of interest?, Methods: We performed a literature review of PIPAC publications using the STROBE criteria. Then, we conducted interviews with an expert panel to analyse the ethical impact of involvement of the industry in the development of the PIPAC procedure., Results: The number of publications has increased every year since the first publication in Germany, where the technology was developed in 2013. The scientific production was of good quality, with a mean STROBE score of 18.2 ± 2.4 out of 22 points. Ten of the 33 included studies declared a conflict of interest. From the interviews, the main axe concerning the implication of the industry was the training model. The company had decided that only trained and approval surgeon could perform the PIPAC procedure. All four interviewed practitioners agreed that it was initially a good way to implement the procedure safely, but later they felt uncomfortable about the control and validation by the industry., Conclusion: Based on the growing number of published papers from a growing number of international centres, the controlled training model is not limiting. However, the different levels of conflict of interest complicate transparency, and we postulated that this development model is limited to the beginning of the procedure diffusion. CLINICALTRIAL., Gov Registration: NCT04341337., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) and peritoneal cytology (PC) assess response to chemotherapy in peritoneal metastasis (PM) in a setting of palliative treatment by pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Progression has been defined as an increase of PRGS between first and third PIPAC procedures (iPRGS). iPRGSand positive peritoneal cytology were not associated with prognostic impact. These results may be explained by a lack of statistical power. Also, it is not known whether the mean or the highest PRGS among taken peritoneal biopsies bears the highest clinical value. We therefore conducted the largest prospective study to investigate the prognostic impact of PGRS, PC, and their combination, designated as combined progression index (CPI)., Methods and Results: Patients with PM who underwent >3 PIPAC (n = 112) between December 2016 and February 2019 were prospectively included. A significant difference in OS and PFS according to CPI (used highest value of PRGS) was found (OS: CPI-, 83.3, 95% CI [49.8; NA] vs. CPI+, 48.1, 95% CI [38.5; 66.4] months; and PFS (respectively, 59.7, 95% CI [43.0; 96.0] vs. 33.7, 95% CI [30.4; 44.2] months). PRGS or PC had no independent prognostic impact. CPI+ was an independent predictor of worse prognosis, in OS (HR = 5.24, 95% CI [2.07; 13.26]), and PFS (HR = 4.41, 95% CI [1.40; 13.88])., Conclusions: The CPI based on highest PRGS and PC was found to be independently associated with a worse prognosis for OS and for PFS in the setting of peritoneal metastasis. These results indicate that it should be of interest to systematically take peritoneal fluid for cytological examination and to implement the CPI in the therapeutic decision-making process in the context of PIPAC., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

There is an increasing interest in intraperitoneal delivery of chemotherapy as an aerosol in patients with peritoneal metastasis. The currently used technology is hampered by inhomogenous drug delivery throughout the peritoneal cavity because of gravity, drag, and inertial impaction. Addition of an electrical force to aerosol particles, exerted by an electrostatic field, can improve spatial aerosol homogeneity and enhance tissue penetration. A computational fluid dynamics model shows that electrostatic precipitation (EP) results in a significantly improved aerosol distribution. Fluorescent nanoparticles (NPs) remain stable after nebulization in vitro, while EP significantly improves spatial homogeneity of NP distribution. Next, pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy with and without EP using NP albumin bound paclitaxel (Nab-PTX) in a novel rat model is examined. EP does not worsen the effects of CO 2 insufflation and intraperitoneal Nab-PTX on mesothelial structural integrity or the severity of peritoneal inflammation. Importantly, EP significantly enhances tissue penetration of Nab-PTX in the anatomical regions not facing the nozzle of the nebulizer. Also, the addition of EP leads to more homogenous peritoneal tissue concentrations of Nab-PTX, in parallel with higher plasma concentrations. In conclusion, EP enhances spatial homogeneity and tissue uptake after intraperitoneal nebulization of anticancer NPs., (© 2020 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2020.)

Intra-abdominal dissemination of peritoneal nodules, a condition known as peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), is typically diagnosed in ovarian cancer patients at the advanced stages. The current treatment of PC consists of perioperative systemic chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery, followed by intra-abdominal flushing with solutions of chemotherapeutics such as cisplatin and oxaliplatin. In this study, we developed cisplatin-loaded polyarginine-hyaluronic acid nanoscale particles (Cis-pARG-HA NPs) with high colloidal stability, marked drug loading efficiency, unimpaired biological activity, and tumor-targeting ability. Injected Cis-pARG-HA NPs showed enhanced antitumor activity in a rat model of PC, compared to injection of the free cisplatin drug. The activity of Cis-pARG-HA NPs could even be further improved when administered by an intra-abdominal aerosol therapy, referred to as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). PIPAC is hypothesized to ensure a more homogeneous drug distribution together with a deeper drug penetration into peritoneal tumor nodules within the abdominal cavity. Using fluorescent pARG-HA NPs, this enhanced nanoparticle deposit on tumors could indeed be observed in regions opposite the aerosolization nozzle. Therefore, this study demonstrates that nanoparticles carrying chemotherapeutics can be synergistically combined with the PIPAC technique for IP therapy of disseminated advanced ovarian tumors, while this synergistic effect was not observed for the administration of free cisplatin.

Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are technics proposed to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, in different settings. There is some concern about an over-risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) with PIPAC jeopardizing a combination with cytoreductive surgery. This study used a healthy swine model to compare the postoperative AL rate between PIPAC and HIPEC with digestive resection and to analyze macrocirculation and microcirculation parameters., Methods: Segmental colonic resection with a handsewn anastomosis was performed on 16 healthy pigs; 8 pigs had a PIPAC procedure with 7.5 mg/m 2 cisplatin (PIPAC group), and 8 pigs had a closed HIPEC procedure with 70 mg/m 2 cisplatin and 42 °C as the target intraperitoneal temperature (HIPEC group). Pigs were kept alive for 8 days, then sacrificed and autopsied to look for AL, which was defined as local abscess or digestive fluid leakage when pressure was applied to the anastomosis. Food intake, weight, and core temperature were monitored postoperatively. Macrocirculation (heart rate, systolic blood pressure) and microcirculation parameters (percentage of perfused vessels, perfused vessels density, DeBacker score) were evaluated intraoperatively at five timepoints. Results were compared between pigs with AL and those without., Results: The HIPEC group had no AL, but 3 of 8 pigs (37.5%) had AL in the PIPAC group (p = 0.20). Heart rate and core temperature showed perioperative increases in the HIPEC group. Intraoperatively, heart rate was higher in the HIPEC group at the two last timepoints (123 vs. 93 bpm, p = 0.031, and 110 vs. 85 bpm, p = 0.010, at timepoints 3 and 4, respectively). Other macrocirculatory and microcirculatory parameters showed no significant differences., Conclusion: In this healthy swine model, PIPAC might have increased AL incidence compared to HIPEC. This potential over-risk did not seem to be related to changes in the microcirculation. PIPAC should probably not be used with digestive resection and should be avoided in cases of perioperative serosal injury.

Peritoneal metastasis (PM) frequently occurs in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and confers a dismal prognosis despite advances in systemic chemotherapy. While systemic chemotherapy has poor peritoneal penetration, intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy remains sequestered, resulting in high peritoneal drug concentrations with less systemic side-effects. The first application of IP treatment was hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM); but was associated with an increased morbidity and mortality rate without significantly improving overall survival (OS). While CRS confers limited benefit, the potential role of prophylactic HIPEC and laparoscopic neoadjuvant HIPEC are currently being evaluated. Combination systemic and IP chemotherapy (SIPC) gained popularity in the 1990s, since it provided the benefits of IP treatment while reducing surgical morbidity, demonstrating promising early results in multiple Phase II trials. Unfortunately, these findings were not confirmed in the recent PHOENIX-GC randomized controlled trial; therefore, the appropriate treatment for GCPM remains controversial. Small observational studies from Japan and Singapore have reported successful downstaging of PM in GC patients receiving SIPC who subsequently underwent conversion gastrectomy with a median OS of 21.6-34.6 months. Recently, the most significant development in IP-directed therapy is pressurized IP aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Given that aerosol chemotherapy achieves a wider distribution and deeper penetration, the outcomes of multiple ongoing trials assessing its efficacy are eagerly awaited. Indeed, IP-directed therapy has evolved rapidly in the last 3 decades, with an encouraging trend toward improved outcomes in GCPM, and may offer some hope for an otherwise fatal disease., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2020. Korean Gastric Cancer Association.)

Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new intraabdominal technique to approach non-resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). PIPAC can be performed alone or alternated with systemic chemotherapy to increase tumor regression. We describe our initial experience performed in an expert hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) French center to demonstrate the safety and the feasibility of PIPAC., Methods: Between January 2016 and March 2019, PIPAC was proposed to 43 consecutive patients affected by digestive, ovarian, peritoneal and mammary carcinomatosis. Initially PIPAC was proposed to patients non eligible for cytoreductive surgery for palliative purposes. In five patients we associated PIPAC to systemic chemotherapy to improve tumor regression and enhance the chance of patients to undergo HIPEC. Three PIPAC treatments were supposed to be performed for each patient with an interval of 6 weeks in between each procedure. Peritoneal biopsies were always performed to evaluate microscopic tumor regression. In case of postoperative clinical deterioration or quick tumor progression during the cycles, PIPAC was interrupted. Depending on the primary tumor, chemotherapies used were oxaliplatin or a combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin., Results: Twenty-six (60.4%) patients have already had a surgical resection or intervention of primary cancer removal. In 5 patients abdominal access was impossible. Of the 38 patients operated, seventy-one procedures were performed. In the series, one patient died because of tumor progression. Only one major complication occurred intraoperatively. Two of thirteen patients receiving oxaliplatin had postoperative abdominal pain and needed more drugs assumption and a longer hospitalization. Three patients after a three cycles procedure underwent HIPEC. Nine of the patients who had at least two PIPACs had last biopsies showing a major or complete tumor response., Conclusion: PIPAC is a safe and feasible procedure that can be performed in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis initially not eligible for surgery to reduce tumor invasion or for palliation to reduce symptoms. Contraindications are bowel obstruction and multiple intraabdominal adhesions.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) represents a novel approach to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We report our experience with PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC). Data from GC patients (n = 20) included in the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies are reported. All patients had received prior systemic chemotherapy. The mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 10.5 (range 0-39) and nine patients had diffuse GC. PIPAC with cisplatin 7.5 mg/m 2 and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m 2 were administered at 4-6-week intervals. Outcome criteria were objective tumour response, survival and adverse events. Twenty patients had 52 PIPAC procedures with a median follow-up of 10.4 months (3.3-26.5). Median survival from the time of PM diagnosis and after the first PIPAC procedure was 11.5 months and 4.7 months, respectively. Fourteen patients had repeated PIPAC (> 2), and the objective tumour response according to the histological peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) was observed in 36%, whereas 36% had stable disease. Ten patients completed the three prescheduled sessions (per protocol group) and 40% of those displayed an objective tumour response, while 20% had stable disease. Only minor postoperative complications were noted, and none were considered causally related to the PIPAC treatment. PIPAC with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin can induce a quantifiable objective tumour response in selected patients with PM from GC. Survival data are encouraging and warrant further clinical studies.

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.

Purpose: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel approach for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy and offers perspective in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Concept is based on a 12 mmHg capnoperitoneum loaded with drug changed in microdoplets. It was postulated to guarantee a more homogeneous drug distribution and tissular uptake than hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The aim of this study was to compare cisplatin peritoneal distribution and pharmacokinetic between HIPEC and PIPAC procedures in a healthy swine model. Methods: Two groups of eight pigs underwent either HIPEC with cisplatin (70 mg/m 2 ) at 43 °C for 60 min, or PIPAC with cisplatin (7.5 mg/m 2 ) for 30 min. Postoperatively, peritoneal areas were biopsied allowing peritoneal cavity cartography. Tissular and plasmatic cisplatin concentrations were analyzed. Results: Cisplatin distribution was heterogeneous in both the groups with higher concentrations obtained closed to the delivery sites. Median total platinum peritoneal concentration by pig was higher in the HIPEC group than in the PIPAC group (18.0 μg/g versus 4.3 μg/g, p  < .001) but the yield was 2.2 times better with PIPAC. Platinum concentrations were higher in the HIPEC group in all stations. At each time-point, cisplatin plasmatic concentrations were higher in the HIPEC group ( p  < .001) but beneath the toxicity threshold. Conclusions: With doses used in clinical practice, HIPEC guaranteed a higher cisplatin peritoneal uptake than PIPAC in this swine model. Spatial drug distribution was heterogeneous with both technics, with hotspots closed to the drug delivery sites. Nevertheless, considering the dose ratio, IP drug uptake yield was better with PIPAC.

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., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: 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., Material and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients treated with PIPAC-Ox (92 mg/m 2 ) 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: Oxaliplatin-based PIPAC appears to be a safe treatment that offers good symptom control and promising survival for patients with advanced peritoneal disease., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) was recently introduced to treat unresectable peritoneal metastases. Adding an electrostatic field may enhance charged droplet precipitation and tissue penetration, resulting in improved anticancer efficacy. We report for the first time its safety and preliminary efficacy., Materials and Methods: Patients underwent PIPAC combined with an electrostatic field, using the Ultravision™ apparatus. Adverse events were scored with the Common Terminology Criteria. Treatment response was assessed after more than one PIPAC, using clinical symptoms, tumor markers, CT imaging and histological regression., Results: Forty-eight patients (median age, 61 y) with diverse primary tumors underwent 135 procedures (median per patient, 3). Most (65.2%) were treated as outpatient. Twenty-eight (58.3%) patients received concomitant chemotherapy. The most frequent treatment-related toxicities were anemia (grade 1 to 3, 13 [9.6%]), ileus (grade 1 to 3, 5 [3.7%]), anorexia (grade 1 to 3, 6 [4.4%]), nausea (grade 1 to 3, 5 [3.7%]) and vomiting (grade 1 to 3, 7 [5.2%]). There was no grade 4 or 5 morbidity. Twenty (41.7%) patients did not complete three treatments, mainly because of disease progression (n = 13). After two procedures, there were one responder and 8 non-responders. After three treatments, we observed 11 responders, two patients with stable disease, and 15 non-responders. All but one patient with therapy response received simultaneous chemotherapy., Conclusion: Electrostatic precipitation during PIPAC is well tolerated and safe. After three procedures and concomitant chemotherapy, response or stable disease is achieved in approximately half of cases. These findings warrant prospective trials in homogeneous patient cohorts., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Aim of the Study: The safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is often questioned when newly implemented in an operating room (OR); as it may increase the risk of exposure to cytotoxics for healthcare workers. There are no data on the risk of healthcare exposure in OR without laminar airflow. We aimed to ensure the safety of PIPAC for surgeons and their co-workers for newly implemented procedures in an OR without laminar airflow., Patients and Methods: Twenty-six samples with cellulosic wipes from surgeons and co-workers' environmental items and 5 specific polytetrafluoroethylene air-filtered collections were randomly performed for the first 2 cisplatin/doxorubicin-based PIPAC procedures in Strasbourg University Hospital. PIPAC was performed according to previously described safety protocol but without a laminar airflow and with an additional plastic cover and smoke evacuation device. Sampling and analyzes were performed by 2 accredited independent certified organizations., Results: All air measurements were negative for cisplatin and doxorubicin. Only one wipe sample out of 26 was positive for cisplatin (4%) on the outer surgeon's pair of gloves but dosages on the surgeon's inner pair and hands were negative., Conclusion: When performed in approved security conditions, even without laminar airflow, PIPAC might seem harmless for surgeons and their co-workers with very limited risk of exposure to cytotoxics., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Recent advances in locoregional chemotherapy have opened the door to new approaches for the clinical management of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) by facilitating the delivery of anti-neoplastic agents directly to the tumor site, while mitigating adverse effects typically associated with systemic administration. In particular, an innovative intra-abdominal chemotherapeutic approach, known as Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), was recently introduced to the intraperitoneal (IP) therapy regimens as a palliative therapeutic option in patients with PC, presumably providing a better drug distribution pattern together with deeper drug penetration into tumor nodules within the peritoneal space. Furthermore, the progress of nanotechnology in the past few decades has prompted the application of different nanomaterials in IP cancer therapy, offering new possibilities in this field ranging from an extended retention time to sustained drug release in the peritoneal cavity. This review highlights the progress, challenges, and opportunities in utilizing cancer nanotherapeutics for locoregional drug delivery, with a special emphasis on the aerosolization approach for intraperitoneal therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX) is offered as a palliative treatment option for patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in several centres worldwide. However, little is known about its feasibility, safety, tolerability, efficacy, costs and pharmacokinetics in this setting. This study aims to explore these parameters in patients with isolated unresectable colorectal PM who receive repetitive ePIPAC-OX as a palliative monotherapy., Methods and Analysis: This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals for the surgical treatment of colorectal PM. Eligible patients are adults who have histologically or cytologically proven isolated unresectable PM of a colorectal or appendiceal carcinoma, a good performance status, adequate organ functions and no symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction. Instead of standard palliative treatment, enrolled patients receive laparoscopy-controlled ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m 2 body surface area (BSA)) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m 2 BSA) and bolus 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m 2 BSA) every 6 weeks. Four weeks after each procedure, patients undergo clinical, radiological and biochemical evaluation. ePIPAC-OX is repeated until disease progression, after which standard palliative treatment is (re)considered. The primary outcome is the number of patients with major toxicity (grade ≥3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) up to 4 weeks after the last ePIPAC-OX. Secondary outcomes are the environmental safety of ePIPAC-OX, procedure-related characteristics, minor toxicity, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmissions, quality of life, costs, pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, progression-free survival, overall survival, and the radiological, histopathological, cytological, biochemical and macroscopic tumour response., Ethics and Dissemination: This study is approved by an ethics committee, the Dutch competent authority and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and for presentation to patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders., Trial Registration Number: NCT03246321, Pre-results; ISRCTN89947480, Pre-results; NTR6603, Pre-results; EudraCT: 2017-000927-29, Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Peritoneal carcinomatosis is a common metastatic pattern in ovarian, gastric, colorectal, and appendiceal cancer; systemic chemotherapy is the current standard of care for peritoneal metastatic disease; however, in a subset of patients its beneficial effect remains questionable. More effective perioperative chemotherapy is needed. Materials and methods: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new treatment that applies chemotherapeutic drugs into the peritoneal cavity as an aerosol under pressure. It's a safe and feasible approach that improves local bioavailability of chemotherapeutic drugs as compared with conventional intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Till now the drugs used in PIPAC for the treatment of the peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) are cisplatin, doxorubicin, and oxaliplatin; as of yet, there are no in vivo data comparing different drug formulations and dosage schedules of PIPAC. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 1.5 mg/sm was aerosolized in PIPAC procedures. Results: Pharmacokinetics analysis of 10 procedures performed with conventional doxorubicin solution at the dose of 1.5 mg/m 2 were compared to 15 procedures with the same dose of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD). Significant differences between experimental groups were detected by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correction; a p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A statistically different doxorubicin tissue concentration was observed for the doxorubicin solution compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the right parietal peritoneum and right diaphragm. In the Caelyx ® series a mean tissue concentration of 1.27 ± 1.33 mg/g was reported, while in the second one we registered a mean concentration of 3.1 ± 3.7 mg/g. Conclusions: The delivery of nano-particles in PIPAC was feasible, but pegylated liposomal concentrations are lower than standard doxorubicin formulation. Probably mechanical and physical properties of pressurized aerosol chemotherapy might alter their stability and cause structural disintegration.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative drug delivery technique. Most common indication is palliative therapy of peritoneal metastasis of gastrointestinal and gynecological origin in the salvage situation. Access to the abdomen is the critical step of the procedure, since most patients had previous surgery. Potential pitfalls include non-access because of adhesions, bowel access lesions and postoperative subcutaneous toxic emphysema., Methods: We propose a technique, the "finger-access technique" that might prevent largely these pitfalls. A minilaparotomy of 3 cm is performed in the midline, a finger introduced into the abdomen and a 5-mm double-balloon trocar (no Hasson trocar) is placed under finger protection at some distance of the first incision. The fascia of the minilaparotomy, not the skin, is then closed. The abdomen is insufflated with CO 2 and tightness is controlled with saline solution in the minilaparotomy. A second 10-12 mm trocar is then introduced under videoscopic control. The first trocar is then visualized through the second one to exclude a bowel lesion during first access., Results and Conclusions: In our hands, this access technique has shown to be safe and effective., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.