Search

Simple Summary: Peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer are linked to a poor prognosis, with median survival ranging from 2 to 9 months. Standard treatments, including systemic chemotherapy and targeted therapies, have demonstrated only limited effectiveness. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an experimental approach under investigation for treating these metastases, but its widespread clinical use is hindered by insufficient evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. This retrospective study presents outcomes from the first PIPAC program in Lithuania, where 32 patients underwent 71 PIPAC procedures between 2015 and 2022. Intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred in 4.2% of cases. Although reductions in peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) and ascites volume were noted, they were not statistically significant. The median overall survival after PM diagnosis was 12.5 months. These findings suggest that PIPAC is a safe and feasible treatment, but further research is needed to establish its efficacy. Background: Peritoneal metastases (PM) of gastric cancer (GC) are considered a terminal condition, with reported median survival ranging from 2 to 9 months. Standard treatment typically involves systemic chemotherapy alone or combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy, though efficacy is limited. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has emerged as a novel technique for treating GC PM, although it remains an experimental treatment under investigation. This study aimed to summarize the outcomes of GC PM treatment with PIPAC from the Lithuanian PIPAC program. Methods: All patients who underwent PIPAC for GC PM at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos between 2015 and 2022 were included in this retrospective study. The safety of PIPAC was assessed by postoperative complications according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Efficacy was evaluated based on the peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI), ascites dynamics throughout the treatment, and long-term outcomes. Results: In total, 32 patients underwent 71 PIPAC procedures. Intraoperative and postoperative morbidity related to PIPAC occurred after three (4.2%) procedures. Following PIPAC, there was a tendency towards a decrease in median PCI from 10 (Q1 3; Q3 13) to 7 (Q1 2; Q3 12), p = 0.75, and a decrease in median ascites volume from 1300 mL (Q1 500; Q3 3600) at the first PIPAC to 700 mL (Q1 250; Q3 4750) at the last PIPAC, p = 0.56; however, these differences were not statistically significant. The median overall survival after PM diagnosis was 12.5 months (95% CI 10–17), and the median survival after the first PIPAC procedure was 5 months (95% CI 4–10). Conclusions: PIPAC is a safe and feasible treatment option for GC PM; however, well-designed prospective studies are needed to fully assess its efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Low grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) is a rare subtype of ovarian cancer (OC) that is challenging to treat due to its relative chemoresistance. Given that LGSOC patients often recur in the peritoneal cavity, novel intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy should be explored. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a method that has demonstrated peritoneal disease control in cancers with peritoneal metastases. Methods: NCT04329494 is a US multicenter phase 1 trial evaluating the safety of PIPAC in recurrent ovarian, uterine, and GI cancers with peritoneal metastases. This analysis describes the outcomes of a sub-cohort of four LGSOC patients treated with IP cisplatin 10.5 mg/m², doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m² PIPAC q4-6 weeks. Primary endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and incidence of adverse events (AE). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and treatment response based on radiographic, intraoperative, and pathological findings. Results: Four patients with LGSOC were enrolled of which three were heavily pretreated. Median prior lines of therapy was 5 (range 2-10). Three patients had extraperitoneal metastases, and two patients had baseline partial small bowel obstructive (SBO) symptoms. Median age of patients was 58 (38-68). PIPAC completion rate (=2 PIPACs) was 75%. No DLTs or Clavien-Dindo surgical complications occurred. No G4/G5 AEs were observed, and one G3 abdominal pain was reported. One patient had a partial response after 3 cycles of PIPAC and completed an additional 3 cycles with compassionate use amendment. Two patients came off study after 2 cycles due to extraperitoneal progressive disease. One patient came off study after 1 cycle due to toxicity. Median decrease in peritoneal carcinomatosis index between cycles 1 and 2 was 5.0%. Ascites decreased in 2 out of 3 patients who had =2 PIPACs. Median PFS was 4.3 months (1.7-21.6), median overall survival was 11.6 months (5.4-30.1), and objective response rate was 25%. Conclusion: PIPAC with cisplatin/doxorubicin is well tolerated in LGSOC patients without baseline SBO symptoms. IP response was seen in 2 out of 3 patients that completed =2 PIPAC cycles. Further study of PIPAC for patients with recurrent disease limited to the IP cavity and with no partial SBO symptoms should be considered. [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]

Background: PIPAC is a recent approach for intraperitoneal chemotherapy with promising results for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. A systematic review was conducted to assess current evidence on the efficacy and outcomes of PIPAC in patients affected by ovarian cancer. Methods: The study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to December 2023. Studies reporting data on patients with OC treated with PIPAC were included in the qualitative analysis. Results: Twenty-one studies and six clinical trials with 932 patients who underwent PIPAC treatment were identified. The reported first access failure was 4.9%. 89.8% of patients underwent one, 60.7% two and 40% received three or more PIPAC cycles. Pathological tumour response was objectivated in 13 studies. Intra-operative complications were reported in 11% of women and post-operative events in 11.5% with a 0.82% of procedure-related mortality. Quality of life scores have been consistently stable or improved during the treatment time. The percentage of OC patients who became amenable for cytoreductive surgery due to the good response after PIPAC treatment for palliative purposes is reported to be 2.3%. Conclusion: The results showed that PIPAC is safe and effective for palliative purposes, with a good pathological tumour response and quality of life. Future prospective studies would be needed to explore the role of this treatment in different stages of the disease, investigating a paradigm shift towards the use of PIPAC with curative intent for women who are not eligible for primary cytoreductive surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Results: Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = −1.2; 95%CI (−1.9; −0.5); p < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; p = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; p < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. Conclusions: PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Peritoneal carcinomatosis is a disease with a very poor prognosis. PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy) is a promising new technique which can be used to treat patients. We describe our first experience with this oncosurgical technique. We used two different applicators (CAPNOPEN and TOPOL) with similar results. PIPAC is mainly a palliative treatment but it can be used for neoadjuvant therapy. The conversion rate was 12% in our study. PIPAC is a new and promising technique for the intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy. It can be used in patients with various peritoneal cancer metastases. It is mainly a palliative treatment, but there is some neoadjuvant treatment potential. We have operated on 41 patients with various intra-abdominal cancers. PIPAC was performed every 6 weeks. The indication was extension of peritoneal carcinomatosis beyond the criteria for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. The effect was evaluated according to the peritoneal cancer index, the peritoneal regression grading score and the amount of ascites. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. We have performed 100 PIPAC procedures. There were two major complications, classified as Clavien Dindo III (2%). The number of procedures varied from 1 to 6. Five patients switched to cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, and one was indicated for the watch and wait strategy due to total regression according to PRGS. Three patients are still continuing treatment. The others stopped treatment mainly because of progression of the disease and loss of metastases. We observed a reduction in ascites production soon after PIPAC application. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated treatment modality. It is mainly a palliative treatment that can improve the quality of life by reducing the production of ascites, but in about 10% of cases, it can reduce the extent of the disease and allow for further radical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionLow grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) is a rare subtype of ovarian cancer (OC) that is challenging to treat due to its relative chemoresistance. Given that LGSOC patients often recur in the peritoneal cavity, novel intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy should be explored. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a method that has demonstrated peritoneal disease control in cancers with peritoneal metastases.MethodsNCT04329494 is a US multicenter phase 1 trial evaluating the safety of PIPAC in recurrent ovarian, uterine, and GI cancers with peritoneal metastases. This analysis describes the outcomes of a sub-cohort of four LGSOC patients treated with IP cisplatin 10.5 mg/m2, doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m2 PIPAC q4-6 weeks. Primary endpoints included dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and incidence of adverse events (AE). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and treatment response based on radiographic, intraoperative, and pathological findings.ResultsFour patients with LGSOC were enrolled of which three were heavily pretreated. Median prior lines of therapy was 5 (range 2-10). Three patients had extraperitoneal metastases, and two patients had baseline partial small bowel obstructive (SBO) symptoms. Median age of patients was 58 (38-68). PIPAC completion rate (≥2 PIPACs) was 75%. No DLTs or Clavien-Dindo surgical complications occurred. No G4/G5 AEs were observed, and one G3 abdominal pain was reported. One patient had a partial response after 3 cycles of PIPAC and completed an additional 3 cycles with compassionate use amendment. Two patients came off study after 2 cycles due to extraperitoneal progressive disease. One patient came off study after 1 cycle due to toxicity. Median decrease in peritoneal carcinomatosis index between cycles 1 and 2 was 5.0%. Ascites decreased in 2 out of 3 patients who had ≥2 PIPACs. Median PFS was 4.3 months (1.7-21.6), median overall survival was 11.6 months (5.4-30.1), and objective response rate was 25%.ConclusionPIPAC with cisplatin/doxorubicin is well tolerated in LGSOC patients without baseline SBO symptoms. IP response was seen in 2 out of 3 patients that completed ≥2 PIPAC cycles. Further study of PIPAC for patients with recurrent disease limited to the IP cavity and with no partial SBO symptoms should be considered.

Peritoneal metastasis is a common finding in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Beyond systemic chemotherapy, additive local treatments such as cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy are considered an inherent part of different multimodal treatment concepts for selected patients with peritoneal metastatic gastric cancer. This review article discusses the role of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and intraperitoneal chemotherapy, including HIPEC, NIPS, and PIPAC, as additive therapeutic options with curative and palliative intent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in platinum-resistant recurrence of ovarian cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis, while our secondary endpoint was to establish any changes in quality of life estimated via the EORTC QLQ-30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires. Methods: In this monocentric, single-arm, phase II trial, women were prospectively recruited and every 28–42 days underwent courses of PIPAC with doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m2 followed by cisplatin 10.5 mg/m2 via sequential laparoscopy. Results: Overall, 98 PIPAC procedures were performed on 43 women from January 2016 to January 2020; three procedures were aborted due to extensive intra-abdominal adhesions. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reached in 82% of women. Three cycles of PIPAC were completed in 18 women (45%), and 13 (32.5%) and 9 (22.5%) patients were subjected to one and two cycles, respectively. During two PIPAC procedures, patients experienced an intraoperative intestinal perforation. There were no treatment-related deaths. Nineteen patients showed no response according to the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) and 8 patients showed minor response according to the PRGS. Median time from ovarian cancer relapse to disease progression was 12 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.483–17.517), while the median overall survival was 27 months (95% CI 20.337–33.663). The EORTC QLQ-28 and EORTC QLQ-30 scores did not worsen during therapy. Conclusions: PIPAC seems a feasible approach for the treatment of this subset of patients, without any impact on their quality of life. Since this study had a small sample size and a single-center design, future research is mandatory, such as its application in addition to systemic chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A definition of long-term survival (LTS) in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), pancreatic cancer (PC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with systemic chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is lacking. We aimed to define LTS and investigate characteristics and treatment response in patients who reached LTS in data from two prospective trials.

To monitor the results of PIPAC directed therapy based on data from the International Society for the Study of the Pleura and Peritoneum (ISSPP) PIPAC database.

Abstract Background Gastric cancer (GC) remains among the most common and most lethal cancers worldwide. Peritoneum is the most common site for distant dissemination. Standard treatment for GC peritoneal metastases (PM) is a systemic therapy, but treatment outcomes remain very poor, with median overall survival ranging between 3-9 months. Thus, novel treatment methods are necessary. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is the most novel technique for intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Some preliminary data suggest PIPAC can achieve improved long-term outcomes in patients with GC PM, especially when used in combination with systemic chemotherapy. However, there is a lack of data from well-design prospective studies that would confirm the efficacy of PIPAC and systemic therapy combination for first-line treatment. Methods This study is an investigator-initiated single-arm, phase II trial to investigate the efficacy of PIPAC combined with systemic FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin) as a first-line treatment for GC PM. The study is conducted in 2 specialized GC treatment centers in Lithuania. It enrolls GC patients with histologically confirmed PM without prior treatment. The treatment protocol consists of PIPAC with cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2 body surface in 150 mL NaCl 0.9%) and doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m2 in 50 mL NaCl 0.9%) followed by 2 cycles of FOLFOX every 6–7 weeks. In total 3 PIPACs and 6 cycles of FOLFOX will be utilized. The primary outcome of the study is the objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v. 1.1 criteria (Eisenhauer et al., Eur J Cancer 45:228–47) in a CT scan performed 7 days after the 4th cycle of FOLFOX. Secondary outcomes include ORR after all experimental treatment, PIPAC characteristics, postoperative morbidity, histological and biochemical response, ascites volume, quality of life, overall survival, and toxicity. Discussion This study aims to assess PIPAC and FOLFOX combination efficacy for previously untreated GC patients with PM. Trial registration NCT05644249. Registered on December 9, 2022.

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.

The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood–peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postoperative peritoneal adhesions occur in the majority of patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery and are one of the leading causes of hospital re-admission. There is an unmet clinical need for effective anti-adhesive biomaterials, which can be applied evenly across the damaged tissues. We examined three different responsive hydrogel types, i.e. a thermosensitive PLGA-PEG-PLGA, a pH responsive UPy-PEG and a shear-thinning hexapeptide for this purpose. More specifically, their potential to be homogeneously distributed in the peritoneal cavity by high pressure nebulization and prevent peritoneal adhesions was evaluated. Solutions of each polymer type could be successfully nebulized while retaining their responsive gelation behavior in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, none of the polymers caused in vitro toxicity on SKOV3-IP2 cells. Following intraperitoneal administration, both the PLGA-PEG-PLGA and the hexapeptide hydrogels resulted in local inflammation and fibrosis and failed in preventing peritoneal adhesions 7 days after adhesion induction. In contrast, the pH sensitive UPy-PEG formulation was well tolerated and could significantly reduce the formation of peritoneal adhesions, even outperforming the commercially available Hyalobarrier® as positive control. To conclude, local nebulization of the bioresponsive UPy-PEG hydrogel can be considered as a promising approach to prevent postsurgical peritoneal adhesions. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first UK trial of pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases. This trial aimed to assess the impact of PIPAC in combination with standard of care systemic treatment on: progression free survival (PFS); quality of life (QoL); and short-term complications. In addition, this trial set out to demonstrate that PIPAC can be performed safely in operating theatres within a National Health Service (NHS) setting.

This article, published in Frontiers in Oncology, discusses the management of peritoneal surface malignancies, specifically focusing on cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The authors highlight the challenges faced by patients with peritoneal metastases and the advancements in systemic therapies and surgical techniques that have improved outcomes. They also discuss the disparities in care provision and the need for standardized treatment approaches. The article emphasizes the importance of collaborative efforts, innovative techniques, and ongoing research in the field of peritoneal surface malignancy management. [Extracted from the article]

PIPAC is a new and promising technique for the intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy. It can be used in patients with various peritoneal cancer metastases. It is mainly a palliative treatment, but there is some neoadjuvant treatment potential. We have operated on 41 patients with various intra-abdominal cancers. PIPAC was performed every 6 weeks. The indication was extension of peritoneal carcinomatosis beyond the criteria for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. The effect was evaluated according to the peritoneal cancer index, the peritoneal regression grading score and the amount of ascites. Complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. We have performed 100 PIPAC procedures. There were two major complications, classified as Clavien Dindo III (2%). The number of procedures varied from 1 to 6. Five patients switched to cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, and one was indicated for the watch and wait strategy due to total regression according to PRGS. Three patients are still continuing treatment. The others stopped treatment mainly because of progression of the disease and loss of metastases. We observed a reduction in ascites production soon after PIPAC application. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated treatment modality. It is mainly a palliative treatment that can improve the quality of life by reducing the production of ascites, but in about 10% of cases, it can reduce the extent of the disease and allow for further radical treatment.

Background: This study evaluated occupational exposure levels of doxorubicin in healthcare workers performing rotational intraperitoneal pressurized aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) procedures. Methods: All samples were collected during PIPAC procedures applying doxorubicin to an experimental animal model (pigs). All procedures were applied to seven pigs, each for approximately 44 min. Surface samples (n = 51) were obtained from substances contaminating the PIPAC devices, surrounding objects, and protective equipment. Airborne samples were also collected around the operating table (n = 39). All samples were analyzed using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Results: Among the surface samples, doxorubicin was detected in only five samples (9.8%) that were directly exposed to antineoplastic drug aerosols in the abdominal cavity originating from PIPAC devices. The telescopes showed concentrations of 0.48–5.44 ng/cm2 and the trocar showed 0.98 ng/cm2 in the region where the spraying nozzles were inserted. The syringe line connector showed a maximum concentration of 181.07 ng/cm2, following a leakage. Contamination was not detected on the surgeons' gloves or shoes. Objects surrounding the operating table, including tables, operating lights, entrance doors, and trocar holders, were found to be uncontaminated. All air samples collected at locations where healthcare workers performed procedures were found to be uncontaminated. Conclusions: Most air and surface samples were uncontaminated or showed very low doxorubicin concentrations during PIPAC procedures. However, there remains a potential for leakage, in which case dermal exposure may occur. Safety protocols related to leakage accidents, selection of appropriate protective equipment, and the use of disposable devices are necessary to prevent occupational exposure.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) gives encouraging results in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The current recommendations require at least 3 sessions of PIPAC. However, some patients do not complete the full treatment course and stop after only 1 or 2 procedures, hence the limited benefit. A literature review was performed, with search terms including “PIPAC” and “pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.”

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

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with systemic chemotherapy as a bidirectional approach for gastric cancer (GC) patients with synchronous peritoneal metastases (SPM). Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospective PIPAC database was queried for patients who underwent a bidirectional approach between October 2019 and April 2022 at two high-volume GC surgery units in Italy (Verona and Siena). Surgical and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Results: Between October 2019 and April 2022, 74 PIPAC procedures in 42 consecutive patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were performed—32 patients treated in Verona and 10 in Siena. Twenty-seven patients (64%) were female and median age at first PIPAC was 60.5 years (I–III quartiles: 49–68 years). Median Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) was 16 (I–III quartiles: 8–26) and 25 patients (59%) had at least two PIPAC procedures. Major complications according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE; 3 and 4) occurred in three (4%) procedures, and, according to the Clavien–Dindo classification (>3a), one (1%) severe complication occurred. There were no reoperations or deaths within 30 days. Median overall survival (mOS) from diagnosis was 19.6 months (range 14–24), and mOS from first PIPAC was 10.5 months (range 7–13). Excluding cases with very heavy metastatic peritoneal burden, with PCI from 2 to 26, treated with more than one PIPAC, mOS from diagnosis was 22 months (range 14–39). Eleven patients (26%) underwent curative-intent surgery after a bidirectional approach. R0 was achieved in nine (82%) patients and complete pathological response was obtained in three (27%) cases. Conclusions: Patient selection is associated with bidirectional approach efficacy and feasibility for SPM GC treatment, which may allow potentially curative surgical radicalization in highly selected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Simple Summary: Gastric cancer with metastasis to the peritoneum carries a poor prognosis, with a 40% mortality rate. The optimal treatment modalities have not been established for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (GC/PC). We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies on novel treatment strategies including HIPEC and PIPAC to evaluate their safety and efficacy. Through this, our study contextualizes their role in the current treatment pathways for advanced gastric cancer. Background: Gastric cancer has a poor prognosis and involves metastasis to the peritoneum in over 40% of patients. The optimal treatment modalities have not been established for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (GC/PC). Although studies have reported favourable prognostic factors, these have yet to be incorporated into treatment guidelines. Hence, our review aims to appraise the latest diagnostic and treatment developments in managing GC/PC. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review, and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurised intraperitoneal aerosolised chemotherapy (PIPAC) in GC/PC. A meta-analysis of studies reporting on overall survival (OS) in HIPEC and comparing the extent of cytoreduction as a prognostic factor was also carried out. Results: The database search yielded a total of 2297 studies. Seventeen studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Eight studies reported the short-term OS at 1 year as the primary outcome measure, and our analysis showed a significantly higher OS for the HIPEC/CRS cohort compared to the CRS cohort (pooled OR = 0.53; p = 0.0005). This effect persisted longer term at five years as well (pooled OR = 0.52; p < 0.0001). HIPEC and CRS also showed a longer median OS compared to CRS (pooled SMD = 0.61; p < 0.00001). Three studies reporting on PIPAC demonstrated a pooled OS of 10.3 (2.2) months. Prognostic factors for longer OS include a more complete cytoreduction (pooled OR = 5.35; p < 0.00001), which correlated with a peritoneal carcinomatosis index below 7. Conclusions: Novel treatment strategies, such as HIPEC and PIPAC, are promising in the management of GC/PC. Further work is necessary to define their role within the treatment algorithm and identify relevant prognostic factors that will assist patient selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taxanes have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile for intraperitoneal application. We report our initial experience with taxane-PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal chemotherapy) for unresectable peritoneal metastases from different primary sites in terms of safety, feasibility, response rate, and conversion to resectability. In this retrospective study, PIPAC was performed alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy. Paclitaxel was used as a single agent, whereas docetaxel was used in combination with cisplatin-adriamycin or oxaliplatin-adriamycin. From December 2019 to December 2021, 47 patients underwent 82 PIPAC procedures (1 PIPAC in 55.3%, 2 in 29.7%, 3 in 14.8%). The most common primary sites were ovarian cancer (31.9%), gastric cancer (23.4%), and colorectal cancer (21.2%). Docetaxel-cisplatin-adriamycin was used in 33 (70.2%) patients, docetaxel-oxaliplatin-adriamycin in 12 (25.5%), and paclitaxel alone in 2 (4.2%) patients. Grade 1–2 complications were observed in 24 (51%) and grade 3–4 complications in 6 (12.7%) patients (8.5% of 82 PIPACs). 16/47 (34.0%) patients had a clinical response to PIPAC. The mean PCI was 25.9 ± 9.2 for the first PIPACs and 22.4 ± 9 for the subsequent PIPACs with an average reduction of 3.6 points [change in PCI ranged from − 14 to + 8]. The PRGS was 1/2 in 4/47 (8.5%) patients (19.0% patients with > 1 PIPAC). A reduction in ascites was observed in 35.4% presenting with ascites. Nine (19.1%) patients had conversion to operability leading to a subsequent cytoreductive surgery in 8 (17%) patients. PIPAC with docetaxel is feasible and safe. The role of PIPAC with both docetaxel and paclitaxel either alone or in combination with other drugs should be investigated in prospective studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management of oligometastatic disease (OMD) in esophagogastric junction cancer is complex due to anatomical location and adenocarcinoma pathway. Specific curative strategy is mandatory to increase survival. A multimodal approach combining surgery, systemic and peritoneal chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and radiofrequency could be envisaged. We report a strategy proposed for a 61-year-old male with cardia adenocarcinoma, initially treated with chemotherapy and superior polar esogastrectomy. He developed at later stage an OMD with peritoneal metastasis, single liver metastasis, and single lung metastasis. Considering that peritoneal metastases were unresectable at first, he was given multiple Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin, associated with intravenous docetaxel. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation was performed during the first PIPAC procedure. Peritoneal response allowed a secondary Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood–peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is the most frequent site of metastases in patients with gastric cancer. Current standard treatment is palliative systemic chemotherapy with very poor prognosis. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) resulted in long-term benefits in selected patients. Among patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, a distinctive subset is oligometastatic disease which is characterized by low metastatic burden. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recent technique of intraperitoneal chemotherapy used in combination with systemic chemotherapy with promising results.

Two surgical techniques used for peritoneal metastasis involve a risk of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs): hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). The objective of this study was to assess the differences in perception, training, and knowledge of the risks as well as in the protection practices and occupational exposures of all worker categories.

Simple Summary: Gastric cancer remains the sixth most prevalent malignant tumor worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer-related death. Surgery is the pillar of its treatment at all stages, but the importance of endoscopic treatments and multimodal therapy is growing. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive description of the role of surgery for gastric cancer in the modern era. Surgery still represents the mainstay of treatment of all stages of gastric cancer (GC). Surgical resections represent potentially curative options in the case of early GC with a low risk of node metastasis. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and indocyanine green fluorescence are novel techniques which may improve the employment of stomach-sparing procedures, ameliorating quality of life without compromising oncological radicality. Nonetheless, the diffusion of these techniques is limited in Western countries. Conversely, radical gastrectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy and multimodal treatment represents a valid option in the case of advanced GC. Differences between Eastern and Western recommendations still exist, and the optimal multimodal strategy is still a matter of investigation. Recent chemotherapy protocols have made surgery available for patients with oligometastatic disease. In this context, intraperitoneal administration of chemotherapy via HIPEC or PIPAC has emerged as an alternative weapon for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. In conclusion, the surgical management of GC is still evolving together with the multimodal strategy. It is mandatory for surgeons to be conscious of the current evolution of the surgical management of GC in the era of multidisciplinary and tailored medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a contemporary review of the current surgical management of peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) of colorectal origin. A brief review of the founding history of surgical intervention for PSM is followed by a focused review of the level I evidence, current clinical questions, and evolving advancements. While not intended to address all the facets of PSM, this review aims to provide the reader with the essential knowledge and resources to effectively provide surgical care for carcinomatosis due to colorectal malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging treatment modality for patients with peritoneal cancer with good safety profile and promising early response rates. The aim of this study was to analyze survival and surrogates for oncological response after PIPAC ± systemic chemotherapy for appendiceal tumours. Median overall survival of this cohort was 30 months from time of diagnosis and 22 months from PIPAC1 (per protocol) comparing favorably with 20.4 months of OS reported for patients with palliative chemotherapy alone. However, without prospective comparative data, the role of PIPAC for appendicular cancer with peritoneal metastases remains unclear. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics.

Abstract Background Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced for palliative treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) and is currently tested also in the neoadjuvant and prophylactic setting. The aim was therefore to compare safety and tolerance of staging laparoscopy with or without PIPAC. Methods This retrospective analysis compared consecutive patients undergoing staging laparoscopy alone for oesogastric cancer with patients having PIPAC for suspected PSM of various origins from January 2015 until January 2020. Safety was assessed by use of the Clavien classification for complications and CTCAE for capturing of adverse events. Pain and nausea were documented by use of a visual analogue scale (VAS: 0–10: maximal intensity). Results Overall, 25 PIPAC procedures were compared to 24 staging laparoscopies. PIPAC procedures took a median of 35 min (IQR: 25–67) longer. Four patients experienced at least one complication in either group (p = 0.741). No differences were noted for postoperative nausea (p = 0.961) and pain levels (p = 0.156). Median hospital stay was 2 (IQR: 1–3) for PIPAC and 1 (IQR: 1–2) for the laparoscopy group (p = 0.104). Conclusions The addition of PIPAC did not jeopardize safety and postoperative outcomes of staging laparoscopy alone. Further studies need to clarify its oncological benefits.

Oxaliplatin immune-induced syndrome (OIIS) was recently recognized as an uncommon complication of oxaliplatin therapy.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis is one of the leading causes of death in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Newer locoregional treatment concepts include pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), the regional application of pressurized chemotherapeutic agents to the abdominal cavity, which is usually performed every 4 to 8 weeks. One of the main challenges of PIPAC therapy remains the objective assessment of treatment response. The present study describes a new scoring system to histologically assess the regression of peritoneal cancer following PIPAC therapy, quantitative assessment of histological regression in peritoneal carcinomatosis (QARP). Peritoneal biopsies from 27 patients with peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC were obtained and processed in a standardized fashion. Biopsies were scored according to the QARP grading system. The five-tiered system was graded as follows, Grade 0, no residual tumor cells with regressive changes present; grade 1, 1–25% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with regressive changes present; grade 2, 26–50% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with regressive changes present; grade 3, 51–75% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with few regressive changes; grade 4, >75% viable tumor cells per tumor focus with minimal or no regressive changes. Based on the new grading system, the study cohort was divided into QARP responders and QARP non-responders following PIPAC treatment. Higher QARP scores were significantly correlated with higher PCI scores (r=0.32; P=0.007). However, no difference in overall survival was detected between QARP responders and QARP non-responders. Further studies are required to ascertain the reproducibility and prognostic significance of QARP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising treatment for peritoneal cancer that entails, however, potential risks for the caregivers in the operating room (OR). This study aimed to reach a consensus within the PIPAC community on a comprehensive safety protocol.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new drug delivery method for intraabdominal cavity chemotherapy. It combines the benefits of a minimally invasive approach (low morbidity and easy to repeat) with the pharmacokinetic advantages of intraperitoneal administration and tolerance seems excellent. We would like to report one case of a serious adverse event, acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is likely related to oxaliplatin administration; all signs disappeared within a few days.

This article provides a contemporary review of the current surgical management of peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) of colorectal origin. A brief review of the founding history of surgical intervention for PSM is followed by a focused review of the level I evidence, current clinical questions, and evolving advancements. While not intended to address all the facets of PSM, this review aims to provide the reader with the essential knowledge and resources to effectively provide surgical care for carcinomatosis due to colorectal malignancies.

Simple Summary: Peritoneal cancer is best addressed by a multimodal treatment approach, including cytoreductive surgery, systemic immunochemotherapy, and intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC, PIPAC). The present Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group comprehensive treatment algorithms offer consensus guidance for interdisciplinary care of patients with peritoneal cancer from pseudomyxoma peritonei, peritoneal mesothelioma, gastric, and colorectal origin. They include straight complete surgical resection, multimodal neoadjuvant treatment, HIPEC and PIPAC, and referral to palliative care. These state-of-the-art algorithms have been endorsed by all Swiss clinicians routinely involved in the multimodal care of patients with peritoneal cancer of gastrointestinal origin. Peritoneal cancer (PC) is a dire finding, yet in selected patients, long-term survival is possible. Complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) together with combination immunochemotherapy is essential to achieve cure. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are increasingly added to the multimodal treatment. The Swiss Peritoneal Cancer Group (SPCG) is an interdisciplinary group of expert clinicians. It has developed comprehensive treatment algorithms for patients with PC from pseudomyxoma peritonei, peritoneal mesothelioma, gastric, and colorectal origin. They include multimodal neoadjuvant treatment, surgical resection, and palliative care. The indication for and results of CRS HIPEC and PIPAC are discussed in light of the current literature. Institutional volume and clinical expertise required to achieve best outcomes are underlined, while inclusion of patients considered for CRS HIPEC and PIPAC in a clinical registry is strongly advised. The present recommendations are in line with current international guidelines and provide the first comprehensive treatment proposal for patients with PC including intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The SPCG comprehensive treatment algorithms provide evidence-based guidance for the multimodal care of patients with PC of gastrointestinal origin that were endorsed by all Swiss clinicians routinely involved in the multimodal care of these challenging patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy-oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) induces direct DNA damage and immunogenic cell death in patients with gastric cancer peritoneal metastases (GCPM). Combining PIPAC-OX with immune checkpoint inhibition remains untested. We conducted a phase I first-in-human trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of PIPAC-OX combined with systemic nivolumab (NCT03172416)., Methods: Patients with GCPM who experienced disease progression on at least first-line systemic therapy were recruited across three centers in Singapore and Belgium. Patients received PIPAC-OX at 90 mg/m 2 every 6 weeks and i.v. nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks. Translational studies were carried out on GCPM samples acquired during PIPAC-OX procedures., Results: In total, 18 patients with GCPM were prospectively recruited. The PIPAC-OX and nivolumab combination was well tolerated with manageable treatment-related adverse events, although one patient suffered from grade 4 vomiting. At second and third PIPAC-OX, respectively, the median decrease in peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was -5 (interquartile range: -12 to +1) and -7 (interquartile range: -6 to -20) and peritoneal regression grade 1 or 2 was observed in 66.7% (6/9) and 100% (3/3). Translational analyses of 43 GCPM samples revealed enrichment of immune/stromal infiltration and inflammatory signatures in peritoneal tumors after PIPAC-OX and nivolumab. M2 macrophages were reduced in treated peritoneal tumor samples while memory CD4+, CD8+ central memory and naive CD8+ T-cells were increased., Conclusions: The first-in-human trial combining PIPAC-OX and nivolumab demonstrated safety and tolerability, coupled with enhanced T-cell infiltration within peritoneal tumors. This trial sets the stage for future combinations of systemic immunotherapy with locoregional intraperitoneal treatments., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)