Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Baggaley AE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10364525 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework.
Baggaley Alice E AE Lafaurie Guillaume B R C GBRC Tate Sophia J SJ Boshier Piers R PR Case Amy A Prosser Susan S Torkington Jared J Jones Sadie E F SEF Gwynne Sarah H SH Peters Christopher J CJ
The British journal of surgery 20221201 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel intraperitoneal drug delivery method of low-dose chemotherapy as a pressurized aerosol in patients affected by peritoneal cancer of primary or secondary origin. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of PIPAC.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed using Medline and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2011, to inception, to 31 December 2021. Data were independently extracted by two authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of studies. Meta-analysis was performed for pathological response, radiological response, PCI variation along treatment, and for patients undergoing three or more PIPAC. Pooled analyses were performed using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, and 95% CIs were calculated using Clopper-Pearson exact CIs in all instances.ResultsA total of 414 papers on PIPAC were identified, and 53 studies considering 4719 PIPAC procedure in 1990 patients were included for analysis. The non-access rate or inability to perform PIPAC pooled rate was 4% of the procedures performed. The overall proportion of patients who completed 3 or more cycles of PIPAC was 39%. Severe toxicities considering CTCAE 3-4 were 4% (0% to 38.5%). In total, 50 studies evaluated deaths within the first 30 postoperative days. In the included 1936 patients were registered 26 deaths (1.3%). The pooled analysis of all the studies reporting a pathological response was 68% (95% CI 0.61-0.73), with an acceptable heterogeneity (I2 28.41%, p = 0.09). In total, 10 papers reported data regarding the radiological response, with high heterogeneity and a weighted means of 15% (0% to 77.8%). PCI variation along PIPAC cycles were reported in 14 studies. PCI diminished, increased, or remained stable in eight, one and five studies, respectively, with high heterogeneity at pooled analysis. Regarding survival, there was high heterogeneity. The 12-month estimated survival from first PIPAC for colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, gynecological cancer and hepatobiliary/pancreatic cancer were, respectively, 53%, 25%, 59% and 37%.ConclusionsPIPAC may be a useful treatment option for selected patients with PM, with acceptable grade 3 and 4 toxicity and promising survival benefit. Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity of data among up-to-date available studies. In a subset analysis per primary tumor origin, pathological tumor regression was documented in 68% of the studies with acceptable heterogeneity. Pathological regression seems, therefore, a reliable outcome for PIPAC activity and a potential surrogate endpoint of treatment response. We recommend uniform selection criteria for patients entering a PIPAC program and highlight the urgent need to standardize items for PIPAC reports and datasets.
| S-EPMC9954579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a drug-delivery method for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The study objective was to investigate whether PIPAC is possible in an outpatient setting.MethodsData was extracted from the prospective PIPAC-OPC2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03287375). Patients with PM were treated by cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D), except patients with colorectal PM, who were treated by oxaliplatin (PIPAC OX). Patients were evaluated concerning the suitability for carrying out the PIPAC procedure in an out- patient setting. The preconditions for outpatient surgery were that the patient should be (1) freely mobilized, (2) adequately pain-relieved, (3) have untroubled urination and (4) without anxiety or discomfort caused by leaving the hospital.ResultsDuring the study period, 106 PIPAC procedures (79 PIPAC C/D, 27 PIPAC OX) were performed in 41 patients with gastrointestinal or ovarian PM. Ninety percent (37/41) of the patients were pretreated with systemic chemotherapy. Eight patients (20%) received bidirectional chemotherapy. Twenty-four percent (10/41) of the first PIPAC procedures were completed in an outpatient setting, which increased to 65% (13/20) in PIPAC no 3 (p=0.008). In the PIPAC C/D cohort, 28% and 80% of the PIPACs were performed in the outpatient setting at PIPAC 1 and 3 respectively, contrasting to only 11% and 20% in the PIPAC OX group. No readmissions after outpatient care. Postoperative morphine administration was more frequent in the PIPAC OX group.ConclusionsThe PIPAC procedure can be performed in an outpatient setting. The critical component for success is pain control.
| S-EPMC6405001 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7011374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with recurrent malignant epithelioid mesothelioma (MM) after surgery and standard chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed have limited treatment options.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with recurrent MM undergoing Pressurized IntraPeritoneal/Thoracal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC/PITAC) with doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2 and cisplatin 7.5 mg/m2. Data were retrospectively collected in a prospective registry of patients undergoing PIPAC/PITAC. Study outcomes were microscopic tumor regression grade (TRG), survival and adverse events (v4.0 CTCAE).ResultsA total of 29 patients (m/f = 17/12) with MM with a mean age of 62.4 (range: 42 to 84) years were analyzed. A total of 74 PIPAC and 5 PITAC procedures were performed. The mean number of PIPAC applications was 2.5 (range: 0 to 10) per patient. Twenty patients (69%) had > 2 PIPAC procedure and were eligible for TRG analysis. TRG 1 to 4 was observed in 75% (15/20) of patients. Major regression (TRG 3) or complete regression (TRG 4) was observed in 20% and 10%, respectively. PIPAC induced significant tumor regression in 51.7% (15/29) of patients with a cumulative effect after repetitive PIPACs (PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #2: p = 0.001; PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #3: p = 0.001; PIPAC #1 vs. PIPAC #4: p = 0.001). Postoperative CTCAE grade 4 complications were observed in two patients (6.9%) who had cytoreductive surgery (CC2) and intraoperative PIPAC. One patient (3.4%) died due to postoperative kidney insufficiency. After a follow up of 14.4 (95% CI: 8.1 to 20.7) months after the last PIPAC/PITAC application, median overall survival was 26.6 (95% CI: 9.5 to 43.7) months (from the first application).ConclusionAfter prior abdominal surgery and systemic chemotherapy, repetitive PIPAC applications are feasible and safe for patients with end-stage MM. Furthermore, PIPAC induces significant histological regression of malignant mesothelioma in the majority of patients. PITAC is feasible, but its safety and efficacy to control malignant pleural effusion remain unclear.
| S-EPMC5907219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSafe 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.MethodsThe expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance).ResultsTwenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m2) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m2 (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10.ConclusionsThe current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.
| S-EPMC9069497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a common endpoint in both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cancers, and PC is treated as other systemic metastases - unfortunately with disappointing results and considerable side-effects. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a new method of applying traditional chemotherapy, and preliminary data indicate that PIPAC is safe, able to stabilize or improve quality of life, and can induce an objectively measurable reduction in disease burden in PC.MethodsPIPAC-OPC2 is a prospectively controlled Phase II, single center, one-arm, open-label clinical trial investigating the treatment effect of PIPAC in patients with histological or cytological proven PC from gastrointestinal, ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. Eligible patients will receive PIPAC in series of three using a combination of doxorubicin (1.5 mg/m2) and cisplatin (7.5 mg/m2) for non-colorectal cancer patients (PIPAC C/D), and oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) in patients with PC of colorectal origin (PIPAC OX). Patients are monitored by: (1) repeated measurements of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) in biopsies obtained from metal clips marked areas, (2) Quality-of-Life (QoL) questionnaires, (3) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and (4) Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI). Adverse events and surgical complications will be recorded according to the 30 days definition.ResultsThe primary outcome of PIPAC-OPC2 is to evaluate if PIPAC can induce major or complete response (PRGS 1 or 2) within a series of three PIPAC procedures. Secondarily this study investigates changes in QoL and MRI as a staging and response evaluation tool. The secondary outcomes will be used to create a model that may predict which of the patients will benefit from PIPAC treatment.ConclusionsIt is expected that PIPAC directed therapy can induce major or complete response in 50 % of patients with PC of colorectal origin and in 30 % of patients with PC of non-colorectal origin - and at the same time stabilize or even improve quality of life. This trial may provide data regarding the utility of MRI as a staging and response evaluation tool in patients with PC.Trial registrationThe study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03287375 and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2016-003394-18.
| S-EPMC6404994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an innovative technique for intraperitoneal drug delivery. This study investigates the efficacy of the occupational health safety measures taken to prevent exposition of healthcare workers to the toxic chemotherapy aerosol.MethodsAir samples were taken at the working place of the surgeon and of the anesthetist during 2 PIPAC procedures and analyzed for content of platinum by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Airborne particles were quantified in real time. Biological monitoring was performed in two surgeons after 50 PIPAC by examining blood samples for possible traces of platinum. Analysis was performed by an independent company.ResultsSafety measures included tightly closed abdomen, operating room (OR), ventilation meeting requirements of ISO norm 14644-1 class 5, closed aerosol waste system and remote control of PIPAC administration. No traces of platinum were found in the air of the OR (detection limit of 0.0001 mg/filter). No specific rise in particle concentration was detected in the air during the PIPAC procedure, patient closure and removal of the sterile drapes. Blood samples of the surgeons showed no traces of platinum.ConclusionsAfter implementation of adequate safety measures, no signs of environmental contamination or biological exposure of the surgeons were detected during PIPAC.
| S-EPMC6386395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) is increasingly used as a palliative treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study aimed to systematically review all clinical studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of PIPAC-OX in patients with CPM. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify all clinical studies that included at least one patient with CPM treated with PIPAC-OX and reported one of the following outcomes: adverse events, tumor response, quality of life, secondary cytoreductive surgery, progression-free survival, overall survival, and environmental safety of PIPAC-OX. Results were narratively described. Of 28 included studies, only 14 non-comparative studies separately reported at least one outcome of PIPAC-OX for CPM, of which only two studies specifically focused on this group. These 14 studies reported adverse events (5 studies), tumor response (5 studies), secondary cytoreductive surgery (4 studies), progression-free survival (1 study), overall survival (5 studies), and environmental safety (2 studies). Except for 5 studies (describing 26 patients), none of the included studies stratified their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and none of the studies reporting survival outcomes stratified results for line of palliative treatment, complicating interpretation. No PIPAC-OX related deaths were reported. No occupational platinum was detected during PIPAC-OX. The available evidence regarding PIPAC-OX for CPM is limited and difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, PIPAC-OX appears safe in patients with CPM and safe for operating personnel. To increase insight in the role of PIPAC-OX in this setting, investigators of ongoing and future studies are encouraged to report separate outcomes of PIPAC-OX for CPM, to stratify their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and to stratify survival results for line of palliative treatment.
| S-EPMC8100707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC is a therapeutic option that benefits only selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM). New treatments like pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) have been developed to overcome some limitations of intraperitoneal chemotherapy and treat patients who are not eligible for a curative approach. The safety and feasibility of the procedure in the first few Indian patients treated with PIPAC, and the technique and the set-up required for PIPAC are described here. From May 2017 to August 2017, data was collected prospectively for all patients undergoing PIPAC at three Indian centers. The patients' characteristic, operative findings, and perioperative outcomes were recorded. Seventeen procedures were performed in 16 patients with peritoneal metastases from various primary sites using standard drug regimens developed for the procedure. The median hospital stay was 1 day, minor and major complications were seen in two patients each (11.7%), and there was one post-operative death. Of the six patients who completed at least 6 weeks of follow-up, there was disease progression in two, unrelated problems in two patients, and a second procedure was performed in one patient. One patient underwent subsequent CRS and HIPEC. Our results show the feasibility and safety of PIPAC in Indian patients with a low morbidity and mortality and short hospital stay. While clinical trials will determine its role in addition to systemic chemotherapy, it can be used in patients who have progressed on one or more lines of systemic chemotherapy and those who have chemotherapy-resistant ascites.
| S-EPMC6414563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, Long-term study) framework is a scheme of investigation for innovative surgical therapeutic interventions. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a procedure based on laparoscopy to deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal metastases, introduced in 2011. The aim of this article was to review literature on PIPAC and assess whether development of the technique has followed the IDEAL framework. METHODS:A search of MEDLINE and Embase was carried out to identify scientific reports on PIPAC published between January 2000 and February 2019. The studies were categorized according to the IDEAL stages. RESULTS:Eighty-six original research papers on PIPAC were identified. There were 23 stage 0, 18 stage 1, 25 stage 2a and six stage 2b studies. Protocol papers for stage 1, 2b and 3 studies, and trial registrations for stage 2a studies, were also identified. The number of centres publishing reports and the number of publications has increased each year. Overall, there has been progression through the IDEAL stages; however, about 60 per cent of clinical reports published in 2018 were stage 1 Idea-type studies. CONCLUSION:Since its introduction, studies investigating PIPAC have progressed in line with the IDEAL framework. However, the majority of studies reported recently were stage 0 and 1 studies.
| S-EPMC7093779 | biostudies-literature