Band 8, Heft 4

Objectives 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. Methods Analysis of data from patients entered between June 15th, 2020, and February 28th, 2023. Results Twelve centers reported 2,456 PIPAC procedures in 809 patients (median 2, range 1–18) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from different primary tumors. Approximately 90 % had systemic chemotherapy prior to PIPAC. Twenty-eight percent were treated in prospective protocols. Overall non-access rate was 3.5 %. Concomitant surgical procedures were performed during PIPAC in 1.6 % of the patients. Median length of stay was 2 days. A total of 95 surgical complications were recorded, but only 22 % of these were graded ≥3b. Seventeen-hundred-and-three adverse events were noted, and 8 % were classified ≥3. The rate of complete or major histological response (peritoneal regression grade score, PRGS≤2) increased between the first and the third PIPAC in the group of patients who were evaluated by PRGS, and a PRGS ≤2 or a reduction of the mean PRGS of at least 1 between first and third PIPAC were observed in 80 %. Disease progression (50 %) or technical issues (19 %) were the most important reasons for stopping PIPAC treatment. Median overall survival from first PIPAC directed treatment varied from 10.7 months (CI 8.7–12.5) in gastric cancer to 27.1 months (16.4–50.5) in mesothelioma. Conclusions The ISSPP PIPAC database provides substantial real-world data supporting the use of PIPAC directed therapy in patients with PM from different primary tumors.

Objectives 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. Methods Retrospective study of patients with GC-, PC-, or CRC-PM from the prospective PIPAC-OPC1 and PIPAC-OPC2 studies. The definition of LTS was based on published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. LTS was defined at the time point where 25 % of the patients were alive in these studies. Histology based response was evaluated by the mean Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) using biopsies obtained prior to PIPAC 3, and defined by a mean PRGS of ≤2.0 or a decrease of mean PRGS of ≥1, compared to baseline. Results LTS was defined at 21 (GC), 15 (PC), and 24 (CRC) months. Fifty-one (47.2 %) patients (nine GC, 17 PC, 25 CRC) reached LTS calculated from the date of PM diagnosis. All but one received palliative chemotherapy before PIPAC, and 37 % received bidirectional treatment. More than 90 % of the LTS patients had response according to PRGS. The mOS from PIPAC 1 was 23.3, 12.4, and 28.5 months for GC, PC, and CRC LTS patients. Conclusions Patients with PM from GC, PC, and CRC treated with systemic chemotherapy and PIPAC can reach LTS and most show histological response. Causality must be further investigated.

Objectives 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. Methods Single-centre clinical trial with prospective data collection for patients undergoing 8-weekly PIPAC with oxaliplatin at 92 mg/m 2 from January 2019 till January 2022. Progression free survival was assessed using peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) by CT scans and laparoscopy. Quality of life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Adverse events were recorded using CTCAE. Results Five patients underwent a total of ten PIPAC administrations (median 2, range 1–4). Median PFS was 6.0 months. QoL was maintained across repeat PIPAC procedures but a decrease in social functioning and increased fatigue were evident. Three incidences of grade 3 adverse events occurred but PIPAC was well tolerated. Conclusions The presented data demonstrates that PIPAC is feasible and can be safely delivered within the NHS for patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases, but caution must also be exercised given a risk of adverse events. Systemic chemotherapy can be safely administered at a different unit to the PIPAC procedure if both groups have clear lines of communication and timely data sharing.

Objectives Peritoneal metastases (PM) and liver metastases (LM) are present simultaneously in up to 2 % of patients at the time of their colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Curatively intended treatment includes cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) combined with LM resection. A less invasive treatment for LM is ablation. We aimed to estimate overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and postoperative data in patients managed simultaneously with CRS, HIPEC and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as first choice. Methods This was a retrospective national cohort study. All patients were treated at Aarhus University Hospital; the only CRS+HIPEC centre in Denmark. We included CRC patients managed with curative intent for simultaneously diagnosed PM and LM in the period January 2016 – December 2021. LM was treated with RFA as first choice, if possible. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of 25 patients were included, the median age was 60 years (range 43–75 years) and 15 (60 %) were females. The median peritoneal cancer index was 7 (range 0–12), the median number of LM was 1 (range 1–3). Ablation was performed as the only treatment for LM in 18 (72 %) patients. After a median follow-up time of 17.1 months (range 4–36 months), the median OS was 28.6 months (95 % confidence interval (Cl) 15.8;36.1), 1-year OS was 84.0 % (95 % Cl 62.8;93.7). Median DFS was 6.1 months (95 % Cl 4.0;10.3). Median LOS was ten days (range 5–26 days). Both 30-day and 90-day mortality were 0 %. Conclusions The selected treatment modality (RFA) for CRC patients with both LM and PM was safe. However, DFS was low. Further research is warranted to investigate if RFA is as effective as LM resection.