Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal malignancy: initial experience of the first program in the Baltic countries.

Rokas Račkauskas, Augustinas Baušys, Martynas Lukšta, Jonas Jurgaitis, Marius Paškonis, Kęstutis Strupas
Author Information
  1. Rokas Račkauskas: Clinic of Gastroenterology, Nephrourology, and Surgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. rokas.rackauskas@santa.lt. ORCID
  2. Augustinas Baušys: Clinic of Gastroenterology, Nephrourology, and Surgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
  3. Martynas Lukšta: Clinic of Gastroenterology, Nephrourology, and Surgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
  4. Jonas Jurgaitis: Department of Surgery, University hospital of Klaipeda, Klaipeda, Lithuania.
  5. Marius Paškonis: Clinic of Gastroenterology, Nephrourology, and Surgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
  6. Kęstutis Strupas: Clinic of Gastroenterology, Nephrourology, and Surgery, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal malignancies include primary and metastatic cancer of the peritoneal cavity. The most common origin for peritoneal metastasis is ovarian, gastric, and colorectal cancers. Irrespective of the origin, peritoneal metastases represent the advanced disease and are associated with poor long-term outcomes. The minimally invasive approach of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) allows repeated applications and objective assessment of tumor response by comparing histological samples. This study aimed to investigate the initial experience with PIPAC in the Baltic region.
METHODS: All patients who underwent PIPAC at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos between 2015 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcome of the study was overall survival (OS) in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by PIPAC. The secondary outcomes included postoperative morbidity; peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) and ascites reduction after treatment by PIPAC.
RESULTS: In total, 15 patients underwent 34 PIPAC procedures. PIPAC-related intraoperative and postoperative morbidity occurred in 3 (8.8%) of 34 procedures. Following PIPAC, the median PCI decreased from 8 (4; 15) to 5 (1; 16) in GC patients, although, the difference failed for significance, p = 0.581. In OC patients, PCI after PIPAC remained stable. Median overall survival after PIPAC procedure was 25 (95% CI 5-44) months. Ovarian cancer patients (22; 95% CI 12-44 months) had significantly higher OS, compared to gastric cancer patients (8; 95% CI 4-16 months), p = 0.018.
CONCLUSIONS: PIPAC is safe and feasible for patients with gastric and ovarian cancers peritoneal metastases.

References

  1. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Oct;20(11):3504-11 [PMID: 23765417]
  2. Tumori. 2020 Feb;106(1):70-78 [PMID: 31469058]
  3. Br J Surg. 2017 May;104(6):669-678 [PMID: 28407227]
  4. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Feb;21(2):553-9 [PMID: 24006094]
  5. Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20(7):e368-e377 [PMID: 31267971]
  6. Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Feb;132(2):307-11 [PMID: 24275155]
  7. World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep 27;14(1):253 [PMID: 27678344]
  8. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct;4(10):761-770 [PMID: 31371228]
  9. BMC Cancer. 2020 Feb 10;20(1):105 [PMID: 32041558]
  10. Visc Med. 2018 Dec;34(6):412-416 [PMID: 30675484]
  11. World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun 3;17(1):93 [PMID: 31159819]
  12. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb;22(2):256-266 [PMID: 33476595]
  13. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;47(1):139-142 [PMID: 30914289]
  14. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;47(1):123-127 [PMID: 32561204]
  15. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Sep;21(9):1124-1125 [PMID: 32717181]
  16. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Jun 01;10:1758835918777036 [PMID: 29899763]
  17. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Jul;20(7):2311-6 [PMID: 23377563]
  18. Pleura Peritoneum. 2018 Jun 09;3(2):20180108 [PMID: 30911656]
  19. World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Apr 29;14:128 [PMID: 27125996]
  20. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 May 11;: [PMID: 34001385]
  21. Cancers (Basel). 2019 Dec 20;12(1): [PMID: 31877647]
  22. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 10;37(23):2028-2040 [PMID: 31084544]

MeSH Term

Aerosols
Cisplatin
Doxorubicin
Female
Humans
Peritoneal Neoplasms
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies

Chemicals

Aerosols
Doxorubicin
Cisplatin

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0PIPACpatientsperitonealcancergastricstudyPCI895%CImonthsprimaryoriginovariancancersmetastasesoutcomesintraperitonealaerosolchemotherapyinitialexperienceBalticunderwentincludedoverallsurvivalOScarcinomatosispostoperativemorbidity1534proceduresp=0BACKGROUND:PeritonealmalignanciesincludemetastaticcavitycommonmetastasiscolorectalIrrespectiverepresentadvanceddiseaseassociatedpoorlong-termminimallyinvasiveapproachpressurizedallowsrepeatedapplicationsobjectiveassessmenttumorresponsecomparinghistologicalsamplesaimedinvestigateregionMETHODS:VilniusUniversityHospitalSantarosKlinikos20152020retrospectiveoutcometreatedsecondaryindexascitesreductiontreatmentRESULTS:totalPIPAC-relatedintraoperativeoccurred38%Followingmediandecreased45116GCalthoughdifferencefailedsignificance581OCremainedstableMedianprocedure255-44Ovarian2212-44significantlyhighercompared4-16018CONCLUSIONS:safefeasiblePressurizedmalignancy:firstprogramcountries

Similar Articles

Cited By