10 Years of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
aerosol chemotherapy
carcinomatosis
locoregional chemotherapy
neoadjuvant treatment
peritoneal metastases
pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)
response assessment
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Feb 2023
09 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
29
11
2022
revised:
17
01
2023
accepted:
28
01
2023
entrez:
25
2
2023
pubmed:
26
2
2023
medline:
26
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pressurized 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. A 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. A 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 (I PIPAC 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pressurized 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.
METHODS
METHODS
A 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A 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 (I
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PIPAC 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36831468
pii: cancers15041125
doi: 10.3390/cancers15041125
pmc: PMC9954579
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 29365
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : AIRC- Accelerator Award Pseudomyxoma peritonei: building a European multicentric cohort to accelerate new therapeutic perspectives
ID : Project Code: 24285
Références
Tumori. 2020 Feb;106(1):70-78
pubmed: 31469058
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20(7):e368-e377
pubmed: 31267971
BMC Cancer. 2020 Nov 19;20(1):1122
pubmed: 33213407
World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep 27;14(1):253
pubmed: 27678344
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Sep;28(9):5275-5286
pubmed: 33471267
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018 Oct 24;2018:2743985
pubmed: 30473706
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Jul;150(1):23-30
pubmed: 29743140
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019 May 13;11:1758835919846402
pubmed: 31205501
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1709-1719
pubmed: 27743922
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 Jan;46(1):155-159
pubmed: 31493986
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov;140:37-44
pubmed: 33039812
Cancers (Basel). 2022 May 23;14(10):
pubmed: 35626160
Br J Surg. 2017 May;104(6):669-678
pubmed: 28407227
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:6852749
pubmed: 28331493
Surg Oncol. 2020 Sep;34:270-275
pubmed: 32891341
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;47(1):128-133
pubmed: 31253545
Minerva Med. 2019 Aug;110(4):385-398
pubmed: 31081306
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 1;32(13):1302-8
pubmed: 24637997
Anticancer Res. 2018 Jan;38(1):373-378
pubmed: 29277797
Anticancer Res. 2015 Dec;35(12):6723-9
pubmed: 26637888
J Gastric Cancer. 2018 Dec;18(4):379-391
pubmed: 30607301
Surg Endosc. 2022 Jun;36(6):4486-4498
pubmed: 34757489
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;28(1):265-272
pubmed: 32572849
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;47(1):139-142
pubmed: 30914289
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Jan;47(1):123-127
pubmed: 32561204
Front Oncol. 2021 Apr 12;10:610572
pubmed: 33912438
Clin Exp Metastasis. 2017 Jun;34(5):309-314
pubmed: 28516306
World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Aug 10;19(1):236
pubmed: 34376191
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Apr 1;27(7):1875-1881
pubmed: 33148667
Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2021 May;99(5):354-360
pubmed: 32762956
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;41(10):1379-85
pubmed: 26138283
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Dec;45(12):2386-2391
pubmed: 31092362
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 May;137(2):223-8
pubmed: 25701703
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 19;12(10):e0186709
pubmed: 29049340
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89
pubmed: 33781348
Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Jan;29(1):112-123
pubmed: 34611790
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Feb;21(2):553-9
pubmed: 24006094
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Mar 03;13(5):
pubmed: 33802269
J Clin Pathol. 2021 Jan;74(1):19-24
pubmed: 32385139
Lancet Oncol. 2022 Jul;23(7):919-930
pubmed: 35690073
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Apr;18(4):364-71
pubmed: 26400556
Pleura Peritoneum. 2021 Sep 27;6(3):eA1-eA78
pubmed: 34676288
Pleura Peritoneum. 2016 Sep 1;1(3):159-166
pubmed: 30911619
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Sep;28(9):5311-5326
pubmed: 33544279
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Feb;132(2):307-11
pubmed: 24275155
Pleura Peritoneum. 2022 Mar 1;7(1):1-7
pubmed: 35602919
Pleura Peritoneum. 2020 May 15;5(2):20200109
pubmed: 32566727
Pleura Peritoneum. 2018 Nov 27;3(4):20180128
pubmed: 30911669
BMC Cancer. 2018 Apr 18;18(1):442
pubmed: 29669524
Surg Endosc. 2020 Jun;34(6):2803-2806
pubmed: 32166545
South Asian J Cancer. 2019 Jan-Mar;8(1):27-30
pubmed: 30766848
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Nov;28(6):e80
pubmed: 29027398
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:4596176
pubmed: 28316621
Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Jul;28(7):3852-3860
pubmed: 33216263
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Feb;20(2):367-73
pubmed: 26511950
BMC Cancer. 2020 Feb 10;20(1):105
pubmed: 32041558
Clin Exp Metastasis. 2018 Oct;35(7):635-640
pubmed: 30062506
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2022 Dec;53(4):971-979
pubmed: 34677795
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Sep 01;3(9):1237-1244
pubmed: 28448662
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019 Mar;10(1):24-30
pubmed: 30948867
Biomedicines. 2020 Apr 30;8(5):
pubmed: 32365877
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Jun 01;10:1758835918777036
pubmed: 29899763
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Nov;43(11):2178-2183
pubmed: 28964609
Clin Exp Metastasis. 2020 Apr;37(2):325-332
pubmed: 32002724
World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Apr 29;14:128
pubmed: 27125996
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;12:1758835920940887
pubmed: 32782488
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Dec;45(12):2302-2309
pubmed: 31221459
EBioMedicine. 2022 Aug;82:104151
pubmed: 35843174