Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Apr;12(Suppl 1):S259-S270.
doi: 10.21037/jgo-20-497.

The emergence of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy as a palliative treatment option for patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases: a narrative review

Affiliations
Review

The emergence of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy as a palliative treatment option for patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases: a narrative review

Robin J Lurvink et al. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging palliative treatment for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases. Potential advantages of PIPAC over current treatment options are a homogeneous intraperitoneal distribution, low local and systemic toxicity, and enhanced tumour penetration. Given these possible benefits, PIPAC is increasingly implemented in many centres worldwide. Scientific research into PIPAC is currently available from in vitro/in vivo/in animal studies, retrospective cohorts in humans, and phase I and II studies in humans. There are no results from randomised trials comparing PIPAC with conventional treatment, such as palliative systemic therapy. This narrative review aimed to provide an overview of the currently available literature on PIPAC. In general, repetitive PIPAC was feasible and safe for patients and operating room personnel. Primary and secondary non-access rates varied from 0-17% and 0-15%, respectively. Iatrogenic bowel injury was observed in 0-3% of PIPAC procedures. CTCAE grade 1-2 complications were common, mostly consisting of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. CTCAE grade 3-4 complications were uncommon, occurring on 0-15% of PIPAC procedures. Post-operative mortality rates of 0-2% were reported. The risk of occupational exposure to cytotoxic drugs was very low when strict safety guidelines were followed. Clinical heterogeneity was high in most studies, since, in general, patients with unresectable peritoneal metastases from a variety of primary tumours were included. Also, patients received either PIPAC monotherapy or PIPAC combined with concomitant systemic therapy, and were able to receive PIPAC in any line of palliative treatment. Since the results were generally not stratified for these three important factors, this severely complicates the interpretation of results. Based on the current literature, PIPAC may be regarded as a promising palliative treatment option in patients with diffuse peritoneal metastases. Initial results show that it is feasible and safe. However, well designed and (ideally) randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to determine the additional value of PIPAC in this setting. Until then, PIPAC should preferably be performed in the setting of clinical trials.

Keywords: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC); peritoneal metastases.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-20-497). The focused issue was sponsored by the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI). KVDS served as the unpaid Guest Editor of the focused issue. IHJT de Hingh received unrestricted grants from Roche, QP&S, and RanD Biotech, paid to the institute, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Comment in

  • PIPAC may work but more data is needed.
    Sugarbaker PH, Van der Speeten K. Sugarbaker PH, et al. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021 Apr;12(Suppl 1):S271-S272. doi: 10.21037/jgo-2020-22. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021. PMID: 33970164 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Thomassen I, van Gestel YR, van Ramshorst B, et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin: a population-based study on incidence, survival and risk factors. Int J Cancer 2014;134:622-8. 10.1002/ijc.28373 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thomassen I, Lemmens VE, Nienhuijs SW, et al. Incidence, prognosis, and possible treatment strategies of peritoneal carcinomatosis of pancreatic origin: a population-based study. Pancreas 2013;42:72-5. 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31825abf8c - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burg L, Timmermans M, van der Aa M, et al. Incidence and predictors of peritoneal metastases of gynecological origin: a population-based study in the Netherlands. J Gynecol Oncol 2020;31:e58. 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e58 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lemmens VE, Klaver YL, Verwaal VJ, et al. Predictors and survival of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin: a population-based study. Int J Cancer 2011;128:2717-25. 10.1002/ijc.25596 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dedrick RL, Myers CE, Bungay PM, et al. Pharmacokinetic rationale for peritoneal drug administration in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:1-11. - PubMed