Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy – Practical aspects

Hübner, Martin; Grass, Fabian; Farinha, Hugo Teixeira; Pache, Basile; Mathevet, Patrice; Demartines, Nicolas

doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2017.03.019

Cited by 67 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only two papers reported on the number of systemic chemotherapy cycles [30,32]. The interval between PIPAC procedures was noted in 11 studies and reported to be either 6 weeks [24,26,28,29,[32][33][34][35][36] or four to six weeks [30,31] (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The bidirectional approach was performed on patient demand [28] and was, even though advised against by the PIPAC facility, independently sought by patients at outside institutions [31], indicating a patient-directed need for research on this treatment strategy. Bidirectional treatment was seen as an option to treat patients with PM and limited extraperitoneal disease, in which PIPAC as monotherapy was not indicated [26,36]. Some studies interpreted their own data or referred to data from other institutions as promising evidence regarding the bidirectional approach [24,28,29,32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bidirectional treatment of peritoneal metastasis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bidirectional treatment of peritoneal metastasis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hübner et al [7] had used as exclusion criteria for PIPAC the thrombosis of portal vein, intestinal occlusion and some clinical condition that could be a contra-indication for capnoperitoneum. Fifty-eight patients were included and 127 PIPAC procedures were performed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hübner et al [7] concluded that no learning curve was observed because the operation time did not decrease over time. Some minor complications were observed during this study such as constipation, ileus, transitory neutropenia, urinary retention and wound complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6] 2016 24 patients with peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer resistant to systemic chemotherapy and with no option for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC Hübner et al . [7] 2017 58 patients with peritoneal disease from digestive cancer that was persistent or progressive after prior standard surgical and/or medical treatment Doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m 2 in combination with cisplatin 7.5 mg/m 2 Intraoperative event rate: 11%; deaths after the procedure: 1 patient Tempfer [8] 2015 1 patient with peritoneal disease from gastric cancer after gastrectomy and 2 chemotherapy lines Solass et al . [9] 2014 Teixeira Farinha et al .…”

Section: Solass Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gastric cancer treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: revising an option for peritoneal carcinomatosis

Macedo¹,

Ladeira²,

Longatto‐Filho³

et al. 2018

JCMT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a review of the introduction of a new surgical technology using the IDEAL framework

Tate

Torkington

2020

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy – Practical aspects

Cited by 67 publications

References 18 publications

Bidirectional treatment of peritoneal metastasis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy: a systematic review

Bidirectional treatment of peritoneal metastasis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) and systemic chemotherapy: a systematic review

Gastric cancer treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: revising an option for peritoneal carcinomatosis

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a review of the introduction of a new surgical technology using the IDEAL framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About