TY - JOUR
T1 - Consensus guidelines for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy
T2 - Technical aspects and treatment protocols: PIPAC practice guidelines
AU - ISSPP PIPAC study group
AU - Hübner, Martin
AU - Alyami, Mohammad
AU - Villeneuve, Laurent
AU - Cortés-Guiral, Delia
AU - Nowacki, Maciej
AU - So, Jimmy
AU - Sgarbura, Olivia
AU - Abba, Julio
AU - Afifi, Adnane
AU - Mortensen, Michael Bau
AU - Bhatt, Aditi
AU - Brandl, Andreas
AU - Ceelen, Wim
AU - Coget, Julien
AU - Courvoiser, Thomas
AU - de Hingh, Ignace H.
AU - Delhorme, Jean Baptiste
AU - di Giorgio, Andrea
AU - Dumont, Frederic
AU - Escayola, Cecilia
AU - Eveno, Clarisse
AU - Ezanno, Anne Cécile
AU - Gagnière, Johan
AU - Galindo, Julio
AU - Glatz, Torben
AU - Glehen, Olivier
AU - Jäger, Tarkan
AU - Kepenekian, Vahan
AU - Khomyakov, Vladimir M.
AU - Kothonidis, Konstantinos
AU - Lehmann, Kuno
AU - Lynch, Craig
AU - Mehta, Sanket
AU - Moldovan, Bogdan
AU - Nissan, Aviram
AU - Orry, David
AU - Pérez, Gloria Ortega
AU - Paquette, Brice
AU - Paskonis, Marius
AU - Piso, Pompiliu
AU - Pocard, Marc
AU - Rau, Beat
AU - Robella, Manuela
AU - Singh, Shivendra
AU - Somashekhar, S. P.
AU - Soravia, Claudio
AU - Taibi, Abelkader
AU - Torkington, Jared
AU - Vizzielli, Giuseppe
AU - Willaert, Wouter
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with peritoneal cancer. A recent survey demonstrated considerable diversification of current practice of PIPAC raising issues of concern also regarding safety and efficacy. The study aim was to reach consensus on best practice of PIPAC treatment. Methods: Current practice was critically discussed during an expert meeting and the available evidence was scrutinized to elaborate a 33-item closed-ended questionnaire. All active PIPAC centers were then invited to participate in an online two-round Delphi process with 3 reminders at least. Consensus was defined a priori as >70% agreement for a minimal response rate of 70%. Results: Forty-nine out of 57 invited PIPAC centers participated in Delphi 1 and 2 (86%). Overall, there was agreement for 21/33 items. Consensus was reached for important aspects like advanced OR ventilation system (91.8%), remote monitoring (95.9%), use of the PRGS (85.7%) and use of a safety checklist (98%). The drug regimens oxaliplatin (87.8%) and cisplatin/doxorubicin (81.6%) were both confirmed by the expert panel. Important controversies included number and location of Biopsies during repeated PIPAC and the combination of PIPAC with additional surgical procedures. Conclusion: This consensus statement aims to allow for safe and efficacious PIPAC treatment and to facilitate multi-center analyses of the results. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to resolve the remaining controversies.
AB - Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with peritoneal cancer. A recent survey demonstrated considerable diversification of current practice of PIPAC raising issues of concern also regarding safety and efficacy. The study aim was to reach consensus on best practice of PIPAC treatment. Methods: Current practice was critically discussed during an expert meeting and the available evidence was scrutinized to elaborate a 33-item closed-ended questionnaire. All active PIPAC centers were then invited to participate in an online two-round Delphi process with 3 reminders at least. Consensus was defined a priori as >70% agreement for a minimal response rate of 70%. Results: Forty-nine out of 57 invited PIPAC centers participated in Delphi 1 and 2 (86%). Overall, there was agreement for 21/33 items. Consensus was reached for important aspects like advanced OR ventilation system (91.8%), remote monitoring (95.9%), use of the PRGS (85.7%) and use of a safety checklist (98%). The drug regimens oxaliplatin (87.8%) and cisplatin/doxorubicin (81.6%) were both confirmed by the expert panel. Important controversies included number and location of Biopsies during repeated PIPAC and the combination of PIPAC with additional surgical procedures. Conclusion: This consensus statement aims to allow for safe and efficacious PIPAC treatment and to facilitate multi-center analyses of the results. Additional preclinical and clinical studies are needed to resolve the remaining controversies.
KW - Indications
KW - PIPAC
KW - Safety
KW - Technique
KW - Treatment protocol
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118975010&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.028
DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.028
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 34785087
AN - SCOPUS:85118975010
SN - 0748-7983
VL - 48
SP - 789
EP - 794
JO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
JF - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
IS - 4
ER -