TY - JOUR
T1 - Current practice of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)
T2 - Still standardized or on the verge of diversification? Current practice of PIPAC
AU - ISSPP PIPAC study group
AU - Sgarbura, Olivia
AU - Villeneuve, Laurent
AU - Alyami, Mohammad
AU - Bakrin, Naoual
AU - Torrent, Juan José
AU - Eveno, Clarisse
AU - Hübner, Martin
AU - Abba, Julio
AU - Afifi, Adnane
AU - Mortensen, Michael Bau
AU - Bharath, G.
AU - Bhatt, Aditi
AU - Yan So, Jimmy Bok
AU - Brandl, Andreas
AU - Ceelen, Wim
AU - Cortes-Guiral, Delia
AU - Courvoiser, Thomas
AU - Coget, Julien
AU - de Hingh, Ignace H.
AU - Delhorme, Jean Baptiste
AU - Deo, Suryanarayana S.V.
AU - di Giorgio, Andrea
AU - Dumont, Frederic
AU - Escayola, Cecilia
AU - Ezanno, Anne Cécile
AU - Gagnière, Johan
AU - Galindo, Julio
AU - Glatz, Torben
AU - Jäger, Tarkan
AU - Jarra, Maximilian
AU - Katdare, Ninad
AU - Kepenekian, Vahan
AU - Khomyakov, Vladimir M.
AU - Kothonidis, Konstantinos
AU - Laplace, Nathalie
AU - Lavoue, Vincent
AU - Lehmann, Kuno
AU - Lynch, Craig
AU - Mehta, Sanket
AU - Moldovan, Bogdan
AU - Nissan, Aviram
AU - Nowacki, Maciej
AU - Orry, David
AU - Pérez, Gloria Ortega
AU - Pabst, Urs G.
AU - Paquette, Brice
AU - Paskonis, Marius
AU - Piso, Pompiliu
AU - Pocard, Marc
AU - Rau, Beate
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Background: PIPAC is a new treatment modality for peritoneal cancer which has been practiced and evaluated until very recently by few academic centers in a highly standardized manner. Encouraging oncological outcomes and the safety profile have led to widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess current PIPAC practice in terms of technique, treatment and safety protocol, and indications. Methods: A standardized survey with 82 closed-ended questions was sent online to active PIPAC centers which were identified by help of PIPAC training centers and the regional distributors of the PIPAC-specific nebulizer. The survey inquired about center demographics (n = 8), technique (n = 34), treatment and safety protocol (n = 34), and indications (n = 6). Results: Overall, 62 out of 66 contacted PIPAC centers answered the survey (response rate 93%). 27 centers had performed >60 PIPAC procedures. A consensus higher than 70% was reached for 37 items (50%), and higher than 80% for 28 items (37.8%). The topics with the highest degree of consensus were safety and installation issues (93.5% and 80.65%) while chemotherapy and response evaluation were the least consensual topics (63.7 and 59.6%). The attitudes were not influenced by volume, PIPAC starting year, type of activity, or presence of peritoneal metastases program. Conclusion: Homogeneous treatment standards of new techniques are important to guarantee safe implementation and practice but also to allow comparison between cohorts and multi-center analysis of merged data including registries. Efforts to avoid diversification of PIPAC practice include regular update of the PIPAC training curriculum, targeted research and a consensus statement.
AB - Background: PIPAC is a new treatment modality for peritoneal cancer which has been practiced and evaluated until very recently by few academic centers in a highly standardized manner. Encouraging oncological outcomes and the safety profile have led to widespread adoption. The aim of this study was to assess current PIPAC practice in terms of technique, treatment and safety protocol, and indications. Methods: A standardized survey with 82 closed-ended questions was sent online to active PIPAC centers which were identified by help of PIPAC training centers and the regional distributors of the PIPAC-specific nebulizer. The survey inquired about center demographics (n = 8), technique (n = 34), treatment and safety protocol (n = 34), and indications (n = 6). Results: Overall, 62 out of 66 contacted PIPAC centers answered the survey (response rate 93%). 27 centers had performed >60 PIPAC procedures. A consensus higher than 70% was reached for 37 items (50%), and higher than 80% for 28 items (37.8%). The topics with the highest degree of consensus were safety and installation issues (93.5% and 80.65%) while chemotherapy and response evaluation were the least consensual topics (63.7 and 59.6%). The attitudes were not influenced by volume, PIPAC starting year, type of activity, or presence of peritoneal metastases program. Conclusion: Homogeneous treatment standards of new techniques are important to guarantee safe implementation and practice but also to allow comparison between cohorts and multi-center analysis of merged data including registries. Efforts to avoid diversification of PIPAC practice include regular update of the PIPAC training curriculum, targeted research and a consensus statement.
KW - Indications
KW - PRGS
KW - Peritoneal metastasis
KW - Safety
KW - Technique
KW - Treatment protocol
KW - ePIPAC
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090306466&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.08.020
DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.08.020
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 32900609
AN - SCOPUS:85090306466
SN - 0748-7983
VL - 47
SP - 149
EP - 156
JO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
JF - European Journal of Surgical Oncology
IS - 1
ER -