O. Sgarbura, C. Eveno, M. Alyami, Naoual Bakrin, D. C. Guiral, W. Ceelen, X. Delgadillo, T. Dellinger, A. di Giorgio, A. Kefleyesus, V. Khomiakov, M. Mortensen, J. Murphy, M. Pocard, M. Reymond, M. Robella, K. Rovers, J. So, S. P. Somashekhar, C. Tempfer, K. van der Speeten, L. Villeneuve, W. Yong, M. Hübner
{"title":"Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)","authors":"O. Sgarbura, C. Eveno, M. Alyami, Naoual Bakrin, D. C. Guiral, W. Ceelen, X. Delgadillo, T. Dellinger, A. di Giorgio, A. Kefleyesus, V. Khomiakov, M. Mortensen, J. Murphy, M. Pocard, M. Reymond, M. Robella, K. Rovers, J. So, S. P. Somashekhar, C. Tempfer, K. van der Speeten, L. Villeneuve, W. Yong, M. Hübner","doi":"10.1515/pp-2022-0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics. Methods The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance). Results Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m2) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m2 (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10. Conclusions The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.","PeriodicalId":20231,"journal":{"name":"Pleura and Peritoneum","volume":"43 1","pages":"1 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleura and Peritoneum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2022-0102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics. Methods The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance). Results Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m2) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m2) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m2 (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10. Conclusions The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.