Skip to main content
Log in

The use of PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) in gynecological oncology: a statement by the German “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR)”, the Swiss and Austrian AGO, and the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic Oncology

  • Review
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 14 February 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas primarily affect the peritoneal cavity, and they are typically diagnosed at an advanced tumor stage (Foley, Rauh-Hain, del Carmen in Oncology (Williston Park) 27:288–294, 2013). In the course of primary surgery, postoperative tumor residuals are, apart from the tumor stage, the strongest independent factors of prognosis (du Bois, Reuss, Pujade-Lauraine, Harter, Ray-Coquard, Pfisterer in Cancer 115:1234–1244, 2009). Due to improved surgical techniques, including the use of multi-visceral procedures, macroscopic tumor clearance can be achieved in oncological centers, in most cases (Harter, Muallem, Buhrmann et al in Gynecol Oncol 121:615–619, 2011). However, to date, it has not been shown that peritoneal carcinomatosis is, per se, an independent factor of prognosis or that it excludes the achievement of tumor clearance. Several studies have shown that a preceding drug therapy in peritoneal carcinomatosis could positively influence the overall prognosis (Trimbos, Trimbos, Vergote et al in J Natl Cancer Inst 95:105–112, 2003). In relapses of ovarian carcinoma, studies have shown that peritoneal carcinomatosis is a negative predictor of complete tumor resection; however, when it is possible to resect the tumor completely, peritoneal carcinomatosis does not play a role in the prognosis (Harter, Hahmann, Lueck et al in Ann Surg Oncol 16:1324–1330, 2009).

Results

PIPAC is a highly experimental method for treating patients with ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer. To date, only three studies have investigated a total of 184 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (Grass, Vuagniaux, Teixeira-Farinha, Lehmann, Demartines, Hubner in Br J Surg 104:669–678, 2017). Only some of those studies were phase I/II studies that included PIPAC for patients with different indications and different cancer entities. It is important to keep in mind that the PIPAC approach is associated with relatively high toxicity. To date, no systematic dose-finding studies have been reported. Moreover, no studies have reported improvements in progression-free or overall survival associated with PIPAC therapy.

Conclusions

Randomized phase III studies are required to evaluate the effect of this therapy compared to other standard treatments (sequential or simultaneous applications with systemic chemotherapy). In cases of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer, PIPAC should not be performed outside the framework of prospective, controlled studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 14 February 2018

    The title of the article has been published incorrectly. The correct title is given below:

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Foley OW, Rauh-Hain JA, del Carmen MG (2013) Recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: an update on treatment. Oncology (Williston Park) 27(288–94):98

    Google Scholar 

  3. du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J (2009) Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR) and the Groupe d’Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l’Ovaire (GINECO). Cancer 115:1234–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Griffiths CT, Fuller AF (1978) Intensive surgical and chemotherapeutic management of advanced ovarian cancer. Surg Clin North Am 58:131–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harter P, Muallem ZM, Buhrmann C et al (2011) Impact of a structured quality management program on surgical outcome in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 121:615–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bristow RE, Tomacruz RS, Armstrong DK, Trimble EL, Montz FJ (2002) Survival effect of maximal cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma during the platinum era: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 20:1248–1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stuart GC, Kitchener H, Bacon M et al (2011) 2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer: report from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21:750–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ledermann JA, Harter P, Gourley C et al (2016) Overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy: an updated analysis from a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1579–1589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L et al (2006) Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 354:34–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gadducci A, Conte PF (2008) Intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a critical review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18:943–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wenzel L et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes of a phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab with IV versus IP chemotherapy in ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal carcinoma. NCI-supplied agent: bevacizumab. NCT011o67712, a GOG/NRG trial. SGO 2016; Abstract 7

  12. Walker JL et al (2016) A phase III clinical trial of bevacizumab with IV versus IP chemotherapy in ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal carcinoma. NCI-supplied agent: bevacizumab. NCT01167712, a GOG/NRG trial (GOG 252). SGO 2016; Abstract 6 2016

  13. Reymond MA, Hu B, Garcia A et al (2000) Feasibility of therapeutic pneumoperitoneum in a large animal model using a microvaporisator. Surg Endosc 14:51–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Solass W, Giger-Pabst U, Zieren J, Reymond MA (2013) Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): occupational health and safety aspects. Ann Surg Oncol 20:3504–3511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Oyais ASW, Zieren J, Reymond MA, Giger-Pabst U (2016) Arbeitssicherheitsaspekte der intraperitonealen Druck-Aerosol-Chemotherapie (PIPAC): Bestätigung der Unbedenklichkeit. Zentralbl Chir 141(4):421–424

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hubner M, Teixeira Farinha H, Grass F et al (2017) Feasibility and safety of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis: a retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:6852749

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Solass W, Hetzel A, Nadiradze G, Sagynaliev E, Reymond MA (2012) Description of a novel approach for intraperitoneal drug delivery and the related device. Surg Endosc 26:1849–1855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Solass W, Herbette A, Schwarz T et al (2012) Therapeutic approach of human peritoneal carcinomatosis with Dbait in combination with capnoperitoneum: proof of concept. Surg Endosc 26:847–852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Solass WKR, Mürdter T, Giger-Pabst U, Strumberg D, Tempfer C, Zieren J, Schwab M, Reymond MA (2014) Intraperitoneal chemotherapy of peritoneal carcinomatosis using pressurized aerosol as an alternative to liquid solution: first evidence for efficacy. Ann Surg Oncol 21:553–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dedrick RL, Flessner MF (1997) Pharmacokinetic problems in peritoneal drug administration: tissue penetration and surface exposure. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:480–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heldin CH, Rubin K, Pietras K, Ostman A (2004) High interstitial fluid pressure—an obstacle in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 4:806–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bellendorf A, Khosrawipour V, Khosrawipour T et al (2018) Scintigraphic peritoneography reveals a non-uniform 99mTc-Pertechnetat aerosol distribution pattern for Pressurized Intra-Peritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a swine model. Surg Endosc 32(1):166–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gohler D, Khosrawipour V, Khosrawipour T et al (2017) Technical description of the microinjection pump (MIP(R)) and granulometric characterization of the aerosol applied for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Surg Endosc 31(4):1778–1784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khosrawipour V, Khosrawipour T, Falkenstein TA et al (2016) Evaluating the effect of micropump(c) position, internal pressure and doxorubicin dosage on efficacy of pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in an ex vivo model. Anticancer Res 36:4595–4600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khosrawipour V, Khosrawipour T, Kern AJ et al (2016) Distribution pattern and penetration depth of doxorubicin after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a postmortem swine model. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142:2275–2280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Esquis P, Consolo D, Magnin G et al (2006) High intra-abdominal pressure enhances the penetration and antitumor effect of intraperitoneal cisplatin on experimental peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg 244:106–112

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jacquet P, Stuart OA, Chang D, Sugarbaker PH (1996) Effects of intra-abdominal pressure on pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of doxorubicin after intraperitoneal administration. Anticancer Drugs 7:596–603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khosrawipour VBA, Khosrawipour C, Hedayat-Pour Y et al (2016) Irradiation does not increase the penetration depth of doxorubicin in normal tissue after pressurized intra-peritoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in an ex vivo model. In Vivo 30:593–597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Khosrawipour V, Khosrawipour T, Hedayat-Pour Y et al (2017) Effect of whole-abdominal irradiation on penetration depth of doxorubicin in normal tissue after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in a post-mortem swine model. Anticancer Res 37:1677–1680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sugarbaker PH, Kern K, Lack E (1987) Malignant pseudomyxoma peritonei of colonic origin. Natural history and presentation of a curative approach to treatment. Dis Colon Rectum 30:772–779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Piso P, Glockzin G, von Breitenbuch P et al (2009) Patient selection for a curative approach to carcinomatosis. Cancer J 15:236–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sugarbaker PH, Ryan DP (2012) Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic perioperative chemotherapy to treat peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: standard of care or an experimental approach? Lancet Oncol 13:e362–e369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ceelen WP, Levine E (2015) Intraperitoneal cancer therapy: principles and practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Tempfer CB, Celik I, Solass W et al (2014) Activity of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with cisplatin and doxorubicin in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: preliminary clinical experience. Gynecol Oncol 132:307–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozols RF, Young RC, Speyer JL et al (1982) Phase I and pharmacological studies of adriamycin administered intraperitoneally to patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 42:4265–4269

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gianola FJ, Sugarbaker PH, Barofsky I, White DE, Meyers CE (1986) Toxicity studies of adjuvant intravenous versus intraperitoneal 5-FU in patients with advanced primary colon or rectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 9:403–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Blanco A, Giger-Pabst U, Solass W, Zieren J, Reymond MA (2013) Renal and hepatic toxicities after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Ann Surg Oncol 20:2311–2316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Reymond MA, Solass W (2014) Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)—cancer under pressure. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  39. http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/032-035-OLl_Ovarialkarzinom_2016-10.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2017

  40. Mobus V, Wandt H, Frickhofen N et al (2007) Phase III trial of high-dose sequential chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem cell support compared with standard dose chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: intergroup trial of the AGO-Ovar/AIO and EBMT. J Clin Oncol 25:4187–4193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Harter P, Mahner S, Hilpert F et al (2013) Statement by the kommission OVAR of the AGO study group on the use of HIPEC (hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy) to treat primary and recurrent ovarian cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 73:221–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hahn GM (1979) Potential for therapy of drugs and hyperthermia. Cancer Res 39:2264–2268

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Meyn RE, Corry PM, Fletcher SE, Demetriades M (1980) Thermal enhancement of DNA damage in mammalian cells treated with cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II). Cancer Res 40:1136–1139

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Alberts DS, Peng YM, Chen HS, Moon TE, Cetas TC, Hoeschele JD (1980) Therapeutic synergism of hyperthermia-cis-platinum in a mouse tumor model. J Natl Cancer Inst 65:455–461

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Los G, van Vugt MJ, Pinedo HM (1994) Response of peritoneal solid tumours after intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia treatment with cisplatin or carboplatin. Br J Cancer 69:235–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Akaboshi M, Tanaka Y, Kawai K, Akuta K, Masunaga S, Ono K (1994) Effect of hyperthermia on the number of platinum atoms binding to DNA of HeLa cells treated with 195mPt-radiolabelled cis-diaminedichloroplatinum(II). Int J Radiat Biol 66:215–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Herman TS, Teicher BA, Cathcart KN, Kaufmann ME, Lee JB, Lee MH (1988) Effect of hyperthermia on cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II) (rhodamine 123)2[tetrachloroplatinum(II)] in a human squamous cell carcinoma line and a cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II)-resistant subline. Cancer Res 48:5101–5105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. van de Vaart PJ, van der Vange N, Zoetmulder FA et al (1998) Intraperitoneal cisplatin with regional hyperthermia in advanced ovarian cancer: pharmacokinetics and cisplatin-DNA adduct formation in patients and ovarian cancer cell lines. Eur J Cancer 34:148–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. do Jung H, Son SY, Oo AM et al (2016) Feasibility of hyperthermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 30:4258–4264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kakchekeeva T, Demtroder C, Herath NI et al (2016) In vivo feasibility of electrostatic precipitation as an adjunct to pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC). Ann Surg Oncol 23:592–598

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Heiss MM, Murawa P, Koralewski P et al (2010) The trifunctional antibody catumaxomab for the treatment of malignant ascites due to epithelial cancer: results of a prospective randomized phase II/III trial. Int J Cancer 127:2209–2221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Odendahl K, Solass W, Demtroder C et al (2015) Quality of life of patients with end-stage peritoneal metastasis treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Eur J Surg Oncol 41:1379–1385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Teixeira Farinha H, Grass F, Kefleyesus A et al (2017) Impact of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy on quality of life and symptoms in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:4596176

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Girshally R, Demtroder C, Albayrak N, Zieren J, Tempfer C, Reymond MA (2016) Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as a neoadjuvant therapy before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. World J Surg Oncol 14:253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Tempfer CB, Rezniczek GA, Ende P, Solass W, Reymond MA (2015) Pressurized Intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin in women with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a cohort study. Anticancer Res 35:6723–6729

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tempfer CB, Winnekendonk G, Solass W et al (2015) Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer: a phase 2 study. Gynecol Oncol 137:223–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Robella M, Vaira M, De Simone M (2016) Safety and feasibility of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) associated with systemic chemotherapy: an innovative approach to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis. World J Surg Oncol 14:128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Rezniczek GA, Jungst F, Jutte H et al (2016) Dynamic changes of tumor gene expression during repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in women with peritoneal cancer. BMC Cancer 16:654

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Trimbos JB, Parmar M, Vergote I et al (2003) International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm trial 1 and Adjuvant ChemoTherapy In Ovarian Neoplasm trial: two parallel randomized phase III trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage ovarian carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:105–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Harter P, Hahmann M, Lueck HJ et al (2009) Surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer: role of peritoneal carcinomatosis: exploratory analysis of the DESKTOP I Trial about risk factors, surgical implications, and prognostic value of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1324–1330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Grass F, Vuagniaux A, Teixeira-Farinha H, Lehmann K, Demartines N, Hubner M (2017) Systematic review of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis. Br J Surg 104:669–678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Giger-Pabst U, Solass W, Buerkle B et al (2015) Low-dose pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as an alternative therapy for ovarian cancer in an octogenarian patient. Anticancer Res 35:2309–2314

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AMD: manuscript writing. DF: manuscript editing. PH: manuscript editing, project development. VH: manuscript editing. CM: manuscript editing. MM: manuscript editing. AR manuscript editing. KT: manuscript editing. PW: manuscript editing, project development. JS: manuscript writing, project development

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. M. Dueckelmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Human and animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4715-7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dueckelmann, A.M., Fink, D., Harter, P. et al. The use of PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy) in gynecological oncology: a statement by the German “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom (AGO-OVAR)”, the Swiss and Austrian AGO, and the North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecologic Oncology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297, 837–846 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4673-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4673-0

Keywords

Navigation