Current practice of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): Still standardized or on the verge of diversification?

Olivia Sgarbura, Laurent Villeneuve, Mohammad Alyami, Naoual Bakrin, Juan José Torrent, Clarisse Eveno, Martin Hübner
{"title":"Current practice of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): Still standardized or on the verge of diversification?","authors":"Olivia Sgarbura,&nbsp;Laurent Villeneuve,&nbsp;Mohammad Alyami,&nbsp;Naoual Bakrin,&nbsp;Juan José Torrent,&nbsp;Clarisse Eveno,&nbsp;Martin Hübner","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2020.08.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":519500,"journal":{"name":"European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology","volume":"47 1","pages":"149-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.08.020","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.08.020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

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.

目前加压腹腔喷雾化疗(PIPAC)的实践:仍在标准化还是处于多样化的边缘?
背景:PIPAC是一种新的腹膜癌治疗方式,直到最近才被少数学术中心以高度标准化的方式实践和评估。令人鼓舞的肿瘤预后和安全性已导致广泛采用。本研究的目的是评估目前PIPAC在技术、治疗、安全方案和适应症方面的实践。方法:在PIPAC培训中心和PIPAC专用雾化器区域经销商的帮助下,向活跃的PIPAC中心在线发送包含82个封闭式问题的标准化调查问卷。调查询问了中心人口统计(n = 8)、技术(n = 34)、治疗和安全方案(n = 34)和适应症(n = 6)。结果:总体而言,66个联系的PIPAC中心中有62个回答了调查(回复率为93%)。27个中心实施了60例以上的PIPAC手术。超过70%的有37项(50%),超过80%的有28项(37.8%)。共识度最高的话题是安全性和安装问题(93.5%和80.65%),而化疗和反应评价是共识度最低的话题(63.7%和59.6%)。态度不受体积、PIPAC起始年份、活动类型或腹膜转移计划的影响。结论:新技术的同质治疗标准对于保证安全实施和实践具有重要意义,同时也允许队列间的比较和包括注册表在内的合并数据的多中心分析。避免PIPAC实践多样化的努力包括定期更新PIPAC培训课程、有针对性的研究和共识声明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信