Renal and hepatic toxicities after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Ana Blanco, Urs Giger-Pabst, Wiebke Solass, Jürgen Zieren, Marc A Reymond, Ana Blanco, Urs Giger-Pabst, Wiebke Solass, Jürgen Zieren, Marc A Reymond

Abstract

Background: Both in animal models and in human patients, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been shown to improve local bioavailability of chemotherapy in peritoneal nodules, as compared with conventional peritoneal lavage. Pharmacokinetic studies show a low drug concentration in peripheral venous blood. However, hepatic and renal toxicities induced by delivering chemotherapeutic drugs into the abdomen as a pressurized aerosol have not yet been investigated.

Methods: Liver and renal function as well as toxicity parameters were monitored after eight PIPAC applications with doxorubicin (1.5 mg/m(2) body surface) and cisplatin (7.5 mg/m(2) body surface) in three end-stage patients suffering therapy-resistant peritoneal carcinomatosis. PIPAC was repeated at 4-week intervals (three times in two patients, twice in one patient). Peripheral venous blood was collected preoperatively and then daily until the 5th postoperative day, and sent to the hospital's clinical chemistry laboratory. Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results: Gamma-glutamyltransferase was significantly elevated (p < 0.05) in the early postoperative phase. Glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase [aspartate aminotransferase], glutamic pyruvic transaminase [alanine aminotransferase], and bilirubin levels were not influenced by the procedure. Quick-test remained normal. Serum creatinine levels were not altered.

Conclusions: Under the above conditions, PIPAC did not induce clinically relevant liver cytotoxicity. Liver metabolism and function were not altered. Renal function remained within the normal range. No cumulative toxicity was observed after repeated PIPAC. PIPAC appears to be associated with very limited hepatic and renal toxicity, which might be a significant advantage over other administration routes.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Liver toxicity: discrete liver toxicity was observed after PIPAC, with increase of serum gamma-GT levels (ANOVA, p < 0.05). No liver cytolysis was detected, with GOT (ASAT) and GPT (ALAT) remaining within the normal range. ANOVA: repeated analysis of variance. Normal values: gamma-GT 9–36 U/l; GOT (ASAT) 5–31 U/l; GPT (ALAT) 0–34 U/l. Liver function: Liver metabolism was not significantly impaired after PIPAC application. Liver synthesis function, as monitored by Quick-test, remained within the normal range. ANOVA: repeated analysis of variance. Normal values: alkaline phosphatase 40–150 U/l; total bilirubin <1.2 mg/dl; Quick 70–120 %. Green shaded areas = normal range of measured parameters
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Renal function: serum creatinine levels did not increase significantly (ANOVA) after PIPAC application and remained within the normal range. ANOVA: repeated analysis of variance. Normal value: 0.5–0.9 mg/dl. Cumulative renal toxicity of repeated PIPAC with cisplatin 7.5 mg/m2 body surface and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m2 body surface over 2–3 months of observation time. Preoperative serum creatinine value before first PIPAC (three patients), second (three patients), and third PIPAC (two patients). Creatinine levels remain within the normal range. Normal value: 0.5–0.9 mg/dl. Green shaded areas = normal range of measured parameters

References

    1. Van Lierde S, Denys H, Peeters M. Systemic chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from non colorectal origin. Cancer Treat Res. 2007;134:441–448.
    1. Bristow RE, Puri I, Chi DS. Cytoreductive surgery for recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(1):265–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.033.
    1. Zani S, Papalezova K, Stinnett S, et al. Modest advances in survival for patients with colorectal-associated peritoneal carcinomatosis in the era of modern chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol. 2012;18 Jul. Epub ahead of print.
    1. Markman M. Intraperitoneal antineoplastic drug delivery: rationale and results. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:277–283. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(03)01074-X.
    1. Minchinton AI, Tannock IF. Drug penetration in solid tumours. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(8):583–592. doi: 10.1038/nrc1893.
    1. Dedrick RL, Flessner MF. Pharmacokinetic problems in peritoneal drug administration: tissue penetration and surface exposure. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:480–487. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.7.480.
    1. Jaaback K, Johnson N, Lawrie TA. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the initial management of primary epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 9 Nov;(11):CD005340. Review.
    1. Elias D, Lefevre JH, Chevalier J, et al. Complete cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:681–685. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.7160.
    1. Macrì A, Fortugno A, Saladino E. Rationale and techniques of cytoreductive surgery and peritoneal chemohyperthermia. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2011;3(12):169–174. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v3.i12.169.
    1. Reymond MA, Hu B, Garcia A, et al. Feasibility of therapeutic pneumoperitoneum in a large animal model using a microvaporisator. Surg Endosc. 2000;14:51–55. doi: 10.1007/s004649900010.
    1. Solaß W, Hetzel A, Nadiradze G, et al. Intraoperative intraperitonal drug delivery using a nebulizer: rationale and pharmacokinetic results. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(7):1849–1855. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2148-0.
    1. Solass W, Herbette A, Schwarz T, et al. Therapeutic approach of human peritoneal carcinomatosis with Dbait in combination with capnoperitoneum: proof of concept. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(3):847–852. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1964-y.
    1. Reymond M. Therapeutic aerosolized chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis. In: Eurocancer 2012. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris 2012, 55–56.
    1. Rossi CR, Mocellin S, Pilati P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intraperitoneal cisplatin and doxorubicin. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2003;12(3):781–794. doi: 10.1016/S1055-3207(03)00030-9.
    1. Estler CE, Schmidt H, editors. Pharmakologie und Toxikologie. 6. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2007.
    1. Dos Santos NA, Carvalho Rodrigues MA, Martins NM, et al. Cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and targets of nephroprotection: an update. Arch Toxicol. 2012;1 Mar. Epub ahead of print.
    1. Sakaeda T, Kadoyama K, Okuno Y. Adverse event profiles of platinum agents: data mining of the public version of the FDA adverse event reporting system, AERS, and reproducibility of clinical observations. Int J Med Sci. 2011;8(6):487–491. doi: 10.7150/ijms.8.487.
    1. Carvalho C, Santos RX, Cardoso S, et al. Doxorubicin: the good, the bad and the ugly effect. Curr Med Chem. 2009;16(25):3267–3285. doi: 10.2174/092986709788803312.
    1. Demyttenaere S, Feldman LS, Fried GM. Effect of pneumoperitoneum on renal perfusion and function: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(2):152–160. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-0250-x.
    1. Schilling MK, Redaelli C, Krahenbuhl L, et al. Splanchnic microcirculatory changes during CO2 laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184:378–382.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir