Impact of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy on Quality of Life and Symptoms in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Hugo Teixeira Farinha, Fabian Grass, Amaniel Kefleyesus, Chahin Achtari, Benoit Romain, Michael Montemurro, Nicolas Demartines, Martin Hübner, Hugo Teixeira Farinha, Fabian Grass, Amaniel Kefleyesus, Chahin Achtari, Benoit Romain, Michael Montemurro, Nicolas Demartines, Martin Hübner

Abstract

Background. Peritoneal cancer treatment aims to prolong survival, but preserving Quality of Life (QoL) under treatment is also a priority. Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel minimally invasive repeatable treatment modality. The aim of the present study was to assess QoL in our cohort of PIPAC patients. Methods. Analysis of all consecutive patients included from the start of PIPAC program (January 2015). QoL (0-100: optimal) and symptoms (no symptom: 0-100) were measured prospectively before and after every PIPAC procedure using EORTC QLQ-C30. Results. Forty-two patients (M : F = 8 : 34, median age 66 (59-73) years) had 91 PIPAC procedures in total (1 : 4x, 17 : 3x, 12 : 2x, and 12 : 1x). Before first PIPAC, baseline QoL was measured as median of 66 ± 2.64. Prominent complaints were fatigue (32 ± 4.3) and digestive symptoms as diarrhea (17 ± 3.75), constipation (17 ± 4.13), and nausea (7 ± 2.54). Overall Quality of Life was 64 ± 3.75 after PIPAC#1 (p = 0.57), 61 ± 4.76 after PIPAC#2 (p = 0.89), and 70 ± 6.67 after PIPAC#3 (p = 0.58). Fatigue symptom score was 44 ± 4.86 after PIPAC#1 and 47 ± 6.69 and 34 ± 7.85 after second and third applications, respectively (p = 0.40). Diarrhea (p = 0.31), constipation (p = 0.76), and nausea (p = 0.66) did not change significantly under PIPAC treatment. Conclusion. PIPAC treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis had no negative impact on patients' overall QoL and its components or on main symptoms. This study was registered online on Research Registry (UIN: 1608).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Treatment algorithm for Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). PIPAC treatment was scheduled as repeated application (3x) at 6-week intervals. Thoracoabdominal computed tomography (CT) was performed 4 weeks prior to PIPAC#1, between PIPAC#2 and PIPAC#3, and after the completion of intraperitoneal treatment to search for extraperitoneal disease. Quality of Life (QoL) was systematically assessed (EORTC QLQ-C30) during every patient encounter: in outpatient consultation, before surgery, and at discharge.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality of Life (QoL) under Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) treatment. Overall Quality of Life (QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30 [14]) under PIPAC treatment is displayed (mean ± SEM). (a) No statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found when QoL was compared before and after different PIPAC applications (a, b). The dotted lines (b) represent the thresholds for small (SCD) and moderate clinically relevant differences (MCD), respectively [15].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cognitive, physical, emotional, role, and social functioning under Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). Quality of Life (QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30 [14]) components under PIPAC treatment (mean ± SEM). No significant difference (p < 0.05) was found when QoL was compared before and after different PIPAC applications (ns—not significant).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Quality of Life (QoL) under Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with gynecological versus digestive malignancies. Overall Quality of Life (QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30 [14]) is displayed as mean ± SEM. ∗ indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Digestive symptoms under Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). Digestive symptoms were assessed by use of EORTC QLQ-C30 [14] and displayed as difference (Δ before − after). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) is highlighted (bold) and small (SCD) and modest (MCD) clinically relevant differences [15] are illustrated by dashed lines.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Nondigestive symptoms under Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC). Nondigestive symptoms (QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30 [14]) under PIPAC treatment (mean ± SEM). No significant difference (p < 0.05) was found when QoL was compared before and after different PIPAC applications (ns—not significant).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Quality of Life (QoL) change after Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): 1st application versus repeated procedures. Quality of Life (QoL: EORTC QLQ-C30 [14]) as Δ before − after was compared for PIPAC#1 versus repeated procedures. Statistical significance: p < 0.05. ns—not significant. SCD: small clinically relevant difference, MCD: modest MCD clinically relevant difference [15].
Figure 8
Figure 8
Symptom change after Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): 1st application versus repeated procedures. Digestive symptoms were assessed by use of EORTC QLQ-C30 [14] and displayed as difference (Δ before − after). ∗Statistical significance (p < 0.05). SCD: small clinically relevant difference, MCD: moderate clinically relevant difference [15].
Figure 9
Figure 9
Quality of Life, tumor load, and hospital stay. Overall QoL was plotted against the extent of peritoneal disease (measured by the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) [16]) (a) and length of hospital stay (LoS) (b).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Overall Quality of Life (QoL) in PIPAC patients (Lausanne cohort) as compared with the general population. Overall QoL was compared by use of EORTC QLQ-C30 [14] for the Lausanne PIPAC cohort versus a European cohort of 16,151 healthy citizens (general population). The control group had a slightly better QoL score that was statistically significant but of small clinical relevance (
All figures (10)

References

    1. Lemmens V. E., Klaver Y. L., Verwaal V. J., Rutten H. J., Coebergh J. W. W., De Hingh I. H. Predictors and survival of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin: A population-based study. International Journal of Cancer. 2011;128(11):2717–2725. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25596.
    1. Klaver Y. L. B., Lemmens V. E. P. P., Creemers G. J., Rutten H. J. T., Nienhuijs S. W., de Hingh I. H. J. T. Population-based survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal origin in the era of increasing use of palliative chemotherapy. Annals of Oncology. 2011;22(10):2250–2256. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq762.
    1. Minchinton A. I., Tannock I. F. Drug penetration in solid tumours. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2006;6(8):583–592. doi: 10.1038/nrc1893.
    1. Ceelen W. P., Påhlman L., Mahteme H. Pharmacodynamic aspects of intraperitoneal cytotoxic therapy. Cancer Treatment and Research. 2007;134:195–214.
    1. Dedrick R. L., Flessner M. F. Pharmacokinetic problems in peritoneal drug administration: tissue penetration and surface exposure. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1997;89(7):480–487. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.7.480.
    1. Prigerson H. G., Bao Y., Shah M. A., et al. Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncology. 2015;1(6):778–784. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2378.
    1. Solaß W., Hetzel A., Nadiradze G., Sagynaliev E., Reymond M. A. Description of a novel approach for intraperitoneal drug delivery and the related device. Surgical Endoscopy. 2012;26(7):1849–1855. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2148-0.
    1. Solass W., Kerb R., Mürdter T., et al. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy of peritoneal carcinomatosis using pressurized aerosol as an alternative to liquid solution: first evidence for efficacy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2014;21(2):553–559. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3213-1.
    1. Solaß W., Giger-Pabst U., Zieren J., Reymond M. A. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): occupational health and safety aspects. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2013;20(11):3504–3511. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3039-x.
    1. Tempfer C. B., Rezniczek G. A., Ende P., Solass W., Reymond M.-A. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin in women with peritoneal carcinomatosis: a cohort study. Anticancer research. 2015;35(12):6723–6729.
    1. Tempfer C. B., Winnekendonk G., Solass W., et al. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy in women with recurrent ovarian cancer: a phase 2 study. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015;137(2):223–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.02.009.
    1. Nadiradze G., Giger-Pabst U., Zieren J., Strumberg D., Solass W., Reymond M.-A. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin in gastric peritoneal metastasis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2016;20(2):367–373. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2995-9.
    1. Odendahl K., Solass W., Demtröder C., et al. Quality of life of patients with end-stage peritoneal metastasis treated with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2015;41(10):1379–1385. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.06.001.
    1. Aaronson N. K., Ahmedzai S., Bergman B., et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1993;85(5):365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.
    1. Osoba D., Rodrigues G., Myles J., Zee B., Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1998;16(1):139–144.
    1. Jacquet P., Sugarbaker P. H. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treatment and Research. 1996;82:359–374. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-1247-5_23.
    1. Blanco A., Giger-Pabst U., Solass W., Zieren J., Reymond M. A. Renal and hepatic toxicities after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2013;20(7):2311–2316. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2840-2.
    1. Groenvold M., Klee M. C., Sprangers M. A. G., Aaronson N. K. Validation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life questionnaire through combined qualitative and quantitative assessment of patient-observer agreement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1997;50(4):441–450. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00428-3.
    1. Fayers P. M., Aaronson N. K., Bjordal K., et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3rd. Brussels, Belgium: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
    1. Oken M. M., Creech R. H., Davis T. E. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1982;5(6):649–655.
    1. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery. 2004;240(2):205–213. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Hinz A., Singer S., Brähler E. European reference values for the quality of life questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30: results of a German investigation and a summarizing analysis of six European general population normative studies. Acta Oncologica. 2014;53(7):958–965. doi: 10.3109/0284186x.2013.879998.
    1. Wright A. A., Zhang B., Keating N. L., Weeks J. C., Prigerson H. G. Associations between palliative chemotherapy and adult cancer patients' end of life care and place of death: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1219.g1219
    1. Hamilton T. D., Taylor E. L., Cannell A. J., McCart J. A., Govindarajan A. Impact of major complications on patients’ quality of life after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2016;23(9):2946–2952. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5231-2.
    1. Chia C. S., Tan G. H. C., Lim C., Soo K. C., Teo M. C. C. Prospective quality of life study for colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2016;23(9):2905–2913. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5203-6.
    1. Girshally R., Demtröder C., Albayrak N., Zieren J., Tempfer C., Reymond M. A. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) as a neoadjuvant therapy before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2016;14(1, article no. 253) doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1008-0.
    1. Robella M., Vaira M., De Simone M. Safety and feasibility of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) associated with systemic chemotherapy: an innovative approach to treat peritoneal carcinomatosis. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2016;14, article 128 doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-0892-7.
    1. Demtröder C., Solass W., Zieren J., Strumberg D., Giger-Pabst U., Reymond M.-A. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin in colorectal peritoneal metastasis. Colorectal Disease. 2016;18(4):364–371. doi: 10.1111/codi.13130.
    1. Solass W., Sempoux C., Detlefsen S., Carr N. J., Bibeau F. Peritoneal sampling and histological assessment of therapeutic response in peritoneal metastasis: proposal of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) Pleura and Peritoneum. 2016;1(2):99–107. doi: 10.1515/pp-2016-0011.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere