Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC): The First Reported Case in Brazil Using Standardized Technique with the Capnopen (R) Nebulizer Device

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
1
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
Autores
SILVA, Diego Greatti Vaz da
GRAPPERON-MATHIS, Roberta Lages M.
ARAKAKI, Mariana de Souza
GALINDO, Ivan Vinicius Andrade
DAIA, Lucas Afonso
ARARUNA, Gustavo Ferreira
OLIVEIRA, Andre Luiz Torres
MANCINI, Caio Nasser
Citação
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CASE REPORTS, v.22, article ID e933906, 7p, 2021
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objective: setting Background: Peritoneal metastasis is a common progression of abdominal-pelvic cancers, and it is associated with poorer oncological prognosis when compared to other metastasis sites. Its treatment has limited results, mainly because of poor bioavailability of chemotherapy within the abdominal cavity after systemic administration. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been proposed as a novel method to deliver chemotherapy directly into the peritoneal surface; it combines the effectiveness and response of an intraperitoneal therapy with benefits of a minimally invasive approach. The laparoscopic capnoperitoneum is used to instill chemotherapy particles in a more efficient way for distribution and penetration when compared to peritoneal lavage. In the present study, we describe the first PIPAC performed in Brazil, according to the standard technique previously described with the Capnopen (R) nebulizer device, as well as technique details based on our literature review. Case Report: A 67-year-old man with pancreatic adenocarcinoma metastatic to the liver at first diagnosis underwent systemic treatment with the FOLFIRINOX protocol. After a major clinical response due to systemic treatment, pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed with resection and radiofrequency ablation of hepatic nodules. After 7 months of follow-up, the patient's condition evolved with symptomatic relapse in the peritoneum. Aiming at better control of this site, multiple PIPAC procedures were performed, showing excellent control of the peritoneal cavity disease. The patient had a sustained response in the peritoneal cavity and showed systemic disease progression 6 months after the first PIPAC procedure, which deceased at 20 months after the first PIPAC procedure and 42 months after the primary diagnosis. Conclusions: This report shows that the PIPAC procedure is reproducible elsewhere, with safety and good functional results.
Palavras-chave
Chemotherapy, Cancer, Regional Perfusion, Palliative Care, Peritoneal Neoplasms, Surgical Oncology
Referências
  1. AARONSON NK, 1993, J NATL CANCER I, V85, P365, DOI 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
  2. Alyami M, 2019, LANCET ONCOL, V20, pE368, DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30318-3
  3. Bakrin Naoual, 2018, Pleura Peritoneum, V3, P20180114, DOI 10.1515/pp-2018-0114
  4. Chua TC, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P2449, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.7166
  5. De Simone M, 2020, BIOMEDICINES, V8, DOI 10.3390/biomedicines8050102
  6. Demtroder C, 2016, COLORECTAL DIS, V18, P364, DOI 10.1111/codi.13130
  7. Falkenstein TA, 2018, ANTICANCER RES, V38, P373, DOI 10.21873/anticanres.12232
  8. Foster JM, 2019, JAMA NETW OPEN, V2, DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6847
  9. Giger-Pabst U, 2018, BMC CANCER, V18, DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4363-0
  10. Gockel I, 2018, J GASTRIC CANCER, V18, P379, DOI 10.5230/jgc.2018.18.e37
  11. Goetze TO, 2018, PLEURA PERITONEUM, V3, DOI [10.1515/pap-2018-0113, 10.1515/pp-2018-0113]
  12. Gonzalez-Moreno S, 2010, WORLD J GASTRO ONCOL, V2, P68, DOI 10.4251/wjgo.v2.i2.68
  13. Grass F, 2017, BRIT J SURG, V104, P669, DOI 10.1002/bjs.10521
  14. Graversen M, 2017, CLIN EXP METASTAS, V34, P309, DOI 10.1007/s10585-017-9849-7
  15. Hubner M, 2017, EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC, V43, P1102, DOI 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.03.019
  16. Khomyakov V, 2016, PLEURA PERITONEUM, V1, P159, DOI [10.1515/pp-2016-0017, 10.1515/pap-2016-0017]
  17. Khosrawipour T, 2017, PLOS ONE, V12, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0186709
  18. Khosrawipour V, 2016, J CANCER RES CLIN, V142, P2275, DOI 10.1007/s00432-016-2234-0
  19. Nadiradze G, 2016, J GASTROINTEST SURG, V20, P367, DOI 10.1007/s11605-015-2995-9
  20. Nowacki M, 2018, EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC, V44, P991, DOI 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.02.014
  21. Odendahl K, 2015, EJSO-EUR J SURG ONC, V41, P1379, DOI 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.06.001
  22. Robella M, 2016, WORLD J SURG ONCOL, V14, DOI 10.1186/s12957-016-0892-7
  23. Sadeghi B, 2000, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V88, P358, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000115)88:2<358::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-O
  24. Seitenfus R, 2019, SURG ENDOSC, V33, P3503, DOI 10.1007/s00464-019-07043-y
  25. Seitenfus Rafael, 2018, Rev Col Bras Cir, V45, pe1909, DOI 10.1590/0100-6991e-20181909
  26. Solass W, 2016, PLEURA PERITONEUM, V1, P99, DOI [10.1515/pap-2016-0011, 10.1515/pp-2016-0011]
  27. Solass W, 2014, ANN SURG ONCOL, V21, P553, DOI 10.1245/s10434-013-3213-1
  28. Solass W, 2012, SURG ENDOSC, V26, P1849, DOI 10.1007/s00464-012-2148-0
  29. Solass W, 2012, SURG ENDOSC, V26, P847, DOI 10.1007/s00464-011-1964-y
  30. Struller F, 2019, THER ADV MED ONCOL, V11, DOI 10.1177/1758835919846402
  31. Sugarbaker PH, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, pE362, DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70210-3
  32. SUGARBAKER PH, 1989, SEMIN ONCOL, V16, P83
  33. Tempfer CB, 2015, ANTICANCER RES, V35, P6723
  34. Tempfer CB, 2015, GYNECOL ONCOL, V137, P223, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.02.009
  35. Tempfer CB, 2014, GYNECOL ONCOL, V132, P307, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.022
  36. Yan TD, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, P6237, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.9640