Systematic review of patient reported outcomes (PROs) and quality of life measures after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taibi, Abdelkader; Geyl, Sophie; Salle, Henri; Salle, Laurence; Mathonnet, Muriel; Usseglio, Julie; Durand Fontanier, Sylvaine
• Is Part Of: Surgical oncology. Volume 35(2020)
• Page Start: 97
• Page End: 105
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: PIPAC -- Peritoneal metastasis -- Quality of life -- PRO -- Patient reported outcome; Cancer -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- surgery -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.994059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.08.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-7404

Abstract

Abstract: Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) constitutes a recently described surgical technique to administer chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum, under pressure, for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The purpose of an oncological treatment is to improve survival but without altering the patient's quality of life. The aim of this review was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after PIPAC for patients with PM. This systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2020, studies were selected according to the following criteria: "pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy" OR "PIPAC" AND "patient-reported outcomes" OR "PRO" OR "Quality of life". In this review, 959 PIPAC and five PITAC (Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy) were performed in 425 patients. We highlight the prominent application of generic EORTC QLQ-C30 followed by SF-36 in this review. The PROs according to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score and based on symptom and function scores were stable across most studies. Moreover, PIPAC has improved the PRO of altered patients in two studies. Among 425 patients, the mortality rate was 0.7% and adverse events of Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events grade 3 and grade 4 were 9.6% and 1.6%, respectively. We synthesised current research on PROs among patients with PM. This review increases our understanding of the PIPAC strategy from the patient perspective. The implementation of PROs can be complex but will be essential in delivering quality care. Highlights: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) plays an important role in patients who are likely to have a poor and deteriorating QOL. The PROs according to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score and based on symptom and function scores were stable. PRO represents a novel concept that could bring significant insight into the response to treatment for patients with PM.