Published online May 21, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i19.2130
Peer-review started: January 31, 2018
First decision: February 24, 2018
Revised: March 22, 2018
Accepted: March 31, 2018
Article in press: March 31, 2018
Published online: May 21, 2018
Processing time: 107 Days and 6.8 Hours
A 49-year-old female patient with reduced general condition and nutritional status (low BMI and weight loss in the nutritional anamnesis) was admitted after bilateral hysterectomy with a diagnosis of diffuse peritoneal carcinomatosis and several co-morbidities.
The final clinical diagnosis was made by upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy combined with a pathological assay that showed a mucin-positive, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma located in the gastric antral mucosa.
The differential diagnosis included severe peritoneal carcinomatosis and primary origin cancer with a particular emphasis on ovarian cancer.
Despite the patient’s reduced general condition and nutritional status, all of the performed laboratory tests were within normal limits.
The CT scan performed during hospitalization in our department showed an additional superficially located metastasis in liver segment 5.
In this case, staining revealed CK7(+), CK20(-), CDX2(+) and CA125(-) status, suggesting a primary tumor originating from the upper GI- tract. A postoperative upper GI endoscopy showed a mucin-positive, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma located in the gastric antral mucosa.
The PIPAC procedure was based on the administration of a solution of low-dose cisplatin (7.5 mg/m2 BSA) and doxorubicin (1.5 mg/m2) BSA diluted in 200 mL of saline solution aerosolized at a pressure of 12 mmHg and a temperature of 37 °C into the abdomen using a CE-certified nebulizer as neoadjuvant therapy before palliative D2 gastrectomy combined with liver metastasectomy.
Very few cases of spontaneous regression of an intra-abdominal inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor have been reported in the literature. The clinical and pathological characteristics of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors remain unclear, and the treatment is controversial.
The acronym PIPAC describes pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).
This case might contribute to future confirmation of the usefulness of PIPAC as a rescue or neoadjuvant, supportive form of therapy in a very select group of patients. This clinical development might be particularly important for patients with a KT presentation of gastric cancer who have been recently qualified to undergo classic chemotherapy or standard oncologic surgical procedures.