Fong, Yuman

ABSTRACT Background Implementation of remote robotic‐assisted surgery (rRAS) has the potential to significantly improve access to high‐quality surgical care for patients worldwide. Advances in robotic systems and telecommunications now enable highly reliable, low latency, and cybersecure connectivity. These technological developments, together with the broader adoption of telemedicine, have driven an increasing interest in the implementation of rRAS. Methods The Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) convened a conference to develop international clinical recommendations for rRAS using the Danish Model of Consensus. The society identified five key issue categories and invited a panel of experts to address specific questions for each. Panel members and a jury of 10 unbiased, non‐expert in rRAS professionals participated in a day‐long conference on November 19, 2025 (Los Angeles, USA). During the conference, participants presented, discussed, and reached consensus on specific guidelines relevant to each category. Immediately after the conference, the jury reviewed and approved the recommended guidelines. Results Multiple recommendations were approved for each of the following categories: Operating Models, Roles and Responsibilities (2 recommendations), Clinical Pathway (2 recommendations), Emergency Management (8 recommendations), Technical Considerations (5 recommendations), and Medico‐legal and Ethical Considerations (4 recommendations). Conclusions There was consensus that with recent advances in telecommunication and robotic technologies, rRAS can be offered safely and effectively if the identified safeguards are realized. Adoption of rRAS is expected to continue advancing rapidly.

5554 Background: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is characterized by chemoresistant recurrences primarily confined to the intraperitoneal cavity, frequently leading to malignant small bowel obstructions. Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy has been incorporated in EOC, but only in the first-line setting. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel IP drug delivery method that optimizes tissue penetration depth and drug distribution, to treat recurrent peritoneal malignancies. Recent trials outside the U.S. demonstrated partial to stable response following PIPAC in recurrent EOC. To date, no clinical trials have been completed investigating the role of PIPAC in EOC in the United States. Methods: We performed a multicenter prospective phase I trial using IP cisplatin 10.5 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 2.1 mg/m2 via PIPAC at 6-week intervals. Patients were eligible if they had recurrent disease with peritoneal metastasis; extraperitoneal metastasis was allowed. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary endpoints included progression free survival, PCI scoring, RECIST measurements, and quality of life (QoL). The patients with gastric and uterine cancers’ toxicity data were used but given inherent prognostic differences the treatment efficacy for these patients were not used in this analysis. Adverse event (AE) monitoring was graded using CTCAE spanning 18 weeks. Following completion of treatment (³2 PIPACs) patients were followed up every 12 weeks. QoL was measured using patient-reported assessments at 0, 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Baseline demographics were summarized. Mean change in PCI was calculated between cycle (C) 1 and 2, and cycle 2 and 3. Toxicities attributed to the surgery or PIPAC were reported with highest grade for each patient. Results: Nine heavily pretreated, recurrent patients were enrolled in the trial: 7 with platinum-resistant recurrent EOC, 1 with uterine cancer, and 1 with gastric cancer. PIPAC completion rate was 71.4%. Median age of participants was 65 years. Median prior lines of chemotherapy were 4 (range 2 - 10). No surgical complications occurred in the cohort. Two patients came off study: one for G3 abdominal pain and the other for G3 anorexia. For the EOC cohort, the median PCI reduction was -1.4% (C1 to C2) and -2.8% (C1 to C3). One low-grade serous EOC patient demonstrated a partial response based on RECIST criteria and received 6 cycles. Two EOC patients showed an initial response based on PCI reduction, but progressed following Cycle 2. Overall, QoL was stable. Conclusions: PIPAC with cisplatin/doxorubicin in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is well tolerated. Intraperitoneal responses were seen in a subset of low-grade serous ovarian cancer patients, which may warrant further study. Heavily pretreated, platinum-resistant high-grade EOC patients derived limited intraperitoneal control from PIPAC monotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04329494 .

Abstract Oncolytic viruses (OV) are live viruses that can selectively replicate in cancer cells. We have engineered an OV (CF33) to make it cancer-selective through the deletion of its J2R (thymidine kinase) gene. In addition, this virus has been armed with a reporter gene, human sodium iodide symporter (hNIS), to facilitate noninvasive imaging of tumors using PET. In this study, we evaluated the oncolytic properties of the virus (CF33-hNIS) in liver cancer model, and its usefulness in tumor imaging. The virus was found to efficiently kill liver cancer cells and the virus-mediated cell death exhibited characteristics of immunogenic death based on the analysis of 3 damage-associated molecular patterns: calreticulin, ATP, and high mobility group box-1. Furthermore, local or systemic administration of a single dose of the virus showed antitumor efficacy against a liver cancer xenograft model in mice and significantly increased survival of treated mice. Finally, PET scanning was performed following injection of the radioisotope I-124, for imaging of tumors, and a single dose of virus as low as 1E03 pfu, administered intra-tumorally or intravenously, allowed for PET imaging of tumors. In conclusion, CF33-hNIS is safe and effective in controlling human tumor xenografts in nude mice, and it also facilitates noninvasive imaging of tumors.

AbstractBackgroundThe feasibility of remote perioperative telemonitoring of patient‐generated physiologic health data and patient‐reported outcomes in a high risk complex general and urologic oncology surgery population is evaluated.MethodsComplex general surgical/urologic oncology patients wore a pedometer, completed ePROs (electronic patient‐reported outcome surveys) and record their vitals (weight, pulse, pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and temperature) via a telehealth app platform. Feasibility (% adherence) was assessed as the primary outcome measure.ResultsTwenty‐one patients with a median age 58 (32−82) years were included. The readmission rate was 33% and the incidence of ≥Grade 3a morbidity was 24%. Adherence to vital sign and ePRO measurements was 95% before surgery, 91% at discharge, and 82%, 68%, and 64% at postdischarge d2, 7, 14, and 30, respectively. There was significant worsening of mobility, self‐care and usual daily activity at postdischarge d2 compared to preoperative baseline (p < 0.05). Median daily preoperative steps taken by patients with <Grade 3a versus ≥Grade 3a postoperative morbidity was 6062 versus 4166 (p < 0.05). Of those interviewed, 87% (13/15) viewed vital sign devices as helpful in recovery.ConclusionsTelemonitoring is feasible in a general surgical and urologic oncology setting. Future studies will ascertain optimal patient selection, duration, and extent of perioperative monitoring.

Abstract Objectives Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from appendiceal cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) has significant morbidity and limited survival. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach to treat PM. We aim to conduct a dose-escalation trial of mitomycin C (MMC)-PIPAC combined with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI) in patients with PM from appendiceal cancer or CRC. Methods This is a multicenter Phase I study of MMC-PIPAC (NCT04329494). Inclusion criteria include treatment with at least 4 months of first- or second-line systemic chemotherapy with ineligibility for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Exclusion criteria are: progression on chemotherapy; extraperitoneal metastases; systemic chemotherapy intolerance; bowel obstruction; or poor performance status (ECOG>2). Escalating MMC-PIPAC doses (7–25 mg/m 2 ) will be administered in combination with standard dose systemic FOLFIRI. Safety evaluation will be performed on 15 patients (dose escalation) and six expansion patients: 21 evaluable patients total. Results The primary endpoints are recommended MMC dose and safety of MMC-PIPAC with FOLFIRI. Secondary endpoints are assessment of response (by peritoneal regression grade score; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST 1.1], and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), progression free survival, overall survival, technical failure rate, surgical complications, conversion to curative-intent CRS-HIPEC, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Longitudinal blood and tissue specimens will be collected for translational correlatives including pharmacokinetics, circulating biomarkers, immune profiling, and single-cell transcriptomics. Conclusions This Phase I trial will establish the recommended dose of MMC-PIPAC in combination with FOLFIRI. Additionally, we expect to detect an early efficacy signal for further development of this therapeutic combination.

125 Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is being evaluated as a novel minimally invasive palliative treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM). Prior studies have established the feasibility and safety of repeated PIPAC treatments in gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancers. The goal of the present phase 1 trial was to establish the safety and feasibility of PIPAC oxaliplatin in a highly chemotherapy refractory colorectal and appendiceal cancer patient population. Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven peritoneal metastases from colorectal or appendiceal cancer underwent up to three PIPAC treatments using oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) with a six-week interval at two academic centers. Patients with bowel obstruction, extra-peritoneal metastases, or poor performance status (ECOG>2) were excluded. PIPAC was nebulized over 5 min with a 30 min aerosol dwell time. Apart from the first PIPAC cycle, the patients also received a sensitizing dose of 5FU/LV (400mg/m2) within 24 hours of the procedure. Primary end point was safety as assessed by dose limiting toxicities within 6 weeks of the first PIPAC. Secondary endpoints included safety with the addition of 5FU/LV, efficacy, surgical morbidity, technical failure rate, progression-free and overall survival, pharmacokinetics (PK), and quality of life assessment. Results: A total of 8 patients were included: 5 colorectal; and 3 appendiceal. Median number of prior chemotherapy cycles was 2 (Interquartile range – IQR; 1.5-3.5). All patients were refractory to systemic oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median time from diagnosis to PIPAC was 16 months (IQR; 5.6, 17.5) and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index was 29 (IQR; 20.5, 31.5). Five (62.5%) patients completed 3 PIPAC cycles while in 3 (37.5%) patients PIPAC was discontinued due to disease progression within the peritoneal cavity. No surgical complication or dose limiting toxicity was observed. Only one patient developed grade 3 treatment-related toxicity after first PIPAC (anemia), and another patient after second PIPAC (abdominal pain and anemia). At the completion of PIPAC treatment 5 patients had stable disease and 3 had disease progression. Pharmacokinetic, histologic response and preliminary survival data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: PIPAC with oxaliplatin is safe and feasible in a highly chemotherapy refractory cohort of appendiceal and colorectal carcinomatosis patients with or without sensitizing 5-FU/ LV. Clinical trial information: NCT04329494.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastases arise in patients with a variety of primary cancers, and are associated with a poor prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment; however, the morbidity is considerable and the survival benefit is modest. Cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy is a potentially curative treatment available to a minority of patients; however, most develop recurrent disease. A novel palliative treatment for peritoneal metastases, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy, has recently been introduced. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy utilizes an aerosol of chemotherapy in carbon dioxide gas. It is instilled into the abdomen under pressure via laparoscopic ports. No cytoreduction is performed. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy can be repeated at 6-week intervals. Oxaliplatin or cis-platinum and doxorubicin have been used to date. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review and evaluate the method, and the preclinical and early clinical results of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: Medline and the Cochrane Library were the data sources for the study. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed series of greater than 10 patients, with sufficient patient data, through April 2019, were selected. INTERVENTION: Patients with peritoneal metastases underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient dropout, histologic tumor response, adverse events, and 30-day mortality were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: A total of 921 patients with peritoneal metastases were brought to the operating room for pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy. The number of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy treatments administered was as follows: 1 treatment, 862 (94%); 2 treatments, 645 (70%); and 3 treatments, 390 patients (42%). Initial laparoscopic access was not possible in 59 patients (6.4%). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were noted in 13.7% of the patients who, collectively, underwent a total of 2116 treatments. The 30-day mortality was 2.4% (22/921). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the heterogeneity of reported data and primary tumor types and by the lack of long-term survival data. CONCLUSIONS: Early clinical results are encouraging, but tumor-specific, prospective, randomized trials are needed to compare pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy to systemic chemotherapy. This method has yet to be introduced to the United States. It is another therapeutic option for patients with peritoneal metastases and will broaden the patient base for future clinical trials.