The Significance of the Morphological Appearance of Peritoneal Lesions on Imaging in Patients With Peritoneal Malignancies-A Report From Phase 1 of the PRECINCT Study.
MRI peritoneum
cytoreductive surgery
imaging
morphological apperance
peritoneal malignancy
Journal
Journal of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1096-9098
Titre abrégé: J Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0222643
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Sep 2024
19 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
17
08
2024
received:
05
07
2024
accepted:
23
08
2024
medline:
19
9
2024
pubmed:
19
9
2024
entrez:
19
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This is a report from Phase 1 of the prospective, observational, PRECINCT (Pattern of peritoneal dissemination and REsponse to systemic Chemotherapy IN Common and uncommon peritoneal Tumours) study, in which we studied the incidence of disease at pathological evaluation in different morphological appearances of peritoneal malignancies (PM) on imaging. Radiological findings were captured in a specific format that included a description of the morphological appearance of PM and a correlation performed with pathological findings. In 630 patients enroled at seven centres (September 2022-December 2023), 24 morphological terms were used. Among prespecified terms (N = 8 used in 6350 [92.2%] regions), scalloping was pathologically positive in 93.5%, confluent disease in 78.8%, tumour nodules in 69.6%, thickening in 66.1%, infiltration in 56.3%. Among unspecified appearances (N = 16) for 540 (7.8%) regions, 'enhancement' was positive in 41.5%, micronodules in 65.3% and nodularity in 60.2%. Hierarchal clustering placed gastric cancer and rare tumours together and colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma in one cluster. The incidence of disease at pathological evaluation for most morphological appearances was high (> 50%). Morphological description should be provided in routine radiology reports. A set of standardized terms with their description should be developed by a consensus among experienced radiologists.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
This is a report from Phase 1 of the prospective, observational, PRECINCT (Pattern of peritoneal dissemination and REsponse to systemic Chemotherapy IN Common and uncommon peritoneal Tumours) study, in which we studied the incidence of disease at pathological evaluation in different morphological appearances of peritoneal malignancies (PM) on imaging.
METHODS
METHODS
Radiological findings were captured in a specific format that included a description of the morphological appearance of PM and a correlation performed with pathological findings.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 630 patients enroled at seven centres (September 2022-December 2023), 24 morphological terms were used. Among prespecified terms (N = 8 used in 6350 [92.2%] regions), scalloping was pathologically positive in 93.5%, confluent disease in 78.8%, tumour nodules in 69.6%, thickening in 66.1%, infiltration in 56.3%. Among unspecified appearances (N = 16) for 540 (7.8%) regions, 'enhancement' was positive in 41.5%, micronodules in 65.3% and nodularity in 60.2%. Hierarchal clustering placed gastric cancer and rare tumours together and colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma in one cluster.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The incidence of disease at pathological evaluation for most morphological appearances was high (> 50%). Morphological description should be provided in routine radiology reports. A set of standardized terms with their description should be developed by a consensus among experienced radiologists.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Investigateurs
Alison Buseck
(A)
Basma El Khannousi
(B)
Carlos Gonzalez de Pedro
(CG)
Danielle Biacchi
(D)
Daniel Labow
(D)
Edward A Levine
(EA)
Gbadebo Adeleke
(G)
Gaurav Goswami
(G)
Isabelle Bonnefoy
(I)
Katherine Cummins Perry
(KC)
Konstantinos I Votanopoulos
(KI)
Loma Parikh
(L)
Mohammad Alyami
(M)
Noah Cohen
(N)
Nazim Benzerdjeb
(N)
Nehal Shah
(N)
Nezha El Bahaoui
(NE)
Nazanin Khajoueinejad
(N)
Perry Shen
(P)
Shoma Barat
(S)
Sophia Stanford
(S)
Selma Khouchoua
(S)
Samantha Troob
(S)
Sakina Shaikh
(S)
Umut Sarpel
(U)
Vadim Gushchin
(V)
Vasanth Mark Samuel
(VM)
Vahan Kepenekian
(V)
Laurent Villeneuve
(L)
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
A. H. Mirnezami, B. J. Moran, and T. D. Cecil, “Sugarbaker Procedure for Pseudomyxoma Peritonei,” Techniques in Coloproctology 13 (2009): 373–374, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-009-0513-3.
C. N. Lin, W. S. Huang, T. H. Huang, et al., “Adding Value of MRI over CT in Predicting Peritoneal Cancer Index and Completeness of Cytoreduction,” Diagnostics 11, no. 4 (2021): 674, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040674.
S. A. S. Salo, E. Lantto, E. Robinson, et al., “Prognostic Role of Radiological Peritoneal Cancer Index in Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma: National Cohort Study,” Scientific Reports 10 (2020): 13257, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70044-8.
G. Avesani, M. Arshad, H. Lu, et al., “Radiological Assessment of Peritoneal Cancer Index on Preoperative CT in Ovarian Cancer Is Related to Surgical Outcome and Survival,” La Radiologia Medica 125, no. 8 (August 2020): 770–776, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01170-6.
K. Flicek, A. Ashfaq, C. D. Johnson, C. Menias, S. Bagaria, and N. Wasif, “Correlation of Radiologic With Surgical Peritoneal Cancer Index Scores in Patients With Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: How Well Can We Predict Resectability?,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 20, no. 2 (February 2016): 307–312, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-2880-6.
G. Goswami, P. Kammar, R. Mangal, S. Shaikh, M. D. Patel, and A. Bhatt, “Accuracy of CT Scan in Predicting the Surgical PCI in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery With/Without HIPEC—A Prospective Single Institution Study,” Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology 10, no. 2 (June 2019): 296–302, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-019-00914-9.
P. Jacquet and P. H. Sugarbaker, “Clinical Research Methodologies in Diagnosis and Staging of Patients With Peritoneal Carcinomatosis,” Cancer Treatment Research 82 (1996): 359–374.
S. Nougaret, E. Sadowski, Y. Lakhman, et al., “The BUMPy Road of Peritoneal Metastases in Ovarian Cancer,” Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 103, no. 10 (October 2022): 448–459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2022.05.003.
J. Miguez González, F. Calaf Forn, L. Pelegrí Martínez, et al., “Primary and Secondary Tumors of the Peritoneum: Key Imaging Features and Differential Diagnosis With Surgical and Pathological Correlation,” Insights Into Imaging 14 (2023): 115, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01417-6.
A. D. Levy, J. C. Shaw, and L. H. Sobin, “Secondary Tumors and Tumor Like Lesions of the Peritoneal Cavity: Imaging Features With Pathologic Correlation,” Radiographics 29, no. 2 (March‐April 2009): 347–373, https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.292085189.
A. Agarwal, B. M. Yeh, R. S. Breiman, A. Qayyum, and F. V. Coakley, “Peritoneal Calcification: Causes and Distinguishing Features on CT,” American Journal of Roentgenology 182, no. 2 (February 2004): 441–445, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.182.2.1820441.
V. Kepenekian, A. Kefleyesus, D. Keskin, et al., “Scalloping of the Liver and Spleen on Preoperative CT‐Scan of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Patients: Impact on Prediction of Resectability, Grade, Morbidity and Survival,” Cancers 14, no. 18 (September 2022): 4434, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184434.
A. Veron Sanchez, I. Bennouna, N. Coquelet, et al., “Unravelling Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Using Cross‐Sectional Imaging Modalities,” Diagnostics 13, no. 13 (July 2023): 2253, https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13132253.
A. Bhatt, Y. Yonemura, S. Mehta, et al., “The Pathologic Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) Strongly Differs From the Surgical PCI in Peritoneal Metastases Arising From Various Primary Tumors,” Annals of Surgical Oncology 27, no. 8 (August 2020): 2985–2996, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08234-x.
A. Bhatt, P. Rousset, N. Benzerdjeb, et al., “Prospective Correlation of the Radiological, Surgical and Pathological Findings in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: Implications for the Preoperative Estimation of the Peritoneal Cancer Index,” Colorectal Disease 22, no. 12 (December 2020): 2123–2132, https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15368.
C. M. Patel, A. Sahdev, and R. H. Reznek, “CT, MRI and PET Imaging in Peritoneal Malignancy,” Cancer Imaging 11, no. 1 (August 2011): 123–139, https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2011.0016.
A. Bhatt, P. Rousset, D. Baratti, et al., “Patterns of Peritoneal Dissemination and Response to Systemic Chemotherapy in Common and Rare Peritoneal Tumours Treated by Cytoreductive Surgery: Study Protocol of a Prospective, Multicentre, Observational Study,” BMJ Open 11, no. 7 (July 2021): e046819, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046819.
A. Bhatt, Y. Yonemura, N. Benzerdjeb, et al., “Pathological Assessment of Cytoreductive Surgery Specimens and Its Unexplored Prognostic Potential—A Prospective Multi‐Centric Study,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology 45, no. 12 (December 2019): 2398–2404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.07.019.
L. Villeneuve, A. Thivolet, N. Bakrin, et al., “A New Internet Tool to Report PeRitOneal Malignancy Extent. Peritoneal MalIgnancy Stage Evaluation (PROMISE) Application,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 42, no. 6 (June 2016): 877–882, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.015.
R. N. Low, R. M. Barone, and P. Rousset, “Peritoneal MRI in Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC: History, Clinical Applications, and Implementation,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology 47, no. 1 (January 2021): 65–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.02.030.
L. Villeneuve, G. Passot, O. Glehen, et al., “The RENAPE Observational Registry: Rationale and Framework of the Rare Peritoneal Tumors French Patient Registry,” Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 12, no. 1 (February 2017): 37, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0571-y.
S. Nougaret, “Imaging of Peritoneal Cancers,” in Management of Peritoneal Metastases‐Cytoreductive Surgery, HIPEC and Beyond, ed. A. Bhatt (Singapore: Springer, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7053-2_6.
A. D. Diop, M. Fontarensky, P. F. Montoriol, and D. Da Ines, “CT Imaging of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis and Its Mimics,” Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 95, no. 9 (March 2014): 861–872, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2014.02.009.
E. A. Aherne, H. M. Fenlon, C. J. Shields, J. J. Mulsow, and C. G. Cronin, “What the Radiologist Should Know About Treatment of Peritoneal Malignancy,” American Journal of Roentgenology 208, no. 3 (March 2017): 531–543, https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16646.
M. J. Lahaye, D. M. J. Lambregts, A. G. J. Aalbers, P. Snaebjornsson, R. G. H. Beets‐Tan, and N. F. M. Kok, “Imaging in the Era of Risk‐Adapted Treatment in Colon Cancer,” British Journal of Radiology 97, no. 1159 (June 2024): 1214–1221, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae061.
A. Dohan, C. Hoeffel, P. Soyer, et al., “Evaluation of the Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index with CT and MRI,” British Journal of Surgery 104, no. 9 (August 2017): 1244–1249, https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10527.
I. van 't Sant, M. P. Engbersen, P. A. Bhairosing, et al., “Diagnostic Performance of Imaging for the Detection of Peritoneal Metastases: A Meta‐Analysis,” European Radiology 30, no. 6 (June 2020): 3101–3112.
P. B. Panagiotopoulou, N. Courcoutsakis, A. Tentes, and P. Prassopoulos, “CT Imaging of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis With Surgical Correlation: A Pictorial Review,” Insights Into Imaging 12 (2021): 168, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01110-6.
C. S. Chia, L. C. K. Wong, T. P. Hennedige, et al., “Prospective Comparison of the Performance of MRI Versus CT in the Detection and Evaluation of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies,” Cancers 14, no. 13 (June 2022): 3179.
C. Zhou, Y. Wang, M. H. Ji, J. Tong, J. J. Yang, and H. Xia, “Predicting Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer Patients Based on Machine Learning,” Cancer Control 27, no. 1 (January‐December 2020): 1073274820968900, https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274820968900.