Peritoneal Cancer Index Correlates with Radiographic Assessment of Colorectal Carcinomatosis.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Annals of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-27 DOI:10.1245/s10434-024-16737-0
Eleanor A Fallon, Muhammad O Awiwi, Neal Bhutiani, Beth Helmink, Chris P Scally, Paul Mansfield, Keith Fournier, Raghunandan Vikram, Abhineet Uppal, Michael G White
{"title":"Peritoneal Cancer Index Correlates with Radiographic Assessment of Colorectal Carcinomatosis.","authors":"Eleanor A Fallon, Muhammad O Awiwi, Neal Bhutiani, Beth Helmink, Chris P Scally, Paul Mansfield, Keith Fournier, Raghunandan Vikram, Abhineet Uppal, Michael G White","doi":"10.1245/s10434-024-16737-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), calculated intraoperatively, has previously yielded mixed results when correlated with computed tomography. This study aimed to quantify variation in this scoring method comparing radiologists' and surgeons' radiologic PCI (rPCI) assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The rPCI of 104 patients treated at a single institution for peritoneal carcinomatosis was calculated by an abdominal radiologist and a surgeon. An additional 36-patient cohort was studied to compare preoperative rPCI with intraoperative gold standard PCI. Agreement was compared using kappa statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rPCI of the 104 patients studied ranged from 2 to 39 (median, 12; interquartile range [IQR], 6-23) by the radiologist's analysis and 2 to 37 (median, 9; IQR, 6-15) by the surgeon's analysis. There was good agreement for PCI cutoffs of 15 (77.48%; kappa, 0.40) and 20 (78.63%; kappa, 0.24). The 36-patient cohort undergoing surgical exploration showed a median rPCI of 4 (IQR, 2-5.75) and a median intraoperative PCI of 11 (IQR, 6-12), with a significant difference in score by method (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For rPCI cutoffs greater than 15 and 20, the surgeon's and radiologist's rPCI showed strong concordance, denoting the interobserver reproducibility of rPCI. Moreover, concordance with intraoperative PCI translated to radiographic assessment. The rPCI consistently underestimated intraoperative PCI, suggesting that rPCI may be a useful conservative tool for assessing peritoneal burden. Although surgical exploration is needed to \"rule in\" patients as candidates for CRS, the authors suggest that rPCI can be used to \"rule out\" patients as CRS candidates based on institutional PCI cutoffs.</p>","PeriodicalId":8229,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"2923-2931"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-16737-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI), calculated intraoperatively, has previously yielded mixed results when correlated with computed tomography. This study aimed to quantify variation in this scoring method comparing radiologists' and surgeons' radiologic PCI (rPCI) assessment.

Methods: The rPCI of 104 patients treated at a single institution for peritoneal carcinomatosis was calculated by an abdominal radiologist and a surgeon. An additional 36-patient cohort was studied to compare preoperative rPCI with intraoperative gold standard PCI. Agreement was compared using kappa statistics.

Results: The rPCI of the 104 patients studied ranged from 2 to 39 (median, 12; interquartile range [IQR], 6-23) by the radiologist's analysis and 2 to 37 (median, 9; IQR, 6-15) by the surgeon's analysis. There was good agreement for PCI cutoffs of 15 (77.48%; kappa, 0.40) and 20 (78.63%; kappa, 0.24). The 36-patient cohort undergoing surgical exploration showed a median rPCI of 4 (IQR, 2-5.75) and a median intraoperative PCI of 11 (IQR, 6-12), with a significant difference in score by method (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank test).

Conclusions: For rPCI cutoffs greater than 15 and 20, the surgeon's and radiologist's rPCI showed strong concordance, denoting the interobserver reproducibility of rPCI. Moreover, concordance with intraoperative PCI translated to radiographic assessment. The rPCI consistently underestimated intraoperative PCI, suggesting that rPCI may be a useful conservative tool for assessing peritoneal burden. Although surgical exploration is needed to "rule in" patients as candidates for CRS, the authors suggest that rPCI can be used to "rule out" patients as CRS candidates based on institutional PCI cutoffs.

腹膜癌指数与结直肠癌的影像学评价相关。
背景:术中计算的腹膜癌指数(PCI)先前在与计算机断层扫描相关时产生了不同的结果。本研究旨在量化比较放射科医生和外科医生放射PCI (rPCI)评估的评分方法的差异。方法:由一名腹部放射科医师和一名外科医生计算104例腹膜癌患者的rPCI。另外研究了36例患者队列,比较术前rPCI与术中金标准PCI。采用kappa统计比较一致性。结果:104例患者的rPCI评分范围为2 ~ 39(中位数为12;四分位数范围[IQR], 6-23)和2 - 37(中位数9;IQR, 6-15)由外科医生分析。PCI截止时间为15 (77.48%;Kappa, 0.40)和20 (78.63%;卡帕,0.24)。接受手术探查的36例患者队列中位rPCI为4 (IQR, 2-5.75),术中位rPCI为11 (IQR, 6-12),通过方法评分差异有统计学意义(p)结论:当rPCI截断值大于15和20时,外科医生和放射科医生的rPCI表现出很强的一致性,表明rPCI的观察者间可重复性。此外,术中PCI的一致性转化为影像学评估。rPCI持续低估术中PCI,提示rPCI可能是评估腹膜负担的一种有用的保守工具。虽然需要手术探查来“排除”患者作为CRS候选,但作者建议rPCI可用于根据机构PCI截止时间“排除”患者作为CRS候选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
10.80%
发文量
1698
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgical Oncology is the official journal of The Society of Surgical Oncology and is published for the Society by Springer. The Annals publishes original and educational manuscripts about oncology for surgeons from all specialities in academic and community settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信