From operating room to pathology report: Delphi consensus on pathological assessment of peritoneal cytology and biopsies in staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer.
Judith S E Quik, Micha J de Neijs, Heike I Grabsch, Niels A D Guchelaar, Jan Erik Freund, Lodewijk A A Brosens, Lindsey Oudijk, Marie-Louise F van Velthuysen, Michail Doukas, Petur Snaebjornsson, Astrid Klooster, Nienke Doddema, Kay van den Burg, Bas P L Wijnhoven, Johanna W van Sandick, Sybren L Meijer, Liudmila L Kodach
{"title":"From operating room to pathology report: Delphi consensus on pathological assessment of peritoneal cytology and biopsies in staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer.","authors":"Judith S E Quik, Micha J de Neijs, Heike I Grabsch, Niels A D Guchelaar, Jan Erik Freund, Lodewijk A A Brosens, Lindsey Oudijk, Marie-Louise F van Velthuysen, Michail Doukas, Petur Snaebjornsson, Astrid Klooster, Nienke Doddema, Kay van den Burg, Bas P L Wijnhoven, Johanna W van Sandick, Sybren L Meijer, Liudmila L Kodach","doi":"10.1007/s10120-026-01803-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Staging laparoscopy with peritoneal cytology and biopsies is recommended in selected patients with gastric cancer (GC), but practical guidance for assessment of peritoneal lavage/ascites and peritoneal biopsies is lacking. We aimed to develop consensus-based recommendations for handling, assessing and reporting of these specimens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A modified Delphi study was conducted among Dutch experts in GC (cyto)pathology. In round 1, sixty-two statements on clinical information, specimen requirements, initial assessment, ancillary testing, biomarker testing and reporting were rated on a 3-point scale (agree/neutral/disagree); consensus was predefined as ≥ 80% agreement. Non-consensus statements were discussed in an online meeting, informed by comments and literature review, revised, and re-rated in Round 2 on a dichotomous agree/disagree scale, with consensus defined as ≥ 70% agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one experts from university, general, and independent pathology practices participated. Consensus was achieved for 39 of 62 statements (63%) in Round 1 and for 58 of 62 statements (94%) after Round 2. Consensus was achieved on required clinical information from surgeons, specimen submission and handling, cytological and histological assessment, use of ancillary immunocytochemistry/immunohistochemistry, structured reporting categories, and approaches to biomarker testing on peritoneal biopsies. The study also resulted in structured reporting templates for peritoneal cytology and biopsies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This Delphi study achieved broad expert consensus on pathological assessment of peritoneal fluid and biopsies obtained during staging laparoscopy in GC patients. The resulting recommendations and structured reporting templates provide a practical framework to harmonise specimen handling, evaluation and reporting, thereby promoting greater standardisation and consistency in GC staging.</p>","PeriodicalId":12684,"journal":{"name":"Gastric Cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastric Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-026-01803-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Staging laparoscopy with peritoneal cytology and biopsies is recommended in selected patients with gastric cancer (GC), but practical guidance for assessment of peritoneal lavage/ascites and peritoneal biopsies is lacking. We aimed to develop consensus-based recommendations for handling, assessing and reporting of these specimens.
Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted among Dutch experts in GC (cyto)pathology. In round 1, sixty-two statements on clinical information, specimen requirements, initial assessment, ancillary testing, biomarker testing and reporting were rated on a 3-point scale (agree/neutral/disagree); consensus was predefined as ≥ 80% agreement. Non-consensus statements were discussed in an online meeting, informed by comments and literature review, revised, and re-rated in Round 2 on a dichotomous agree/disagree scale, with consensus defined as ≥ 70% agreement.
Results: Thirty-one experts from university, general, and independent pathology practices participated. Consensus was achieved for 39 of 62 statements (63%) in Round 1 and for 58 of 62 statements (94%) after Round 2. Consensus was achieved on required clinical information from surgeons, specimen submission and handling, cytological and histological assessment, use of ancillary immunocytochemistry/immunohistochemistry, structured reporting categories, and approaches to biomarker testing on peritoneal biopsies. The study also resulted in structured reporting templates for peritoneal cytology and biopsies.
Conclusion: This Delphi study achieved broad expert consensus on pathological assessment of peritoneal fluid and biopsies obtained during staging laparoscopy in GC patients. The resulting recommendations and structured reporting templates provide a practical framework to harmonise specimen handling, evaluation and reporting, thereby promoting greater standardisation and consistency in GC staging.
期刊介绍：
Gastric Cancer is an esteemed global forum that focuses on various aspects of gastric cancer research, treatment, and biology worldwide.
The journal promotes a diverse range of content, including original articles, case reports, short communications, and technical notes. It also welcomes Letters to the Editor discussing published articles or sharing viewpoints on gastric cancer topics.
Review articles are predominantly sought after by the Editor, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the field.
With a dedicated and knowledgeable editorial team, the journal is committed to providing exceptional support and ensuring high levels of author satisfaction. In fact, over 90% of published authors have expressed their intent to publish again in our esteemed journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
