Shimaa Abdalla Ahmed1, Hisham Abou-Taleb2, Ahmed Yehia2, Noha Ali Abd El Malek3, Gehan S Siefeldein4, Dalia M Badary5, Murad Aly Jabir6. 1. Department of Radiodiagnosis, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University. Electronic address: shimaaabdalla@aun.edu.eg. 2. Department Obstetrics & Gynecology, Women Health Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Egypt. 4. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Assiut University hospital. 5. Department of pathology, Assiut university hospital, Egypt. 6. Department of surgical oncology, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of MDCT and laparoscopy in the prediction of peritoneal carcinomatosis index score. Reproducibility of MDCT interpretation was also assessed. METHODS: This prospective study included 85 ovarian cancer patients underwent MDCT and diagnostic laparoscopy before cytoreductive surgery. We calculated the accuracy of diagnostic modalities in the calculation of the peritoneal cancer index score (PCI). Radiologist interobserver agreement was calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Nine hundred-thirty (84.2%) of the 1105 regions had peritoneal deposits at exploratory laparotomy. Computed tomography (CT) and laparoscopy sensitivity were 94.9%, 98.3%, specificity 86.7%, 80.4%, PPV 97.9 %, 96.8%, NPV 72.2%, 88.8 %, and accuracy 93.8 %, 95.7%, respectively. However, computed tomography (CT) diagnostic performance is less accurate than laparoscopy in pelvic and small intestinal regions; no statistically significant differences were evident regarding total PCI score compared to surgery (p> 0.05). CT and laparoscopy correctly depicted peritoneal carcinomatosis in 88.2%, 90.6% of patients, respectively. Optimal cytoreduction was achieved in 68 (80%) patients. CONCLUSION: Both CT and laparoscopy seems to be effective tools for assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis using the PCI score. Dedicated MDCT protocol with routine use of a standardized PCI form may provide better comprehensive multi-regional analysis that may help surgeons referring patients to the best treatment option. Laparoscopy is a valuable tool in cases with a high risk of suboptimal cytoreduction related to disease extent.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of MDCT and laparoscopy in the prediction of peritoneal carcinomatosis index score. Reproducibility of MDCT interpretation was also assessed. METHODS: This prospective study included 85 ovarian cancerpatients underwent MDCT and diagnostic laparoscopy before cytoreductive surgery. We calculated the accuracy of diagnostic modalities in the calculation of the peritoneal cancer index score (PCI). Radiologist interobserver agreement was calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Nine hundred-thirty (84.2%) of the 1105 regions had peritoneal deposits at exploratory laparotomy. Computed tomography (CT) and laparoscopy sensitivity were 94.9%, 98.3%, specificity 86.7%, 80.4%, PPV 97.9 %, 96.8%, NPV 72.2%, 88.8 %, and accuracy 93.8 %, 95.7%, respectively. However, computed tomography (CT) diagnostic performance is less accurate than laparoscopy in pelvic and small intestinal regions; no statistically significant differences were evident regarding total PCI score compared to surgery (p> 0.05). CT and laparoscopy correctly depicted peritoneal carcinomatosis in 88.2%, 90.6% of patients, respectively. Optimal cytoreduction was achieved in 68 (80%) patients. CONCLUSION: Both CT and laparoscopy seems to be effective tools for assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis using the PCI score. Dedicated MDCT protocol with routine use of a standardized PCI form may provide better comprehensive multi-regional analysis that may help surgeons referring patients to the best treatment option. Laparoscopy is a valuable tool in cases with a high risk of suboptimal cytoreduction related to disease extent.
Authors: Nicole D Fleming; Shannon N Westin; Larissa A Meyer; Aaron Shafer; Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Michaela Onstad; Lauren Cobb; Michael Bevers; Bryan M Fellman; Jennifer Burzawa; Priya Bhosale; Behrouz Zand; Amir Jazaeri; Charles Levenback; Robert L Coleman; Pamela T Soliman; Anil K Sood Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Christos Iavazzo; Alexandros Fotiou; Victoria Psomiadou; Sofia Lekka; Dimitrios Katsanos; John Spiliotis Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-03-03