Bradley Carlson1,2, Carla Harmath3, Kiran Turaga4, Hedy L Kindler5, Samuel G Armato3, Christopher Straus3. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Bradley.carlson@uchospitals.edu. 2. , Chicago, IL, USA. Bradley.carlson@uchospitals.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Section of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Imaging of the peritoneum and related pathology is a challenge. Among peritoneal diseases, malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is an uncommon tumor with poor prognosis. To date, there are no specific guidelines or imaging protocols dedicated for the peritoneum and MPeM. The objective of this study was to analyze the literature describing imaging modalities used for MPeM to determine their relative clinical efficacy and review commonly reported imaging features of MPeM to promote standardized reporting. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of original research articles discussing imaging modalities in MPeM from 1999 to 2020. Effectiveness measures and common findings were compared across imaging modalities. RESULTS: Among 582 studies analyzed, the most-used imaging modality was CT (54.3%). In the differentiation of MPeM from peritoneal carcinomatosis, one study found CT had a diagnostic sensitivity of 53%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 68%. Two studies found fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) had sensitivity of 86-92%, specificity of 83-89%, and accuracy of 87-89%. Another study found magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the best predictor of the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. Characteristics shown to best differentiate MPeM from other diseases included ascites, peritoneal thickening, mesenteric thickening, pleural plaques, maximum tumor dimension, and number of masses. CONCLUSION: Most published MPeM imaging studies utilized CT. PET/CT or MRI appear promising, and future studies should compare effectiveness of these modalities. MPeM imaging reports should highlight ascites, number of and maximum tumor dimension, peritoneal/mesenteric thickening, and associated pleural plaques, allowing for better aggregation of MPeM imaging data across studies.
PURPOSE: Imaging of the peritoneum and related pathology is a challenge. Among peritoneal diseases, malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is an uncommon tumor with poor prognosis. To date, there are no specific guidelines or imaging protocols dedicated for the peritoneum and MPeM. The objective of this study was to analyze the literature describing imaging modalities used for MPeM to determine their relative clinical efficacy and review commonly reported imaging features of MPeM to promote standardized reporting. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of original research articles discussing imaging modalities in MPeM from 1999 to 2020. Effectiveness measures and common findings were compared across imaging modalities. RESULTS: Among 582 studies analyzed, the most-used imaging modality was CT (54.3%). In the differentiation of MPeM from peritoneal carcinomatosis, one study found CT had a diagnostic sensitivity of 53%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 68%. Two studies found fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) had sensitivity of 86-92%, specificity of 83-89%, and accuracy of 87-89%. Another study found magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the best predictor of the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. Characteristics shown to best differentiate MPeM from other diseases included ascites, peritoneal thickening, mesenteric thickening, pleural plaques, maximum tumor dimension, and number of masses. CONCLUSION: Most published MPeM imaging studies utilized CT. PET/CT or MRI appear promising, and future studies should compare effectiveness of these modalities. MPeM imaging reports should highlight ascites, number of and maximum tumor dimension, peritoneal/mesenteric thickening, and associated pleural plaques, allowing for better aggregation of MPeM imaging data across studies.
Authors: Aaron U Blackham; Perry Shen; John H Stewart; Gregory B Russell; Edward A Levine Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Nicholas P Schaub; Meghna Alimchandani; Martha Quezado; Phil Kalina; John S Eberhardt; Marybeth S Hughes; Tatiana Beresnev; Raffit Hassan; David L Bartlett; Steven K Libutti; James F Pingpank; Richard E Royal; Udai S Kammula; Prakash Pandalai; Giao Q Phan; Alexander Stojadinovic; Udo Rudloff; H Richard Alexander; Itzhak Avital Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tristan D Yan; Erwin A Brun; Carlos A Cerruto; Namik Haveric; David Chang; Paul H Sugarbaker Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tristan D Yan; Marcello Deraco; Dominique Elias; Olivier Glehen; Edward A Levine; Brendan J Moran; David L Morris; Terence C Chua; Pompiliu Piso; Paul H Sugarbaker Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S Jane Henley; Theodore C Larson; Manxia Wu; Vinicius C S Antao; Mary Lewis; Germania A Pinheiro; Christie Eheman Journal: Int J Occup Environ Health Date: 2013 Jan-Mar
Authors: C Brigand; O Monneuse; F Mohamed; A C Sayag-Beaujard; S Isaac; F N Gilly; O Glehen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-01-30 Impact factor: 5.344