4.7 Article

Combined ultrasonography and CT for prognosis and predicting clinical outcomes of patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 2800-2808

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09242-z

关键词

Pseudomyxoma peritonei; Peritoneal cancer index; Prognosis; Ultrasonography; Tomography; x-ray computed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined ultrasonography and computed tomography in assessing tumor burden and predicting complete resection in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). The results showed that US-CT PCI had a high accuracy in evaluating moderate tumor burden and could predict incomplete resection. Mesenteric involvement was identified as an independent predictor of incomplete resection.
Objectives This study aimed to identify the diagnostic accuracy of combined ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in evaluating the tumor burden of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). Besides, we assessed the ability of this combination to predict the likelihood of complete resection. Methods This retrospective study involved 504 patients diagnosed with PMP and scheduled for cytoreduction surgery. We compared tumor burden-quantified as peritoneal cancer index (PCI) by preoperative US and CT (US-CT-PCI)-with surgical findings. Next, we assessed the prognostic value of US-CT PCI and imaging features in determining the completeness of cytoreduction (CCR) score using multivariate analysis. Results US-CT PCI demonstrated a high PCI evaluation accuracy under moderate tumor burden. Higher US-CT PCI could predict incomplete resection. In addition, we identified imaging features such as mesenteric involvement as an independent predictor of incomplete resection (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.006; p = 0.007). Conclusions US-CT PCI allowed us to predict the completeness of cytoreductive surgery in patients with PMP. Moreover, the combined US and CT imaging detected several features indicating incomplete cytoreduction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据