4.7 Article

Quantitative X-ray Computed Tomography Peritoneography in Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma Patients Receiving Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 S553-S559

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-2976-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gershwind Family Foundation
  2. Simmons Foundation
  3. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is used to treat peritoneal surface-spreading malignancies. We sought to determine whether volume and surface area of the intraperitoneal chemotherapy compartments are associated with overall survival and posttreatment glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) patients. Methods. Thirty-eight MPM patients underwent X-ray computed tomography peritoneograms during outpatient intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We calculated volume and surface area of contrast-filled compartments by semiautomated computer algorithm. We tested whether these were associated with overall survival and posttreatment GFR. Results. Decreased likelihood of mortality was associated with larger surface areas (p = 0.0201) and smaller contrast-filled compartment volumes (p = 0.0341), controlling for age, sex, histologic subtype, and presence of residual disease >0.5 cm postoperatively. Larger volumes were associated with higher posttreatment GFR, controlling for pretreatment GFR, body surface area, surface area, and the interaction between body surface area and volume (p = 0.0167). Discussion. Computed tomography peritoneography is an appropriate modality to assess for maldistribution of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In addition to identifying catheter failure and frank loculation, quantitative analysis of the contrast-filled compartment's surface area and volume may predict overall survival and cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity. Prospective studies should be undertaken to confirm and extend these findings to other diseases, including advanced ovarian carcinoma.

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