Radiologic staging of peritoneal and retroperitoneal disease

Abstract

Peritoneal and retroperitoneal tumors consist of a heterogenous group of benign and malignant lesions of different origin. Due to often complex multidisciplinary treatment concepts in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies radiological imaging plays a pivotal role regarding the therapeutic options. Moreover, tumor entity, abdominal tumor distribution and common as well as rare differential diagnoses have to be taken into account. Using different radiological modalities non-invasive pretherapeutic diagnostics might be significantly improved.

Key Points: 

• Diagnostic CT is a valuable part of the initial diagnostic approach to peritoneal surface malignancies.

• Sensitivity might be increased by the additional use of dwMRI and PET/CT considering tumor entity and individual diagnostic issues.

• The Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) should be determined independent of radiologic modality.

Citation Format

• Glockzin G, Helmberger T. Radiologic staging of peritoneal and retroperitoneal disease. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2023; 195: 377 – 384

Key words

peritoneal surface malignancies - metastasis - radiological imaging - computed tomography - magnetic resonance imaging - positron emission tomography

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 31. März 2022

Angenommen: 08. Dezember 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. März 2023

• References

• 1 Glockzin G, Schlitt HJ, Piso P. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: patients selection, perioperative complications and quality of life related to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. World J Surg Oncol 2009; 7: 5 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-7-5.
• 2 Bushati M, Rovers KP, Sommariva A. et al. The current practice of cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases: Results of a worldwide web-based survey of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI). Eur J Surg Oncol 2018; 44: 1942-1948 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.07.003.
• 3 Govaerts K, Lurvink RJ, De Hingh I. et al. Appendiceal tumours and pseudomyxoma peritonei: Literature review with PSOGI/EURACAN clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47: 11-35 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.02.012.
• 4 Kusamura S, Kepenekian V, Villeneuve L. et al. Peritoneal mesothelioma: PSOGI/EURACAN clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47: 36-59 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.02.011.
• 5 [Anonym]. WHO classification of tumours, Vol. 3: Soft tissue and bone tumours. 5. Aufl.. Lyon, France: IARC; 2020
• 6 Baheti AD, O'Malley RB, Kim S. et al. Soft-Tissue Sarcomas: An Update for Radiologists Based on the Revised 2013 World Health Organization Classification. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 924-932 DOI: 10.2214/Am J Roentgenol.15.15498.
• 7 Diop AD, Fontarensky M, Montoriol PF. et al. CT imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis and its mimics. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014; 95: 861-872 DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2014.02.009.
• 8 Piso P, Arnold D, Glockzin G. Challenges in the multidisciplinary management of stage IV colon and rectal cancer. Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology 2015; 9: 317-326 DOI: 10.1586/17474124.2015.957273.
• 9 Messiou C, Moskovic E, Vanel D. et al. Primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: Imaging appearances, pitfalls and diagnostic algorithm. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43: 1191-1198 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.032.
• 10 Mota M, Bezerra ROF, Garcia MRT. Practical approach to primary retroperitoneal masses in adults. Radiol Bras 2018; 51: 391-400 DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0179.
• 11 Wessling J, Ringe K, Juchems M. et al. Peritoneale und retroperitoneale Anatomie für Radiologen. Radiologie up2date 2020; 179-201 DOI: 10.1055/a-1076-3377.
• 12 Carr NJ, Cecil TD, Mohamed F. et al. A Consensus for Classification and Pathologic Reporting of Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and Associated Appendiceal Neoplasia: The Results of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) Modified Delphi Process. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 14-26 DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000535.
• 13 Ceelen WP, Bracke ME. Peritoneal minimal residual disease in colorectal cancer: mechanisms, prevention, and treatment. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 72-79 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70335-8.
• 14 Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res 1996; 82: 359-374 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-1247-5_23.
• 15 de Bree E, Koops W, Kroger R. et al. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin: correlation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. J Surg Oncol 2004; 86: 64-73 DOI: 10.1002/jso.20049.
• 16 Koh JL, Yan TD, Glenn D. et al. Evaluation of preoperative computed tomography in estimating peritoneal cancer index in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 327-333 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-008-0234-2.
• 17 Esquivel J, Chua TC, Stojadinovic A. et al. Accuracy and clinical relevance of computed tomography scan interpretation of peritoneal cancer index in colorectal cancer peritoneal carcinomatosis: a multi-institutional study. J Surg Oncol 2010; 102: 565-570 DOI: 10.1002/jso.21601.
• 18 Low RN, Barone RM. Combined diffusion-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced MRI can accurately predict the peritoneal cancer index preoperatively in patients being considered for cytoreductive surgical procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 1394-1401 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2236-3.
• 19 Low RN, Barone RM, Lucero J. Comparison of MRI and CT for predicting the Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) preoperatively in patients being considered for cytoreductive surgical procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22: 1708-1715 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-4041-7.
• 20 Klumpp BD, Schwenzer N, Aschoff P. et al. Preoperative assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: intraindividual comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI. Abdom Imaging 2013; 38: 64-71 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-012-9881-7.
• 21 Goere D, Souadka A, Faron M. et al. Extent of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: attempt to define a threshold above which HIPEC does not offer survival benefit: a comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22: 2958-2964 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4387-5.
• 22 Quenet F, Elias D, Roca L. et al. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22: 256-266 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30599-4.
• 23 Elias D, Gilly F, Boutitie F. et al. Peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis treated with surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: retrospective analysis of 523 patients from a multicentric French study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 63-68 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.9285.
• 24 Yan TD, Haveric N, Carmignani CP. et al. Abdominal computed tomography scans in the selection of patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma for comprehensive treatment with cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancer 2005; 103: 839-849 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20836.
• 25 Sugarbaker PH, Jablonski KA. Prognostic features of 51 colorectal and 130 appendiceal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated by cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg 1995; 221: 124-132 DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199502000-00002.
• 26 Sugarbaker PH, Sardi A, Brown G. et al. Concerning CT features used to select patients for treatment of peritoneal metastases, a pictoral essay. Int J Hyperthermia 2017; 33: 497-504 DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2017.1317368.
• 27 Laghi A, Bellini D, Rengo M. et al. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting peritoneal metastases: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiol Med 2017; 122: 1-15 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-016-0682-x.
• 28 van 't Sant I, Engbersen MP, Bhairosing PA. et al. Diagnostic performance of imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastases: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 3101-3112 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06524-x.
• 29 Michielsen K, Vergote I, Op de Beeck K. et al. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequence for staging of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a clinical feasibility study in comparison to CT and FDG-PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 889-901 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-3083-8.
• 30 van 't Sant I, Nerad E, Rijsemus CJV. et al. Seeing the whole picture: Added value of MRI for extraperitoneal findings in CRS-HIPEC candidates. Eur J Surg Oncol 2022; 48: 462-469 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.09.014.
• 31 Engbersen MP, Rijsemus CJV, Nederend J. et al. Dedicated MRI staging versus surgical staging of peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer patients considered for CRS-HIPEC; the DISCO randomized multicenter trial. BMC Cancer 2021; 21: 464 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08168-x.
• 32 Kim SJ, Lee SW. Diagnostic accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20170519 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170519.
• 33 Gonzalez-Moreno S, Gonzalez-Bayon L, Ortega-Perez G. et al. Imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer J 2009; 15: 184-189 DOI: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e3181a58ec3.
• 34 Satoh Y, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U. et al. Diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination: comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced MDCT. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 447-453 DOI: 10.2214/Am J Roentgenol.10.4687.
• 35 Klumpp B, Schwenzer NF, Gatidis S. et al. Assessment of relapse in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy using F-18-FDG-PET/CT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 359-366 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1366041.
• 36 Dirisamer A, Schima W, Heinisch M. et al. Detection of histologically proven peritoneal carcinomatosis with fused 18F-FDG-PET/MDCT. Eur J Radiol 2009; 69: 536-541 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.032.
• 37 Jonsdottir B, Ripoll MA, Bergman A. et al. Validation of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI for estimating the extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in ovarian and endometrial cancer -a pilot study. Cancer Imaging 2021; 21: 34 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-021-00399-2.