反复加压腹腔喷雾化疗(PIPAC)治疗腹膜转移的活检部位选择对腹膜回归分级评分(PRGS)的重要性。

IF 1.4 Q4 ONCOLOGY Pleura and Peritoneum Pub Date : 2022-05-30 eCollection Date: 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1515/pp-2022-0108
Mojib Fallah, Sönke Detlefsen, Alan P Ainsworth, Claus W Fristrup, Michael B Mortensen, Per Pfeiffer, Line S Tarpgaard, Martin Graversen
{"title":"反复加压腹腔喷雾化疗(PIPAC)治疗腹膜转移的活检部位选择对腹膜回归分级评分(PRGS)的重要性。","authors":"Mojib Fallah,&nbsp;Sönke Detlefsen,&nbsp;Alan P Ainsworth,&nbsp;Claus W Fristrup,&nbsp;Michael B Mortensen,&nbsp;Per Pfeiffer,&nbsp;Line S Tarpgaard,&nbsp;Martin Graversen","doi":"10.1515/pp-2022-0108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.</p>","PeriodicalId":20231,"journal":{"name":"Pleura and Peritoneum","volume":"7 3","pages":"143-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9467898/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Importance of biopsy site selection for peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis treated with repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).\",\"authors\":\"Mojib Fallah,&nbsp;Sönke Detlefsen,&nbsp;Alan P Ainsworth,&nbsp;Claus W Fristrup,&nbsp;Michael B Mortensen,&nbsp;Per Pfeiffer,&nbsp;Line S Tarpgaard,&nbsp;Martin Graversen\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/pp-2022-0108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pleura and Peritoneum\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"143-148\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9467898/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pleura and Peritoneum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2022-0108\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleura and Peritoneum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2022-0108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:采用四层腹膜回归分级评分(PRGS)评价腹膜转移(PM)患者接受加压腹腔喷雾化疗(PIPAC)的组织学反应。来自腹膜顶骨的四象限活检(qb)应通过PRGS进行评估,但在重复pipac期间随访活检的活检部位策略缺乏共识。我们的目的是评估标记为PM的片段的qb (QB-CM)的PRGS与视觉上最恶性特征的PM活检(最差活检,WB)的PRGS之间是否存在差异。方法:前瞻性、描述性研究。在第一次PIPAC期间,用金属夹标记索引qb位点。在第二次PIPAC期间,独立的外科肿瘤学家选择WB活检部位,并从QB-CM和WB活检。一位盲法病理学家根据PRGS评估所有活检。从每个活检中,三步切片染色H&E,然后是免疫染色切片,另外三步切片染色H&E。结果:2020年3月至2021年5月纳入34例患者。中位年龄64岁。PIPAC 1时QB-CM的最大平均PRGS为3.3 (SD 1.2)。PIPAC 2时QB-CM的最大平均PRGS为2.6 (SD 1.2),而PIPAC 2时WB的平均PRGS为2.4 (SD 1.3)。在PIPAC 2时,21例患者QB-CM和WB的最大PRGS值一致。与WB的PRGS相比,QB-CM的最大PRGS在9例患者中较高,在4例患者中较低。结论:与WB活检相比,QB-CM活检并未高估治疗反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Importance of biopsy site selection for peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis treated with repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).

Objectives: The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB).

Methods: Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E.

Results: Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB.

Conclusions: Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Combined Nabpaclitaxel pressurized intraPeritoneal aerosol chemotherapy with systemic Nabpaclitaxel-Gemcitabine chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer peritoneal metastases: protocol of single-arm, open-label, phase II trial (Nab-PIPAC trial). Thromboelastogram changes are associated with postoperative complications after cytoreductive surgery. Impact of laparoscopic ultrasound during PIPAC directed treatment of unresectable peritoneal metastasis. In vitro 3D microfluidic peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer model for testing different oxaliplatin-based HIPEC regimens. Ascites does not accompany pleural effusion developing under dasatinib therapy in patients with CML-CP.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1