Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Therapeutic Rationale and Data Set for Reporting Cytoreductive Surgery Specimens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pathology of Peritoneal Metastases

  • 432 Accesses

Abstract

The histopathological grade/histological subtype is one of the most important prognostic markers in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS). There are other factors like the extent of disease (pathological PCI), disease distribution in the peritoneal cavity, lymph node involvement, pathological response to chemotherapy and morphological findings that may have prognostic value. Currently, there are no guidelines for pathological evaluation and synoptic reporting of peritonectomy or CRS specimens. Standardized methods of synoptic reporting of these specimens could help capture vital prognostic information that may in future influence how these patients are treated.

This chapter describes existing practices pertaining to histopathological analysis of CRS specimens and provides a data set for synoptic reporting of these specimens based on the authors’ experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mohamed F, Cecil T, Moran B, Sugarbaker P. A new standard of care for the management of peritoneal surface malignancy. Curr Oncol. 2011;18(2):e84–96.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Deraco M, Santoro N, Carraro O, Inglese MG, Rebuffoni G, Guadagni S, Somers DC, Vaglini M. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: feature of dissemination. A review. Tumori. 1999;85(1):1–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Solass W, Horvath P, Struller F, et al. Functional vascular anatomy of the peritoneum in health and disease. Pleura Peritoneum. 2016;1(3):145–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2016-0015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kolev V, Mironov S, Mironov O, Ishill N, Moskowitz CS, Gardner GJ, Levine DA, Hricak H, Barakat RR, Chi DS. Prognostic significance of supradiaphragmatic lymphadenopathy identified on preoperative computed tomography scan in patients undergoing primary cytoreduction for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(6):979–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181e833f5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhatt A, Mishra S, Parikh L, et al. Essentials for pathological evaluation of peritoneal surface malignancies and synoptic reporting of cytoreductive surgery specimens—a review and evidence-based guide. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-019-00897-7.

  6. Isaza-Restrepo A, Martin-Saavedra JS, Velez-Leal JL, Vargas-Barato F, Riveros-Dueñas R. The peritoneum: beyond the tissue—a review. Front Physiol. 2018;9:738. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00738.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sugarbaker PH. Peritonectomy procedures. Ann Surg. 1995;221(1):29–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199501000-00004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Meyers MA, Charnsangavej C, Oliphant M. Meyers’ dynamic radiology of the abdomen. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yoo E, Kim JH, Kim MJ, Yu JS, Chung JJ, Yoo HS, Kim KW. Greater and lesser omenta: normal anatomy and pathologic processes. Radiographics. 2007;27(3):707–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Charnsangavej C, DuBrow RA, Varma DG, Herron DH, Robinson TJ, Whitley NO. CT of the mesocolon: part 1—anatomic considerations. Radiographics. 1993;13(5):1035–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim S, Kim TU, Lee JW, et al. The perihepatic space: comprehensive anatomy and CT features of pathologic conditions. Radiographics. 2007;27(1):129–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tirkes T, Sandrasegaran K, Patel AA, Hollar MA, Tejada JG, Tann M, et al. Peritoneal and retroperitoneal anatomy and its relevance for cross-sectional imaging. Radiographics. 2012;32:437–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fritz DL, Waag DM. Transdiaphragmatic lymphatic transport of intraperitoneally administered marker in hamsters. Lab Anim Sci. 1999;49:522–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Abernethy NJ, Chin W, Hay JB, Rodela H, Oreopoulos D, Johnston MG. Lymphatic drainage of the peritoneal cavity in sheep. Am J Physiol. 1991;260:F353–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parungo CP, Soybel DI, Colson YL, et al. Lymphatic drainage of the peritoneal space: a pattern dependent on bowel lymphatics. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(2):286–98. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9044-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Baratti D, Kusamura S, Cabras AD, Laterza B, Balestra MR, Deraco M. Lymph node metastases in diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0756-2. Epub 24 Oct 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sugarbaker PH. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic perioperative chemotherapy for selected patients with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: a new standard of care or an experimental approach? Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:309417. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/309417.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Silverman PM. The subperitoneal space: mechanisms of tumour spread in the peritoneal cavity, mesentery, and omentum. Cancer Imaging. 2003;4(1):25–9. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2003.0027. Published 1 Oct 2003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhatt A, Yonemura Y, Benzerdjeb N, Mehta S, Mishra S, Parikh L, et al. Pathological assessment of cytoreductive surgery specimens and its unexplored prognostic potential—a prospective multi-centric study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45:2398–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brenkman HJF, van der Wielen NI, Ruurda JP, et al. Surgical anatomy of the omental bursa and the stomach based on a minimally invasive approach: different approaches and technical steps to resection and lymphadenectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(Suppl 8):S809–16. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.07.52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Feldman GB. Lymphatic obstruction in carcinomatous ascites. Cancer Res. 1975;35:325–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Abu-Hijleh MF, Habbal OA, Moqattash ST. The role of the diaphragm in lymphatic absorption from the peritoneal cavity. J Anat. 1995;186(Pt 3):453–67.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dorfman RE, Alpern MB, Gross BH, et al. Upper abdominal lymph nodes: criteria for normal size determined with CT. Radiology. 1991;180:319–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhou J, Sun J-Y, Wu S-G, Wang X, He Z-Y, Chen Q-H, Li FY. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in ovarian cancer: implications for systematic lymphadenectomy. Int J Surg. 2016;29:123–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pereira A, Pérez-Medina T, Magrina JF, Magtibay PM, Rodríguez-Tapia A, de León J, et al. Correlation between the extent of intraperitoneal disease and nodal metastasis in node-positive ovarian cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(8):917–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kammar P, Bhatt A, Anam J, Waghoo S, Pandey J, Mehta S. Correlation between pelvic peritoneal disease and nodal metastasis in advanced ovarian cancer: can intraoperative findings define the need for systematic nodal dissection? Indian J Surg Oncol. 2019;10(Suppl 1):84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-019-00881-1. Epub 7 Feb 2019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rouviáere H. Anatomie des Lymphatiques de l’homme. Paris: Masson; 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hynninen J, Auranen A, Carpén O, Dean K, Seppänen M, Kemppainen J, Lavonius M, Lisinen I, Virtanen J, Grénman S. FDG PET/CT in staging of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: frequency of supradiaphragmatic lymph node metastasis challenges the traditional pattern of disease spread. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(1):64–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.023. Epub 24 Apr 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shibata S, Yamaguchi S, Kaseda M, et al. The time course of lymphatic routes emanating from the peritoneal cavity in rats. Anat Histol Embryol. 2007;36:78–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wong CH, Chow PK, Koong HN, et al. Superiordiaphragmatic adenopathy from primary hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;18:352–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Holloway BJ, Gore ME, A’Hern RP, et al. The significance of paracardiac lymph node enlargement in ovarian cancer. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:692–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Villeneuve L, Thivolet A, Bakrin N, et al. A new internet tool to report peritoneal malignancy extent. PeRitOneal MalIgnancy stage evaluation (PROMISE) application. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(6):877–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hynninen J, Lavonius M, Oksa S, Grenman S, Carpen O, Auranen A. Is perioperative visual estimation of intra-abdominal tumor spread reliable in ovarian cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:229–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Neumeister VM, Anagnostou V, Siddiqui S, et al. Quantitative assessment of effect of preanalytic cold ischemic time on protein expression in breast cancer tissues. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:1815–24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Portier BP, Wang Z, Downs-Kelly E, et al. Delay to formalin fixation ‘cold ischemia time’: effect on ERBB2 detection by in-situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:1–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Engel KB, Moore HM. Effects of pre-analytical variables on the detection of proteins by immunohistochemistry in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:537–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Arber DA. Effect of prolonged formalin fixation on the immunohistochemical reactivity of breast markers. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2002;10:183–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dataset for colorectal cancer histopathology reports. Version number 3. https://www.rcpath.org/asset/E94CE4A2-D722-44A7-84B9D68294134CFC. Accessed 5/6/2019.

  39. Babic A, Loftin IR, Stanislaw S, et al. The impact of pre-analytical processing on staining quality for H&E, dual hapten, dual color in situ hybridization and fluorescent in situ hybridization assays. Methods. 2010;52:287–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chafin D, Theiss A, Roberts E, et al. Rapid two-temperature formalin fixation. PLoS One. 2013;8:e54138.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Quirke P. The pathologist, the surgeon and colorectal cancer—get it right because it matters. In: Kirkham N, Lemoine NR, editors. Progress in pathology, vol. 4. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p. 201–13.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Burroughs SH, Williams GTACP. Best practice no 159. Examination of large intestine resection specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:344–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kerr KM, Bubendorf L, Edelman MJ, et al. Second ESMO consensus conference on lung cancer: pathology and molecular biomarkers for non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1681–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McCluggage WG, Judge MJ, Clarke BA, Davidson B, Gilks CB, Hollema H, Ledermann JA, Matias-Guiu X, Mikami Y, Stewart CJ, Vang R, Hirschowitz L. International collaboration on cancer reporting. Data set for reporting of ovary, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinoma: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Mod Pathol. 2015;28(8):1101–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Doig T, Monaghan H. Sampling the omentum in ovarian neoplasia: when one block is enough. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:36–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Usubütün A, Ozseker HS, Himmetoglu C, et al. Omentectomy for gynecologic cancer: how much sampling is adequate for microscopic examination? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1578–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Baratti D, Kusamura S, Cabras A, Deraco M. Cytoreductive surgery with selective versus complete parietal peritonectomy followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: a controlled study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1416–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pande R, Sunga A, Levea C, Wilding GE, Bshara W, Reid M, Fakih MG. Significance of signet-ring cells in patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:50–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Carr NJ, Cecil TD, Mohamed F, Sobin LH, Sugarbaker PH, González-Moreno S, Taflampas P, Chapman S, Moran BJ. 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(1):14–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th ed. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Muraji M, Sudo T, Iwasaki S, et al. Histopathology predicts clinical outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and debulking surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:531–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Husain AN, Colby TV, Ordóñez NG, Allen TC, Attanoos RL, Beasley MB, Butnor KJ, Chirieac LR, Churg AM, Dacic S, Galateau-Sallé F, Gibbs A, Gown AM, Krausz T, Litzky LA, Marchevsky A, Nicholson AG, Roggli VL, Sharma AK, Travis WD, Walts AE, Wick MR. Guidelines for pathologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma 2017 update of the consensus statement from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142(1):89–108.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Carr NJ, Bibeau F, Bradley RF, Dartigues P. The histopathological classification, diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mucinous appendiceal neoplasms, appendiceal adenocarcinomas and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Histopathology. 2017;71(6):847–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Böhm S, Faruqi A, Said I, Lockley M, Brockbank E, Jeyarajah A, et al. Chemotherapy response score: development and validation of a system to quantify histopathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(22):2457–63. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.60.5212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Passot G, You B, Boschetti G, Fontaine J, Isaac S, Decullier E, Maurice C, Vaudoyer D, Gilly FN, Cotte E, Glehen O. Pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a new prognosis tool for the curative management of peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(8):2608–14. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3647-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rubbia-Brandt L, et al. Importance of histological tumor response assessment in predicting the outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver surgery. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(2):299–304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Yonemura Y, Canbay E, Ishibashi H. Prognostic factors of peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer following cytoreductive surgery and perioperative chemotherapy. Sci World J. 2013;2013:978394.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Solass W, Sempoux C, Carr NJ, Detlefsen S, Bibeau F. Peritoneal sampling and histological assessment of therapeutic response in peritoneal metastasis: proposal of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS). Pleura Peritoneum. 2016;1:99–107.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Solass W, Sempoux C, Carr NJ, Bibeau F, Neureiter D, Jäger T, Di Caterino T, Brunel C, Klieser E, Fristrup CW, Mortensen MB, Detlefsen S. Reproducibility of the peritoneal regression grading score for assessment of response to therapy in peritoneal metastasis. Histopathology. 2019;74(7):1014–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13829. Epub 14 Apr 2019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Jacquet P, Sugarbaker PH. Clinical research methodologies in diagnosis and staging of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Cancer Treat Res. 1996;82:359–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cotte E, Peyrat P, Piaton E, Chapuis F, Rivoire M, Glehen O, Arvieux C, Mabrut JY, Chipponi J, Gilly FN, EVOCAPE Group. Lack of prognostic significance of conventional peritoneal cytology in colorectal and gastric cancers: results of EVOCAPE 2 multicentre prospective study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(7):707–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.03.021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hayes N, Wayman J, Wadehra V, et al. Peritoneal cytology in the surgical evaluation of gastric carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1999;79:520–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Zydus Hospital, Ahmedabad, India

    Aditi Bhatt

  2. Department of Pathology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Lyon, France

    Nazim Benzerdjeb

  3. Department of Pathology, Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, India

    Suniti Mishra

  4. Department of Surgical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France

    Olivier Glehen

Authors
  1. Aditi Bhatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nazim Benzerdjeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suniti Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olivier Glehen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Glehen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. General and Oncologique Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Lyon, France

    Olivier Glehen

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Zydus Hospital, Ahmedabad, India

    Aditi Bhatt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bhatt, A., Benzerdjeb, N., Mishra, S., Glehen, O. (2020). Therapeutic Rationale and Data Set for Reporting Cytoreductive Surgery Specimens. In: Glehen, O., Bhatt, A. (eds) Pathology of Peritoneal Metastases. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3773-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3773-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3772-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3773-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation