ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Defining region boundaries to assess the peritoneal cancer index on imaging: a Delphi study.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard for evaluating the presence and extent of peritoneal lesions is determining the surgical peritoneal cancer index (PCI). However, there is a growing need for non-invasive methods to assess peritoneal lesions. While the standardised and quantified PCI scoring system can be applied to imaging, the region definitions used for surgical PCI assessment are not directly applicable to radiological assessment. PURPOSE: To define region boundaries applicable to radiological PCI assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA Delphi study was conducted among 88 international experts, including radiologists, surgeons and gynaecologists. Within a questionnaire, the proposed regions for radiological PCI evaluation were shown as overlays on a CT scan and 3D volumes. Participants rated their level of agreement for each structure and region boundary on a 5-point Likert scale in iterative rounds. Consensus was defined as > 75% agreement and < 15% disagreement, and major agreement was defined as 60-75% agreement.
resultsIn the first Delphi round, 45 experts participated, leading to consensus on 45 of 52 statements. Regions 3, 5, 7, and 9-12 required further refinement. In the second round, 40 experts participated, resulting in consensus on three additional structures/boundaries. For all remaining structures/boundaries, a major agreement was obtained. Final adjustments involved revising terminology for the lower boundaries of regions 5 and 7 and adopting more practical boundaries for regions 9-12 to ensure equal small bowel volumes in these regions.
conclusionThis study defined region boundaries for radiological PCI assessment, facilitating a structured and practical approach for objective evaluation of peritoneal lesions on imaging. KEY POINTS: Question There is a growing need for a non-invasive and standardised imaging method to assess the presence and extent of peritoneal lesions. Findings This Delphi study achieved expert consensus on most region boundaries for evaluating the radiological PCI, providing structured guidelines for imaging-based assessment of peritoneal lesions. Clinical relevance This study establishes imaging guidelines for assessing peritoneal lesions, enabling more consistent and objective patient evaluations in clinical practice, potentially reducing the need for invasive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40560412What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.