Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40779180›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

CT and MR in peritoneal malignancies: pearls and pitfalls at preoperative examination.

Michela Polici, Federica Palmeri, Erica Golia, Emanuela Parri, Guido Gentiloni Silveri, Francesco Puglisi, Domenico De Santis, Marta Zerunian, Francesco Pucciarelli, Tiziano Polidori and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. Comparison of [Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Michela PoliciDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Federica PalmeriDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Erica GoliaDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Emanuela ParriDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Guido Gentiloni SilveriDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Francesco PuglisiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Domenico De SantisDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Marta ZerunianDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Francesco PucciarelliDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Tiziano PolidoriDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Maria CiolinaDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Paolo SammartinoCytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC Unit, Department of Surgery "Pietro Valdoni", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Andrea LaghiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Damiano CarusoDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Rome, Italy. damiano.caruso@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9285-4764

Funding

Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS IG 2020- ID 24974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peritoneal malignancies (PM) are defined as the spread of malignant epithelial cells in the peritoneal cavity. Until the recent past, the prognosis was considered extremely poor, and the treatment options had only palliative intent. Currently, new locoregional treatments have radically changed the outcome. CT is pivotal in PM diagnosis, staging, surgical planning, and determining therapeutic decisions. MRI should be evaluated in a preoperative setting for the evaluation of mesentery, serosal, and in any cases of contraindication of CT with contrast medium, while in the restaging clinical setting, it does not have a defined role. In the preoperative clinical setting, imaging could provide the surgeon with specific information concerning disease burden by showing the invasion of vital anatomic structures, and it is therefore essential to describe the feasibility of the surgery. However, recognizing the imaging findings of peritoneal deposits depends mainly on the histology of the primary tumor and the peritoneal spaces, thus rendering knowledge of peritoneal anatomy essential. In addition, some benign pathologies show similar imaging features that overlap with PM, making differential diagnosis difficult. It is still unclear which of the two methods, CT and MRI, is superior in terms of performance, and literature data are often controversial. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide some practical tips for CT and MRI protocols and imaging findings essential to detect and characterize peritoneal deposits in each anatomical space, and to provide an overview of the main differential diagnosis with other peritoneal conditions. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Peritoneal malignancies should be understood as a heterogeneous pattern of diseases, with variable prognosis and treatment options. CT remains the main imaging method; MRI finds application for involvement of the serosa and mesentery and when contrast-enhanced CT is not feasible. KEY POINTS: CT is the first imaging option to assess peritoneal malignancies and plan surgery; however, they have several limitations, especially in critical regions. MRI could be seen as a supporting imaging approach in a preoperative setting to study serosal, mesentery, and in case of contraindication of CT with contrast medium. Multidisciplinary approach should always be considered in the assessment of peritoneal malignancies due to their heterogeneity.

Indexed as

CTGeneral surgeryMRIPeritoneumRadiology

Identifiers

PMID40779180
PMCPMC12334402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.