Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Peritonectomy procedures for peritoneal surface malignancies: PSOGI-ESGO-ISSPP Lyon consensus

  • and PSOGI-ESGO-ISSPP Collaborators
  • Shalby Cancer and Research Institute
  • Nairi Medical Centre
  • Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
  • Imperial College London
  • University of California at San Diego
  • Hospices civils de Lyon
  • IRCCS Fondazione Istituto Nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei tumori - Milano
  • Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole
  • CHU de Rennes
  • Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
  • North-Eastern German Society of Gynaecological Oncology (NOGGO)
  • Specialty Surgical Oncology
  • Yale Medical Centre
  • Centre Georges-François Leclerc
  • Hospital Universitario La Paz
  • UAM
  • University College Dublin
  • Peter Maccallum Cancer Centre
  • Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer
  • Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli IRCS
  • Heidelberg University 
  • University Hospital Vall d'Hebron
  • Mercy Medical Center Baltimore
  • Tata Memorial Hospital
  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  • Centre Oscar Lambret
  • Medical University of Vienna
  • National Cancer Centre
  • Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center
  • Hospital Viamed Santa Elena
  • Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
  • MVR Cancer Centre and Research Institute
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
  • Wake Forest University
  • Private Hospital
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille
  • University of Duisburg-Essen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background The nomenclature and execution of peritonectomy procedures for peritoneal surface malignancies significantly vary between surgeons and centres. The aim of this consensus was to reach uniform nomenclature for peritonectomy procedures, to define subregions of each peritonectomy procedure, and to define boundaries of each subregion. Methods The modified Delphi technique was employed. A group of experts elaborated on the initial classification of six peritonectomy procedures. They added newer and ancillary peritonectomy procedures and defined boundaries of each procedure. Then a panel of surgeons with expertise in cytoreductive surgery voted on questions in two rounds. Consensus was reached if an option received >75% of the votes. Results Of 112 surgeons invited, 107 (95.5%) and 101 (90.1%) voted in round I and round II respectively. Consensus was reached on 207 of 211 questions (98.1%), including all of the questions related to the subdivisions of peritonectomy procedures and the boundaries of each peritonectomy procedure. The four questions on which consensus was not reached were related to the 'most appropriate term' for specific peritonectomy procedures. A reporting form was devised to document the extent of peritonectomy. Conclusion This consensus successfully devised a revised nomenclature for peritonectomy procedures. The reporting format is an important tool for research on the extent of peritoneal resection required for treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberznaf112
JournalBritish Journal of Surgery
Volume112
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2025

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Peritonectomy procedures for peritoneal surface malignancies: PSOGI-ESGO-ISSPP Lyon consensus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this