Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

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

Bhatt, Aditi ; Stepanyan, Artem ; Moran, Brendan J. ; Chi, Dennis ; Fotopoulou, Christina ; Baumgartner, Joel M. ; Bakrin, Naoual ; Deraco, Marcello ; Ferron, Gwenael and Kepenekian, Vahan , et al. (2025) In British Journal of Surgery 112(6).
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... (More)

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.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
contributor
LU
author collaboration
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
in
British Journal of Surgery
volume
112
issue
6
article number
znaf112
publisher
Oxford University Press
external identifiers
  • pmid:40560098
  • scopus:105009028322
ISSN
0007-1323
DOI
10.1093/bjs/znaf112
language
English
LU publication?
no
additional info
Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s).
id
1cd1af05-cb69-4ba1-a071-6ca3283a39ca
date added to LUP
2025-11-26 09:23:57
date last changed
2025-11-26 11:09:42
@article{1cd1af05-cb69-4ba1-a071-6ca3283a39ca,
  abstract     = {{<p>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 &gt;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.</p>}},
  author       = {{Bhatt, Aditi and Stepanyan, Artem and Moran, Brendan J. and Chi, Dennis and Fotopoulou, Christina and Baumgartner, Joel M. and Bakrin, Naoual and Deraco, Marcello and Ferron, Gwenael and Kepenekian, Vahan and Kusamura, Shigeki and Lavoue, Vincent and Al Niaimi, Ahmed and Arjona-Sanchez, Alvaro and Sehouli, Jalid and Sukumar, Vivek and Turaga, Kiran and Villeneuve, Laurent and Planchamp, François and Zapardiel Gutiérrez, Ignacio and Brennan, Donal J. and Glehen, Olivier}},
  issn         = {{0007-1323}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{06}},
  number       = {{6}},
  publisher    = {{Oxford University Press}},
  series       = {{British Journal of Surgery}},
  title        = {{Peritonectomy procedures for peritoneal surface malignancies : PSOGI-ESGO-ISSPP Lyon consensus}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf112}},
  doi          = {{10.1093/bjs/znaf112}},
  volume       = {{112}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}