Impact of a modified peritoneal cancer index using FDG-PET/CT (PET-PCI) in predicting tumor grade and progression-free survival in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei

  • Masatoshi HottaEmail author
  • Ryogo Minamimoto
  • Yoshimasa Gohda
  • Toru Igari
  • Hideaki Yano



The peritoneal cancer index (PCI) is widely used for assessing pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) in surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of a modified PCI using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG)-PET/CT (PET-PCI) for predicting pathologic grade and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PMP.


Thirty-five patients who underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT before cytoreductive surgery and/or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy were enrolled. PET-PCI was determined by summing up the visually scored 18F-FDG uptake of PMP lesions in 13 specific abdominal-pelvic regions. Uptake score was defined as 0, no lesion or lesion without uptake; 1, slight uptake less than or equivalent to mediastinal blood pool; 2, moderate uptake above mediastinal but below or equal to liver; and 3, intense uptake moderately to markedly higher than liver. SUVmax of the lesion was also evaluated.


Pathologic diagnosis revealed 19 patients with low-grade PMP and 16 patients with high-grade PMP. Patients with high-grade PMP showed significantly higher PET-PCI and SUVmax than patients with low-grade PMP (PET-PCI 14.8 vs. 8.7, p = 0.007; SUVmax 3.6 vs. 2.6, p = 0.013). Using a cutoff PET-PCI of 12, Kaplan-Meier analyses showed a significant difference in PFS between patients with high and low PET-PCI (p < 0.001; hazard ratio (HR), 12.4). For SUVmax, the optimal cutoff was 2.7 and the correlation with PFS was also significant (p = 0.008; HR, 4.7). In multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression, PET-PCI was independently and significantly correlated with PFS.


PET-PCI can reflect histopathologic features and appears useful for predicting recurrence in patients with PMP.

Key Points

Peritoneal cancer index using 18F-FDG-PET/CT (PET-PCI) has great potential for predicting progression-free survival in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei.

PET-PCI provides higher prognostic performance than maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

PET-PCI shows high correlation with histopathologic grade of pseudomyxoma peritonei.


Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 Positron-emission tomography Pseudomyxoma peritonei Prognosis 



Completeness of cytoreduction score


Cytoreductive surgery


Hyperthermic intraoperative chemotherapy


Ordered-subset expectation maximization


Peritoneal cancer index


Progression-free survival


Pseudomyxoma peritonei


Standardized uptake value


Volume of interest



We wish to thank the study participants and referring technicians for their participation in this study.


The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ryogo Minamimoto.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.


• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Smeenk RM, van Velthuysen ML, Verwaal VJ, Zoetmulder FA (2008) Appendiceal neoplasms and pseudomyxoma peritonei: a population based study. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carr NJ, Finch J, Ilesley IC et al (2012) Pathology and prognosis in pseudomyxoma peritonei: a review of 274 cases. J Clin Pathol 65:919–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panarelli NC, Yantiss RK (2011) Mucinous neoplasms of the appendix and peritoneum. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:1261–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mukherjee A, Parvaiz A, Cecil TD, Moran BJ (2004) Pseudomyxoma peritonei usually originates from the appendix: a review of the evidence. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 25:411–414Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenberger LH, Stein LH, Witkiewicz AK, Kennedy EP, Yeo CJ (2012) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with extra-pancreatic mucin: a case series and review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg 16:762–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stewart CJ, Ardakani NM, Doherty DA, Young RH (2014) An evaluation of the morphologic features of low-grade mucinous neoplasms of the appendix metastatic in the ovary, and comparison with primary ovarian mucinous tumors. Int J Gynecol Pathol 33:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Witkamp AJ, de Bree E, Kaag MM et al (2001) Extensive cytoreductive surgery followed by intra-operative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with mitomycin-C in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. Eur J Cancer 37:979–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang CQ, Min Y, Wang SY et al (2017) Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy improves survival for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. Oncotarget 8:55657–55683Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elias D, Quenet F, Goere D (2012) Current status and future directions in the treatment of peritoneal dissemination from colorectal carcinoma. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 21:611–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yan TD, Deraco M, Baratti D et al (2009) Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: multi-institutional experience. J Clin Oncol 27:6237–6242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moran B, Baratti D, Yan TD, Kusamura S, Deraco M (2008) Consensus statement on the loco-regional treatment of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms with peritoneal dissemination (pseudomyxoma peritonei). J Surg Oncol 98:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chua TC, Moran BJ, Sugarbaker PH et al (2012) Early- and long-term outcome data of patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei from appendiceal origin treated by a strategy of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 30:2449–2456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubreuil J, Giammarile F, Rousset P et al (2016) FDG-PET/ceCT is useful to predict recurrence of pseudomyxoma peritonei. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1630–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flicek K, Ashfaq A, Johnson CD, Menias C, Bagaria S, Wasif N (2016) Correlation of radiologic with surgical peritoneal cancer index scores in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei and peritoneal carcinomatosis: how well can we predict resectability? J Gastrointest Surg 20:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilly FN, Cotte E, Brigand C et al (2006) Quantitative prognostic indices in peritoneal carcinomatosis. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:597–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swellengrebel HA, Zoetmulder FA, Smeenk RM, Antonini N, Verwaal VJ (2009) Quantitative intra-operative assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis - a comparison of three prognostic tools. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:1078–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugarbaker PH, Chang D (1999) Results of treatment of 385 patients with peritoneal surface spread of appendiceal malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 6:727–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carr NJ, Cecil TD, Mohamed F et al (2016) 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 40:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    da Silva RG, Sugarbaker PH (2006) Analysis of prognostic factors in seventy patients having a complete cytoreduction plus perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 203:878–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quenet F, Goere D, Mehta SS et al (2011) Results of two bi-institutional prospective studies using intraperitoneal oxaliplatin with or without irinotecan during HIPEC after cytoreductive surgery for colorectal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg 254:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacquet P, Jelinek JS, Chang D, Koslowe P, Sugarbaker PH (1995) Abdominal computed tomographic scan in the selection of patients with mucinous peritoneal carcinomatosis for cytoreductive surgery. J Am Coll Surg 181:530–538Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Bree E, Koops W, Kroger R, van Ruth S, Witkamp AJ, Zoetmulder FA (2004) Peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal or appendiceal origin: correlation of preoperative CT with intraoperative findings and evaluation of interobserver agreement. J Surg Oncol 86:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chua TC, Al-Zahrani A, Saxena A et al (2011) Determining the association between preoperative computed tomography findings and postoperative outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for pseudomyxoma peritonei. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1582–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bosman, FT, Carneiro, F, Hruban, RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO classification of tumors of the digestive system. 4th Edition, International Agency for Research on Cancer Publisher, LyonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ronnett BM, Zahn CM, Kurman RJ, Kass ME, Sugarbaker PH, Shmookler BM (1995) Disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis and peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis. A clinicopathologic analysis of 109 cases with emphasis on distinguishing pathologic features, site of origin, prognosis, and relationship to “pseudomyxoma peritonei”. Am J Surg Pathol 19:1390–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruin SC, Verwaal VJ, Vincent A, van’t Veer LJ, van Velthuysen ML (2010) A clinicopathologic analysis of peritoneal metastases of colorectal and appendiceal origin. Ann Surg Oncol 17:2330–2340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Misdraji J (2015) Mucinous epithelial neoplasms of the appendix and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Mod Pathol 28(Suppl 1):S67–S79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou M, Chen Y, Huang H, Zhou X, Liu J, Huang G (2016) Prognostic value of total lesion glycolysis of baseline 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Oncotarget 7:83544–83553Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin J, Xie G, Liao G et al (2017) Prognostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8:33884–33896Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liao S, Penney BC, Wroblewski K et al (2012) Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden on 18F-FDG PET in nonsurgical patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhu D, Wang L, Zhang H et al (2017) Prognostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT parameters in patients with pancreatic carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e7813CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of PathologyNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations