Peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) in peritoneal metastasis: how many biopsies should be examined?

The four-tied peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is increasingly used to evaluate the response of peritoneal metastases (PM) to chemotherapy. The minimal number of peritoneal biopsies needed for PRGS determination remains unclear. A prospective cohort of 89 PM patients treated with 210 pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) cycles was investigated. Four biopsies from every abdominal quadrant were recommended. Histological tumor response was defined as a stable or decreasing mean PRGS between therapy cycles, progression increasing. We compared the diagnostic uncertainty induced by missing biopsies to the histological response. A total of 49 patients had at least two PIPAC and were eligible for therapy response assessment. Mean PRGS decreased from 2.04 (CI 5–95% 1.85–2.27) to 1.79 (CI 5–95% 1.59–2.01), p=0.14, as a proof of therapy effectiveness. 35 (71.4%) patients had a stable or decreasing PRGS (therapy response), 14 (28.6%) a PRGS increase (disease progression). Histology showed agreement between four biopsies in 42/210 laparoscopies (20%), between ≥3 biopsies in 103 (49%), and between ≥2 biopsies in 169 laparoscopies (81%). Mean loss of information with one missing biopsy was 0.11 (95% CI=0.13) PRGS points, with two missing biopsies 0.18 (95% CI 0.21). In 9/49 patients (18.3%), the loss of information with one less biopsy exceeded the change in PRGS under therapy. A minimum of three biopsies is needed to diagnose PM progression with an accuracy superior to 80%. Missing biopsies often result in a false diagnosis of tumor progression.

[1]  J. Fontaine,et al.  Prognostic impact of combined progression index based on peritoneal grading regression score and peritoneal cytology in peritoneal metastasis , 2020, Histopathology.

[2]  S. Detlefsen,et al.  Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) of peritoneal metastasis from gastric cancer: a descriptive cohort study , 2020, Clinical & Experimental Metastasis.

[3]  S. Detlefsen,et al.  Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy with one minute of electrostatic precipitation (ePIPAC) is feasible, but the histological tumor response in peritoneal metastasis is insufficient. , 2020, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  C. Sempoux,et al.  Reproducibility of the peritoneal regression grading score for assessment of response to therapy in peritoneal metastasis , 2019, Histopathology.

[5]  Michael Kuncewitch,et al.  Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Peritoneal Surface Malignancy. , 2019, Surgical oncology clinics of North America.

[6]  S. Madhusudan,et al.  Upper GI biopsies for adenocarcinoma – how many biopsies should endoscopists take? , 2019, Histopathology.

[7]  J. Ji,et al.  Development and validation of an individualized nomogram to identify occult peritoneal metastasis in patients with advanced gastric cancer , 2019, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[8]  W. Solass,et al.  Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) for Peritoneal Metastasis: A Registry Study , 2018, Gastroenterology research and practice.

[9]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries , 2018, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[10]  S. Detlefsen,et al.  Treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis with Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy – PIPAC-OPC2 , 2018, Pleura and Peritoneum.

[11]  S. Detlefsen,et al.  Prospective, single-center implementation and response evaluation of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastasis , 2018, Therapeutic advances in medical oncology.

[12]  S. Detlefsen,et al.  Severe peritoneal sclerosis after repeated pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC OX): report of two cases and literature survey , 2018, Clinical & Experimental Metastasis.

[13]  A. Shaw,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies , 2018, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Erich P Huang,et al.  RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee. , 2016, European journal of cancer.

[15]  C. Sempoux,et al.  Peritoneal sampling and histological assessment of therapeutic response in peritoneal metastasis: proposal of the Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) , 2016, Pleura and peritoneum.

[16]  L. Lambert Looking up: Recent advances in understanding and treating peritoneal carcinomatosis , 2015, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[17]  N. Shepherd,et al.  International study group on rectal cancer regression grading: interobserver variability with commonly used regression grading systems. , 2012, Human pathology.

[18]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.