Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review assesses imaging modalities for diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis in gynecological cancers, implying variability in accuracy and effectiveness.
This systematic review, conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, aims to comprehensively assess the current state of the art of imaging modalities for the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from malignant gynecological origins, with a focus on ovarian and endometrial cancers. A systematic search of relevant databases was performed, adhering to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies reporting the use of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), PET/CT, and PET/MRI in the assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from gynecological malignancies were included. The review encompasses an overview of selected studies, highlighting the strengths and limitations of each imaging modality in diagnosing and characterizing peritoneal carcinomatosis. Overall, a wide variability in the reported accuracy of different imaging techniques emerges from literature, mainly due to the type of the study, technical issues, and patient characteristics. Although a meta-analysis could not be performed due to a scarcity of data, this systematic review provides valuable insights into the several imaging approaches used in peritoneal carcinomatosis of gynecological origin. The findings aim to inform clinical decision making and guide future research endeavors in this critical aspect of gynecological oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meucci et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: