The risk of developing pseudomyxoma peritonei from a non-perforated low grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm found at appendicectomy

Chamila Lakmal,Bipasha Chakrabarty,Christine Tan,Lucy Larby,Rohit Kochhar,Rebecca Fish,Paul Sutton,Jonathan Wild,Hamish Clouston,Chelliah Selvasekar,Andrew G Renehan,Malcolm Wilson,Sarah T O'Dwyer,Omer Aziz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108600
2024-08-10
Abstract:Introduction: Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMNs) are classified as non-perforated (pTis, pT3) or perforated (pT4), and considered precursors of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). This study aims to quantify the risk of developing PMP from pTis and pT3 LAMNs. Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database identified LAMN patients referred to a specialist centre from 2004 to 2019. pT4 LAMNs and other appendix tumours were excluded. All patients had specialist review of their pathology, operation note, and a CT scan (at least 6 weeks post-operatively). Surveillance CTs were then performed at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, & 60 months, with tumour markers (CEA, CA19-9, CA125). Results: 193 pT3/pTis LAMN patients were included (pTis = 153, pT3 = 40). Median follow-up = 6.45 (3.91-22.13) years, M:F ratio = 1:1.57, and median age = 57 (23-83) years. Initial surgery included: appendicectomy (67 %), appendicectomy + visceral resection (6 %), and right hemicolectomy (27 %). R1 resections were identified in 5/193 patients (2.5 %). 3 R1 patients underwent re-operation (2 caecal pole excision and 1 ileocecectomy), none of which had residual tumour. 8/193 patients (4 %) were lost to follow up. None of the remaining 185 developed PMP. Conclusion: This is the largest reported series of pTis/pT3 LAMNs with standardised follow-up in the literature. LAMNs correctly classified as pT3/pTis (after careful specialist review of pathology, operation note, and a baseline post-operative CT) have negligible risk of developing PMP and should have low intensity surveillance. If completely excised, further surgery is not indicated. R1 resections should be considered on an individual basis at a specialist centre.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?