Appendix Cancer Awareness Month 2026: Turn Awareness into an Accountable Care Route
A rare and heterogeneous diagnosis tests whether a health system can move from an incidental finding to accurate classification, specialist access, coordinated treatment, recovery support, and measurable follow-through.
Executive opening
The leadership issue is not rarity alone. It is pathway variation.
Appendix Cancer Awareness Month can be treated as a communications event, but that would miss the operating problem revealed by the diagnosis. Appendix tumors are heterogeneous. They may be discovered after an appendectomy, during imaging, after evaluation of abdominal symptoms, or when disease has already involved the peritoneal cavity. The correct next step depends on pathology, grade, histology, margin status, disease distribution, patient condition, and treatment goals. A generic cancer referral does not automatically create the right sequence.
The newest national consensus work makes the challenge explicit. For tumors without peritoneal involvement, leaders must support distinct pathways for epithelial mucinous neoplasms and appendiceal adenocarcinoma. For tumors with peritoneal involvement, the route must accommodate specialized evaluation for cytoreduction, systemic therapy, surveillance, recurrent disease, and unresectable disease. The authors also emphasize that much of the evidence remains observational and that practices vary across institutions.2, 3
That uncertainty does not justify organizational ambiguity. It strengthens the need for visible decision rights. Executives do not choose an operation or chemotherapy regimen. They determine whether the organization has a reliable method to confirm pathology, escalate unusual findings, obtain multidisciplinary review, reach qualified expertise, explain options, prepare patients, manage complications, and sustain follow-up.
The public-health signal also deserves disciplined attention. A 2026 analysis of United States death-certificate data identified 15,928 appendix-cancer-related deaths from 1999 through 2023. The age-adjusted mortality rate increased through 2017 and then plateaued, with differences reported by sex, race or ethnicity, geography, and rurality.1 These results do not prove that one care process caused the differences. They do show why a health system should not report one aggregate result and assume that access is equitable.
The governing question is practical: if a patient receives an unexpected appendix pathology result today, can the organization identify who owns the next call, how quickly the case is reviewed, whether the classification is reliable, when a specialty center is engaged, what the patient is told, and how unresolved steps remain visible? If those answers depend on individual memory, informal relationships, or the patient’s ability to navigate alone, the route is not dependable.
Awareness is useful only when it leads somewhere. The executive standard is therefore a closed-loop route from recognition to resolution. That route should be specific enough to guide work, flexible enough to respect clinical judgment, and measurable enough to reveal delay, exclusion, and loss to follow-up.
Current evidence
What the newest evidence changes for executive leaders
The evidence argues for precision, referral discipline, recovery capacity, and careful limits on what data can support.
Do not treat appendix cancer as one disease
Version 9 staging work separates important histologic patterns because prognosis differs. Consensus pathways likewise distinguish localized disease from peritoneal involvement and emphasize classification, margins, surveillance, and treatment context.2, 3, 18
Long-term benefit can coexist with major treatment burden
A multicenter randomized trial follow-up reported similar ten-year efficacy for two HIPEC agents among 121 selected patients with mucinous appendiceal neoplasms and peritoneal dissemination. This supports the possibility of meaningful long-term survival after specialized treatment, not universal eligibility or guaranteed benefit.8
Quality is more than survival
Patient studies describe decision regret, gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, fear of recurrence, employment and participation challenges, and gaps in standard quality-of-life tools. Recovery must be planned as part of the care model, not left to the discharge packet.5, 6, 10, 12
Prediction tools require governance
Studies have evaluated tumor markers, inflammatory markers, recurrence models, and mortality prediction. They may improve stratification, but they arise largely from retrospective or selected cohorts and require validation before they influence local decisions.4, 9, 14, 17
Strategic continuum
Build one visible route from unexpected finding to durable follow-through
A dependable route does not prescribe one clinical outcome. It prevents the work from becoming invisible between specialties and settings.
The route begins with recognition, but recognition is not the same as diagnosis. An appendectomy can produce an unexpected pathology finding. Imaging can reveal peritoneal disease. A local organization may be able to complete parts of the evaluation but not offer the full range of specialized treatment. The operating design must therefore support two forms of ownership at the same time: local responsibility for keeping the patient connected and specialty responsibility for qualified disease-specific decision-making.
Pathology is a critical control point. The 2026 consensus pathways and staging literature emphasize histologic heterogeneity and the consequences of classification. The executive action is not to direct the interpretation. It is to ensure that unusual or high-impact findings trigger an approved review route, that outside material can be transferred safely, and that amended interpretations reach every downstream clinician and the patient.2, 3, 18
Margins, nodal evaluation, and disease distribution must also remain visible in the operating system. A national database analysis reported that positive margins were associated with worse survival across several histologic subgroups, although not every subgroup showed the same adjusted relationship.11 This is not a directive for one operation. It is a reason to prevent pathology details from being reduced to a vague “cancer positive” notification.
Referral should function as a managed transition, not a fax. The sending organization should know whether the referral was received, whether records and tissue are complete, when the patient will be contacted, what financial or travel barriers are emerging, and who remains responsible before the first specialty visit. When the patient returns for local services, the receiving plan should be reconciled into the shared record rather than treated as an outside narrative.
Access, equity, and trust
Audit who reaches expertise, not only who enters the system
Rare-cancer access is shaped by more than appointment availability. It can depend on whether a clinician recognizes the need for specialized review, whether a payer authorizes the destination, whether the patient can travel, whether paid leave and caregiving are available, whether records arrive, and whether the referral center accepts the case. A health system can appear to have a referral pathway while placing most of the coordination burden on the patient.
National Cancer Database findings should prompt specific questions. A 2025 study of high-risk appendiceal adenocarcinoma found that nononcologic resection was associated with older age, Black race, community-center care, early documented stage, positive margins, and no documented adjuvant chemotherapy. Five-year overall survival was lower in the nononcologic-resection group after propensity matching.7 Because the study was retrospective, it cannot explain every treatment decision. It can justify an audit of how local patients reach oncologic surgical review.
Another national analysis of patients who received CRS-HIPEC reported survival differences by race and ethnicity despite similar reported perioperative outcomes. The authors also described substantial sociodemographic differences among groups.15 Earlier national data found that receipt of CRS with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy differed by sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, and tumor characteristics.20 None of these results supports a biological explanation based on race. They point toward social conditions, access patterns, referral processes, and unmeasured structural factors that leaders must investigate.
Trust is operational. Patients need plain explanations of why the diagnosis may change after specialty pathology review, why multiple clinicians are involved, which decisions remain unresolved, what travel and recovery may require, and who will call next. Language access must extend beyond consent. It should cover scheduling, preparation, symptom escalation, medication instructions, financial counseling, and survivorship.
Leaders should stratify the complete route. Compare time from pathology result to patient notification, pathology review, staging completion, multidisciplinary discussion, specialty consultation, and treatment decision by race and ethnicity, preferred language, rurality, insurance, age, disability, and referral origin when data quality and privacy permit. Do not stop at volume. A high number of referrals can coexist with long delays, incomplete records, or unequal completion.
Every disparity signal needs a review method. The response should not be an isolated education campaign unless the evidence identifies knowledge as the constraint. It may require transportation support, centralized authorization, direct specialist-to-specialist consultation, record-transfer redesign, remote pre-visit planning, patient navigation, or a clearer escalation standard for community clinicians.
Human infrastructure
Navigation must carry clinical complexity and human burden
A rare diagnosis creates cognitive and logistical load. Patients may hear unfamiliar terms such as low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, adenocarcinoma, goblet cell carcinoma, pseudomyxoma peritonei, cytoreductive surgery, or HIPEC while also trying to understand whether the cancer is localized, whether another operation is being considered, and how long recovery may take. A directory of phone numbers is not navigation.
The navigator’s role should be defined around completion. That includes verifying the pathology-review destination, closing missing-record gaps, confirming staging appointments, coordinating multidisciplinary review, identifying travel and financial barriers, documenting the next responsible clinician, and checking whether the patient understands the plan. Navigation should also create an escalation path when capacity, authorization, communication, or symptoms place the route at risk.
Nursing, rehabilitation, nutrition, social work, pharmacy, behavioral health, ostomy support, and financial counseling must enter at the right time. Patient-experience studies show why. In one survey, decision regret was associated with prolonged hospitalization, major complications, new ostomy, repeat CRS-HIPEC, worse gastrointestinal symptoms, poorer quality of life, and lower income.10 Qualitative interviews identified themes that generic quality-of-life tools could miss, including expectations, mental health, survivorship adjustment, access to information, and persistent gastrointestinal concerns.12
The workforce also needs protection from role ambiguity. Community clinicians should not be expected to reproduce specialty expertise, and specialty centers should not assume that local teams can infer every follow-up responsibility. A shared plan should identify which organization owns surveillance, laboratory monitoring, imaging, symptom response, rehabilitation, and re-entry to specialty care. When ownership changes, the handoff should be explicit to the patient and visible to both teams.
Pathology
Classification, grade, margin, review criteria, amendment communication.
Multidisciplinary team
Case synthesis, decision options, referral, and documented ownership.
Navigation
Completion tracking, barrier escalation, preparation, and patient understanding.
Recovery team
Symptoms, nutrition, function, ostomy, sleep, cognition, and psychosocial needs.
Operating model
Assign decision rights before the next unexpected diagnosis
An accountable operating model begins with a named executive sponsor and a clinical pathway owner. The executive sponsor removes cross-functional barriers. The clinical owner maintains the pathway with qualified specialists. Operations leaders ensure that pathology, imaging, referrals, authorizations, scheduling, and records move as one process. Quality leaders define measures and review exceptions. Patient-experience leaders test whether the route is understandable and usable.
The model should define triggers. Examples include an unexpected malignant appendix pathology result, uncertain histology, positive or indeterminate margin, peritoneal involvement, need for external pathology review, delayed staging, rejected authorization, or missed specialty appointment. A trigger without an owner is only an alert. Each trigger needs a destination, response interval, escalation route, and closure definition.
Capacity planning matters because awareness can increase questions and referrals. The organization should know whether pathology review, imaging, multidisciplinary conference time, specialty consultation, navigation, rehabilitation, and social support can absorb the demand. If the service is external, leaders still own the reliability of the transition. Contracting and affiliation language should not substitute for performance visibility.
Technology should reduce omission. The electronic record can support a structured pathology result, referral order set, documentation template, pending-work registry, task escalation, and survivorship plan. It should not generate treatment recommendations beyond validated governance. Machine-learning studies in appendix cancer demonstrate potential for mortality and recurrence prediction, but both used retrospective data and require validation before clinical deployment.14, 17
| Work | Accountable | Responsible | Required proof of closure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unexpected finding | Clinical pathway owner | Ordering or procedural team | Patient notification, assigned owner, and tracked next step |
| Pathology review | Pathology leader | Qualified pathologist and records team | Final classification and amendment routed to every downstream owner |
| Specialty referral | Service-line operations leader | Referral center and navigator | Accepted referral, complete records, scheduled encounter, barrier plan |
| Multidisciplinary decision | Qualified clinical chair | Participating specialists | Documented options, rationale, patient goals, and next responsible clinician |
| Recovery and surveillance | Survivorship owner | Local and specialty teams | Shared plan, symptom route, schedule, missed-visit escalation, and re-entry criteria |
Recovery and survivorship
Plan recovery as a care phase, not an afterthought
Complex abdominal treatment can produce a recovery period that affects physical function, nutrition, bowel function, sleep, cognition, emotional health, work, family roles, and financial security. A 2026 longitudinal study of 111 adults with pseudomyxoma peritonei reported marked early declines in multiple functional domains after CRS-HIPEC, followed by improvement over six to twelve months. Some cognitive and bowel concerns persisted. The authors described rehabilitation priorities but correctly cautioned that their observational data did not validate one intervention package.6
A separate 2026 cross-sectional survivorship study included 100 people after CRS-HIPEC, 41 with pseudomyxoma peritonei. Many reported persistent fatigue, fear of recurrence, pain, insomnia, and bowel dysfunction. Employment status and symptom burden were linked with longer-term function and participation.5 These findings should not be used to predict one patient’s experience. They establish domains that a system should be prepared to assess.
Executives should ask whether preoperative preparation includes realistic recovery expectations, nutrition, mobility, respiratory preparation, medication review, caregiving, work, travel, and financial planning. The recovery plan should name the team that responds to symptoms, clarify when the specialty center must be contacted, and ensure that emergency departments can see the relevant surgical and oncology history.
Survivorship also requires surveillance ownership. A single-center study of 432 complete CRS-HIPEC procedures reported different recurrence patterns by histology and disease location, with intraperitoneal recurrence most common across studied groups.16 A twelve-institution model explored prediction of recurrence within two years after treatment for disseminated appendiceal cancer.17 Neither study establishes one schedule for every patient. Together, they reinforce the need for histology- and risk-informed follow-up with a visible owner.
Quality of life can improve substantially for selected survivors. A small long-term cohort found that surviving patients who had complete cytoreduction without recurrence reported strong health-related quality of life many years after treatment.19 The sample was small and decreased over time, so the result cannot be promised. It does provide an important counterweight to a care model that measures only complications and recurrence.
The organization should therefore monitor function and participation alongside clinical outcomes. Ask whether the patient can eat, sleep, move, work, manage bowel or ostomy needs, understand the surveillance plan, and obtain help without repeated handoffs. Patient-reported information should trigger response, not merely populate a dashboard.
Goals, nutrition, mobility, support, travel, work, caregiving, and expectations
Pain, respiratory recovery, intake, sleep, bowel function, cognition, and complications
Strength, participation, ostomy support, mental health, employment, and financial needs
Surveillance, symptom response, recurrence route, function, and local-specialty coordination
Decision-grade measurement
Measure completed care, not campaign activity
Impressions, social reach, event attendance, and page views can describe the campaign. They cannot show that a patient received an accurate diagnosis, reached the right expertise, understood the plan, or completed follow-up. The executive dashboard should follow the route.
Start with reliability. Measure the interval from final pathology to patient notification, assigned ownership, required pathology review, staging completion, multidisciplinary decision, accepted specialty referral, and documented plan. Track the percentage of cases with all required records available at the first specialty visit. Report the number and age of unresolved tasks. Review every case that leaves the expected pathway.
Add access and equity. Stratify completion and time measures by race and ethnicity, preferred language, rurality, insurance, age, disability, referral source, and travel burden where lawful and reliable. Use small-number protections. Do not rank clinicians or communities using unstable counts. Investigate the process behind a difference before choosing an intervention.
Add recovery and experience. Monitor major complications, unplanned utilization, symptom response, nutrition risk, functional recovery, return to participation, decision regret, understanding, respect, and financial burden. A scoping review found that quality-of-life research in pseudomyxoma peritonei was limited and used different measures, which argues for careful measure selection and consistent local administration rather than a homegrown composite score.13
Biomarkers and prediction models belong in a separate governance lane. A 2026 meta-analysis found prognostic associations for selected circulating tumor markers, while inflammatory-marker and machine-learning studies explored additional risk signals.4, 9, 14 Before local adoption, leaders should require validation, intended-use definition, subgroup performance, data-quality controls, clinician oversight, patient communication, monitoring, and stop authority.
Median time and completion rate
Time, completion, and barrier reason
Required inputs complete at decision
No patient left between teams
Language, respect, burden, and decision support
Delay and completion differences reviewed
Public communication
Every message must connect to a usable destination
Appendix Cancer Awareness Month can help clinicians, patients, families, and community partners recognize that appendix tumors are distinct and may require specialized review. Public messaging should remain accurate, calm, and useful. It should not imply that a symptom proves cancer, that one treatment is appropriate for everyone, or that a public campaign replaces qualified evaluation.
The destination should explain what the organization can do. That may include how an unexpected pathology result is reviewed, how referrals are coordinated, what records are needed, how patients obtain language or disability support, and whom clinicians contact for escalation. If the organization does not provide specialty treatment, the page should describe how it supports referral and continuity without overstating affiliation or capability.
Communication must match capacity. A campaign that encourages outreach while routing every question to an unstaffed mailbox creates reputational and access risk. Assign response ownership, service hours, escalation rules, and a method to track unresolved requests. Test the route with patients and frontline staff before promotion begins.
Use plain language without erasing uncertainty. Explain that appendix cancer includes different tumor types, that specialists may review pathology and imaging, and that treatment depends on individual findings. Provide urgent-care guidance through the organization’s approved channels. Do not use the observance page for individualized medical advice.
90-day executive agenda
Move from awareness to a tested operating standard
Make the current route visible
- Name an executive sponsor, qualified clinical owner, and operational lead.
- Map the actual path from unexpected finding through pathology, staging, referral, treatment planning, recovery, and surveillance.
- Review the most recent cases for delays, lost records, unclear ownership, repeat work, and patient burden.
- Inventory specialty relationships, pathology-review capability, conference access, navigation, rehabilitation, and financial support.
- Define the minimum data set needed to track completion without creating a new uncontrolled clinical registry.
Build the controls
- Approve triggers for expert pathology review, multidisciplinary review, and specialty referral.
- Create one pending-work list with named owners, due dates, escalation intervals, and closure definitions.
- Standardize the referral packet and confirm how tissue, imaging, reports, and authorizations move.
- Design patient communication for diagnosis uncertainty, referral, preparation, recovery, and after-hours concerns.
- Select reliability, equity, recovery, and experience measures. Establish small-number and privacy protections.
Test, learn, and govern
- Run tabletop tests using localized disease, peritoneal involvement, ambiguous pathology, insurance delay, rural travel, and missed follow-up scenarios.
- Test the route with a patient or caregiver advisor and a community referring clinician.
- Correct failures across the complete pattern rather than fixing one visible case.
- Launch a monthly multidisciplinary reliability review with an executive escalation path.
- Publish the usable public destination only after response ownership and service capacity are confirmed.
Leadership close
The standard is continuity under uncertainty
Appendix cancer exposes a familiar leadership problem in an uncommon clinical setting. The work crosses procedural care, pathology, radiology, oncology, surgery, specialty referral, rehabilitation, and survivorship. Evidence is developing, patient needs vary, and expertise may sit outside the local organization. Those conditions can produce fragmentation, or they can produce disciplined coordination.
The responsible response is not to promise certainty. It is to make uncertainty manageable. A patient should know who owns the next step. A clinician should know when and how to escalate. A referral should remain visible until it is accepted and completed. A multidisciplinary decision should reach every responsible team. Recovery needs should be anticipated. Surveillance should have an owner. Differences in access and completion should prompt investigation.
Long-term quality of life can be strong for selected survivors, but the route can also impose major physical, emotional, logistical, and financial burden.5, 6, 19 Leadership must hold both truths. The observance is successful when it leaves behind a more accurate, equitable, humane, and measurable operating system for every patient who enters it.
Related resources
Continue the executive pathway
Scholarly references
Peer-reviewed evidence
- Khan, A., Tareen, A., Amin, A., Tahir, M. F., Ahmed, F., Ahmed, F. I., Mufti, I. S., & Khan, S. R. (2026). Trends and disparities in appendiceal cancer mortality in the United States from 1999 to 2023. Discover Public Health, 23(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-026-01608-8
- Godfrey, E. L., Mahoney, F., Bansal, V. V., et al. (2026). Consensus guideline for the management of patients with appendiceal tumors, Part 1: Appendiceal tumors without peritoneal involvement. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 33(6), 5142–5175. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-025-17359-w
- Godfrey, E. L., Mahoney, F., Bansal, V. V., et al. (2026). Consensus guideline for the management of patients with appendiceal tumors, Part 2: Appendiceal tumors with peritoneal involvement. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 33(6), 5176–5203. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-025-17364-z
- Zhou, Y., Yang, R., Mao, J., Huang, Y., Lou, Y., & Cao, S. (2026). The relationship between circulating tumor biomarkers and prognosis of appendix cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.105050
- Yang, M., Amatya, B., Elmalik, A., Song, K., Mohan, H., Heriot, A., & Khan, F. (2026). Functional and participation outcomes of colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis and pseudomyxoma peritonei following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A cross-sectional survivorship study. Advances in Rehabilitation Science & Practice, 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/27536351261469694
- Wang, S.-L., Cui, Y.-R., Ma, R., Li, C.-H., Fang, L., Wang, Y.-J., & Li, Y. (2026). Quality of life in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei treated with cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and implications for ERAS-informed rehabilitation. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 52(8), 111871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2026.111871
- Chung, S. H., Schroter, S. M., Romatoski, K. S., et al. (2025). Nononcologic resection and survival in high-risk appendiceal cancer: A National Cancer Database study. Journal of Surgical Research, 311, 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2025.04.048
- Levine, E. A., Cos, H., Votanopoulos, K. I., Shen, P., Russell, G., Mansfield, P., Fournier, K., Bartlett, D., & Stewart, J. H. (2025). Ten-year outcome of a randomized trial: Cytoreduction and HIPEC with mitomycin C versus oxaliplatin for appendiceal neoplasm with peritoneal dissemination. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 32(2), 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-16441-z
- Nikiforchin, A., Sardi, A., King, M. C., et al. (2025). Prognostic value of preoperative serum C-reactive protein level for survival in mucinous appendix cancer treated with complete CRS/HIPEC. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 51(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2025.109675
- Graves, A., Sadjadi, J., Kosich, M., Ward, E., Sood, D., Fahy, B., Pankratz, S., Mishra, S. I., & Greenbaum, A. (2024). Decision regret in patients with appendiceal cancer undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 31(12), 7978–7986. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-16013-1
- Baron, E., Wu, C. C., Nikiforchin, A., Abengozar Mingorance, R., Carr, S. C., Wernberg, J. A., & Sharma, R. (2024). Risk factors of a positive resection margin in locoregional appendix cancer and its impact on survival: The National Cancer Database analysis. Surgical Oncology Insight, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soi.2024.100072
- Falla-Zuniga, L. F., King, M. C., Pawlikowski, K., et al. (2024). Quality of life after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Cancer survivors’ perspective through in-depth interviews. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 31(10), 7122–7132. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15719-6
- Taher, R., Gray, D., & Ramage, J. (2024). The quality of life of pseudomyxoma peritonei patients: A scoping review. European Journal of Cancer Care, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8137209
- Winicki, N. M., Radomski, S. N., Ciftci, Y., Sabit, A. H., Johnston, F. M., & Greer, J. B. (2024). Mortality risk prediction for primary appendiceal cancer. Surgery, 175(6), 1489–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.02.014
- Freudenberger, D. C., Vudatha, V., Wolfe, L. G., Riner, A. N., Herremans, K. M., Sparkman, B. K., Fernandez, L. J., & Trevino, J. G. (2023). Race and ethnicity impacts overall survival of patients with appendiceal cancer who undergo cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Cancers, 15(15), 3990. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15153990
- Nikiforchin, A., Sardi, A., King, M. C., et al. (2023). Patterns of recurrence in appendix cancer after complete cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 30(12), 7848–7857. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-14145-4
- SenthilKumar, G., Merrill, J., Maduekwe, U. N., et al. (2023). Prediction of early recurrence following CRS/HIPEC in patients with disseminated appendiceal cancer. Journal of Surgical Research, 292, 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.06.054
- Janczewski, L. M., Browner, A. E., Cotler, J. H., et al. (2023). Survival outcomes used to validate version 9 of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for appendiceal cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 73(6), 590–596. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21806
- Kung, V., Delisle, M., Alves, S., Mohamed, F., Cecil, T., & Moran, B. (2023). Health related quality of life is excellent and sustained at two decades after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in survivors of pseudomyxoma peritonei of appendiceal origin. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 49(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2023.107045
- Byrne, R. M., Gilbert, E. W., Dewey, E. N., Herzig, D. O., Lu, K. C., Billingsley, K. G., Deveney, K. E., & Tsikitis, V. L. (2019). Who undergoes cytoreductive surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for appendiceal cancer? An analysis of the National Cancer Database. Journal of Surgical Research, 238, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.01.039