Contribution of 3D Modeling in Surgical Management of Pediatric Retroperitoneal and Pelvic Tumors (3D-PEDSURG)

Non-interventional Study on the Contribution of 3D Modelling in Surgical Management of Pediatric Retroperitoneal and Pelvic Tumors Compared to 2D Imaging

This study's purpose is the comparison of the automatically segmented 3D model to the reference manual segmentation, based on the Dice precision index. It is implemented by making parents' patients, surgeons and surgical helpers answer specific questions comparing 3D images to usual 2D images of the patient's tumor.

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Pelvic Tumor; Retroperitoneal Tumor

Detailed Description

The investigator will inform the child and his parents during the pre-surgical consultation, and will collect their non-opposition to be included in the study at the latest on the day of the MRI examination or CT scan. Patients requiring emergency imaging will not be included.

Pelvic tumors will benefit from MRI imaging and renal tumors from MRI and/or CT scan.

A CT scan will be carried out for retroperitoneal tumors other than renal tumors (mainly neuroblastomas).

All of the above examinations are carried out as part of the usual treatment, in the month preceding the surgery.

Pre-operatively After the imaging has been carried out, the 2D images will be presented to the patient and his family before surgery as it is done routinely. The 3D image will be showed afterwards. The family will have the opportunity to ask questions which the surgeon will answer as usually done.

The specific questionnaire will be completed by the patient and his family at the end of the consultation and given to the research team.

Once the patient is included and the examinations have been carried out, the operating surgeons and their assistants (help No. 1 and 2) will look at the 2D images, followed by the 3D images secondly a few days before surgery. They will complete the specific questionnaire and give it to the research team.

Once the patient is included and the imaging examinations have been carried out, surgeons external to the service will be contacted by the research team to organize a remote review session. The 2D images will be presented to them first, followed by the 3D images on the visualization software, via a remote communication system with screen sharing. They will complete the specific questionnaire independently and a copy of the questionnaires will then be sent to the research team by email and the originals sent by post.

Intraoperatively:

The 3D model of the patient will be displayed in the operating room, and/or integrated into the robot's display console (for robot-assisted surgeries) during the surgical procedure. At the end of the surgery, the operating surgeon and his assistants will complete (independently) a questionnaire on the consistency of the 2D and 3D images with the anatomy identified during the procedure and on the help or not provided by the 3D model.

• Study Type: Observational
• Enrollment (Estimated): 60

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Thomas BLANC, MD; Phone Number: +33 1 44 49 41 53; Email: thomas.blanc@aphp.fr
• Study Contact Backup: Name: Gael PLASTOW; Phone Number: +33 1 44 38 18 57; Email: gael.plastow@aphp.fr

Study Locations

• France
  • Paris, France, 75015
    • Recruiting
    • Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades
    • Contact: Thomas BLANC, MD; Phone Number: +33 1 44 49 41 53; Email: thomas.blanc@aphp.fr
    • Contact: Gael PLASTOW; Phone Number: +33 1 44 38 18 57; Email: gael.plastow@aphp.fr

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Child
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Children with a pelvic or retroperitoneal tumor requiring an MRI or CT scan for a possible surgical intervention coming at the hospital for a consultation as part of their standard care.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Children:

• Children between 3 months and less than 18 years old
• Children with a pelvic tumor requiring an MRI for a possible surgical intervention
• Children with a retroperitoneal tumor requiring a CT scan or MRI with a view to surgical intervention
• Children with no contraindication for a CT scan and/or 3T MRI
• Children whose parents do not object to their participation in the study

Other participants:

• Operating surgeon agreeing to participate in the study
• Caregiver agreeing to participate in the study
• External surgeon agreeing to participate in the study

Exclusion Criteria:

Children :

• Contraindication to MRI: metallic ocular foreign body, pacemaker, mechanical heart valve, old vascular clips on cerebral aneurysm
• Need for an MRI under general anaesthesia
• Contraindication for a CT scan with injection: renal failure, allergy to iodinated contrast products
• Patients having participated in a therapeutic clinical trial involving a new molecule within 30 days before inclusion
• Emergency situation

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Number of groups / cohorts

1

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Children planned to get an MRI or CT scan; Children with a pelvic or retroperitoneal tumor requiring an MRI or CT scan for a possible surgical intervention

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Segmentation comparison	Comparison of the automatically segmented 3D model to the reference manual segmentation, based on the Dice precision index	1 month

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Distance comparison	Distance comparison between the reference segmentation and the one obtained by the algorithm using the Hausdorff spacing.	1 month
Anatomical structure recognition comparison	Recognition of anatomical structures comparison from 2D imaging and 3D imaging from score 1/score 3 of the pré-operative questionnaire for operating or external surgeons	Day 0
Pre-operative planning contribution	Contribution of 3D modeling comparison to 2D imaging in pre-operative planning from score 2/score 4 of the pre-operative questionnaire for operating or external surgeons	Day 0
Added value evaluation	Added value evaluation of 3D modelling compared to 2D imaging by using score 5 of the pre-operative questionnaire for operating or external surgeons	Day 0
Surgeons' support evaluation in pre-operative routine	Surgeons' support evaluation for integrating 3D modelling into routine pre-operative planning from score 6 of the pre-operative questionnaire for operating or external surgeons	Day 0
2D imaging evaluation contribution for families' understanding	Evaluation of the contribution of 3D modelling for families in understanding the information (pathology and surgery) delivered by the surgeon to parents pre-operatively from score 1 of the family questionnaire	Day 0
3D modelling evaluation contribution for families' understanding	Evaluation of the contribution of 3D modelling for families in understanding the information (pathology and surgery) delivered by the surgeon to parents pre-operatively from score 2 of the family questionnaire	Day 0
3D modelling added value evaluation pre-operatively	Added value evaluation of 3D modelling compared to 2D imaging for families pre-operatively from score 3 of the family questionnaire	Day 0
3D modelling added value evaluation during surgery	Contribution of 3D modelling evaluation compared to 2D imaging for surgeons during surgery from score 1 of the post-operative questionnaire for operating surgeons and their helpers	1 month
Consistency evaluation between 3D modelling and anatomy	Consistency evaluation of the 3D imaging with anatomy observed intraoperatively from score 2 of the post-operative questionnaire for operating surgeons and their helpers	1 month
Surgeons' support evaluation in current practice	Surgeons' support evaluation for integrating 3D modeling into their current practice from score 3 of the post-operative questionnaire for operating surgeons and their helpers	1 month

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
• Collaborators: URC-CIC Paris Descartes Necker Cochin; Ligue contre le cancer, France; Imagine Institute
• Investigators: Study Chair: Sabine SARNACKI, MD, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Bertrand MM, Macri F, Mazars R, Droupy S, Beregi JP, Prudhomme M. MRI-based 3D pelvic autonomous innervation: a first step towards image-guided pelvic surgery. Eur Radiol. 2014 Aug;24(8):1989-97. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3211-0. Epub 2014 May 17.
• Wake N, Wysock JS, Bjurlin MA, Chandarana H, Huang WC. "Pin the Tumor on the Kidney:" An Evaluation of How Surgeons Translate CT and MRI Data to 3D Models. Urology. 2019 Sep;131:255-261. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.016. Epub 2019 Jun 22.
• Talanki VR, Peng Q, Shamir SB, Baete SH, Duong TQ, Wake N. Three-Dimensional Printed Anatomic Models Derived From Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data: Current State and Image Acquisition Recommendations for Appropriate Clinical Scenarios. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022 Apr;55(4):1060-1081. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27744. Epub 2021 May 27.
• Ibrahim I, Skoch A, Herynek V, Jiru F, Tintera J. Magnetic resonance tractography of the lumbosacral plexus: Step-by-step. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Feb 12;100(6):e24646. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024646.
• van der Zee JM, Fitski M, Simonis FFJ, van de Ven CP, Klijn AJ, Wijnen MHWA, van der Steeg AFW. Virtual Resection: A New Tool for Preparing for Nephron-Sparing Surgery in Wilms Tumor Patients. Curr Oncol. 2022 Feb 1;29(2):777-784. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29020066.
• Valls-Esteve A, Adell-Gomez N, Pasten A, Barber I, Munuera J, Krauel L. Exploring the Potential of Three-Dimensional Imaging, Printing, and Modeling in Pediatric Surgical Oncology: A New Era of Precision Surgery. Children (Basel). 2023 May 3;10(5):832. doi: 10.3390/children10050832.
• Hampshire J, Dicken BJ, Uruththirakodeeswaran T, Punithakumar K, Noga M. Pediatric patient-specific three-dimensional virtual models for surgical decision making in resection of hepatic and retroperitoneal tumors. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2023 Oct;18(10):1941-1949. doi: 10.1007/s11548-023-02852-y. Epub 2023 Mar 11.
• Bernhard JC, Isotani S, Matsugasumi T, Duddalwar V, Hung AJ, Suer E, Baco E, Satkunasivam R, Djaladat H, Metcalfe C, Hu B, Wong K, Park D, Nguyen M, Hwang D, Bazargani ST, de Castro Abreu AL, Aron M, Ukimura O, Gill IS. Personalized 3D printed model of kidney and tumor anatomy: a useful tool for patient education. World J Urol. 2016 Mar;34(3):337-45. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1632-2. Epub 2015 Jul 11.
• Youn JK, Park SJ, Choi YH, Han JW, Ko D, Byun J, Yang HB, Kim HY. Application of 3D printing technology for pre-operative evaluation, education and informed consent in pediatric retroperitoneal tumors. Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 30;13(1):1671. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-28423-4.
• Simons DC, Buser MAD, Fitski M, van de Ven CP, Ten Haken B, Wijnen MHWA, Tan CO, van der Steeg AFW. Multi-modal 3-Dimensional Visualization of Pediatric Neuroblastoma: Aiding Surgical Planning Beyond Anatomical Information. J Pediatr Surg. 2024 Aug;59(8):1575-1581. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.02.025. Epub 2024 Feb 24.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): September 16, 2024
• Primary Completion (Estimated): August 1, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): September 1, 2026

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 13, 2024
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 13, 2024
• First Posted (Actual): May 17, 2024

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): March 23, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 19, 2026
• Last Verified: March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: MRI; Surgery; Tumor; CT Scan; Paediatric surgery; 3D-Imaging
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Neoplasms by Site; Neoplasms; Pelvic Neoplasms
• Other Study ID Numbers: APHP230680; 2023-A02070-45 (Other Identifier: ID-RCB)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No