BackgroundPeritoneal metastasis from appendiceal neoplasms is a rare disease usually found unexpectedly and is associated with deficits in quality reporting of findings. MethodsRetrospective review of our appendiceal peritoneal metastases carcinomatosis database evaluating quality of index operative and pathology reports. Operative report quality was graded by 2 standards; general quality, based on Royal College of Surgeons quality metrics and peritoneal metastases assessment. Pathology report quality was assessed by the accuracy of diagnosis. ResultsThree hundred and seventy-five index operative reports and 490 outside pathology reports were reviewed. General quality of the index operative reports was excellent, with nearly 80% of reports encompassing all the Royal College of Surgeons quality metrics. Peritoneal metastases assessment was poor. Forty-four percent of the reports performed no peritoneal evaluation, while 48.3% only involved partial peritoneal evaluation. Only 7.7% of the reports performed a complete evaluation. Of the pathology reports, 48.4% had discrepancies with final pathologic findings. Low-grade disease and high-grade disease were misdiagnosed 36.06% and 62.7% of the time, respectively. Discordant treatment occurred in 15.3% and 30.0% of cases for misdiagnosed low-grade and high-grade disease, respectively. Incomplete cytoreduction was attempted in nearly a third of referral cases, which was associated with a significantly increased risk for ultimate incomplete cytoreduction with an odds ratio of 4.72. ConclusionThis review finds that referral operative reports’ descriptions of the technical aspects of a procedure is usually complete. However, oncologic parameters and descriptions of peritoneal metastases are frequently incomplete. Further, pathology reports from outside institutions can lead to inappropriate clinical management decisions. We propose a simplified algorithm to assist nonperitoneal surface malignancy surgeons.