Does the LENT score risk-stratify patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma? An observational study

Fast pleurodesis combining talc poudrage and indwelling pleural catheter for the management of recurrent malignant pleural effusions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Malignant pleural effusions (MPE) are a frequent and major turning point in neoplastic disease usually leading to poor life expectancy. Improve quality of life and relieve the dyspnea are the main objectives in this palliative care setting. This can be achieved by the placement of an indwelling catheter (IPC) or talc pleurodesis ideally performed by thoracoscopy route (talc poudrage). Beside to misidentify a trapped-lung, the latter requires a prolonged hospital stay and the IPC placement does not allow a high pleurodesis rate. To overcome these drawbacks, a combination of both technique could be proposed for the management of recurrent malignant pleural effusions. Safety and efficacy of this pragmatic approach are reported.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who have been managed for recurrent MPE by a combination of talc poudrage for pleural symphysis by thoracoscopy route ending with the insertion of IPC using the same thoracic point of entry. Demographic data, hospital length of stay (LOS), procedural-related complications, patients' quality of life (QoL) and success of pleurodesis were collected. Patients were followed-up for 6 months.

RESULTS

The data of twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing the procedure were analyzed. Successful pleurodesis was obtained for 14/25 patients (66 %) at one month, 17/20 patients (85 %) at 3 months and 13/15 patients (86 %) at 6 months respectively. On average, the hospital LOS after the procedure was 3.24 days (IQR 1-4) with a median of 1 day. A prolonged hospitalization (>1 day) was never due to the procedure except for one patient (pneumothorax). No IPC related infection or procedure related deaths were noted.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with recurrent MPE, the combination of talc poudrage symphysis by thoracoscopy route and IPC placement on the same time results in a shortened hospital LOS and higher rate of pleurodesis. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.

Radiographic response to neoadjuvant therapy in pleural mesothelioma should serve as a guide for patient selection for cytoreductive operations

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is associated with poor prognosis despite advances in multimodal therapeutic strategies. While patients with resectable disease may benefit from added survival with oncologic resection, patient selection for mesothelioma operations often relies on both objective and subjective evaluation metrics. We sought to evaluate factors associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mesothelioma who underwent macroscopic complete resection (MCR).

Methods

Patients with MPM who received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent MCR were identified in a prospectively maintained departmental database. Clinicopathologic, blood-based, and radiographic variables were collected and included in a Cox regression analysis (CRA). Response to neoadjuvant therapy was characterized by a change in tumor thickness from pretherapy to preoperative scans using the modified RECIST criteria.

Results

In this study, 99 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age of the included patients was 64.7 years, who were predominantly men, had smoking and asbestos exposure, and who received neoadjuvant therapy. The median change in tumor thickness following neoadjuvant therapy was -16.5% (interquartile range of -49.7% to +14.2%). CRA demonstrated reduced OS associated with non-epithelioid histology [hazard ratio (HR): 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-5.78, p < 0.001] and a response to neoadjuvant therapy inferior to the median (HR: 2.70, CI: 1.55-4.72, p < 0.001). Patients who responded poorly (below median) to neoadjuvant therapy had lower median survival (15.8 months compared to 38.2 months, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Poor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with MPM is associated with poor outcomes even following maximum surgical cytoreduction and should warrant a patient-centered discussion regarding goals of care and may therefore help guide further therapeutic decisions.

Living with mesothelioma: A systematic review of patient and caregiver psychosocial support needs

OBJECTIVE

Practice guidelines emphasize the importance of investigating psychosocial distress in mesothelioma patients and family caregivers. We aimed to synthesize research on the psychosocial support needs of mesothelioma patients and their family caregivers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with a narrative synthesis and quality assessment. The review process adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsychArticles, and PsycINFO were searched until December 2020 and 37 studies in English met inclusion criteria. Most (n = 24) included mesothelioma patients as a very small proportion of their cancer samples. A narrative synthesis was conducted on the 13 studies including only mesothelioma patients (n = 297) and/or caregivers (n = 82). Patients and caregivers want improvements in the diagnosis delivery and access to palliative care. Patients want emotional support, patient-centered treatment, improved information about illness progression and death, and to meet others with mesothelioma. Caregivers want one-on-one practical and emotional support. Study quality varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies focus on the psychosocial support needs relevant to mesothelioma. Mesothelioma patients and family caregivers highlight targeted psychosocial care as an unmet need.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Efforts are required to design and test psychosocial interventions for this vulnerable and overlooked group.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020167852).

Management of Malignant Pleural Effusion: Where Are We Now?

Pleural malignancies are among the most common causes of pleural disease and form the basis of our daily pleural practice. There has been significant research and increase in both diagnostic and therapeutic management of malignant pleural diseases in the last decade. Good-quality data have led to a paradigm shift in the management options of pleural malignancies, and indwelling pleural catheter is now recommended and widely used as first-line intervention. Several trials compared different treatment modalities for pleural malignancies and continue to emphasize the need to reduce hospital length of stay and unnecessary pleural intervention, and the importance of patient choice in clinical decision making. This practical review aims to summarize the current knowledge for the management of pleural malignancies, and the understanding of the steps that we still have to climb to optimize management and reduce morbidity.

Prediction modeling using routine clinical parameters to stratify survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients complicated with malignant pleural effusion

Background

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is common in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The survival of patients with MPM and MPE is heterogeneous. The LENT and BRIMS scores using routine clinical parameters were developed to predict the survival of patients with unselected MPE and MPM, respectively. This study aimed to stratify the survival of selected MPM patients with MPE.

Methods

Data were collected from subjects diagnosed with MPM and MPE. The LENT and BRIMS scores were applied using a combination of clinical variables to stratify subjects and compare survival characteristics.

Results

In total, 101 patients with MPM complicated by MPE were included in the study. The median follow‐up time was 71 months (interquartile range: 24–121 months). Overall median survival was 24 (interquartile range: 12–52 months). Based on the LENT score, the low‐, moderate‐, and high‐risk groups accounted for 65.3% (66 cases), 34.7% (35 cases), and 0%, respectively. The cumulative survival rates of the two groups were statistically significant (p = 0.031). The area under the curve (AUC) of the LENT score was 0.662. Based on the BRIMS score, the first, second, third, and fourth risk groups accounted for 1.0% (1 case), 42.9% (35 cases), 28.7% (29 cases), and 19.4% (36 cases), respectively. Survival was significantly higher in patients in the risk groups 1 and 2 than in patients in the risk groups 3 and 4 (p  = 0.037). The AUC of the BRIMS score was 0.605.

Conclusions

Using routinely available clinical variables, both LENT and BRIMS scores could stratify selected MPM and MPE patients into risk groups with statistically different survival.

Does the LENT score risk-stratify patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma? An observational study

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, highly aggressive and deadly disease with a poor patient life expectancy. A few years ago, the main challenge was the histological diagnosis of this disease; at present, the search for the best therapeutic strategy is now a priority. However, an optimal therapeutic strategy is not yet clear, despite growing efforts in the treatment armamentarium and research, and at the era of tailored and individualized treatment, tools to predict patient survival are needed for therapeutic decision‐making. Among them, the LENT scoring system was developed to predict prognosis in patients with malignant pleural effusion. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the LENT score in predicting prognosis in patients with MPM.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted by analyzing the prospective collected databases of patients undergoing medical thoracoscopy in a single center with a final diagnosis of MPM confirmed by the MESOPATH National Reference Center.

Results

A total of 41 patients with MPM were studied. All patients underwent platinum‐based chemotherapy combined with pemetrexed ± bevacizumab. No high‐risk category patients were found using the LENT scoring system in this cohort. The median (range) LENT score at the time of medical thoracoscopy was 0 (0–3) and the median survival was 15.5 (2–54) months for the entire cohort. The median survival of low‐risk and moderate‐risk category patients was 21.4 months (2–54, 32 patients) and 6.7 months (2–19, nine patients), respectively. A total of 27 patients with MPM of epithelial subgroup had a median LENT score of 1 (0–2) with a 26 (2–54) months median survival. The median LENT score and median survival of nonepithelial mesothelioma patients (biphasic MPM subgroup, eight patients; sarcomatoid MPM subgroup, six patients) were 0 (0–3) and 11 (2–52) months, respectively.

Conclusions

Applied to a homogenous cohort of MPM patients, the LENT score underestimated prognosis and was not useful per se for the management of this disease, as evidenced in the epithelial mesothelioma subgroup of patients in our study.