MesoTRAP: a feasibility study that includes a pilot clinical trial comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic partial pleurectomy decortication with indwelling pleural catheter in patients with trapped lung due to malignant pleural mesothelioma designed to address recruitment and randomisation uncertainties and sample size requirements for a phase III trial

The Role of Surgery in Pleural Mesothelioma

Surgery plays a central role in the diagnosis, staging, and management of pleural mesothelioma. Achieving an accurate diagnosis through surgical intervention and identifying the specific histologic subtype is crucial for determining the appropriate course of treatment. The histologic subtype guides decisions regarding the use of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or multimodality treatment. The goal of surgery as part of multimodality treatment is to accomplish macroscopic complete resection with the eradication of grossly visible and palpable disease. Over the past two decades, many medical centers worldwide have shifted from performing extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) to pleurectomy decortication (PD). This transition is motivated by the lower rates of short-term mortality and morbidity associated with PD and similar or even better long-term survival outcomes, compared to EPP. This review aims to outline the role of surgery in diagnosing, staging, and treating patients with pleural mesothelioma.

Updates in Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

OPINION STATEMENT

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive asbestos-associated thoracic malignancy that is usually incurable. As demonstrated in the landmark MARS2 trial, surgical resection does not improve survival outcomes and its role in managing MPM is limited. Whilst platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab was the standard first-line approach for unresectable disease, landmark phase 3 trials have now established the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in the upfront management of unresectable disease: either nivolumab-ipilimumab or carboplatin-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab. Patient selection for optimal strategy remains an ongoing question. For relapsed disease novel genomic-based therapies targeting a range of aberrations including losses of the tumour suppressor genes BAP1, CDKN2A and NF2, are being evaluated. Nonetheless, the future of MPM therapeutics holds promise. Here we overview current treatment strategies in the management of MPM.

A Narrative Review-Management of Malignant Pleural Effusion Related to Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive, almost universally fatal cancer with limited therapeutic options. Despite efforts, a real breakthrough in treatment and outcomes has been elusive. Pleural effusion with significant breathlessness and pain is the most typical presentation of individuals with MPM. Although thoracentesis provides relief of breathlessness, most such pleural effusions recur rapidly, and a definitive procedure is often required to prevent a recurrence. Unfortunately, the optimal treatment modality for individuals with recurrent MPM-related effusion is unclear, and considerable variation exists in practice. In addition, non-expandable lung is common in pleural effusions due to MPM and makes effective palliation of symptoms more difficult. This review delves into the latest advances in the available management options (both surgical and non-surgical) for dealing with pleural effusion and non-expandable lung related to MPM. We discuss factors that determine the choice of definitive procedures that need to be tailored to the individual patient.

What's Current and What's New in Mesothelioma?

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare disease with limited treatment options. In malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), radical trimodality approaches, including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic chemo- and immunotherapy, have been delivered in some countries but remain controversial due to a lack of randomised evidence. Even in the unresectable scenario, surgery and radiotherapy play an important role in managing pleural effusions and pain, which may optimise wellbeing and maintain performance status. From the systemic treatment point of view, the recent incorporation of anti-angiogenics and, more importantly, immunotherapy has changed the standard of care in a space where chemotherapy with platinum and pemetrexed was the only therapeutic intervention with demonstrated benefits in overall survival. Histology is essential in determining an initial treatment plan as non-epithelioid MPMs may have a higher substantial survival improvement with dual immunotherapy compared with chemotherapy, whereas chemotherapy remains an option for epithelioid MPM; however, predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not entirely validated to guide the selection, as a subgroup of MPM patients might not benefit from immunotherapy. This overview approaches how the overall management of mesothelioma is evolving to incorporate the recent changes in the standards of care.

Predictors of lung entrapment in malignant pleural effusion

INTRODUCTION

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common complication in advanced stages of malignancy and is associated with poor prognosis. Non-expandable lung (NEL) often occurs and its presence influences the MPE approach. Our main objective was to assess risk factors for malignant NEL.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with pathologically confirmed MPE between January 2012 and December 2018 in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic and clinical data of patients were reviewed and compared according to the presence or absence of NEL. A univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis were used to determine predictors of the development of NEL.

RESULTS

Of 365 patients included, 68 (18.6%) had NEL. After multivariate analysis, we found that loculated MPE (OR 8.63, 95%CI 4.30-17.33, p<0.001), complete hemithorax opacification (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.17-6.76, p<0.021), lung cancer (OR 2.09, 95%CI 1.01-4.31, p=0.047) and higher effusion-serum LDH ratio (OR 1.09, 95%CI 1.00-1.17, p=0.039) were independent predictors of malignant NEL. There were no significant differences compared with expandable lung group regarding time from primary malignancy diagnosis to MPE diagnosis (3.0, IQR 0.0-75.8 vs 2.0, IQR 0.0-75.5 weeks, p=0.942) or MPE symptoms onset to MPE diagnosis (4.0, IQR 1.0-9.0 vs 3.0, IQR 1.0-9.0 weeks, p=0.497). Patients with NEL had a higher number of therapeutic pleural drainages (3.0, IQR 2.0-6.0 vs 2.0, IQR 1.0-3.0; p<0.001) and longer hospital stay (32.5, IQR 15.5-46.3 vs 21.0, IQR 11.0-36.0, p=0.007), measured in hospitalization days until the end of life, than patients with expandable lung. The rate of recurrence of pleural effusion was not significantly different between groups (p=0.291). Overall survival (OS) was 3.0 (95%CI, 2.3-3.7) months, regardless of lung expandability (p=0.923).

CONCLUSION

Loculated MPE, complete hemithorax opacification, lung cancer and a higher effusion-serum LDH ratio were found to be independent predictors for NEL. These patients underwent thoracocenteses more frequently and had longer hospitalization days, although without significant impact in the OS.

Current Management and Future Perspective in Pleural Mesothelioma

Pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive malignancy arising from pleural mesothelial cell lining, predominantly associated with prior exposure to asbestos. The ban on asbestos use has led to its lower incidence in many countries, but globally the disease burden is expected to rise. Therefore, well-planned research is needed to develop more effective, tolerable and affordable drugs. The development of novel treatment has been too slow, with only two regimens of systemic therapy with robust phase 3 data approved formally to date. The treatment scenario for resectable disease remains controversial. However, recent developments in the understanding of disease and clinical trials have been encouraging, and may add better treatment options in the coming years. In this review, we discuss the current treatment options for pleural mesothelioma and shed light on some recent studies and ongoing trials.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: recent developments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, but aggressive tumor with still poor prognosis. In this article, we focus on recent developments in the management of MPM including diagnosis, staging, biomarkers, and treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Molecular markers such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PDL-1), Breast Cancer gene 1-associated protein gene, and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) have prognostic impact and should be considered for assessment in patient samples. In addition to histological subtype and tumor pattern, tumor volumetry plays an increasing important role in staging, assessment of treatment response, and prediction of survival. Several new blood-based biomarkers have been recently reported including peripheral blood DNA methylation, microRNAs, fibulin, and high-mobility group box 1, but have not been established in clinical routine use yet. Regarding treatment, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and vaccination are considered as new promising strategies. Moreover, extended pleurectomy/decortication is favored over extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy represents a possible approach in combination with EPP and pleurectomy/decortication. Intracavitary treatment options are promising and deserve further investigations.

SUMMARY

Overall, there has not been a real breakthrough in the treatment of MPM. Further research and clinical trials are needed to evaluate outcome and to identify new potential treatment candidates.

Surgical Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: 20 Years' Experience at a High-Volume Referral Center

Despite advances, malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains a challenging disease in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and overall management. Herein, we analyzed, in a large-scale single-center cohort, the characteristics and perioperative course of patients undergoing surgical diagnosis of MPM. We identified a total of 514 consecutive patients, 71.4% male and 28.6% female, with mean age 71.3 +/− 13.6 years. Most exhibited pleural, respiratory, or general symptoms and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score was ≥3 in 68.3% of cases. Thoracoscopy was the most frequent approach (92.0%) and short open thoracotomy was performed in the remaining patients. Pleurodesis was simultaneously performed in 74.3% of cases. Diagnostic failure led to redo surgery in 3.7% of patients. Non-epithelioid histology was found in 19.5% of MPMs and was significantly more frequent in right-sided MPM (p = 0.04), and in patients without history of cancer (p = 0.03), or pleural nodules at thoracoscopy (p = 0.01). Minor only or major complications occurred in respectively 7.8% and 3.6% of cases. They were more frequent in patients ≥ 70 years (p = 0.05) and Performance Status > 2 (p = 0.05). The mean hospital stay was 7.5 days. The 30-day and 90-day early mortality rates were 2.3% and 6.4%, respectively. Surgical diagnosis of MPM is a reliable procedure but is associated with significant morbidity and hospital-stay duration.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of the malignant pleural mesothelioma, a narrative review of literature

The malignant pleural mesothelioma is a very aggressive tumor which is arising from mesothelial cells and is associated with asbestos exposure. It is a heterogeneous cancer that shows a complex pattern of molecular changes, including genetic, chromosomic, and epigenetic abnormalities. The malignant pleural mesothelioma is characterized by a silent and slow clinical progression with an average period of 20–40 years from the asbestos exposure phase to the start of the symptoms. Unfortunately, to date, the therapeutic options are very limited, especially if the tumor is detected late. This narrative review provides an extended overview of the present evidence in the literature regarding the epidemiology, diagnostic pathways and treatment approaches of the malignant pleural mesothelioma. The treatment of mesothelioma has evolved slowly over the last 20 years not only from a surgical point of view but also radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy play nowadays a key role. Several surgical strategies are available ranging from extrapleural pneumonectomy to cytoreductive surgery but a multidisciplinary approach seems to be mandatory because a single approach has not proved to date to be resolutive. New non-surgical treatment options appear to be promising but the results have to be taken in account with caution because clear evidence with high-quality studies is still lacking

VATS Pleurectomy Decortication Is a Reasonable Alternative for Higher Risk Patients in the Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes

Simple Summary

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive malignancy that drastically affects a patient’s quality of life. Surgery typically entails radical resection with or without the removal of the underlying lung. In an era where minimally invasive surgery is sought after, MPM remains an anomaly. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery as an alternative to more radical surgery in MPM. We examined short-term outcomes between the radical approaches and minimally invasive surgery and minimally invasive surgery had improved outcomes. Minimally invasive surgery can be considered in patients with MPM.

Abstract

Surgery is a mainstay of treatment allowing for debulking of tumor and expansion of the lung for improvement in median survival and quality of life for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Although optimal surgical technique remains open for debate—extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) vs. pleurectomy/decortication (P/D)—minimally invasive surgery (VATS-P/D) remains underutilized in the management of MPM. We examined whether VATS-P/D is a feasible alternative to EPP and P/D. We evaluated the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) from 2007–2017 to assess the short-term complications of EPP vs. P/D, including a subanalysis of open P/D vs. VATS-P/D. There were 331 patients with open surgery; 269 with P/D and 62 with EPP. There were 384 patients with P/D; 269 were open and 115 VATS. Rates of any complication were similar between EPP and P/D patients, but EPP had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular complications. After adjusting for confounders, those with a VATS approach were less likely to have any complication, compared to an open approach and significantly less likely to have a pulmonary complication. VATS-P/D remains a viable alternative to radical surgery in MPM patients allowing for improved short-term outcomes.

Malignant Pleural Effusion: Diagnosis and Management

Symptomatic malignant pleural effusion is a common clinical problem. This condition is associated with very high mortality, with life expectancy ranging from 3 to 12 months. Studies are contributing evidence on an increasing number of therapeutic options (therapeutic thoracentesis, thoracoscopic pleurodesis or thoracic drainage, indwelling pleural catheter, surgery, or a combination of these therapies). Despite the availability of therapies, the management of malignant pleural effusion is challenging and is mainly focused on the relief of symptoms. The therapy to be administered needs to be designed on a case-by-case basis considering patient's preferences, life expectancy, tumour type, presence of a trapped lung, resources available, and experience of the treating team. At present, the management of malignant pleural effusion has evolved towards less invasive approaches based on ambulatory care. This approach spares the patient the discomfort caused by more invasive interventions and reduces the economic burden of the disease. A review was performed of the diagnosis and the different approaches to the management of malignant pleural effusion, with special emphasis on their indications, usefulness, cost-effectiveness, and complications. Further research is needed to shed light on the current matters of controversy and help establish a standardized, more effective management of this clinical problem.

Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common problem for people with cancer and usually associated with considerable breathlessness. A number of treatment options are available to manage the uncontrolled accumulation of pleural fluid, including administration of a pleurodesis agent (via a chest tube or thoracoscopy) or placement of an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC). This is an update of a review published in Issue 5, 2016, which replaced the original, published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the optimal management strategy for adults with malignant pleural effusion in terms of pleurodesis success and to quantify differences in patient-reported outcomes and adverse effects between interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and three other databases to June 2019. We screened reference lists from other relevant publications and searched trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of intrapleural interventions for adults with symptomatic MPE, comparing types of sclerosant, mode of administration and IPC use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, characteristics, outcome measures, potential effect modifiers and risk of bias. The primary outcome was pleurodesis failure rate. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, patient-reported breathlessness control, quality of life, cost, mortality, survival, duration of inpatient stay and patient acceptability. We performed network meta-analyses of primary outcome data and secondary outcomes with enough data. We also performed pair-wise meta-analyses of direct comparison data. If we deemed interventions not jointly randomisable, or we found insufficient available data, we reported results by narrative synthesis. For the primary outcome, we performed sensitivity analyses to explore potential causes of heterogeneity and to evaluate pleurodesis agents administered via a chest tube only. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 80 randomised trials (18 new), including 5507 participants. We found all except three studies at high or unclear risk of bias for at least one domain. Due to the nature of the interventions, most studies were unblinded. Pleurodesis failure rate We included 55 studies of 21 interventions in the primary network meta-analysis. We estimated the rank of each intervention's effectiveness. Talc slurry (ranked 6, 95% credible interval (Cr-I) 3 to 10)  is an effective pleurodesis agent (moderate certainty for comparison with placebo) and may result in fewer pleurodesis failures than bleomycin and doxycycline (bleomycin versus talc slurry: odds ratio (OR) 2.24, 95% Cr-I 1.10 to 4.68; low certainty; ranked 11, 95% Cr-I 7 to 15; doxycycline versus talc slurry: OR 2.51, 95% Cr-I 0.81 to 8.40; low certainty; ranked 12, 95% Cr-I 5 to 18). There is little evidence of a difference between the pleurodesis failure rate of talc poudrage and talc slurry (OR 0.50, 95% Cr-I 0.21 to 1.02; moderate certainty). Evidence for any difference was further reduced when restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias (defined as maximum one high risk domain in the risk of bias assessment) (pleurodesis failure talc poudrage versus talc slurry: OR 0.78, 95% Cr-I 0.16 to 2.08). IPCs without daily drainage are probably less effective at obtaining a definitive pleurodesis (cessation of pleural fluid drainage facilitating IPC removal) than talc slurry (OR 7.60, 95% Cr-I 2.96 to 20.47; rank = 18/21, 95% Cr-I 13 to 21; moderate certainty). Daily IPC drainage or instillation of talc slurry via IPC are likely to reduce pleurodesis failure rates. Adverse effects Adverse effects were inconsistently reported. We performed network meta-analyses for the risk of procedure-related fever and pain. The evidence for risk of developing fever was of low certainty, but suggested there may be little difference between interventions relative to talc slurry (talc poudrage: OR 0.89, 95% Cr-I 0.11 to 6.67; bleomycin: OR 2.33, 95% Cr-I 0.45 to 12.50; IPCs: OR 0.41, 95% Cr-I 0.00 to 50.00; doxycycline: OR 0.85, 95% Cr-I 0.05 to 14.29). Evidence also suggested there may be little difference between interventions in the risk of developing procedure-related pain, relative to talc slurry (talc poudrage: OR 1.26, 95% Cr-I 0.45 to 6.04; very-low certainty; bleomycin: OR 2.85, 95% Cr-I 0.78 to 11.53; low certainty; IPCs: OR 1.30, 95% Cr-I 0.29 to 5.87; low certainty; doxycycline: OR 3.35, 95% Cr-I 0.64 to 19.72; low certainty). Patient-reported control of breathlessness Pair-wise meta-analysis suggests there is likely no difference in breathlessness control, relative to talc slurry, of talc poudrage ((mean difference (MD) 4.00 mm, 95% CI -6.26 to 14.26) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale for breathlessness; studies = 1; participants = 184; moderate certainty) and IPCs without daily drainage (MD -6.12 mm, 95% CI -16.32 to 4.08; studies = 2; participants = 160; low certainty). Overall mortality There may be little difference between interventions when compared to talc slurry (bleomycin and IPC without daily drainage; low certainty) but evidence is uncertain for talc poudrage and doxycycline. Patient acceptability Pair-wise meta-analysis demonstrated that IPCs probably result in a reduced risk of requiring a repeat invasive pleural intervention (OR 0.25, 95% Cr-I 0.13 to 0.48; moderate certainty) relative to talc slurry. There is likely little difference in the risk of repeat invasive pleural intervention with talc poudrage relative to talc slurry (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.56; moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, talc poudrage and talc slurry are effective methods for achieving a pleurodesis, with lower failure rates than a number of other commonly used interventions. IPCs provide an alternative approach; whilst associated with inferior definitive pleurodesis rates, comparable control of breathlessness can probably be achieved, with a lower risk of requiring repeat invasive pleural intervention.  Local availability, global experience of agents and adverse events (which may not be identified in randomised trials) and patient preference must be considered when selecting an intervention. Further research is required to delineate the roles of different treatments according to patient characteristics, such as presence of trapped lung. Greater attention to patient-centred outcomes, including breathlessness, quality of life and patient preference is essential to inform clinical decision-making. Careful consideration to minimise the risk of bias and standardise outcome measures is essential for future trial design.