Malignant pleural mesothelioma--an update

Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM.

METHODS

After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0).

CONCLUSION

There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma presenting with Cardiac Tamponade- A Rare Case report and Review of the literature

Mesothelioma is a rare tumor of the pleura, peritoneum, pericardium or tunica vaginalis. About 2,500 cases are diagnosed annually in the United States. Mesothelioma often presents with pleuritic chest pain and dyspnea related to local invasion; distal metastasis and lymphadenopathy at the time of diagnosis is rare. Pericardial involvement in mesothelioma is related to direct invasion of the tumor. We here present a 71 year-old-male who presented with pleuritic chest pain and dyspnea, noted to have diffuse ST-segment elevation in EKG and cardiac tamponade physiology on 2D echocardiogram in who imaging subsequently revealed left upper lung mesothelioma. A pericardial window was created following which tamponade resolved. The pericardial biopsy did not show any mesothelioma cells or fibrous plaques. Computer tomography revealed regional lymphadenopathy in the chest. Disrupted cardiac lymphatic flow due to tumor mesothelioma induced lymphadenopathy is likely cause of the cardiac tamponade in this patient. This is the second ever reported case of pleural mesothelioma without a direct pericardial invasion that presented with cardiac tamponade.

Protocol for PIT: a phase III trial of prophylactic irradiation of tracts in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma following invasive chest wall intervention

INTRODUCTION

Histological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma requires an invasive procedure such as CT-guided needle biopsy, thoracoscopy, video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATs) or thoracotomy. These invasive procedures encourage tumour cell seeding at the intervention site and patients can develop tumour nodules within the chest wall. In an effort to prevent nodules developing, it has been widespread practice across Europe to irradiate intervention sites postprocedure--a practice known as prophylactic irradiation of tracts (PIT). To date there has not been a suitably powered randomised trial to determine whether PIT is effective at reducing the risk of chest wall nodule development.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this multicentre phase III randomised controlled superiority trial, 374 patients who can receive radiotherapy within 42 days of a chest wall intervention will be randomised to receive PIT or no PIT. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. Radiotherapy in the PIT arm will be 21 Gy in three fractions. Subsequent chemotherapy is given at the clinicians' discretion. A reduction in the incidence of chest wall nodules from 15% to 5% in favour of radiotherapy 6 months after randomisation would be clinically significant. All patients will be followed up for up to 2 years with monthly telephone contact and at least four outpatient visits in the first year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

PIT was approved by NRES Committee North West-Greater Manchester West (REC reference 12/NW/0249) and recruitment is currently on-going, the last patient is expected to be randomised by the end of 2015. The analysis of the primary end point, incidence of chest wall nodules 6 months after randomisation, is expected to be published in 2016 in a peer reviewed journal and results will also be presented at scientific meetings and summary results published online. A follow-up analysis is expected to be published in 2018.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN04240319; NCT01604005; Pre-results.

Advanced malignant mesothelioma mimicking acute contained thoracic aortic rupture

In the emergent setting, patients presenting with acute interscapular pain along with haemodynamic instability require immediate evaluation. We describe the case of a patient in which computed tomographic scanning demonstrated a large hyper-dense, periaortic collection on post-contrast imaging. Urgent endovascular repair was performed for descending thoracic aortic rupture. Her postoperative course, however, was atypical with a readmission 1 week after discharge with symptoms similar to her primary presentation. Alternative pathologies were then considered in a more elective setting in which the correct diagnosis of diffuse malignant mesothelioma was ultimately discovered in a patient with no previous exposure to occupational toxins. The tumour burden was advanced and the patient opted for palliative care. Herein, we suggest a consideration for oncological thoracic pathology in patients presenting with signs and symptoms mimicking acute thoracic aortic rupture or dissection, who may demonstrate atypical symptoms.

Changes of mesothelin and osteopontin levels over time in formerly asbestos-exposed power industry workers

PURPOSE

In patients developing malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) or lung cancer, using effective tumour markers is the quickest way to ensure early diagnosis and improve survival time. The aim of our study was to assess the influence of age and asbestos exposure on the blood levels of the proposed tumour markers, mesothelin and osteopontin, and to determine the change of these markers over time.

METHODS

We analysed 3,329 blood samples of 2,262 participants including 1,894 formerly asbestos-exposed power industry workers, a mixed group of 266 participants with an unknown history of asbestos exposure and a group of 102 non-asbestos-exposed controls. Marker concentrations were determined using commercial ELISA kits.

RESULTS

While age had a strong influence on marker levels, there was no association between exposure duration or benign asbestos-related disease and marker levels. In order to assess the maximum increase that can be expected to occur in asbestos-exposed workers those with an at least 10 % increase were selected (n = 290 for mesothelin and n = 81 for osteopontin). The 95th percentile of the annual change was 0.402 nmol/l for mesothelin and 334 ng/ml for osteopontin. In two patients with MPM and five with lung cancer, we could obtain more than one marker result before the diagnosis was made. Both MPM patients showed a steep increase of mesothelin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed cut-off values for deciding between intensive clinical work-up and continued surveillance appeared inadequate for the evaluated markers. While general conclusions cannot be drawn, we can say that the results of the two patients would be consistent with a mesothelin increase between 6 and 18 months before clinical symptoms developed.

Radiotherapy applications of patients with malignant mesothelioma: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

In the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma, radiotherapy has been used for the purpose of prophylaxis to reduce the incidence of recurrence at surgical insertion sites or palliate the symptoms.

AIM

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the techniques and effectiveness of radiotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-four (18 female, 26 male) patients diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had surgery or thoracoscopic biopsy for diagnosis, staging or treatment and all received palliative or prophylactic radiotherapy. Fifty-seven percent of the patients received chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Prophylactic radiation was applied to 27 patients with 4-15 MeV electron energies. The median radiotherapy dose was 30 Gy with 3 Gy daily fraction dose. During treatment, 12 patients had grade 1 erythema according to the RTOG scale. In 3 (12%) patients, a local failure at treatment field was observed. Palliative radiotherapy was applied to 17 patients for pain palliation. The median radiation dose was 40 Gy with 2 Gy daily fraction dose by using 6-18 MV photon and/or 4-12 MeV electron energies. Two patients had grade 1 erythema and one patient had grade 2 odynophagy according to the RTOG scale. For 10 (59%) patients, palliation of chest pain was delivered. No late toxicity was observed for all cases.

CONCLUSION

Our experience showed that prophylactic and palliative radiotherapy are effective and safe therapy modalities in malignant pleural mesothelioma in preventing seeding metastasis at intervention sites or relieving pain. Prospective randomized studies are still needed to determine the benefits of radiotherapy application and to indicate optimum dose schemes.

Prophylactic radiotherapy to intervention sites in mesothelioma: a systematic review and survey of UK practice

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), who undergo chest instrumentation, may develop seeding at the site of intervention, leading to subcutaneous tumour. This is believed to be reduced by the common practice of prophylactic irradiation to intervention tracts (PIT). However, evidence to support PIT is currently inadequate and contentious.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a systematic search of published literature for articles relating to the incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases and the use of PIT in mesothelioma. In addition, a survey of current practice was conducted in 54 UK oncology centres.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies revealed an incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases of 0-48% with a trend toward a higher rate of metastases for more invasive procedures. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two prospective non-randomised studies and five retrospective series met the eligibility criteria to evaluate the role of PIT in MPM. Of the three RCTs, two did not support the use of PIT. None of the RCTs included patients who had received systemic chemotherapy. Of the oncology centres responding to the survey, 75% practiced PIT, and 80% would be interested in a trial to determine the efficacy of PIT.

CONCLUSIONS

No consensus has been reached to support the use of PIT. However, most centres in the UK still offer PIT. There was widespread interest in a randomised controlled trial to establish PIT efficacy in the era of effective systemic chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is a fatal asbestos-associated malignancy originating from the lining cells (mesothelium) of the pleural and peritoneal cavities, as well as the pericardium and the tunica vaginalis. The exact prevalence is unknown but it is estimated that mesotheliomas represent less than 1% of all cancers. Its incidence is increasing, with an expected peak in the next 10–20 years. Pleural malignant mesothelioma is the most common form of mesothelioma. Typical presenting features are those of chest pain and dyspnoea. Breathlessness due to a pleural effusion without chest pain is reported in about 30% of patients. A chest wall mass, weight loss, sweating, abdominal pain and ascites (due to peritoneal involvement) are less common presentations. Mesothelioma is directly attributable to occupational asbestos exposure with a history of exposure in over 90% of cases. There is also evidence that mesothelioma may result from both para-occupational exposure and non-occupational "environmental" exposure. Idiopathic or spontaneous mesothelioma can also occur in the absence of any exposure to asbestos, with a spontaneous rate in humans of around one per million. A combination of accurate exposure history, along with examination radiology and pathology are essential to make the diagnosis. Distinguishing malignant from benign pleural disease can be challenging. The most helpful CT findings suggesting malignant pleural disease are 1) a circumferential pleural rind, 2) nodular pleural thickening, 3) pleural thickening of > 1 cm and 4) mediastinal pleural involvement. Involvement of a multidisciplinary team is recommended to ensure prompt and appropriate management, using a framework of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery and symptom palliation with end of life care. Compensation issues must also be considered. Life expectancy in malignant mesothelioma is poor, with a median survival of about one year following diagnosis.

Incidence and descriptive epidemiology of mesothelioma in the United States, 1999-2002

To estimate the recent incidence of mesothelioma in the United States and characterize its descriptive epidemiology, incidence data were obtained from the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-adjusted incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The U.S. incidence was 1.11 cases per 100,000 persons. Most cases occurred among older, white males. However, 173 cases (< 2%) occurred in persons younger than 40. The proportion of women with peritoneal mesothelioma was triple that of men (14.8% vs 5.4%). Of 40 reporting states, 11 had incidence rates significantly higher than the national rate.

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) followed by pharmacokinetic analysis has been successfully used in a variety of solid tumors. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of DCE-MRI in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), to differentiate benign from pathologic tissue and compare pharmacokinetic with clinical parameters and survival in order to map out its microcirculation; and to compare pharmacokinetic with clinical parameter and survival in order to improve our understanding of the in vivo biology of this malignancy.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with a diagnosis of MPM who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy with gemcitabine were enrolled in the study. DCE-MRI was performed before treatment (n = 19) and after the third cycle (n = 12) and sixth cycle (n = 7) of chemotherapy. An established pharmacokinetic two-compartment model was used to analyze DCE-MRI. Tumor regions were characterized by the pharmacokinetic parameters amplitude (Amp), redistribution rate constant (kep), and elimination rate constant (kel). Kinetic parameters of tumor tissue and normal tissue were compared using the Student t test. Patients were classified as clinical responders or nonresponders according to clinical outcome, and these groups were compared with the pharmacokinetic parameters derived from DCE-MRI.

RESULTS

Normal and tumor tissue could be distinguished by the pharmacokinetic parameters Amp and kel (p </= 0.001). Clinical responders had a median kep value within the tumor of 2.6 min, while nonresponders showed a higher value (3.6 min), which coincided with longer survival (780 days vs 460 days).

CONCLUSIONS

DCE-MRI can be used in patients with MPM to assess tumor microvascular properties and to demonstrate tumor heterogeneity for therapy monitoring. High pretherapeutic values of kep within the tumor correlated with a poor overall response to therapy.