Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study.
ABSTRACT: The effects of extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) on survival and quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have, to our knowledge, not been assessed in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who were randomly assigned to EPP or no EPP in the context of trimodal therapy in the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) feasibility study.MARS was a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 12 UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older who had pathologically confirmed mesothelioma and were deemed fit enough to undergo trimodal therapy were included. In a prerandomisation registration phase, all patients underwent induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by clinical review. After further consent, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to EPP followed by postoperative hemithorax irradiation or to no EPP. Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by surgical centre. The main endpoints were feasibility of randomly assigning 50 patients in 1 year (results detailed in another report), proportion randomised who received treatment, proportion eligible (registered) who proceeded to randomisation, perioperative mortality, and quality of life. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. This is the principal report of the MARS study; all patients have been recruited. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN95583524.Between Oct 1, 2005, and Nov 3, 2008, 112 patients were registered and 50 were subsequently randomly assigned: 24 to EPP and 26 to no EPP. The main reasons for not proceeding to randomisation were disease progression (33 patients), inoperability (five patients), and patient choice (19 patients). EPP was completed satisfactorily in 16 of 24 patients assigned to EPP; in five patients EPP was not started and in three patients it was abandoned. Two patients in the EPP group died within 30 days and a further patient died without leaving hospital. One patient in the no EPP group died perioperatively after receiving EPP off trial in a non-MARS centre. The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival between the EPP and no EPP groups was 1·90 (95% CI 0·92-3·93; exact p=0·082), and after adjustment for sex, histological subtype, stage, and age at randomisation the HR was 2·75 (1·21-6·26; p=0·016). Median survival was 14·4 months (5·3-18·7) for the EPP group and 19·5 months (13·4 to time not yet reached) for the no EPP group. Of the 49 randomly assigned patients who consented to quality of life assessment (EPP n=23; no EPP n=26), 12 patients in the EPP group and 19 in the no EPP group completed the quality of life questionnaires. Although median quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group than the no EPP group, no significant differences between groups were reported in the quality of life analyses. There were ten serious adverse events reported in the EPP group and two in the no EPP group.In view of the high morbidity associated with EPP in this trial and in other non-randomised studies a larger study is not feasible. These data, although limited, suggest that radical surgery in the form of EPP within trimodal therapy offers no benefit and possibly harms patients.Cancer Research UK (CRUK/04/003), the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical procedures for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) include extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), extended pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) and P/D. EPP has been applied to MPM for a long time, but the postoperative status is extremely poor due to the loss of one whole lung. We compared the mortality, morbidity and median survival time (MST) of lung-sparing surgery (extended P/D or P/D) and lung-sacrificing surgery (EPP) for MPM by performing a systematic review. METHODS:We extracted the number of events and patients from the literature identified in electronic databases. Ultimately, 15 reports were selected, and 2674 MPM patients, including 1434 patients undergoing EPP and 1240 patients undergoing extended P/D or P/D, were analyzed. RESULTS:Our systematic review showed that lung-sparing surgery was significantly superior to lung-sacrificing surgery in both the surgical-related mortality (extended P/D vs. EPP: 3.19% vs. 7.65%, p < 0.01; P/D vs. EPP: 1.85% vs. 7.34%, p < 0.01) and morbidity (extended P/D vs. EPP: 35.7% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.01; P/D vs. EPP: 9.52% vs. 20.89%, p < 0.01). Lung-sparing surgery was not inferior to EPP in terms of MST. CONCLUSION:Although no prospective randomized controlled trial has been conducted, it may be time to change the standard surgical method for MPM from lung-sacrificing surgery to lung-sparing surgery.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Few studies have focused on quality of life (QoL) after treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). There are still questions as to which surgical procedure, extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or pleurectomy decortication (P/D) is most effective and results in better survival outcomes, involves fewer complications, and results in better QoL. Here we performed a literature review on MPM patients to assess and compare QoL changes after P/D and EPP. METHODS:Research articles concerning QoL after mesothelioma surgery were identified through May 2018 in Medline. For inclusion, studies were 1) cohort or randomized controlled trials (RCT) design, 2) included standardized QoL instruments, 3) reported QoL measurement after surgery, 4) described the type of surgery performed (EPP or P/D), 5) were written in English. Measures of lung function (FEV1, FVC) and measures from the EORTC-C30 were compared 6?months following surgery with preoperative values. RESULTS:QoL data was extracted from 17 articles (14 datasets), encompassing 659 patients (102 EPP, 432 P/D); the available evidence was of low quality. While two studies directly compared QoL between the two surgical procedures, additional data was available from one arm of two RCTs, as the RCTs were not comparing EPP and P/D. The remaining data was reported from observational studies. While QoL was still compromised 6?months following surgery, from the limited and low quality data available it would appear that P/D patients had better QoL than EPP patients across all measures. Physical function, social function and global health were better at follow-up for P/D than for EPP, while other indicators such as pain and cough were similar. Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) were reported in one study only, and were higher at follow-up for P/D compared to EPP. CONCLUSIONS:Although the existing evidence is limited and of low quality, it suggests that P/D patients have better QoL than EPP patients following surgery. QoL outcomes should be factored into the choice of surgical procedure for MPM patients, and the possible effects on lung function and QoL should be discussed with patients when presenting surgical treatment options.
Project description:Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains a clinical challenge and the incidence of the disease will continue to increase worldwide. Several aspects of mesothelioma treatment are discussed controversially, in particular, regarding extent and best type of surgery, radiotherapy, and the role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. However, best survival data is reported from groups using multimodality treatment including macroscopic complete resection (MCR) achieved by either extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or (extended) pleurectomy/decortication for patients qualifying from the tumor biology, stage, and patient's performance status and comorbidities. Several aspects have to be considered during surgery but morbidity and mortality have been reduced at experienced centres. The final analysis of extended selection algorithms is pending.
Project description:Malignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life.409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112.At the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10]; p=0.29). Median survival was 7.6 months in the ASC alone group and 8.5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0.80 [0.63-1.02]; p=0.08), with a median survival of 9.5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0.99 [0.78-1.27]; p=0.95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months.The addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation.
Project description:Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) is indicated in selected group of patients with pleural mesothelioma. Diaphragmatic reconstruction represents a part of this complex operation. We present the case of a late diaphragmatic gastric herniation through prosthetic material after EPP.
Project description:We conducted a prospective multi-institutional study to determine the feasibility of trimodality therapy (TMT) comprising induction chemotherapy followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and radiation therapy in Japanese patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).Major eligibility criteria were histologically confirmed diagnosis of MPM, including clinical subtypes T0-3, N0-2, M0 disease; no prior treatment for the disease; age 20-75 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1; predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume >1000 ml in 1 s; written informed consent. Treatment methods comprised induction chemotherapy using pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (60 mg/m(2)) for three cycles, followed by EPP and postoperative hemithoracic radiation therapy (54 Gy). Primary endpoints were macroscopic complete resection (MCR) rate for EPP and treatment-related mortality for TMT.Forty-two eligible patients were enrolled: median age 64.5 (range 43-74) years; M:F = 39:3, clinical stage I:II:III = 14:13:15; histological type epithelioid were sarcomatoid; biphasic; others = 28:1:9:4. Of 42 patients, 30 completed EPP with MCR and 17 completed TMT. The trial met the primary endpoints, with an MCR rate of 71 % (30/42) and treatment-related mortality of 9.5 % (4/42). Overall median survival time and 2-year survival rate for 42 registered patients were 19.9 months and 42.9 %, respectively. Two-year relapse-free survival rate of 30 patients who completed EPP with MCR was 37.0 %.This phase II study met the predefined primary endpoints, but its risk/benefit ratio was not satisfactory.
Project description:Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare disease of the pleura and is largely related to asbestos exposure. Despite recent advancements in technologies and a greater understanding of the disease, the prognosis of MPM remains poor; the median overall survival rate is about 6 to 9 months in untreated patients. The main therapeutic strategies for MPM are surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (RT). The two main surgical approaches for MPM are extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), in which the lung is removed en bloc, and pleurectomy/decortication, in which the lung stays in situ. Chemotherapy usually consists of a platinum-based chemotherapy, such as cisplatin, often combined with a folate antimetabolite, such as pemetrexed. More recently, immunotherapy has emerged as a possible therapeutic strategy for MPM. Evidence suggests that single-modality treatments are not an effective therapeutic approach for MPM. Therefore, researchers have started to explore different multimodality treatment approaches, in which often combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and RT are investigated. There is still no definitive answer to the question of which multimodality treatment combinations are most effective in improving the poor prognosis of MPM. Research into the effects of trimodality treatment approaches have found that radical approaches such as EPP and hemithoracic RT post-EPP are less effective than was previously assumed. In general, there are still a great number of unanswered questions and unknown factors regarding the ideal treatment approach for MPM. Hopefully, more research into multimodality therapy will provide insight into which combination of treatment modalities is most effective.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery Trial (MARS 2) aims to evaluate a surgical procedure by comparing chemotherapy and surgery against chemotherapy alone. The pilot study for MARS 2 evaluated the viability of recruitment. Challenges have been reported in conducting clinical research into thoracic surgical treatments and evidence is required to improve our understanding of patient experiences of trial procedures, trial treatments and the factors that influence participation. METHODS:This longitudinal qualitative study was nested within the MARS 2 pilot. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 participants in the MARS 2 trial. Interviews were conducted post-randomisation, post-surgery (surgery arm) and at 6 and 12?months. Altogether, 41 interviews were carried out. The data were analysed using framework techniques. RESULTS:Challenges were identified regarding the volume and complexity of information given to participants, and their understanding of clinical equipoise and randomisation. Factors influencing participation included having an opportunity to undergo surgery, a self-assessment of their ability to cope with trial treatments, maintaining a positive approach and altruism. Obstacles included the logistics of traveling for treatment in an unfamiliar setting. Negative consequences of trial participation included increased uncertainty amplified by multiple care providers and unclear transition arrangements after the trial. CONCLUSIONS:Participants' descriptions provided insights that have implications for care for mesothelioma trial patients. The need for healthcare staff to be alert to the potential for misunderstanding, particularly when presenting treatment options, was identified. Patients perceived and derived benefits from taking part in the trial but experienced some negative consequences. These should be anticipated and managed proactively. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272 . Registered on 20 January 2014.
Project description:The use of prophylactic radiotherapy to prevent procedure-tract metastases (PTMs) in malignant pleural mesothelioma remains controversial, and clinical practice varies worldwide. We aimed to compare prophylactic radiotherapy with deferred radiotherapy (given only when a PTM developed) in a suitably powered trial.We did a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial in 22 UK hospitals of patients with histocytologically proven mesothelioma who had undergone large-bore pleural interventions in the 35 days prior to recruitment. Eligible patients were randomised (1:1), using a computer-generated sequence, to receive immediate radiotherapy (21 Gy in three fractions within 42 days of the pleural intervention) or deferred radiotherapy (same dose given within 35 days of PTM diagnosis). Randomisation was minimised by histological subtype, surgical versus non-surgical procedure, and pleural procedure (indwelling pleural catheter vs other). The primary outcome was the incidence of PTM within 7 cm of the site of pleural intervention within 12 months from randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN72767336.Between Dec 23, 2011, and Aug 4, 2014, we randomised 203 patients to receive immediate radiotherapy (n=102) or deferred radiotherapy (n=101). The patients were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in PTM incidence in the immediate and deferred radiotherapy groups (nine [9%] vs 16 [16%]; odds ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·19-1·32]; p=0·14). The only serious adverse event related to a PTM or radiotherapy was development of a painful PTM within the radiotherapy field that required hospital admission for symptom control in one patient who received immediate radiotherapy. Common adverse events of immediate radiotherapy were skin toxicity (grade 1 in 50 [54%] and grade 2 in four [4%] of 92 patients vs grade 1 in three [60%] and grade 2 in two [40%] of five patients in the deferred radiotherapy group who received radiotherapy for a PTM) and tiredness or lethargy (36 [39%] in the immediate radiotherapy group vs two [40%] in the deferred radiotherapy group) within 3 months of receiving radiotherapy.Routine use of prophylactic radiotherapy in all patients with mesothelioma after large-bore thoracic interventions is not justified.Research for Patient Benefit Programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research.
Project description:Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an uncommon disease most often associated with occupational asbestos exposure and is steadily increasing in worldwide incidence. Patients typically present at an older age, with advanced clinical stage and other medical comorbidities, making management quite challenging. Despite great efforts, the prognosis of MPM remains poor, especially at progression after initial treatment. Macroscopic complete resection of MPM can be achieved through extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or extended (ie, radical) pleurectomy (e-P/D) in selected patients and can result in prolonged survival when incorporated into a multimodality approach. Given the morbidity associated with surgical resection of MPM, optimizing identification of appropriate patients is essential. Unfortunately, most patients are not candidates for EPP or e-P/D due to advanced stage, age, and/or medical comorbidity. Pemetrexed and platinum combination chemotherapy has become the cornerstone of therapy for patients with unresectable disease because the combination is associated with improved survival and quality of life in treated patients. However, MPM eventually becomes resistant to initial therapy, and benefit to further lines of therapy has not been substantiated in randomized clinical trials. Translational research has provided exciting insights into tumorigenesis, biomarkers, and immune response in MPM, leading to the development of multiple novel therapeutic agents that are currently in clinical trials. These advances hold the promise of a new era in the treatment of MPM and suggest that this disease will not be left behind in the war on cancer.