Predicting survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma using routine clinical and laboratory characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: The prognosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is poor, with a median survival of 8-12 months. The ability to predict prognosis in MPM would help clinicians to make informed decisions regarding treatment and identify appropriate research opportunities for patients. The aims of this study were to examine associations between clinical and pathological information gathered during routine care, and prognosis of patients with MPM, and to develop a 6-month mortality risk prediction model. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with MPM at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK between December 2009 and September 2013. Multivariate analysis was performed on routinely available histological, clinical and laboratory data to assess the association between different factors and 6-month survival, with significant associations used to create a model to predict the risk of death within 6 months of diagnosis with MPM. RESULTS: 100 patients were included in the analysis. Variables significantly associated with patient survival in multivariate analysis were age (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.56), smoking status (current smoker HR 3.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.20), chest pain (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.72), weight loss (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.72), platelet count (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.10), urea (HR 2.73, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.69) and adjusted calcium (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.94). The resulting risk model had a c-statistic value of 0.76. A Hosmer-Lemeshow test confirmed good calibration of the model against the original dataset. CONCLUSION: Risk of death at 6 months in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of MPM can be predicted using variables readily available in clinical practice. The risk prediction model we have developed may be used to influence treatment decisions in patients with MPM. Further validation of the model requires evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset.

Manometry performed at indwelling pleural catheter insertion to predict unexpandable lung.

BACKGROUND: The finding of unexpandable lung (UL) at an early timepoint is of increasing importance in guiding treatment decisions in patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Pleural manometry is the most common technique to delineate UL, however it has never been measured via an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC). To further the evidence base we analysed all patients in the IPC-PLUS study who had manometry performed during IPC insertion for the ability to predict substantial UL using manometry. METHODS: All patients enrolled in IPC-PLUS who had manometry performed at IPC insertion and radiographic assessment of UL at day 10 were included. Elastance curves were visually inspected for each patient. Initial pleural pressure, closing pleural pressure, and terminal elastance were analysed for their differences and predictive ability in those with substantial UL, defined as ≥25% entrapment on chest radiography. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients had manometry performed at IPC insertion with subsequent radiographic assessment of UL and interpretable elastance curves. Those with substantial UL had a significantly lower median closing pleural pressure (-15.00 vs. 0.00 cmH2O, P=0.012) and higher terminal elastance (12.03 vs. 8.59 cmH2O/L, P=0.021) compared to a combined group with no or partial UL. However, the predictive ability of these factors to discriminate substantial UL was poor, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.695 and 0.680 for closing pleural pressure and elastance respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that manometry is not useful in accurately predicting substantial UL when used via an IPC at the time of insertion.

Outpatient Talc Administration by Indwelling Pleural Catheter for Malignant Effusion.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusion affects more than 750,000 persons each year across Europe and the United States. Pleurodesis with the administration of talc in hospitalized patients is the most common treatment, but indwelling pleural catheters placed for drainage offer an ambulatory alternative. We examined whether talc administered through an indwelling pleural catheter was more effective at inducing pleurodesis than the use of an indwelling pleural catheter alone. METHODS: Over a period of 4 years, we recruited patients with malignant pleural effusion at 18 centers in the United Kingdom. After the insertion of an indwelling pleural catheter, patients underwent drainage regularly on an outpatient basis. If there was no evidence of substantial lung entrapment (nonexpandable lung, in which lung expansion and pleural apposition are not possible because of visceral fibrosis or bronchial obstruction) at 10 days, patients were randomly assigned to receive either 4 g of talc slurry or placebo through the indwelling pleural catheter on an outpatient basis. Talc or placebo was administered on a single-blind basis. Follow-up lasted for 70 days. The primary outcome was successful pleurodesis at day 35 after randomization. RESULTS: The target of 154 patients undergoing randomization was reached after 584 patients were approached. At day 35, a total of 30 of 69 patients (43%) in the talc group had successful pleurodesis, as compared with 16 of 70 (23%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 3.92; P=0.008). No significant between-group differences in effusion size and complexity, number of inpatient days, mortality, or number of adverse events were identified. No significant excess of blockages of the indwelling pleural catheter was noted in the talc group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients without substantial lung entrapment, the outpatient administration of talc through an indwelling pleural catheter for the treatment of malignant pleural effusion resulted in a significantly higher chance of pleurodesis at 35 days than an indwelling catheter alone, with no deleterious effects. (Funded by Becton Dickinson; EudraCT number, 2012-000599-40 .).

BTS guideline for the investigation and management of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

The full guideline for the investigation and management of malignant pleural mesothelioma is published in Thorax. The following is a summary of the recommendations and good practice points. The sections referred to in the summary refer to the full guideline.

Prophylactic radiotherapy for the prevention of procedure-tract metastases after surgical and large-bore pleural procedures in malignant pleural mesothelioma (SMART): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: Routine use of prophylactic radiotherapy in all patients with mesothelioma after large-bore thoracic interventions is not justified. FUNDING: Research for Patient Benefit Programme from the UK National Institute for Health Research.