Dataset Information

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:

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Findings

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.

Interpretation

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.

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK/04/003), the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

SUBMITTER: Treasure T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3148430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly lethal, poorly understood neoplasm that is typically associated with asbestos exposure. We performed transcriptional profiling using high-density oligonucleotide microarrays containing approximately 22,000 genes to elucidate potential molecular and pathobiological pathways in MPM using discarded human MPM tumor specimens (n=40), normal lung specimens (n=4), normal pleura specimens (n=5), and MPM and SV40-immortalized mesothelial cell lines (n=5). In global expression analysis using unsupervised clustering techniques, we found two potential subclasses of mesothelioma which correlate loosely with tumor histology. We also identified sets of genes with expression levels that distinguish between multiple tumor subclasses, normal and tumor tissues, and tumors with different morphologies. Microarray gene expression data were confirmed using quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and protein analysis for three novel candidate oncogenes (NME2, CRI1, and PDGFC) and one candidate tumor suppressor (GSN). Finally, we used bioinformatics tools (i.e. software) to create and explore complex physiological pathways that may be relevant in mesothelioma tumorigenesis, pathobiology, or both. Tissues and cell lines profiled using microarrays. Discarded MPM surgical specimens (n=40), normal pleura specimens (n=5), and normal lung specimens (n=4) were freshly collected (and snap frozen) from patients who underwent surgery at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) between October 1998 and August 2000. All of these patients underwent extrapleural pneumonectomy with heated intra-pleural cisplatin chemotherapy delivered after the specimens were removed. All normal specimens were obtained from patients who were never diagnosed with MPM. Two human MPM cell lines (MS589 and MS428) were kindly provided by Jonathan A. Fletcher, M.D., Department of Pathology, BWH. The JMN1B MPM cell line19,20 has been described previously. The SV40-immortalized, non-tumorigenic mesothelial cell line (Met-5A)21 and the MPM cell line MSTO-211H22 were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection. Normal tissues were obtained from additional consented patients undergoing treatment for diseases other than MPM. All MPM samples used in these studies contained relatively pure tumor (greater than 50% tumor cells per high power field examined in a section adjacent to the tissue used). The microscopic slides from the patients' resection specimens were reviewed by one of the authors (J.G.), and the diagnosis and histologic subclassification of MPM confirmed in all cases. Linked clinical and pathological data were obtained for all patients who contributed tumor specimens. Specimens and data were rendered anonymous to protect patient confidentiality. Studies utilizing human tissues were approved by and conducted in accordance with the policies of the Institutional Review Board at BWH.

Project description:BackgroundMultimodality therapy with preoperative radiation (RT) followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy (EP) for patients with operable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has demonstrated encouraging results. At relapse, there are few data on the tolerance and efficacy of systemic therapies after prior multimodality therapy.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with relapsed MPM after RT and EPP ± adjuvant chemotherapy to determine overall survival (OS; date of relapse to death) and the proportion of patients that received systemic therapy and associated response rate (RR). OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and potential prognostic variables were examined.ResultsFifty-three patients were included (2008-2016). Median OS was 4.8 months (median follow-up 4.4 months, range 0.03-34.8). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥2, disease-free interval (DFI) <1 year, and hemoglobin ≤110 g/L at recurrence were associated with worse prognosis. Thirty-six percent of patients received any systemic therapy, whereas it was omitted in 62% because of poor PS. RR was 15% (0 complete responses, 15% partial responses) in 13 individuals with response-evaluable disease. Therapy was discontinued because of toxicity (6/15) or disease progression (5/15), and median number of cycles was four.ConclusionPatients with relapsed MPM following RT and EPP, especially those with ECOG PS ≥2, DFI <1 year, and hemoglobin ≤110 g/L at recurrence, have poor prognosis and low RR to first-line systemic therapy. Earlier detection and novel diagnostic markers of relapse as well as potential neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy should be investigated in future studies.Implications for practiceThe results of this study have reinforced the importance of careful selection of appropriate candidates for this combined-modality approach and favor prompt detection of recurrence with early and regular postoperative imaging and biopsy of suspected relapsed disease along with rapid initiation of systemic therapy even in patients with very low burden of disease. Furthermore, with the emergence of new systemic agents targeting different histological subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma, histological sampling of recurrence could inform therapeutic decisions in the future.

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.