Standards of care in mesothelioma treatment

Understanding clinical decision-making in mesothelioma care: a mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare, incurable cancer arising from previous asbestos exposure; patients have a poor prognosis, with a median survival rate of 8-14 months. Variation in mesothelioma clinical decision-making remains common with a lack of multidisciplinary knowledge sharing, leading to inconsistencies in treatment decisions. The study aimed to explore which factors impacted on clinicians' decision-making in mesothelioma care, with a view to optimising the mesothelioma care pathway.

METHODS

This mixed methods study consisted of documentary analysis of local and national guidelines, policies or documents pertaining to mesothelioma care pathways, secondary analysis of mesothelioma patient data, and interviews with clinicians attending lung cancer and/or mesothelioma-specific multidisciplinary team meetings. The study took place at three National Health Service trusts in England. Documentations relating to patients' treatment pathways were collated and reviewed qualitatively. Records of patients with mesothelioma were extracted from hospital patient records and data collected on diagnosis date, treatment, mortality rates, survival postdiagnosis, age and clinical care team. Data were statistically analysed. Interviews with clinicians explored influences on clinical decision-making, including challenges or barriers involved. Data were thematically analysed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting checklist was used.

RESULTS

There were differences in the structure and delivery of mesothelioma treatment and care between trusts. Four main themes were identified: 'collaboration and communication', 'evidence base and knowledge', 'role of the clinician' and 'role of the patient'. Two cross-cutting themes relating to the role of the mesothelioma nurse specialist and the impact of COVID-19 were identified.

DISCUSSION

There is a need to review the structure of mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meetings to ensure patients are reviewed by clinicians with appropriate knowledge, expertise and understanding of how, why and when decisions should be made. There is a need for expert clinicians in mesothelioma care to promote an up-to-date evidence and knowledge base within the wider multidisciplinary team.

Improving mesothelioma follow-up care in the UK: a qualitative study to build a multidisciplinary pyramid of care approach

OBJECTIVES

The findings reported in this manuscript are part of a wider study that aimed to explore mesothelioma patients' experiences of follow-up care. The aim of this phase of the study was to co-produce recommendations for policy and practice and to propose a revised, patient-focused, mesothelioma follow-up care service.

DESIGN

The consultation phase was qualitative and consisted of three group discussions with separate stakeholder groups allowing for different priorities and needs for follow-up care to be compared. An implicit approach to consensus was adopted and data were analysed iteratively using the framework method.

SETTING

The study was conducted in three National Health Service Trusts in the South of England. Two were secondary care settings and the third was a tertiary centre.

PARTICIPANTS

The consultation exercise comprised three group discussions with key stakeholders (n=35): mesothelioma specialist nurses (n=9), mesothelioma patients and carers (n=11) and local clinical commissioning group members (n=15).

RESULTS

Recommendations for mesothelioma follow-up care were developed using a co-production approach and highlighted the importance of continuity of care, the provision of timely information and the central role played by mesothelioma specialist nurses, supported by the wider multidisciplinary team. Recommendations were produced together with two bespoke infographics to maximise impact and facilitate patient and public engagement with the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations developed are the first that specifically examine best practice for the follow-up care pathway for mesothelioma patients. Co-production and public engagement are crucial to priority setting develop and optimising patient-centred care. Combining the recommendations produced with a targeted dissemination strategy and well-designed, patient-focused infographics will maximise opportunities for impact at a regional and national level.

A review of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a large North East UK pleural centre

Objectives

The National Mesothelioma Audit 2020 showed Northumbria to have low rates of histopathological confirmation, treatment and one-year survival rates for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We hypothesized that an internal analysis over a 10-year period provides valuable insights into presentation, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes.

Methods

A single-centre retrospective case series of all confirmed MPM patients between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2019 was performed. Demographics, clinical, radiological and histopathological characteristics and outcomes were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V26.0.

Results

A total of 247 patients had MPM. About 86% were male, mean age 75.7 years. Dyspnoea (77.4%) and chest pain (38.5%) were commonest symptoms. 64.9 and 71.4% had pleural thickening and effusion, respectively. About 86.8% had at least one attempt to obtain a tissue biopsy, but histopathological confirmation in only 108 (43.7%). About 66.3% with PS 0 and 1 (62.7% of total cohort) had at least one anti-cancer therapy. Death within 12 months was associated with disease progression within 6 months (p≤0.001). Chemotherapy (p≤0.001) and epithelioid histological subtype (p=0.01) were protective.

Conclusions

This study confirms known epidemiology of MPM, demonstrates variability in practices and highlights how some NMA recommendations are not met. This provides the incentive for a regional mesothelioma multi-disciplinary meeting.