Types of surgery post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy for pleural mesothelioma

Clinical Significance of Bone Metastases in Pleural Mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Bone metastasis (BoM) is common in advanced cancer, but its incidence in pleural mesothelioma (PM) remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the incidence of BoM in PM patients and assess its prognosis and risk factors to clarify its clinical significance.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 515 histologically confirmed PM patients enrolled between January 2011 and December 2020. The cumulative incidence of BoM was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with group differences assessed via log-rank tests. Risk factors for BoM were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 13.3 months (range: 0.2-106.7 months). BoM was detected in 59 patients (11.5%) at diagnosis or during disease progression. Multivariate analysis identified non-epithelial histology (odds ratio [OR]: 2.189, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.179-4.065, p = 0.013) as an independent risk factor for developing BoM. Patients with BoM had worse overall survival (OS) compared to those without BoM (median OS: 18.6 months vs. 21.7 months, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

BoM in PM occurs less frequently than in primary lung cancer, with non-epithelial histology being more commonly associated with BoM. Patients with BoM had a poor prognosis, particularly when BoM was present at diagnosis. This study is limited by its retrospective design, which may introduce biases related to data collection and patient selection. Future prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Anaesthetic and perioperative considerations for extrapleural pneumonectomy and extended pleurectomy/decortication: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and extended pleurectomy/decortication (ePD) are surgical cytoreductive techniques aimed at achieving macroscopic resection in malignant pleural tumours such as pleural mesothelioma, non-mesothelioma pleural malignancies such as thymoma and sarcoma, and rarely for pleural tuberculosis, in a more limited fashion. Despite extensive studies on both surgical techniques and consequences, a significant knowledge gap remains regarding how best to approach the perioperative anaesthesia challenges for EPP and ePD.It is unknown if the risk stratification processes for such surgeries are standardised or what types of functional and dynamic cardiac and pulmonary tests are employed preoperatively to assist in the perioperative risk stratification. Further, it is unknown whether the types of anaesthesia and analgesia techniques employed, and the types of haemodynamic monitoring tools used, impact on outcomes. It is also unknown whether individualised haemodynamic protocols are used to guide the rational use of fluids, vasoactive drugs and inotropes.Finally, there is a dearth of evidence regarding how best to monitor these patients postoperatively or what the most effective enhanced recovery protocols are to best mitigate postoperative complications and accelerate hospital discharge. To increase our knowledge of the perioperative and anaesthetic treatment for patients undergoing EPP/ePD, this scoping review attempts to synthesise the literature and identify these knowledge gaps.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review Protocols methodology. Electronic databases, OVID Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, will be systematically searched for relevant literature corresponding to EPP or ePD and perioperative or anaesthetic management. Data will be analysed and summarised descriptively and organised according to the three perioperative stages: preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors in clinical care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was not required. The findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publications in scientific journals.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for American patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background

The treatment paradigm of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has changed in recent years. Checkmate 743 demonstrate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed good clinical benefits compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of MPM. The study is aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. platinum plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable MPM.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CheckMate 743 trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness's results.

Results

In the base case analysis, the incremental healthcare costs and QALYs for Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy are $196,604.22 and 0.53, respectively, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $372,414.28/QALYs for the model cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic MPM. However, Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was no probability that Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was cost-effective within the fluctuation range of other model parameters in first-line in unresectable MPM. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of Nivolumab was the most sensitive parameter.

Conclusions

The ICER of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is above the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S, which suggests that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable MPM may be not a cost-effective choice.

Epigenetic Alterations and Biomarkers for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Current Standards and Future Perspectives in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Treatment

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is strongly associated with occupational or environmental asbestos exposure and arises from neoplastic transformation of mesothelial cells in the pleural cavity. The only standard initial treatment for unresectable MPM is combination chemotherapy with cisplatin (CDDP) and pemetrexed (PEM). Further, CDDP/PEM is the only approved regimen with evidence of prolonged overall survival (OS), although the median OS for patients treated with this regimen is only 12 months after diagnosis. Thus, the development of new therapeutic strategies has been investigated for approximately 20 years. In contrast to recent advances in personalized lung cancer therapies, diagnostic and prognostic biomarker research has just started in mesothelioma. Epigenetic alterations include DNA methylation, histone modifications, and other chromatin-remodeling events. These processes are involved in numerous cellular processes including differentiation, development, and tumorigenesis. Epigenetic modifications play an important role in gene expression and regulation related to malignant MPM phenotypes and histological subtypes. An immune checkpoint PD-1 inhibitor, nivolumab, was approved as second-line therapy for patients who had failed initial chemotherapy, based on the results of the MERIT study. Various clinical immunotherapy trials are ongoing in patients with advanced MPM. In this review, we describe recent knowledge on epigenetic alterations, which might identify candidate therapeutic targets and immunotherapeutic regimens under development for MPM.