Protocol for PIT: a phase III trial of prophylactic irradiation of tracts in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma following invasive chest wall intervention

Incidence and Risk Factors of Chest Wall Metastasis at Biopsy Sites in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

To investigate the incidence and risk factors of chest wall metastasis (CWM) at biopsy sites in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 262 consecutive MPM patients who underwent multimodal treatment in which including neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and curative-intent surgery, from August 2009 to March 2021. CWM was evaluated radiologically (r-CWM) and pathologically (p-CWM). We also investigated the risk factors of p-CWM and the consistency between r-CWM and p-CWM. Of 262 patients, 25 patients were excluded from analysis due to missing data or impossibility of evaluation. Of the eligible 237 patients, pleural biopsy was performed via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in 197 (83.1%) and medical thoracoscopy in 40 (16.9%). Pleurodesis was performed after pleural biopsy in 74 patients (31.2%). All patients received NAC followed by curative-intent surgery. Radiological examination showed r-CWM in 43 patients (18.1%), while pathological examination showed p-CWM in 135 patients (57.0%). The incidence of p-CWM was significantly higher in the patients who received pleurodesis after pleural biopsy (77.0% vs. 47.9%, <0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for p-CWM revealed that pleurodesis is an independent risk factor of p-CWM (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.84−6.52, <0.001). CWM at the biopsy site was pathologically proven in more than half of the patients (57.0%) who received NAC followed by curative-intent surgery, which was higher than the numbers diagnosed by radiological examinations (p-CWM: 57.0% vs. r-CWM: 18.1%). Pleurodesis after pleural biopsy is an independent risk factor of p-CWM.

Examining the language demands of informed consent documents in patient recruitment to cancer trials using tools from corpus and computational linguistics

Obtaining informed consent (IC) is an ethical imperative, signifying participants' understanding of the conditions and implications of research participation. One setting where the stakes for understanding are high is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which test the effectiveness and safety of medical interventions. However, the use of legalese and medicalese in ethical forms coupled with the need to explain RCT-related concepts (e.g. randomization) can increase patients' cognitive load when reading text. There is a need to systematically examine the language demands of IC documents, including whether the processes intended to safeguard patients by providing clear information might do the opposite through complex, inaccessible language. Therefore, the goal of this study is to build an open-access corpus of patient information sheets (PIS) and consent forms (CF) and analyze each genre using an interdisciplinary approach to capture multidimensional measures of language quality beyond traditional readability measures. A search of publicly-available online IC documents for UK-based cancer RCTs (2000-17) yielded corpora of 27 PIS and 23 CF. Textual analysis using the computational tool, Coh-Metrix, revealed different linguistic dimensions relating to the complexity of IC documents, particularly low word concreteness for PIS and low referential and deep cohesion for CF, although both had high narrativity. Key part-of-speech analyses using Wmatrix corpus software revealed a contrast between the overrepresentation of the pronoun 'you' plus modal verbs in PIS and 'I' in CF, exposing the contradiction inherent in conveying uncertainty to patients using tentative language in PIS while making them affirm certainty in their understanding in CF.

Prophylactic irradiation of tracts in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of prophylactic irradiation of tracts (PIT) to prevent tumor seeding at the site of a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is controversial. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of PITs in preventing procedure tract metastases (PTM) after a chest wall procedure in MPM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched various databases from inception date to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PIT with no PIT in patients who had a chest wall procedure for MPM. We assessed the risk of bias of individual RCT using the RoB2 tool. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PTM. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified five RCTs including 737 patients. Two RCTs had a low risk of bias. PIT was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of PTM (odd ratio, 0.55; 95 % confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.95; P-value = 0.03; I² = 13 %; GRADE: moderate certainty). One RCT reported no difference in overall survival outcome with the use of PIT. None of the RCTs performed subgroup analyses. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when limited to RCTs with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

PIT significantly reduces the occurrence of PTM in patients with MPM who had a diagnostic or therapeutic chest wall procedure.

Pain management in patients with malignant mesothelioma: challenges and solutions

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive cancer with a considerable symptom burden and poor prognosis. Focus on maintaining patients’ quality of life and pain control is therefore paramount. Pain management in MPM is complex due to its multifactorial etiology resulting from direct tumor infiltration of the surrounding soft tissue, bone, and encasement of the intercostal nerves. A variety of treatment modalities, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological options, are often required to achieve adequate pain control in this challenging disease. This review article examines the current challenges and solutions available for pain management in MPM.

Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM.

METHODS

After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0).

CONCLUSION

There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

The Future of Mesothelioma Research: Basic Science Research

Our current understanding of mesothelioma in terms of disease induction, development, and treatment is underpinned by decades of basic laboratory science. In this chapter, we discuss the tools that have been developed to aid our understanding of mesothelioma such as cell lines and animal models. We then go on to detail the current use and understanding of conventional therapies for mesothelioma, e.g. chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy, plus their mechanisms of action, and why they may be ineffective. Finally, we discuss a range of newer treatments that are either undergoing clinical trials or are still in the earlier stages of preclinical investigation. These include a growing number of immunotherapies (e.g. checkpoint inhibitors), plus targeted therapies, the search for clinical biomarkers to predict whether patients with mesothelioma might respond to particular treatments, and combined therapies where conventional treatments may be added to newer drugs. The strategy of repositioning existing drugs, approved for other diseases, to treat mesothelioma is also discussed.

Is there a role for prophylactic radiotherapy to intervention tract sites in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma?

Malignant pleural mesothelioma has a high morbidity and poor prognosis. Most patients undergo invasive pleural interventions to either facilitate diagnosis and/or alleviate symptoms from malignant pleural effusion. Procedure tract metastasis (PTM) are a well-known complication of pleural procedures in mesothelioma and there has been longstanding debate regarding the role of prophylactic irradiation of tracts in preventing them. This review summarises the existing evidence surrounding this controversial topic. Despite initial discrepancies amongst the results of 3 small, historical trials regarding the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in mesothelioma, two large randomised-control trials have recently provided more clarity. The SMART trial, which randomised over 200 patients, found no benefit of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing PTM incidence in their primary analysis, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 25.1 to prevent a single painful PTM. Additionally, there was no benefit in terms of symptomology, health-related quality of life parameters or cost-effectiveness. This is supported by the preliminary results of the Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients with Pleural Mesothelioma (PIT) trial, which randomised 375 patients and also found no evidence that prophylactic radiotherapy reduced PTM incidence, although the full results are still awaited. Combined analysis of these trials is planned, which will help clarify whether specific subpopulations may derive benefit from prophylactic radiotherapy, such as patients not receiving chemotherapy. Based on the currently available evidence there is no role for routine delivery of prophylactic radiotherapy to prevent PTM in mesothelioma. Instead holistic and vigilant follow-up of patients is recommended, aiming for adequate palliation of symptoms and support for patients. Should painful nodules develop these can be effectively treated with subsequent palliative radiotherapy. After years of uncertainty and debate, recent international guidelines have consistently advised against the use of prophylactic irradiation of tracts based on contemporary high-quality evidence.

Adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and definitive radiation therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

While ionizing radiotherapy (RT) can provide durable local control, the relative radiosensitivity of surrounding organs such as the lungs and heart and the distributed nature of the pleura limit the ability to safely deliver RT for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Recent advances in the technological sophistication of RT planning and delivery devices have resulted in increased spatial control of irradiation dose that has extended the palliative and definitive applications of RT for patients with MPM. This review will outline the logistical, mechanistic and clinical basics of RT and the clinical trials supporting the use of RT in the multidisciplinary care of patients with MPM.

Prophylactic radiotherapy for procedure tract metastases in mesothelioma: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive malignancy with a very poor prognosis. The majority of patients require pleural procedures for diagnostic or fluid management purposes. Damage to the pleura during these procedures can lead to procedure tract metastases (PTMs), with increasing risk from larger interventions. Prophylactic radiotherapy to these sites is a controversial topic with conflicting results from trial data. In this review, we summarize the recent evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four RCTs have been published on this topic, with another in follow-up. The earliest, from a cohort of 40 patients, strongly advocated the use of prophylactic radiotherapy. More recent trials, most notably the Surgical and large bore procedures in Malignant pleural mesothelioma And Radiotherapy Trial (SMART) (which randomized over 200 patients) did not demonstrate any benefit, especially when patient report symptoms and cost-effectiveness are considered. Certain subgroups demand further investigation, such as those not receiving systematic chemotherapy or with surgical intervention sites. The soon to be published Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts (PIT) trial may help to further clarify best practice.

SUMMARY

Recent studies have shown that prophylactic radiotherapy should not be routinely used to prevent PTMs in mesothelioma. Instead patients should undergo careful clinical follow-up to ensure PTMs are identified and treated promptly to minimize symptoms.

Evaluating quality of life and cost implications of prophylactic radiotherapy in mesothelioma: Health economic analysis of the SMART trial

BACKGROUND

The SMART trial is a UK-based, multicentre RCT comparing prophylactic radiotherapy and symptom-based (deferred) radiotherapy in 203 patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma who had undergone large bore pleural interventions. Using costs and quality of life data collected alongside the clinical trial, we will estimate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic radiotherapy compared to deferred radiotherapy over a 1-year period.

METHODS

Healthcare utilization and costs were captured during the trial. Utility weights produced by the EQ-5D questionnaire were used to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated over the one-year trial period.

RESULTS

Costs were similar in the immediate and deferred radiotherapy groups: £5480.40 (SD = £7040; n = 102) and £5461.40 (SD = £7770; n = 101) respectively. There was also no difference in QALY: 0.498 (95% CI: [0.45, 0.547]) in the prophylactic radiotherapy group versus 0.525 (95% CI: [0.471, 0.580]) in the deferred group. At a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY there was only a 24% chance that prophylactic radiotherapy was cost-effective compared to deferred radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant effect of prophylactic radiotherapy on quality of life in the intervention group, nor was there any discernable decrease in healthcare costs. There is little evidence to suggest that prophylactic radiotherapy is a cost-effective intervention in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN72767336 with ISRCTN.

Biomarkers in mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer of pleural and peritoneal cells that is difficult to diagnose and monitor. Numerous studies have attempted to identify a blood- or pleural fluid-based biomarker that could be used in the diagnostic pathway. More recently, there has been interest in the ability of serum/plasma biomarkers to monitor mesothelioma, given the development of newer treatments and limitations of radiological assessment. The majority of research has focused on soluble mesothelin, a soluble glycoprotein expressed by mesothelial cells. Although soluble mesothelin lacks the sensitivity to be used as a standalone diagnostic marker, serial measurements may be informative, with rising concentrations indicating disease progression and poor survival. High concentrations of other soluble glycoproteins, such as osteopontin, fibulin-3 and vascular endothelial growth factor are independently associated with poor prognosis at baseline, although further research is required to ascertain any role outside of clinical trials. More recent literature has focused on the development of novel biomarkers from discovery cohorts. Although many DNA and mRNA biomarkers show promise in the diagnosis or screening of mesothelioma, none have been prospectively evaluated for use in clinical practice. In this review article, we highlight the potential utility of biomarkers and evaluate the existing literature.

[Prophylactic radiotherapy in a single fraction of 10Gy at intervention pleural site in patient with malignant pleural mesothelioma: A retrospective monocentric cohort study]

PURPOSE

Prophylactic radiotherapy to prevent procedure-tracts metastases from malignant pleural mesothelioma remains controversial and clinical practice varies. The purpose was to assess the efficacy of local radiotherapy in a single fraction of 10Gy in preventing malignant seeding at intervention pleural site in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study, including patients with histological confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma treated by prophylactic irradiation to prevent interventional site metastases with a unique fraction of 10Gy with 6 to 18MeV, from January 1990 to December 2013 in the institut de cancérologie de Lorraine (Nancy, France).

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were treated by irradiation in intervention site, involving 120 intervention pleural sites, 91 thoracoscopies, 17 thoracotomies with chest drain and 12 CT or ultrasound guided needle biopsies. The median follow-up was 7 months (interquartile between 3 and 15 months). The overall survival was 43.5% at 12 months. The local progression free survival was 43.7% at 12 month. The incidence of local recurrence was 8% at 12 months. The median interval from radiotherapy to local recurrence was 4 months (2; 32). No grade II or higher toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSION

Irradiation of pleural intervention sites with a single fraction of 10Gy is effective, well tolerated, simple, fast and cost effective.

Radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive disease that continues to be associated with poor outcomes. Although, traditionally this disease is considered to be resistant to radiotherapy, more recent evidence suggests that radiotherapy can produce positive outcomes. Over the past 15 years, the development of new, highly conformal radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), has enabled investigators to optimise the delivery of high-dose radiotherapy to the whole of the hemithorax. Prospective single-arm trials have shown that the median survival of patients who have completed high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy after extrapleural pneumonectomy could reach 23·9-39·4 months independent of the chemotherapeutic response, suggesting that IMRT could potentially have an intrinsic benefit to this subset of patients. These observations have led to a change in practice, with the introduction of adjuvant pleural IMRT after pleurectomy-decortication and the development of induction-accelerated hemithoracic IMRT followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy. This Review focuses on recent observations on the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma, with particular emphasis on the results of clinical trials that evaluate the role of high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy.

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.