Malignant pleural mesothelioma: between pragmatism and hope

The efficacy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in monitoring disease progression in malignant pleural mesothelioma

OBJECTIVE

In the event of suspicion of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) progression, imaging plays an important role. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in monitoring disease progression by comparing it with CT, and estimate median overall survival (OS) according to progression status with CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-institution study with MPM patients who had both ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and CT for monitoring disease progression from March 2009 to February 2020. Clinical features, radiological findings, and progression status according to CT [radiologic progression negative (RPN), radiologic progression positive (RPP)] and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT [metabolic progression negative (MPN), metabolic progression positive (MPP)] were recorded. The discrepancies and concordance between two methods were evaluated. The OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients were included. There were thirty-one (55.3%) RPN and 25 (44.7%) RPP, while there were 26 (46.5%) MPN and 30 (53.5%) MPP. All RPP patients were also found to be MPP, however, among RPN, 5 patients (8.9% of all patients) were evaluated as MPP. The concordance between two methods in monitoring disease progression was very good (K = 0.423; p < 0.01). The OS was 26 ± 2.6 months in all patients. Kaplan-Meier curves between RPN and RPP, and between MPN and MPP did not show statistically significant differences (p = 0.56 and p = 0.25, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both methods are equally acceptable in monitoring disease progression in MPM, even though ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT detected more progression than CT did.

Clinical, Laboratory, Histological, Radiological, and Metabolic Features and Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive and rare malignant pleural tumor. Methods: MPM patients diagnosed in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital and Beijing Tongren Hospital were the focus of this study. We collected and analyzed the histological, radiological, and metabolic features of MPM patients. At the same time, Cox univariable and multivariable analyses were used to explore the laboratory risk factors affecting the prognosis of MPM patients. Results: A total of 129 MPM patients were included in this study. MPM includes three main histological subtypes: epithelioid, sarcomatoid and biphasic. Among them, epithelial subtypes accounted for the highest proportion. Calretinin, Wilms' tumor gene (WT1), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), and D2-40 were the most useful mesothelial markers to support a MPM diagnosis. The imaging features of MPM patients are pleural thickening and pleural effusion. In PET-CT, the affected pleura showed obvious high uptake of tracer, and the degree was related to the specific subtype. The median follow-up time was 55.0 (30.0, 94.0) months. A total of 92 (71.3%) patients died during follow-up. The median survival time of patients was 21.0 (9.0, 48.0) months. The Cox multivariable analysis showed that age [hazard ratio (HR), 1.824; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.159-2.872; p = 0.009; uncorrected], ESR (HR, 2.197; 95% CI 1.318-3.664; p = 0.003; with Bonferroni correction), lymphocytes (HR, 0.436; 95% CI 0.258-0.737; p = 0.002; with Bonferroni correction), platelets (HR, 1.802; 95% CI 1.084-2.997; p = 0.023; uncorrected) and total protein (HR, 0.625; 95% CI 0.394-0.990; p = 0.045; uncorrected) were independent risk factors for prognosis, after adjusting for confounding factors. Conclusions: Age, ESR, lymphocytes, platelets and total protein may be related to the prognosis of MPM patients. Summarizing the histological, radiological, and metabolic features of MPM patients in the two centers can increase clinicians' understanding of this rare tumor.

Single-Center 20-Year Experience in Surgical Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Objectives: We examined a series of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients who consecutively underwent surgery in our institution during the last 20 years. Across this period, we changed our surgical approach to MPM, adopting extended pleurectomy and decortication (eP/D) instead of extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP). In this study, we compare the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival of patients who underwent EPP vs. eP/D. Methods: A retrospective analysis was carried out of all the MPM patients identified from our departmental database who underwent EPP or P/D from 2000 to 2021. Clavien−Dindo criteria was adopted to score postoperative complications, while Kaplan−Meier methods and a Cox multivariable analysis were used to perform the survival analysis. Results: Of 163 patients, 78 (48%) underwent EPP and 85 (52%) eP/D. Induction chemotherapy was significantly administrated more often in the eP/D group (88% vs. 51%). Complete trimodality treatment including induction chemotherapy, radical surgery, and adjuvant radiotherapy was administered in 74% of the eP/D group versus 32% of the EPP group (p < 0.001). The postoperative morbidity rate was higher in the eP/D group (54%) compared to the EPP group (36%) (p = 0.02); no statistically significant differences were identified concerning major complications (EPP 43% vs. eP/D 24%, p = 0.08). No statistical differences were identified in 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, median disease-free, and overall survival statistics between the two groups. The Cox multivariable analysis confirmed no induction chemotherapy (HR, 0.5; p = 0.002), RDW (HR, 1.08; p = 0.02), and the presence of pathological nodal disease (HR, 1.99; p = 0.001) as factors associated with worse survival in the entire series. Conclusions: Our data support that eP/D is a well-tolerated procedure allowing the implementation of a trimodality strategy (induction chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy) in most MPM patients. When eP/D is offered in this setting, the oncological results are comparable to EPP. To obtain the best oncological results, the goal of surgical resection should be macroscopic complete resection (R0) in carefully selected patients (clinical N0).