Once a diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma is confirmed, a thorough staging work-up should be undertaken to determine if a patient is amenable to surgical resection. This work-up includes not only imaging and surgical staging as mentioned above, but a complete assessment of comorbidities, cardiac status, and pulmonary function testing.
Surgery is recommended for patients with clinical stage I disease who are considered medically fit and can tolerate the surgery. Patients who are not operable because of comorbidity or impaired cardiopulmonary function can be observed (an appropriate option in the very elderly, those with poor performance status and significant comorbidity, etc) or treated with chemotherapy. Patients with stage II-III disease should be offered trimodality therapy with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, while chemotherapy alone is recommended for patients who are not medically fit for surgery, have stage IV disease, and/or show sarcomatoid histology.
Surgery
For patients considered fit for surgery, the standard procedure for many years has been an extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP): a radical excision of the entire lung, both visceral and parietal pleura, pericardium, and diaphragm with synthetic reconstruction. Methodical dissection of intra- and extrapleural lymph nodes is important. Sugarbaker et al
Show Image20 described the outcome in a large series of 183 patients treated with EPP: Perioperative deaths were 3.8% with a median and 5-year survival of 19 months and 15%, respectively. Patients with epitheloid histology, lack of extrapleural nodal involvement, and negative resection margins fared better, with median and 5-year survival of 51 months and 46%, respectively. The poor outcome in patients with extrapleural nodal involvement underscores the importance of accurate preoperative staging with PET, EUS-guided FNA, and/or mediastinoscopy.
Other studies addressing EPP have shown median survival rates ranging from 10-24 months.
Show Image21-
Show ImageShow Image,
Show Image24 Rusch and Venkatraman
Show Image21 compared EPP in a nonrandomized manner with pleurectomy. The median survival for pleurectomy patients was 18 months compared to 10 months for EPP patients; however, the patients treated with pleurectomy tended to be in an earlier stage. Sites of relapse were more often local after a pleurectomy, whereas patients treated with EPP were more likely to have distant relapse in the contralateral lung or the abdominal cavity.
In some centers, the use of intracavitary chemotherapy, usually cisplatin, is favored. Concentrations 3 to 5 times those of systemic administration can be achieved. Most experience with this approach has been with intraperitoneal (IP) administration. Response rates with IP have been around 23% compared to 12% for intrapleural administration.
Show Image25 Nephrotoxicity is still a concern with intracavitary administration, which requires hydration and close monitoring of renal function.
Standards of care recommend that patients diagnosed with mesothelioma undergo a multidisciplinary evaluation and work-up with careful preoperative evaluation to determine nodal and distant metastatic disease. Patients who are ultimately considered for surgery should have a good performance status, minimal comorbidities, epithelioid histology, and stage I or perhaps stage II (without nodal involvement) disease.
Show Image26Patients with sarcomatoid histology, biphasic histologies, or extrapleural nodal involvement (stage III-IV) have poor outcomes and should probably not be offered radical surgery. No randomized trial has yet shown a survival advantage with EPP. This question is being addressed in the
Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery feasibility trial that randomized patients to EPP or observation after they received 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy.
Show Image27 The study closed after 50 patients were accrued over a 3-year period and results are pending, but criticism is already mounting that the study will have too small a power to detect any significant difference.
Lung-sparing cytoreductive surgery offers a more conservative approach than EPP and is advocated by some, especially when combined with chemotherapy and radiation (trimodality therapy). Lung-sparing approaches typically include a pleurectomy, removal of the parietal pleural layer, and decortication. In a large surgical series, Flores et al
Show Image28 reported a median survival of 15.8 months in 176 patients treated with pleurectomy and decortication. Teh et al
Show Image29 conducted a systematic review of lung-sparing extirpative surgery in mesothelioma patients, analyzing results on 1,270 patients from 26 studies. The average survival at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years was 51%, 26%, 16%, 11%, and 9%, respectively. Variables included the use of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy and even surgical approaches within specific trials. The authors acknowledged that lacking any controlled trials, no firm conclusions could be drawn regarding lung-sparing surgery versus more radical approaches. Nonetheless, in the modern era of more common use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a more conservative approach to surgery warrants consideration.
Photodynamic therapy is a light-based treatment that utilizes a porphyrin-based compound that reacts in the presence of visible light to cause direct cellular destruction and to initiate a series of apoptotic events. Photodynamic therapy has been approved in some malignancies but remains experimental for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Trials have assessed its use in eradicating microscopic residual disease after macroscopic complete resection by delivering an intrathoracic cavity treatment.
Show Image30 Palliative surgery remains a viable option for patients who are not fit for a more aggressive radical EPP or who have advanced disease. Talc pleurodesis via an indwelling chest tube provides symptomatic relief of dyspnea associated with a malignant pleural effusion. A thoracoscopically applied talc poudrage is usually more effective and durable and, with the use of a video-assisted thoracoscope, can also allow the surgeon to perform a cytoreductive procedure. As a comfort measure, a permanent tunneled chest drain can be placed, allowing the patient or caregivers the ability to periodically drain fluid.
Show Image26 Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy is potentially helpful for reducing chest wall masses or alleviating pain, but these responses are transient; radiotherapy has seldom demonstrated significant response as the primary modality for intrathoracic disease and has not been shown to improve survival.
Show Image31 Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a sophisticated modality that uses small radiation beams at various angles in a 3-dimensional conformal pattern, allowing for more intense radiation at the target with greater precision. It is often used after EPP because the ipsilateral hemithorax is a common site of relapse. An M.D. Anderson study of 28 patients treated with EPP followed by IMRT found that local control was 100% at 9 months' follow-up.
Show Image32 Recommending radiotherapy, usually IMRT, after an EPP has been standard since 2003, as has been suggesting radiotherapy within 2 weeks of any pleural biopsy or tube drainage procedure to prevent possible seeding. Whether such treatment is truly effective or has any impact on survival is controversial.
Chemotherapy
For many years, chemotherapy treatment of mesothelioma was disappointing, partly because of the relative chemoresistance of mesothelioma and the lack of active agents with acceptable toxicity. Older phase I and II trials were fraught with small numbers. Studies of single agents such as anthracyclines, antimetabolites, and platinum analogs showed response rates around 10%.
Show Image33 Researchers and practitioners were even concerned that chemotherapy did not impart any better outcome than best supportive care (BSC) alone. The United Kingdom's Medical Research Council attempted to establish a benefit for chemotherapy over supportive care in a large phase III trial in previously untreated patients.
Show Image34 The study used a 3-arm design and randomized patients to BSC with or without 1 of 2 chemotherapy arms: single-agent vinorelbine or the combination of mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP). The study intended to accrue 840 patients but, because of slow accrual, was closed after only 409 patients enrolled. For statistical analysis, the results of the 2 chemotherapy arms were combined and compared against BSC alone. The median survival for patients in the chemotherapy arms was 8.5 months compared to 7.6 months for BSC, which was not statistically different. A subsequent exploratory analysis of the 2 chemotherapy arms separately showed that those treated with vinorelbine had a median survival of 9.4 months, but patients in the MVP arm had no significant survival advantage.
Vinorelbine was further tested as monotherapy in the salvage or second-line setting. Stebbing et al
Show Image35 gave weekly vinorelbine to 63 patients with relapsed or refractory mesothelioma and obtained a response rate of 16% and median survival of 9.6 months. With the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin, the response rate was 30%, median time to progression was 7.2 months, and median survival was 16.8 months.
Show Image36 Gemcitabine as a single agent demonstrated a response rate of 31% and symptom improvement in 40% in a trial of 23 patients with untreated disease.
Show Image37 However, this trial was criticized because of its small size and because most of the patients had early-stage disease and favorable epithelial histology. Other trials of gemcitabine monotherapy had response rates of 0%-7% and median survivals of 4.7-8 months.
Show Image38,
Show Image39 Trials combining gemcitabine with cisplatin or carboplatin resulted in response rates ranging from 12%-48% with median time to progression ranging from 6-9 months.
Show Image40 In a meta-analysis of phase II trials conducted between 1965 and 2001, cisplatin was the most active single agent for the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.
Show Image41 Cisplatin has served as the backbone of most doublet regimens. In 2003, a phase III randomized trial compared cisplatin alone versus cisplatin plus pemetrexed in untreated malignant pleural mesothelioma.
Show Image42 With the combination, the response rate was 41.3% compared to 16.7% for cisplatin alone (
P < .0001). Median time to progression was 5.7 vs 3.9 months, (
P = .001), and median overall survival was 12.1 vs 9.3 months (
P = .02), both in favor of the combination arm. As a result, the combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed is considered standard first-line therapy for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. It has also become a standard recommendation in the adjuvant combined modality approach to resectable disease.
Methotrexate, an antifolate agent, was one of the earliest such agents to demonstrate activity in mesothelioma. High-dose therapy with 3 gm/m
2 utilizing leucovorin rescue resulted in a 37% response rate and a median survival of 11 months in a small phase II trial of 60 patients.
Show Image43 However, pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin has largely replaced this regimen.
Despite the improvement shown with the combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed, nearly two-thirds of patients still fail to show a response to this regimen and most patients will progress after first-line therapy and often die within a year of diagnosis. Efforts have been undertaken to find better markers of response to cisplatin and pemetrexed to identify not only patients who would benefit from therapy but, just as important, to exclude those who would not. Also, better second-line agents need to be developed.
The excision repair cross-complementing 1 (ERCC-1) gene, located on chromosome 19, is an essential gene for physiologic repair of damaged DNA adducts. ERCC-1 also repairs DNA strand damage caused by cisplatin and correlates with a favorable prognosis in non–small cell lung cancer.
Show Image44,
Show Image45 Thymidylate synthase (TS) is an enzyme targeted by pemetrexed; studies have attempted to correlate TS-mRNA and protein expression levels with response and/or survival to pemetrexed-based therapy in mesothelioma. Zucali et al
Show Image46 showed a positive correlation between low TS protein expression and disease control, longer progression-free survival, and overall survival in mesothelioma patients treated with carboplatin-pemetrexed; however, the researchers did not find any associations with ERCC-1 protein expression. Righi et al
Show Image47 showed that TS-mRNA and protein expression are inversely correlated with pemetrexed sensitivity and outcome in non–small cell lung cancer but failed to find a correlation between TS-RNA and patient outcome in mesothelioma, although the mesothelioma specimens used had small numbers of tumor cells. Using these tests is difficult because of the lack of uniform standards for both immunohistochemical and polymerase-chain reaction methods.
Pemetrexed, a useful second-line agent, was shown to be better than BSC in a phase III trial of 243 patients with mesothelioma previously treated with one prior chemotherapy regimen that excluded pemetrexed.
Show Image48However, with the combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin as the more common standard first-line regimen, the use of pemetrexed as a second-line treatment is less likely.
Comments