BACKGROUND: Survival after tri-modality therapy with extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and postoperative chemoradiotherapy is longer for patients with epithelial MPM versus mixed or sarcomatoid subtypes, leading some to decline aggressive therapy for patients with nonepithelial histology. However, pathologic diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and subclassification into one of the three histologic subtypes (epithelial, mixed, sarcomatoid) can be challenging. Pleural biopsy has been proposed as the diagnostic gold standard. We investigated the accuracy of open pleural biopsy for diagnosis and subtype identification in MPM. METHODS: Patients with suspected MPM routinely undergo open pleural biopsy to establish diagnosis. Those diagnosed definitively by pleural biopsy or cytology are offered pleurectomy or EPP dependent on stage and cardiorespiratory status. We reviewed medical records for all patients undergoing EPP at our institution, comparing tissue and subtype diagnosis at initial diagnostic biopsy versus definitive resection. RESULTS: Between 1988 and 2000, 305 of 332 consecutive patients undergoing EPP had MPM. One patient diagnosed with MPM at pleural biopsy was misclassified. Subtype analysis at pleural biopsy proved correct in 80% (226/282). Most patients (174/192) with epithelial subtype at final diagnosis were diagnosed correctly at pleural biopsy. However, 44% (45/103) with pathologic diagnosis of nonepithelial subtype at resection were initially misdiagnosed with the epithelial subtype. The sensitivity of pleural biopsy for epithelial MPM was 97% with a specificity of 56%. CONCLUSIONS: Open pleural biopsy is accurate and should be considered the gold standard diagnostic method for MPM. It is less sensitive for determining histologic subclass, particularly with nonepithelial subtypes.
BACKGROUND: Survival after tri-modality therapy with extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and postoperative chemoradiotherapy is longer for patients with epithelial MPM versus mixed or sarcomatoid subtypes, leading some to decline aggressive therapy for patients with nonepithelial histology. However, pathologic diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and subclassification into one of the three histologic subtypes (epithelial, mixed, sarcomatoid) can be challenging. Pleural biopsy has been proposed as the diagnostic gold standard. We investigated the accuracy of open pleural biopsy for diagnosis and subtype identification in MPM. METHODS:Patients with suspected MPM routinely undergo open pleural biopsy to establish diagnosis. Those diagnosed definitively by pleural biopsy or cytology are offered pleurectomy or EPP dependent on stage and cardiorespiratory status. We reviewed medical records for all patients undergoing EPP at our institution, comparing tissue and subtype diagnosis at initial diagnostic biopsy versus definitive resection. RESULTS: Between 1988 and 2000, 305 of 332 consecutive patients undergoing EPP had MPM. One patient diagnosed with MPM at pleural biopsy was misclassified. Subtype analysis at pleural biopsy proved correct in 80% (226/282). Most patients (174/192) with epithelial subtype at final diagnosis were diagnosed correctly at pleural biopsy. However, 44% (45/103) with pathologic diagnosis of nonepithelial subtype at resection were initially misdiagnosed with the epithelial subtype. The sensitivity of pleural biopsy for epithelial MPM was 97% with a specificity of 56%. CONCLUSIONS:Open pleural biopsy is accurate and should be considered the gold standard diagnostic method for MPM. It is less sensitive for determining histologic subclass, particularly with nonepithelial subtypes.
Authors: Raphael Bueno; Eric W Stawiski; Leonard D Goldstein; Steffen Durinck; Assunta De Rienzo; Zora Modrusan; Florian Gnad; Thong T Nguyen; Bijay S Jaiswal; Lucian R Chirieac; Daniele Sciaranghella; Nhien Dao; Corinne E Gustafson; Kiara J Munir; Jason A Hackney; Amitabha Chaudhuri; Ravi Gupta; Joseph Guillory; Karen Toy; Connie Ha; Ying-Jiun Chen; Jeremy Stinson; Subhra Chaudhuri; Na Zhang; Thomas D Wu; David J Sugarbaker; Frederic J de Sauvage; William G Richards; Somasekar Seshagiri Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Nico van Zandwijk; Christopher Clarke; Douglas Henderson; A William Musk; Kwun Fong; Anna Nowak; Robert Loneragan; Brian McCaughan; Michael Boyer; Malcolm Feigen; David Currow; Penelope Schofield; Beth Ivimey Nick Pavlakis; Jocelyn McLean; Henry Marshall; Steven Leong; Victoria Keena; Andrew Penman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Lucian R Chirieac; Yin P Hung; Wai Chin Foo; Matthias D Hofer; Paul A VanderLaan; William G Richards; David J Sugarbaker; Raphael Bueno Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Gavin J Gordon; Lingsheng Dong; Beow Y Yeap; William G Richards; Jonathan N Glickman; Heather Edenfield; Madhubalan Mani; Richard Colquitt; Gautam Maulik; Branden Van Oss; David J Sugarbaker; Raphael Bueno Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506