Annabel J Sharkey1, Kenneth J O'Byrne2, Apostolos Nakas3, Sara Tenconi4, Dean A Fennell3, David A Waller3. 1. University Hospitals Leicester, Leicester, UK. Electronic address: a.sharkey@hotmail.co.uk. 2. Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queensland University of Technology, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. 3. University Hospitals Leicester, Leicester, UK. 4. IRCCS Arcispedale, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence regarding the use of chemotherapy as part of multimodality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We aimed to determine whether, in those patients fit for chemotherapy, a delay in this treatment affected survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed postoperative variables of 229 patients undergoing either extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) (81 patients) or extended pleurectomy-decortication (EPD) (197 patients) for MPM at a single centre. There was no standard protocol for additional chemotherapy and varied with referral centre. Outcome was compared between 4 chemotherapy strategies: true adjuvant therapy, neo-adjuvant therapy, therapy reserved until evidence of disease progression in those otherwise fit in the post-operative setting, and those unfit for chemotherapy. RESULTS: There was no effect of the timing of chemotherapy on overall or progression free survival in patients fit enough for treatment (p=0.39 and p=0.33 respectively). However delaying chemotherapy until evidence of disease progression in patients with non-epithelioid disease had a detrimental effect on overall survival (OS), and on progression free survival (PFS) in lymph node positive patients (15.6 vs. 8.2 months p=0.001, and 14.9 vs. 6.0 months p=0.016). Further analysis of 169 patients receiving platinum/pemetrexed as first line treatment, showed similar results; there was no effect of the timing of chemotherapy on OS or PFS (p=0.80 and p=0.53 respectively) and an improved OS in patients with non-epithelioid disease, and improved PFS in those with lymph node metastases, if chemotherapy was given in the immediate adjuvant setting (p=0.001 and 0.038) when therapy was not delayed until disease progression. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the timing of additional chemotherapy may be important in those with a poorer prognosis on the basis of cell type and nodal stage. In these patients additional postoperative chemotherapy should not be delayed.
OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence regarding the use of chemotherapy as part of multimodality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We aimed to determine whether, in those patients fit for chemotherapy, a delay in this treatment affected survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed postoperative variables of 229 patients undergoing either extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) (81 patients) or extended pleurectomy-decortication (EPD) (197 patients) for MPM at a single centre. There was no standard protocol for additional chemotherapy and varied with referral centre. Outcome was compared between 4 chemotherapy strategies: true adjuvant therapy, neo-adjuvant therapy, therapy reserved until evidence of disease progression in those otherwise fit in the post-operative setting, and those unfit for chemotherapy. RESULTS: There was no effect of the timing of chemotherapy on overall or progression free survival in patients fit enough for treatment (p=0.39 and p=0.33 respectively). However delaying chemotherapy until evidence of disease progression in patients with non-epithelioid disease had a detrimental effect on overall survival (OS), and on progression free survival (PFS) in lymph node positive patients (15.6 vs. 8.2 months p=0.001, and 14.9 vs. 6.0 months p=0.016). Further analysis of 169 patients receiving platinum/pemetrexed as first line treatment, showed similar results; there was no effect of the timing of chemotherapy on OS or PFS (p=0.80 and p=0.53 respectively) and an improved OS in patients with non-epithelioid disease, and improved PFS in those with lymph node metastases, if chemotherapy was given in the immediate adjuvant setting (p=0.001 and 0.038) when therapy was not delayed until disease progression. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the timing of additional chemotherapy may be important in those with a poorer prognosis on the basis of cell type and nodal stage. In these patients additional postoperative chemotherapy should not be delayed.
Authors: Soraya L Voigt; Vignesh Raman; Oliver K Jawitz; Muath Bishawi; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Betty C Tong; Thomas A D'Amico; David H Harpole Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jo Raskin; Veerle Surmont; Robin Cornelissen; Paul Baas; Paul E Y van Schil; Jan P van Meerbeeck Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-10
Authors: Sara V Soldera; John Kavanagh; Melania Pintilie; Natasha B Leighl; Marc de Perrot; John Cho; Andrew Hope; Ronald Feld; Penelope A Bradbury Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-11-26