Extrapleural pneumonectomy in the treatment of epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma: novel prognostic implications of combined N1 and N2 nodal involvement based on experience in 529 patients
- PMID: 25203873
- PMCID: PMC4481127
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000903
Extrapleural pneumonectomy in the treatment of epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma: novel prognostic implications of combined N1 and N2 nodal involvement based on experience in 529 patients
Abstract
Objective: We review our 24-year experience with extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) in the treatment of epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).
Background: Recent publications, particularly the MARS (Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery) feasibility study by Treasure et al, have questioned the safety and efficacy of EPP for MPM.
Methods: An institutional review board-approved, prospective, single-center database was retrospectively reviewed. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival are reported.
Results: From 1988 to 2011, a total of 529 patients with epithelioid MPM underwent complete resection by EPP as part of a multimodality strategy. Among these, 131 (25%) were women, and the median age was 59 (range, 17-79) years. Median postoperative hospital stay was 10 (range, 1-101) days. Twenty-six patients (5%) experienced 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Median overall survival was 18 months, with 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 67%, 28%, 14%, and 4%, respectively. Outcome by pathologic lymph node status (N, median overall survival) was N0: 224, 26 months; N1: 118, 17 months; N2: 181, 13 months; N3: 5, 7 months; Nx: 1, not evaluable.
Conclusions: EPP has evolved as an effective method for macroscopic complete resection. This study confirms that lymph node status is significantly correlated with overall survival in patients with epithelioid MPM undergoing EPP and suggests that those with simultaneous involvement of N1 and N2 stations are at increased risk. This observation underscores the need for thorough staging of both N1 and N2 stations and has implications for revision of MPM staging criteria.
Conflict of interest statement
Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Merritt N, Blewett CJ, Miller JD, et al. Survival after conservative (palliative) management of pleural malignant mesothelioma. J Surg Oncol. 2001;78:171–174. - PubMed
-
- Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2636–2644. - PubMed
-
- Rice D, Rusch V, Pass H, et al. Recommendations for uniform definitions of surgical techniques for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a consensus report of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer International Staging Committee and the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1304–1312. - PubMed
-
- Travis WD, Brambilla E, Muller-Hermelink KH, et al. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2004.
-
- Richards WG. Recent advances in mesothelioma staging. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;21:105–110. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
