NCCN: Continuing Education
Accreditation Statement
This activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists involved in the management of patients with cancer. There is no fee for this article. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. NCCN designates this journal-based CE activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
NCCN is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center‘s Commission on Accreditation.
NCCN designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.0 contact hour. Accreditation as a provider refers to recognition of educational activities only; accredited status does not imply endorsement by NCCN or ANCC of any commercial products discussed/displayed in conjunction with the educational activity. Kristina M. Gregory, RN, MSN, OCN, is our nurse planner for this educational activity.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. NCCN designates this continuing education activity for 1.0 contact hour(s) (0.1 CEUs) of continuing education credit in states that recognize ACPE accredited providers. This is a knowledge-based activity. UAN: 0836-0000-16-007-H01-P
All clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CE activity: 1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; 2) study the education content; 3) take the posttest with a 66% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://education.nccn.org/node/79123; and 4) view/print certificate.
Release date: July 10, 2016; Expiration date: July 10, 2017
Learning Objectives:
Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:
Integrate into professional practice the updates to NCCN Guidelines for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma
Describe the rationale behind the decision-making process for developing the NCCN Guidelines for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus
Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.
Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.
All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.
Overview
Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that is estimated to occur in approximately 2,500 people in the United States every year.1,2 These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), which is the most common type; mesothelioma can also occur in the lining of other sites, such as the peritoneum, pericardium, and tunica vaginalis testis. Histologic subtypes of mesothelioma include epithelioid (most common), sarcomatoid, and biphasic (mixed) epithelioid and sarcomatoid (see MPM-2, above).2–4 Patients with epithelioid histology have better outcomes than those with either sarcomatoid or biphasic (mixed) histologies. MPM is difficult to treat, because most patients have pleural dissemination at presentation. Median overall survival for MPM is approximately 1 year; cure is rare.5–7 MPM occurs mainly in older men (median age at diagnosis, 72 years) who have been exposed to asbestos, although it occurs decades after exposure (20–40 years
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
The NCCN Guidelines recommend that patients with MPM be managed by a multidisciplinary team with experience in MPM. Treatment options for patients with MPM include surgery, RT, and/or chemotherapy2; select patients with clinical stages I–III disease who are medically operable and have good performance status (PS) are candidates for multimodality therapy.25–29 These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on systemic therapy regimens and surgical controversies for MPM. Surgery for MPM is controversial, because sufficient data from randomized controlled trials are limited.14,30–33 Some surgical procedures, such as extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), are associated with greater morbidity than others, such as pleurectomy/decortication (P/D); therefore, EPP is are not recommended for patients with MPM who have sarcomatoid histology. When comparing EPP with P/D, it is not clear which surgical procedure will yield better oncologic outcomes.14
Systemic Therapy
Many patients with MPM receive systemic therapy either alone or as part of multimodality therapy. Because most patients present with unresectable or medically inoperable MPM, they are not candidates for surgery, although a board-certified thoracic surgeon with experience
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
The NCCN panel recommends cisplatin/pemetrexed (category 1) based on a phase III randomized trial and FDA approval.50 The phase III trial assessed cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin alone in patients who were not candidates for surgery; the combined regimen increased survival by 2.8 months
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
A recent multicenter phase III randomized trial assessed the addition of bevacizumab to cisplatin/pemetrexed (with maintenance bevacizumab) compared with cisplatin/pemetrexed alone for patients 75 years of age or younger with unresectable MPM and PS 0 to 2 who did not have significant cardiovascular history, including history of stroke or transient ischemic attack.47 Most patients (97%) were PS 0 to 1. Overall survival was increased in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy arm by 2.7 months when compared with chemotherapy alone: bevacizumab triplet arm (median, 18.8 months; 95% CI, 15.9–22.6) compared with cisplatin/pemetrexed (16.1 months; 95% CI, 14.0–17.9; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.95; P=.0167). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were reported in 71% of patients (158 of 222) receiving the bevacizumab regimen when compared with 62% (139 of 224) of those receiving cisplatin/pemetrexed alone. More grade 3 or higher hypertension (23% vs 0%), grade 3 proteinuria (3.1% vs 0%), and grade 3 to 4
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016
Version 3.2016 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2016, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14, 7; 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0087
Recommended second-line chemotherapy options include pemetrexed (if not administered first-line) (category 1), vinorelbine, or gemcitabine (see MPM-B, page 828).57,58,62–67 If patients experienced a good response to first-line pemetrexed, data suggest that repeating pemetrexed is effective, especially in those who achieved a treatment-free interval of at least 3 months.58,68–70 Several agents are in clinical trials.58,61,68,71–73 Preliminary data suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors and agents targeting mesothelin may be useful in MPM.74–79
Surgery
For patients with MPM, the goals of surgery may differ depending on the needs of the patient. Surgery will be recommended in select patients with good PS and epithelioid or mixed histology if a complete gross cytoreduction can be achieved, with the goal to increase survival.46,80 However, palliative surgery and/or RT may be recommended to relieve pain, free a trapped lung, decrease pleural effusions, and/or improve respiration.14 As previously mentioned, most patients with MPM are not candidates for surgery because they present with unresectable or medically inoperable disease. Board-certified thoracic surgeons with expertise in managing MPM should decide whether a patient has unresectable or resectable MPM and should perform the surgical resection if indicated. Surgery is not usually recommended for patients with anticipated short-term survival and/or at high risk of morbidity and mortality, poor PS, or comorbidities, as well as unfavorable oncologic outcomes due to unfavorable histology such as sarcomatoid.5,81–83 The NCCN Guidelines do not recommend surgery for patients with clinical stage IV MPM who have locally advanced unresectable tumors (T4), N3 disease, and/or distant metastases (see Table 1 in the complete version of these guidelines, available at NCCN.org). In addition, patients with N2 disease, mixed histology, or sarcomatoid histology should not routinely be resected outside of a clinical trial and in a center with MPM experience (see MPM-C, page 829).
Surgical resection for patients with MPM can include either P/D (also known as total pleurectomy or lung-sparing surgery), which is complete removal of the involved pleura and all gross tumor, or EPP, which is en bloc resection of the involved pleura, lung, ipsilateral diaphragm, and often the pericardium.84 Extended P/D refers to the resection of the diaphragm and pericardium in addition to total pleurectomy.84 Mediastinal nodal dissection is recommended in patients with either P/D or EPP; at least 3 nodal stations should be obtained.
Trimodality therapy—chemotherapy, EPP, and hemithoracic RT—has been shown to benefit select patients with epithelioid histology, good PS, and low-volume disease on the basis of single-arm phase II studies at centers with experience.14,25–28,46 Median survival of up to 20 to 29 months has been reported for patients who complete trimodality therapy.26,46 Lung-sparing options, such as P/D, decrease the risk for perioperative mortality and yield either equal or better long-term survival than nonsurgical therapy in patients with more advanced disease.85,86 However, the choice of surgery for MPM is controversial, because data from randomized controlled trials are not available.14,30–33
A retrospective analysis (n=663) suggested that survival was greater after P/D than EPP, but this may have been confounded by patient selection.2,80 A recent meta-analysis suggested a trend in favor of overall survival for extended PD when compared with EPP.30 The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) trial assessed whether patients treated with induction chemotherapy would accept randomization either to EPP with hemithoracic radiation or to no further treatment; 112 were patients enrolled in the trial, and 50 patients were randomized.87 In this trial, overall 30-day mortality was 18.7% (3 of 16 patients). Median survival was 14.4 months in the EPP arm and 19.5 months in the no-EPP arm. The authors concluded that EPP was not beneficial because of the high rate of surgical mortality when compared with chemotherapy alone treatment. However, these results were controversial because survival was not the primary outcome of the study, the sample size was small, and the surgical mortality was higher than expected.88
Neither P/D nor EPP will achieve an R0 resection2,85,89; it is not clear which surgical procedure will yield better oncologic outcomes.14 When compared with P/D, EPP is associated with more morbidity and more short-term mortality.30,90–92 Some surgeons prefer to use P/D, because they feel it is a safer procedure.33,80,90,93–97 Some surgeons mainly use P/D for palliation.14
The surgical goal for MPM is cytoreductive surgery to achieve macroscopic complete resection by removing all visible or palpable tumors.84,98,99 If macroscopic complete resection is not possible, such as in patients with multiple sites of chest wall invasion, then surgery should be aborted. However, to help with postoperative management, surgery should be continued if most of the gross disease can be removed and if there will be a minimal impact on morbidity (see MPM-C, page 829). The NCCN panel feels that P/D and EPP are both reasonable surgical options that should be considered in select patients to achieve complete gross cytoreduction.30,80,87,91,100 For patients having surgery, either preoperative chemotherapy or postoperative chemotherapy (with or without adjuvant hemithoracic RT, depending on which surgical procedure is used) is recommended in the NCCN Guidelines.14,46 Surgical procedures can also be done to obtain diagnostic samples and to provide palliative benefit.14 Palliative surgical procedures include pleurodesis to decrease pleural effusions and P/D to debulk the tumor with the goals of relieving pain and decreasing pleural effusions.14,20,101 Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) has a diagnostic role and a palliative role (eg, pleurodesis) in patients with MPM, but it is not an accepted technique for P/D.84
Summary
These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss surgical controversies and systemic therapy regimens for MPM. The NCCN Guidelines recommend that patients with MPM be managed by a multidisciplinary team with experience in MPM. Patients with suspected MPM often have dyspnea and chest pain; they may also have pleural effusion, fatigue, insomnia, cough, chest wall mass, loss of appetite, and weight loss. Patients with MPM often have a high symptom burden; therefore, supportive care is important for patients, especially management of pleural effusions. The NCCN panel recommends palliative RT for chest pain, bronchial or esophageal obstruction, or other symptomatic sites. Treatment options for patients with MPM include surgery, RT, and/or chemotherapy; select patients with clinical stages I to III disease who are medically operable and have good PS are candidates for multimodality therapy. Board-certified thoracic surgeons with expertise in managing MPM should decide whether a patient has resectable MPM and should perform the surgical resection if indicated. Surgery is not usually recommended for patients with anticipated short-term survival and/or at high risk of morbidity and mortality, poor PS, or comorbidities, as well as unfavorable oncologic outcomes because of unfavorable histology such as sarcomatoid. The choice of surgery for MPM is controversial, because data from randomized controlled trials are not available. Neither P/D nor EPP will achieve an R0 resection; it is not clear which surgical procedure will yield better oncologic outcomes. The NCCN panel feels that P/D and EPP are both reasonable surgical options that should be considered in select patients to achieve complete gross cytoreduction.
The NCCN Guidelines currently recommend 4 combination systemic therapy options for patients with MPM. Three of the combination regimens are recommended as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable, metastatic, sarcomatoid histology, or medically inoperable MPM or those who refuse surgery. The 3 regimens include (1) cisplatin/pemetrexed (category 1), (2) carboplatin/pemetrexed, and (3) cisplatin/gemcitabine. The NCCN panel now also recommends bevacizumab/cisplatin/pemetrexed as a first-line therapy option for patients with unresectable MPM who are candidates for bevacizumab. Observation may be considered if chemotherapy is planned at the time of symptomatic or radiographic progression for select patients with clinical stage IV, sarcomatoid histology, or medically inoperable MPM who are asymptomatic and have a minimal burden of disease.
References
- 1.↑
Price B, Ware A. Time trend of mesothelioma incidence in the United States and projection of future cases: an update based on SEER data for 1973 through 2005. Crit Rev Toxicol 2009;39:576–588.
- 2.↑
Tsao AS, Wistuba I, Roth JA, Kindler HL. Malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2081–2090.
- 3.
Galateau-Salle F, Churg A, Roggli V et al.. The 2015 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the pleura: advances since the 2004 Classification. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:142–154.
- 4.↑
Henderson DW, Reid G, Kao SC et al.. Challenges and controversies in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma: part 2. Malignant mesothelioma subtypes, pleural synovial sarcoma, molecular and prognostic aspects of mesothelioma, BAP1, aquaporin-1 and microRNA. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:854–861.
- 5.↑
Meyerhoff RR, Yang CF, Speicher PJ et al.. Impact of mesothelioma histologic subtype on outcomes in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. J Surg Res 2015;196:23–32.
- 6.
Musk AW, Olsen N, Alfonso H et al.. Predicting survival in malignant mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 2011;38:1420–1424.
- 7.↑
Linton A, Pavlakis N, O'Connell R et al.. Factors associated with survival in a large series of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma in New South Wales. Br J Cancer 2014;111:1860–1869.
- 8.↑
Taioli E, Wolf AS, Camacho-Rivera M et al.. Determinants of survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) study of 14,228 patients. PLoS One 2015;10:e0145039.
- 9.
Lanphear BP, Buncher CR. Latent period for malignant mesothelioma of occupational origin. J Occup Med 1992;34:718–721.
- 10.↑
Selikoff IJ, Hammond EC, Seidman H. Latency of asbestos disease among insulation workers in the United States and Canada. Cancer 1980;46:2736–2740.
- 11.↑
Antman KH, Corson JM, Li FP et al.. Malignant mesothelioma following radiation exposure. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:695–700.
- 12.
Weissmann LB, Corson JM, Neugut AI, Antman KH. Malignant mesothelioma following treatment for Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2098–2100.
- 13.↑
Pappo AS, Santana VM, Furman WL et al.. Post-irradiation malignant mesothelioma. Cancer 1997;79:192–193.
- 14.↑
van Zandwijk N, Clarke C, Henderson D et al.. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Dis 2013;5:E254–307.
- 15.
Dyer DS, Mohammed TL, Kirsch J et al.. ACR appropriateness criteria chronic dyspnea: suspected pulmonary origin. J Thorac Imaging 2013;28:W64–66.
- 17.↑
Rintoul RC, Ritchie AJ, Edwards JG et al.. Efficacy and cost of video-assisted thoracoscopic partial pleurectomy versus talc pleurodesis in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MesoVATS): an open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2014;384:1118–1127.
- 18.
Tan C, Sedrakyan A, Browne J et al.. The evidence on the effectiveness of management for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:829–838.
- 19.
Rahman NM, Pepperell J, Rehal S et al.. Effect of opioids vs NSAIDs and larger vs smaller chest tube size on pain control and pleurodesis efficacy among patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;314:2641–2653.
- 20.↑
Davies HE, Mishra EK, Kahan BC et al.. Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012;307:2383–2389.
- 21.↑
Srour N, Amjadi K, Forster A, Aaron S. Management of malignant pleural effusions with indwelling pleural catheters or talc pleurodesis. Can Respir J 2013;20:106–110.
- 22.↑
Gunatilake S, Brims FJ, Fogg C et al.. A multicentre non-blinded randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of regular early specialist symptom control treatment on quality of life in malignant mesothelioma (RESPECT-MESO): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:367.
- 23.↑
Price A. What is the role of radiotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma? Oncologist 2011;16:359–365.
- 24.↑
Jenkins P, Milliner R, Salmon C. Re-evaluating the role of palliative radiotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:2143–2149.
- 25.↑
de Perrot M, Feld R, Cho BC et al.. Trimodality therapy with induction chemotherapy followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy and adjuvant high-dose hemithoracic radiation for malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1413–1418.
- 26.↑
Krug LM, Pass HI, Rusch VW et al.. Multicenter phase II trial of neoadjuvant pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy and radiation for malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3007–3013.
- 27.
Bolukbas S, Manegold C, Eberlein M et al.. Survival after trimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: radical pleurectomy, chemotherapy with cisplatin/pemetrexed and radiotherapy. Lung Cancer 2011;71:75–81.
- 28.↑
Weder W, Stahel RA, Bernhard J et al.. Multicenter trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 2007;18:1196–1202.
- 29.↑
Sugarbaker DJ, Flores RM, Jaklitsch MT et al.. Resection margins, extrapleural nodal status, and cell type determine postoperative long-term survival in trimodality therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 183 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;117:54–63.
- 30.↑
Cao C, Tian D, Park J et al.. A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2014;83:240–245.
- 31.
Teh E, Fiorentino F, Tan C, Treasure T. A systematic review of lung-sparing extirpative surgery for pleural mesothelioma. J R Soc Med 2011;104:69–80.
- 32.
Scherpereel A, Astoul P, Baas P et al.. Guidelines of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 2010;35:479–495.
- 33.↑
Zahid I, Sharif S, Routledge T, Scarci M. Is pleurectomy and decortication superior to palliative care in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011;12:812–817.
- 34.↑
Ceresoli GL, Zucali PA, Favaretto AG et al.. Phase II study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1443–1448.
- 35.↑
van Haarst JMW, Baas P, Manegold C et al.. Multicentre phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Br J Cancer 2002;86:342–345.
- 36.↑
Nowak AK, Byrne MJ, Williamson R et al.. A multicentre phase II study of cisplatin and gemcitabine for malignant mesothelioma. Br J Cancer 2002;87:491–496.
- 37.
Blomberg C, Nilsson J, Holgersson G et al.. Randomized trials of systemic medically-treated malignant mesothelioma: a systematic review. Anticancer Res 2015;35:2493–2501.
- 38.
Kondola S, Manners D, Nowak AK. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: an update on diagnosis and treatment options. Ther Adv Respir Dis 2016;10:275–288.
- 39.
Raynaud C, Greillier L, Mazieres J et al.. Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a French multicenter retrospective study (GFPC 0802 study). BMC Cancer 2015;15:857.
- 40.↑
Kindler HL, Karrison TG, Gandara DR et al.. Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine/cisplatin plus bevacizumab or placebo in patients with malignant mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2509–2515.
- 41.
Ellis P, Davies AM, Evans WK et al.. The use of chemotherapy in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and practice guideline. J Thorac Oncol 2006;1:591–601.
- 42.
Krug LM. An overview of chemotherapy for mesothelioma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2005;19:1117–1136.
- 43.↑
Kelly RJ, Sharon E, Hassan R. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies for unresectable malignant mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2011;73:256–263.
- 44.
Campbell K, Brosseau S, Reviron-Rabec L et al.. [Malignant pleural mesothelioma: 2013 state of the art]. Bull Cancer 2013;100:1283–1293.
- 45.↑
Mansfield AS, Symanowski JT, Peikert T. Systematic review of response rates of sarcomatoid malignant pleural mesotheliomas in clinical trials. Lung Cancer 2014;86:133–136.
- 46.↑
Thieke C, Nicolay NH, Sterzing F et al.. Long-term results in malignant pleural mesothelioma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, extrapleural pneumonectomy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2015;10:267.
- 47.↑
Zalcman G, Mazieres J, Margery J et al.. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016;387:1405–1414.
- 48.↑
Muers MF, Stephens RJ, Fisher P et al.. Active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MS01): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2008;371:1685–1694.
- 49.↑
O'Brien ME, Watkins D, Ryan C et al.. A randomised trial in malignant mesothelioma (M) of early (E) versus delayed (D) chemotherapy in symptomatically stable patients: the MED trial. Ann Oncol 2006;17:270–275.
- 50.↑
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.
- 51.↑
Santoro A, O'Brien ME, Stahel RA et al.. Pemetrexed plus cisplatin or pemetrexed plus carboplatin for chemonaive patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of the International Expanded Access Program. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:756–763.
- 52.
Katirtzoglou N, Gkiozos I, Makrilia N et al.. Carboplatin plus pemetrexed as first-line treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: a phase II study. Clin Lung Cancer 2010;11:30–35.
- 53.↑
Castagneto B, Botta M, Aitini E et al.. Phase II study of pemetrexed in combination with carboplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Ann Oncol 2008;19:370–373.
- 54.↑
Kalmadi SR, Rankin C, Kraut MJ et al.. Gemcitabine and cisplatin in unresectable malignant mesothelioma of the pleura: a phase II study of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG 9810). Lung Cancer 2008;60:259–263.
- 55.↑
Arrieta O, Lopez-Macias D, Mendoza-Garcia VO et al.. A phase II trial of prolonged, continuous infusion of low-dose gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2014;73:975–982.
- 56.↑
Scagliotti GV, Shin DM, Kindler HL et al.. Phase II study of pemetrexed with and without folic acid and vitamin B12 as front-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1556–1561.
- 57.↑
Taylor P, Castagneto B, Dark G et al.. Single-agent pemetrexed for chemonaive and pretreated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of an International Expanded Access Program. J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:764–771.
- 58.↑
Abdel-Rahman O, Kelany M. Systemic therapy options for malignant pleural mesothelioma beyond first-line therapy: a systematic review. Expert Rev Respir Med 2015;9:533–549.
- 59.
Christoph DC, Eberhardt WE. Systemic treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: new agents in clinical trials raise hope of relevant improvements. Curr Opin Oncol 2014;26:171–181.
- 60.
Ai J, Stevenson JP. Current issues in malignant pleural mesothelioma evaluation and management. Oncologist 2014;19:975–984.
- 61.↑
Stahel RA, Weder W, Felley-Bosco E et al.. Searching for targets for the systemic therapy of mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 2015;26:1649–1660.
- 62.↑
Zauderer MG, Kass SL, Woo K et al.. Vinorelbine and gemcitabine as second- or third-line therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2014;84:271–274.
- 63.
Janne PA, Wozniak AJ, Belani CP et al.. Pemetrexed alone or in combination with cisplatin in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: outcomes from a phase IIIB expanded access program. J Thorac Oncol 2006;1:506–512.
- 64.
van Meerbeeck JP, Baas P, Debruyne C et al.. A Phase II study of gemcitabine in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. Cancer 1999;85:2577–2582.
- 65.
Jassem J, Ramlau R, Santoro A et al.. Phase III trial of pemetrexed plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care in previously treated patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1698–1704.
- 66.
Stebbing J, Powles T, McPherson K et al.. The efficacy and safety of weekly vinorelbine in relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2009;63:94–97.
- 67.↑
Manegold C, Symanowski J, Gatzemeier U et al.. Second-line (post-study) chemotherapy received by patients treated in the phase III trial of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:923–927.
- 68.↑
Ceresoli GL, Zucali PA, Gianoncelli L et al.. Second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Treat Rev 2010;36:24–32.
- 69.
Zucali PA, Simonelli M, Michetti G et al.. Second-line chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of a retrospective multicenter survey. Lung Cancer 2012;75:360–367.
- 70.↑
Ceresoli GL, Zucali PA, De Vincenzo F et al.. Retreatment with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2011;72:73–77.
- 71.↑
Kotova S, Wong RM, Cameron RB. New and emerging therapeutic options for malignant pleural mesothelioma: review of early clinical trials. Cancer Manag Res 2015;7:51–63.
- 72.
Zauderer MG, Krug LM. Novel therapies in phase II and III trials for malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012;10:42–47.
- 73.↑
Thomas A, Hassan R. Immunotherapies for non-small-cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e301–310.
- 74.↑
Alley EW, Molife LR, Santoro A et al.. Clinical safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: preliminary results from KEYNOTE-028 [abstract]. Cancer Res 2015;75:Abstract CT103.
- 75.
Alley EW, Schellens JH, Santoro A et al.. Single-agent pembrolizumab for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) [abstract]. Presented at the 16th World Conference on Lung Cancer; September 6–9, 2016; Denver, Colorado. Abstract 3011.
- 76.
Marcq E, Pauwels P, van Meerbeeck JP, Smits EL. Targeting immune checkpoints: new opportunity for mesothelioma treatment? Cancer Treat Rev 2015;41:914–924.
- 77.
Karim S, Leighl N. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of thoracic malignancies: current landscape and future directions. Future Oncol 2016;12:9–23.
- 78.
Le DT, Brockstedt DG, Nir-Paz R et al.. A live-attenuated Listeria vaccine (ANZ-100) and a live-attenuated Listeria vaccine expressing mesothelin (CRS-207) for advanced cancers: phase I studies of safety and immune induction. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:858–868.
- 79.↑
Golfier S, Kopitz C, Kahnert A et al.. Anetumab ravtansine: a novel mesothelin-targeting antibody-drug conjugate cures tumors with heterogeneous target expression favored by bystander effect. Mol Cancer Ther 2014;13:1537–1548.
- 80.↑
Flores RM, Pass HI, Seshan VE et al.. Extrapleural pneumonectomy versus pleurectomy/decortication in the surgical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 663 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:620–626.
- 81.↑
Baud M, Bobbio A, Lococo F et al.. Should we continue to offer extrapleural pneumonectomy to selected mesothelioma patients? A single center experience comparing surgical and non-surgical management. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2014;44:1127–1129.
- 82.
Zauderer MG, Krug LM. The evolution of multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2011;12:163–172.
- 83.↑
Kaufman AJ, Flores RM. Surgical treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2011;12:201–216.
- 84.↑
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.
- 85.↑
Friedberg JS. The state of the art in the technical performance of lung-sparing operations for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;25:125–143.
- 86.↑
Halstead JC, Lim E, Venkateswaran RM et al.. Improved survival with VATS pleurectomy-decortication in advanced malignant mesothelioma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:314–320.
- 87.↑
Treasure T, Lang-Lazdunski L, Waller D et al.. Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:763–772.
- 88.↑
Weder W, Stahel RA, Baas P et al.. The MARS feasibility trial: conclusions not supported by data. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1093–1094; author reply 1094–1095.
- 89.↑
Hasani A, Alvarez JM, Wyatt JM et al.. Outcome for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma referred for trimodality therapy in Western Australia. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:1010–1016.
- 90.↑
Schipper PH, Nichols FC, Thomse KM et al.. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: surgical management in 285 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;85:257–264; discussion 264.
- 91.↑
Spaggiari L, Marulli G, Bovolato P et al.. Extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant mesothelioma: an Italian multicenter retrospective study. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:1859–1865.
- 92.↑
Taioli E, Wolf AS, Flores RM. Meta-analysis of survival after pleurectomy decortication versus extrapleural pneumonectomy in mesothelioma. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;99:472–480.
- 93.↑
Nakas A, von Meyenfeldt E, Lau K et al.. Long-term survival after lung-sparing total pleurectomy for locally advanced (International Mesothelioma Interest Group Stage T3-T4) non-sarcomatoid malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:1031–1036.
- 94.
Bille A, Belcher E, Raubenheimer H et al.. Induction chemotherapy, extrapleural pneumonectomy, and adjuvant radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: experience of Guy's and St Thomas' hospitals. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;60:289–296.
- 95.
Shahin Y, Wellham J, Jappie R et al.. How successful is lung-preserving radical surgery in the mesothelioma and radical surgery-trial environment? A case-controlled analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;39:360–363.
- 96.
Sugarbaker DJ, Jaklitsch MT, Bueno R et al.. Prevention, early detection, and management of complications after 328 consecutive extrapleural pneumonectomies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;128:138–146.
- 97.↑
Yan TD, Boyer M, Tin MM et al.. Extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: outcomes of treatment and prognostic factors. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;138:619–624.
- 98.↑
Bolukbas S, Eberlein M, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Schirren J. Radical pleurectomy and chemoradiation for malignant pleural mesothelioma: the outcome of incomplete resections. Lung Cancer 2013;81:241–246.
- 99.↑
Sugarbaker DJ, Wolf AS, Chirieac LR et al.. Clinical and pathological features of three-year survivors of malignant pleural mesothelioma following extrapleural pneumonectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40:298–303.
- 100.↑
Flores RM, Riedel E, Donington JS et al.. Frequency of use and predictors of cancer-directed surgery in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a community-based (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER]) population. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:1649–1654.
- 101.↑
Zahid I, Routledge T, Bille A, Scarci M. What is the best treatment for malignant pleural effusions? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011;12:818–823.
