The Journal of surgical research · 2025
Different Diseases, Different Outcomes: A Comparative Study of Peritoneal and Pleural Subtypes.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boutros Christina S, Risa Erik L, Jiang Boxiang, Sinopoli Jillian, Tapias Leonidas, Linden Philip A, Towe Christopher W
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Peritoneal and pleural mesotheliomas have often been grouped together in studies, with limited exploration of their distinct characteristics. We conducted an analysis of demographics, clinical features, treatment types, and overall survival in these two mesothelioma subtypes.
METHODS: We queried the 2021 iteration of the National Cancer Database for adult patients with mesothelioma, and categorized patients by the primary site (pleural versus peritoneal). Patients with a primary site other than pleural or peritoneal were excluded. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between the groups. Overall survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression.
RESULTS: We identified 40,488 adults with pleural (88.1%) or peritoneal (11.9%) mesothelioma. Patients with pleural mesothelioma were older (73.1 versus 61.8 y, P < 0.001), predominantly male (77.3% versus 53.3%, P < 0.001), and more likely to have a Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index >2 (11.3% versus 8.5%, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients with peritoneal mesothelioma were treated more frequently at academic centers (46.5% versus 34.8%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to receive surgery (50.5% versus 23.8%, P < 0.001) and chemotherapy (67.3% versus. 52.4%, P < 0.001). Metastatic disease was more common in peritoneal mesothelioma (34% versus 20%, P < 0.001). Median survival was longer for peritoneal mesothelioma (20.9 versus 9.9 mo, P < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, peritoneal mesothelioma remained associated with improved survival (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal mesothelioma differs significantly from pleural mesothelioma in demographics, treatment patterns, and outcomes, with better overall survival despite higher rates of metastasis. Recognizing these distinctions is crucial for optimizing clinical management and research.
METHODS: We queried the 2021 iteration of the National Cancer Database for adult patients with mesothelioma, and categorized patients by the primary site (pleural versus peritoneal). Patients with a primary site other than pleural or peritoneal were excluded. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between the groups. Overall survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression.
RESULTS: We identified 40,488 adults with pleural (88.1%) or peritoneal (11.9%) mesothelioma. Patients with pleural mesothelioma were older (73.1 versus 61.8 y, P < 0.001), predominantly male (77.3% versus 53.3%, P < 0.001), and more likely to have a Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index >2 (11.3% versus 8.5%, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients with peritoneal mesothelioma were treated more frequently at academic centers (46.5% versus 34.8%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to receive surgery (50.5% versus 23.8%, P < 0.001) and chemotherapy (67.3% versus. 52.4%, P < 0.001). Metastatic disease was more common in peritoneal mesothelioma (34% versus 20%, P < 0.001). Median survival was longer for peritoneal mesothelioma (20.9 versus 9.9 mo, P < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, peritoneal mesothelioma remained associated with improved survival (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal mesothelioma differs significantly from pleural mesothelioma in demographics, treatment patterns, and outcomes, with better overall survival despite higher rates of metastasis. Recognizing these distinctions is crucial for optimizing clinical management and research.