Journal of B.U.ON. : official journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology · 2019
Multidisciplinary palliative treatment including isolated thoracic perfusion for progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma: a retrospective observational study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное 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.
Guadagni Stefano, Masedu Francesco, Zoras Odisseas, Zavattieri Giuseppe, Aigner Kornelia, Guadagni Veronica, Fumi Lucio, Clementi Marco
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the relative importance of isolated thoracic perfusion (ITP) in the multidisciplinary palliative treatment of progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients.
METHODS: Fifty-two MPM patients with progressive disease after systemic chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed were submitted to 112 ITP using mitomycin C (25 mg/m2) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2) between 2000 and 2017. Isolation of the chest was achieved by insertion of stop-flow balloon catheters via femoral or iliac access. Primary endpoints were adverse events, tumor response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initial ITP.
RESULTS: Median interval-time from MPM diagnosis was 9 months. There were no perfusion-related postoperative deaths. The main procedure-related complication was persistent leakage of lymphatic fluid from the incision in less than 10% of ITP. No severe perfusion-related toxicity was reported, with grade 3 haematological toxicity and platinum-induced neurotoxicity in less than 8% of the patients. Following initial ITP, overall tumor response rate was 25%, median PFS was 7 months (IQR 5-10.5), and median OS was 16 months (IQR 12.5-21). After the last ITP, 14 patients received further therapies, including targeted therapy with cetuximab or bevacizumab. Non-epithelioid histology, stage III, and ECOG performance status 3 pre-ITP were prognostic factors with a significant influence on OS. Median OS, calculated from the diagnosis of MPM, was 26.5 months (IQR 22.5-28).
CONCLUSIONS: ITP is safe, tolerable, and useful but its inclusion in the multidisciplinary palliative treatment of progressive MPM patients should be investigated in a larger multicentre controlled study.
METHODS: Fifty-two MPM patients with progressive disease after systemic chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed were submitted to 112 ITP using mitomycin C (25 mg/m2) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2) between 2000 and 2017. Isolation of the chest was achieved by insertion of stop-flow balloon catheters via femoral or iliac access. Primary endpoints were adverse events, tumor response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from initial ITP.
RESULTS: Median interval-time from MPM diagnosis was 9 months. There were no perfusion-related postoperative deaths. The main procedure-related complication was persistent leakage of lymphatic fluid from the incision in less than 10% of ITP. No severe perfusion-related toxicity was reported, with grade 3 haematological toxicity and platinum-induced neurotoxicity in less than 8% of the patients. Following initial ITP, overall tumor response rate was 25%, median PFS was 7 months (IQR 5-10.5), and median OS was 16 months (IQR 12.5-21). After the last ITP, 14 patients received further therapies, including targeted therapy with cetuximab or bevacizumab. Non-epithelioid histology, stage III, and ECOG performance status 3 pre-ITP were prognostic factors with a significant influence on OS. Median OS, calculated from the diagnosis of MPM, was 26.5 months (IQR 22.5-28).
CONCLUSIONS: ITP is safe, tolerable, and useful but its inclusion in the multidisciplinary palliative treatment of progressive MPM patients should be investigated in a larger multicentre controlled study.