Review

Authors: Leonardo Duranti, Alessandro Pardolesi, Luca Bertolaccini...

The extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) is a standardised surgical procedure born for pleural tuberculosis and later used in pleural cancer treatment, especially in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). This systematic review aimed to focus on the actual overall EPP role in surgical oncology. The literature search was performed from January 1985 to January 2018 In PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane according to PRISMA protocol. The search was restricted to publications in English with the research words "extrapleural pneumonectomy", "malignant pleural mesothelioma", "pleural malignancies". The results were then filtered focusing only on papers with series of patients treated with EPP, for mesothelioma and non-mesothelioma malignancies. The search was restricted to publications in English. We found a 5-year overall survival (OS) ranging from 0 to 78%. The peri-operative mortality and morbidity ranged from 0 to 11.8% and 0 to 82.6%, respectively. The most represented and described post-operative complications reported were ARDS, pericardial tamponade, cardiac herniation, pulmonary embolism, respiratory infections, respiratory failure, atrial arrhythmia, myocardial infarction. In referral centres and selected patients, EPP is a cytoreductive or radical surgical treatment in extended pleural malignancies. Prospective studies are needed to standardise the timing of the procedure in a multimodality treatment program, according to the oncological and functional indications, to keep an acceptable complications rate and post-operative quality of life status.

PubMed: 31019792
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.02.61

Authors: Sui Wah Sean Yip, Laurence Weinberg, Julian Gooi...

INTRODUCTION

Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and extended pleurectomy/decortication (ePD) are surgical cytoreductive techniques aimed at achieving macroscopic resection in malignant pleural tumours such as pleural mesothelioma, non-mesothelioma pleural malignancies such as thymoma and sarcoma, and rarely for pleural tuberculosis, in a more limited fashion. Despite extensive studies on both surgical techniques and consequences, a significant knowledge gap remains regarding how best to approach the perioperative anaesthesia challenges for EPP and ePD.It is unknown if the risk stratification processes for such surgeries are standardised or what types of functional and dynamic cardiac and pulmonary tests are employed preoperatively to assist in the perioperative risk stratification. Further, it is unknown whether the types of anaesthesia and analgesia techniques employed, and the types of haemodynamic monitoring tools used, impact on outcomes. It is also unknown whether individualised haemodynamic protocols are used to guide the rational use of fluids, vasoactive drugs and inotropes.Finally, there is a dearth of evidence regarding how best to monitor these patients postoperatively or what the most effective enhanced recovery protocols are to best mitigate postoperative complications and accelerate hospital discharge. To increase our knowledge of the perioperative and anaesthetic treatment for patients undergoing EPP/ePD, this scoping review attempts to synthesise the literature and identify these knowledge gaps.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review Protocols methodology. Electronic databases, OVID Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, will be systematically searched for relevant literature corresponding to EPP or ePD and perioperative or anaesthetic management. Data will be analysed and summarised descriptively and organised according to the three perioperative stages: preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors in clinical care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was not required. The findings will be disseminated through professional networks, conference presentations and publications in scientific journals.

Topics: Humans; Pneumonectomy; Anesthesia; Pleura; Perioperative Care; Pleural Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Scoping Reviews As Topic

PubMed: 38760041
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078125

Review

Authors: Andreas Domen, Lawek Berzenji, Jeroen M H Hendriks...

The optimal treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has not yet been established and is still under investigation. Surgery is one of the pillars in the multimodality approach with the purpose of removing as much as visible tumor as possible and to relieve symptoms. To date, two major surgical procedures are available for removal or debulking of MPM that is considered to be resectable: [extended (e)] pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) and extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP). Historically, EPP was regarded as the only way to achieve a macroscopic complete resection. However, in the last years, there is a shift in literature towards (e)P/D as the preferred surgical procedure whenever possible as several retrospective studies and meta-analyses showed a similar or lower long-term survival and higher perioperative mortality and postoperative morbidity in patients who been treated with EPP. On the other hand, no randomized-controlled trials regarding surgical treatment with (e)P/D or EPP exist and therefore level A evidence favoring one surgical procedure is lacking. In this review we provide a nuanced and well-considered answer to the question whether EPP is still indicated in the surgical treatment of MPM.

PubMed: 30450293
DOI: 10.21037/tlcr.2018.07.07

Authors: Sudhishnaa Shanmugasundaram, Senthilnathan Ramaswamy, Karpaga Vinayagam Natarajan...

PubMed: 38912022
DOI: 10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_201_23

Review

Authors: Federica Danuzzo, Sebastiano Maiorca, Gianluca Bonitta...

Objective: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive malignant cancer for which there are poor treatment options. Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and pleurectomy decortication (P/D) are the two most used surgical procedures in patients with resectable disease. We reviewed the available literature in order to compare the overall survival and postoperative complications of EPP and P/D and to provide evidence for the best procedure in the treatment of MPM. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature, including studies from August 2018 to May 2022. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality and peri-operative complications. Results: Thirteen studies were considered, including a total of 1624 patients treated with EPP and 2147 treated with P/D. The estimated pooled HR showed a significant lower hazard for P/D compared to EPP in terms of OS (HR = 0.76; 95% CI from 0.62 to 0.94; p < 0.001). In 12 studies, the risk for 30-day mortality was lower for patients treated with P/D (RR = 0.49; 95% CI from 0.31 to 0.76; p = <0.01), whereas only five studies reported 90-day mortality, and no statistically significant difference between EPP and P/D was found (RR = 0.71; 95% CI from 0.47 to 1.07; p = 0.10). The OS restricted mean survival time difference meta-analysis (RMSDT) confirms the superior survival of P/D on the EPP, a superiority that increases from 0.54 months at one year to 4.23 at five years. The incidence of postoperative empyema, atrial fibrillation, bleeding and bronchopleural fistula was significantly increased in the EPP group except for prolonged air leakage, which is only characteristic of P/D. Conclusions: Using two different statistical methods, this meta-analysis suggests that long-term survival after surgical treatment for resectable MPM is greater for patients undergoing P/D. Long-term survival had never been previously analyzed with appropriate tests; on the contrary, our result is consistent with the previous meta-analyses and reinforces the evidence of lower 30-day mortality and the prevalence of postoperative complications in P/D versus EPP patients. The recent introduction of innovative therapeutic schemes, both adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, keeps the discussion on surgical strategy open and will require new studies.

PubMed: 36233416
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195544

Review

Authors: Anne S Tsao, Ignacio Wistuba, Jack A Roth...

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a deadly disease that occurs in 2,000 to 3,000 people each year in the United States. Although MPM is an extremely difficult disease to treat, with the median overall survival ranging between 9 and 17 months regardless of stage, there has been significant progress over the last few years that has reshaped the clinical landscape. This article will provide a comprehensive discussion of the latest developments in the treatment of MPM. We will provide an update of the major clinical trials that impact mesothelioma treatment in the resectable and unresectable settings, discuss the impact of novel therapeutics, and provide perspective on where the clinical research in mesothelioma is moving. In addition, there are controversial issues, such as the role of extrapleural pneumonectomy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus hemithoracic therapy that will also be addressed in this manuscript.

Topics: Humans; Mesothelioma; Pleural Effusion, Malignant

PubMed: 19255316
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.8523

Authors: Pier Luigi Filosso, Francesco Guerrera, Paolo Olivo Lausi...

PubMed: 29507809
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.116

Review

Authors: R Taylor Ripley, Hudson M Holmes, Richard S Whitlock...

OBJECTIVES

Mesothelioma is a nearly uniformly fatal tumor. Multimodality therapy including cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy is associated with long-term survival in some patients. Cytoreductive surgery for thoracic disease includes a lung-sparing operation called an "extended pleurectomy/decortication" or a lung-sacrificing surgery called an "extrapleural pneumonectomy." The benefit of cytoreductive surgery for bicavitary disease (chest and abdomen) is poorly understood. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term survivals for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for bicavitary disease and to determine whether any prognostic factors were associated with outcome.

METHODS

We reviewed our Institutional Review Board-approved, institutional, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Mesothelioma Staging Project database. Inclusion criteria were all patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for bicavitary disease. Overall survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier methodology. All International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer database elements were evaluated by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

From February 2014 to August 2021, 440 patients with mesothelioma were evaluated. Fourteen patients (3%) underwent cytoreductive surgery of both chest and abdomen as a planned 2-stage operation. Most patients (13/14; 93%) underwent chest surgery before abdomen surgery. For the entire cohort, the median overall survival was 33.6 months with a 5-year survival of 20%. Extended pleurectomy/decortication was associated with a better outcome compared with extrapleural pneumonectomy, with median overall survivals of 58.2 versus 13.5 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For a highly selected group of patients with bicavitary mesothelioma, long-term survival can be achieved with an aggressive, staged surgical approach. The patients who undergo extended pleurectomy/decortication with preservation of the lung appear to have more favorable outcomes compared with patients undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy.

Topics: Humans; Pneumonectomy; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Pleural Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Mesothelioma, Malignant; Mesothelioma; Lung Neoplasms

PubMed: 36740497
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.11.035

Meta-Analysis

Authors: Rebecca M Schwartz, Wil Lieberman-Cribbin, Andrea Wolf...

BACKGROUND

Few studies have focused on quality of life (QoL) after treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). There are still questions as to which surgical procedure, extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or pleurectomy decortication (P/D) is most effective and results in better survival outcomes, involves fewer complications, and results in better QoL. Here we performed a literature review on MPM patients to assess and compare QoL changes after P/D and EPP.

METHODS

Research articles concerning QoL after mesothelioma surgery were identified through May 2018 in Medline. For inclusion, studies were 1) cohort or randomized controlled trials (RCT) design, 2) included standardized QoL instruments, 3) reported QoL measurement after surgery, 4) described the type of surgery performed (EPP or P/D), 5) were written in English. Measures of lung function (FEV1, FVC) and measures from the EORTC-C30 were compared 6 months following surgery with preoperative values.

RESULTS

QoL data was extracted from 17 articles (14 datasets), encompassing 659 patients (102 EPP, 432 P/D); the available evidence was of low quality. While two studies directly compared QoL between the two surgical procedures, additional data was available from one arm of two RCTs, as the RCTs were not comparing EPP and P/D. The remaining data was reported from observational studies. While QoL was still compromised 6 months following surgery, from the limited and low quality data available it would appear that P/D patients had better QoL than EPP patients across all measures. Physical function, social function and global health were better at follow-up for P/D than for EPP, while other indicators such as pain and cough were similar. Forced Expiratory Volume (FEV1) and Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) were reported in one study only, and were higher at follow-up for P/D compared to EPP.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the existing evidence is limited and of low quality, it suggests that P/D patients have better QoL than EPP patients following surgery. QoL outcomes should be factored into the choice of surgical procedure for MPM patients, and the possible effects on lung function and QoL should be discussed with patients when presenting surgical treatment options.

Topics: Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Mesothelioma; Mesothelioma, Malignant; Pleural Neoplasms; Pneumonectomy; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome

PubMed: 30497433
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-5064-4