This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ceresoli, G. L. Articles by Santoro, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ceresoli, G. L. Articles by Santoro, A.

Lung Cancer

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

^aDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Rozzano (Milan), Italy; ^bDivision of Medical Oncology, "S.G. Moscati" Hospital, Avellino, Italy

Key Words. Mesothelioma • Pleural • Malignant • Treatment • Multimodality

Correspondence: Giovanni Luca Ceresoli, M.D., Dipartimento di Oncologia Medica e Ematologia, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, Via Manzoni, 56 20089 Rozzano (MI), Italy. Telephone: 0039-02-82244080; Fax: 0039-02-82244590; e-mail giovanni_luca.ceresoli{at}humanitas.it

Received January 24, 2007; accepted for publication April 18, 2007.

	Learning Objectives

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

1. Select appropriate treatment strategies for patients with MPM.
   
2. Discuss the clinical development of new agents and therapeutic strategies, and how they could be integrated into the current armamentarium.
   
3. Summarize the current understandings and pitfalls in staging MPM patients.
   

	ABSTRACT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is increasing worldwide, and is predicted to peak in the next 10–20 years. Difficulties in MPM diagnosis and staging, especially of early disease, have thwarted the development of a universally accepted therapeutic approach. Single modality therapies (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy) have generally failed to significantly prolong patient survival. As a result, multimodality treatment regimens have been developed. Radical surgery with extrapleural pneumonectomy and adjuvant treatments has become the preferred option in early disease, but the benefits of such an aggressive approach have been questioned because of significant treatment-related morbidity and mortality. In the past few years, there have been several major advances in the management of patients with MPM, including more accurate staging and patient selection, improvements in surgical techniques and postoperative care, novel chemotherapy regimens with definite activity such as antifolate (pemetrexed or raltitrexed)–platinum combinations, and new radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Induction chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy has shown promising results. A number of molecular alterations occurring in MPM have been reported, providing broader insights into its biology and leading to the identification of new targets for therapy. However, currently available treatments still appear to have modest results. Further studies are needed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of early and advanced stages of this disease.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

	INTRODUCTION

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor, usually associated with a poor prognosis. The incidence of MPM is increasing throughout most of the world, and it is expected to rise in the next 10–20 years as a result of widespread exposure to asbestos in the past decades [1]. The management of patients with MPM is controversial. Difficulties in diagnosing and staging, especially in early disease, have thwarted the development of a generally accepted stage-related approach. MPM is a heterogeneous disease often associated with different clinical courses; a number of prognostic factors have been described, and two major prognostic scoring systems have been published [2, 3]. There is no definite standard of care, and only a minority of patients are eligible for any potentially curative therapy. Until recently each single modality treatment, that is, surgery, radiotherapy (RT), and chemotherapy, has failed to prolong patient survival. The results of each individual treatment are difficult to interpret because of the varying patient selection, the relatively small number of patients prospectively followed up in single studies, and often the combination with another treatment modality for each of them. No randomized data exist to support one or the other treatment modality as a better treatment option for these patients. Because of the relatively low incidence of the disease, such randomized controlled studies with an adequate number of cases are difficult to perform. Therefore, for many years a nihilistic attitude has existed about MPM treatment [4, 5], with several retrospective studies reporting a median survival duration of <1 year and 5-year survival rates of 1% [6]. As a result, trials comparing chemotherapy with best supportive care (BSC) are still ongoing [7], while, on the other hand, several aggressive multimodality approaches have been proposed in selected patients [8].

In the past few years there have been several major advances in the management of patients with MPM [9]. A number of molecular alterations occurring in this disease have been reported, providing broader insights into its biology and leading to the identification of new targets for therapy [10]. Two phase III randomized trials have set the cisplatin–antifolate combination as the reference regimen for first-line chemotherapy [11, 12], and several biological agents have been explored or are currently under evaluation [13]. More accurate staging and patient selection and improvements in surgical techniques and postoperative care have contributed to lower morbidity and mortality rates after radical surgery [14]. Finally, new RT techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), have provided the potential to conform radiation doses tightly to target volumes, thereby reducing normal tissue toxicity [15].

In our review, we have analyzed the current literature data critically in terms of management of patients with MPM, focusing on the most recent advances as well as on combined-modality approaches.

	STAGING

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Correct clinical staging is mandatory in the approach to treat MPM. Early staging systems have reflected mainly the experiences of individual institutions on their respective patient populations; considerable discrepancies among the various systems have resulted in nonuniformity of reporting. At present, the recommended classification for clinical use is the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) staging system (Table 1) [16], which is based mainly on surgical and pathological variables, and may not be completely applicable to cross-sectional imaging; moreover, the lymphatic drainage of the pleura is quite complex and is not fully reflected in the IMIG system, in which the lymph node (N) classification mirrors that of lung cancer [17, 18]. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is the primary imaging technique for the evaluation of MPM; rind-like extension of the tumor on the pleural surfaces is the most common CT feature, which is seen in up to 70% of cases [19]. For patients being assessed for surgery, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide additional staging information. MRI is used typically to assess equivocal findings on CT concerning the local extent of the tumor, particularly to detect chest wall and diaphragmatic involvement [20, 21]. Because of the suboptimal accuracy of radiological staging in MPM, some authors have advocated the need for extended surgical staging with mediastinoscopy, laparoscopy, and peritoneal lavage [22–24]. The use of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for the diagnosis of MPM has recently been described. FDG-PET has been proven to be useful in the detection of malignant pleural lesions [25] and in the assessment of the extent of tumor involvement. In one study on 65 MPM patients, this imaging technique correctly detected extrathoracic metastases, but failed to reliably identify the locoregional (tumor and mediastinal nodal) status of MPM [26]; sensitivity was 19% for locally advanced disease (T4) and 11% for nodal metastases. Integrated CT-PET with coregistration of anatomic and functional imaging data increases the accuracy of MPM staging for T4 disease, while it remains inaccurate in the evaluation of nodal metastases [27, 28]. As a result of difficulties in monitoring radiological treatment response by CT criteria [29], the use of PET also appears promising in the assessment of response to chemotherapy [30].

	CHEMOTHERAPY

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

Several new cytotoxic agents with definite activity in mesothelioma have recently been evaluated, including gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and the antifolates pemetrexed and raltitrexed. A single study has reported a response rate of 48% with the cisplatin–gemcitabine combination [35], but additional phase II studies have documented a lower level of efficacy [36, 37]. Vinorelbine has been shown to have activity in a small phase II study [38]; similar results have been achieved with vinflunine, a new semisynthetic fluorinated vinca alkaloid [39]. In contrast, taxanes, such as paclitaxel and docetaxel, showed very low or no activity [40, 41]. Recently, two randomized controlled trials comparing single-agent cisplatin with its combination with an antifolate agent have been reported (Table 2) [11, 12]. A large phase III trial comparing pemetrexed and cisplatin with cisplatin alone in 448 chemotherapy-naïve patients with MPM has demonstrated that the combined regimen is associated with significantly better survival, time to progression, and response rates (41.3%, versus 16.7% in the control arm) [11]. Supplementation with folic acid and vitamin B₁₂ has reduced toxicity significantly. Furthermore, the raltitrexed–cisplatin combined regimen as first-line treatment has been reported to produce a longer overall survival duration than with cisplatin in a population of 250 patients [12], confirming that cisplatin with an antifolate should be the reference regimen in patients with MPM. The magnitude of the survival benefit is similar in both studies: a 2.8-month longer median survival time in the pemetrexed study (12.1 versus 9.3 months) and a 2.6-month longer median survival time in the raltitrexed study (11.4 versus 8.8 months). However, in the former trial this difference is statistically significant, whereas in the latter it has borderline significance, probably because of the limited sample size. In both trials the combination arm was significantly superior in terms of lung function improvement and symptom control [42, 43]. Considering that many MPM patients are unfit to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy, schedules with carboplatin have been explored in an attempt to reduce toxicity, while maintaining the same survival benefit [44–47]. Recently, the results of a phase II trial of the pemetrexed–carboplatin combination as front-line treatment in 102 patients with MPM have been published [46]. Despite the apparently lower radiological response rate, the time to disease progression and overall survival time were similar (6.5 months and 12.7 months, respectively) to the results achieved with the standard pemetrexed–cisplatin regimen. These results were confirmed independently by another trial using the same treatment schedule on a large number of patients [47]. MPM is often diagnosed late in the course of life, and an increasing rate of diagnosis in elderly patients is reported by several mesothelioma registers and epidemiological studies [48]. The carboplatin-based schedules seem attractive for this growing subset of patients. In a retrospective analysis on the outcome of elderly patients (70 years) with MPM included in two large trials of the pemetrexed–carboplatin combination as first-line therapy, this regimen was proven to be active and well tolerated [49], although these data should be considered with caution because of the bias risk related to subgroup retrospective analyses.

Patients benefiting from first-line treatment are still relatively healthy when progression occurs and thus are potential candidates for second-line therapy. Until recently, most MPM chemotherapy trials have focused on chemotherapy-naïve patients, with few providing results to guide decisions regarding second-line therapy. Therefore, the role of second-line chemotherapy in MPM has yet to be proven. Some case study reports and phase II studies including pretreated patients [51, 52] and a few small trials dedicated to second-line chemotherapy [53, 54] have provided evidence of efficacy in this patient setting (Table 3). Recently, noteworthy activity of pemetrexed, both alone and combined with carboplatin, as second-line treatment following prior platinum-based chemotherapy has been reported [55]. More importantly, in a randomized, multicenter phase III study examining pemetrexed as second-line chemotherapy versus BSC alone, a statistically significant longer time to disease progression was demonstrated in the chemotherapy-receiving arm (3.8 versus 1.5 months); no difference in overall survival was seen, possibly as a result of the influence of poststudy therapy in the BSC arm [56]. However, because the phase III trial evaluating the pemetrexed–cisplatin combination as first-line therapy [11] has resulted in this regimen becoming a frequent choice for first-line standard of care, second-line chemotherapy should focus on other compounds [57–59] (Table 3).

	TARGETED THERAPIES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

	SURGERY

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
The role of surgery in the management of MPM is still debated [76, 77]. The results of each trial are difficult to interpret because of the varying patient selection, the different staging systems, and often the addition of other treatment modalities [78]. The three most used surgical procedures are pleurodesis, pleurectomy/decortication (P/D), and extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP). No randomized controlled studies comparing these techniques or comparing surgery with an alternative treatment are available. Recently a feasibility pilot study has been started in the United Kingdom, in which MPM patients are randomized after three cycles of induction chemotherapy to have or not have EPP followed by radical RT. If the feasibility study, which aims to recruit 50 patients, is positive, the trial (denoted the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery [MARS] trial) will continue as a full trial whose main objectives will be to determine whether EPP is better than no surgery in terms of survival and quality of life [79].

Pleural effusion is a common and debilitating complication of MPM; evacuation of the pleural fluid and prevention of its reaccumulation, with complete lung expansion, are important goals in the management of these patients. Different techniques and sclerosing agents have been used [80], but thoracoscopy and talc insufflation seem to give the best results with low morbidity. In large series of patients with malignant pleural effusion, this procedure has been reported to prevent further fluid accumulation in nearly 80% of cases, although survival prolongation has not been observed [81, 82].

P/D and EPP are cytoreductive procedures whose aim is the local control of MPM, a locally aggressive disease with propensity to recur locoregionally. P/D allows the removal of the visceral, parietal, and pericardial pleura; it is less technically demanding than EPP, and therefore it can be performed in most centers. Morbidity is limited, and the procedure can be tolerated by patients whose functional status precludes EPP; mortality rates are in the range of 1.5%–5% [83, 84]. However, P/D has several limitations: complete resection is impossible in most cases, and postoperative RT fields and doses are limited because of the presence of the lung. As a result, local recurrence occurs in the vast majority of patients [84]. EPP is a more aggressive procedure entailing en bloc resection of the parietal and visceral pleura with the enclosed lung, pericardium, ipsilateral diaphragm, and mediastinal nodes. The pericardial and diaphragmatic defects are reconstructed with patches to prevent cardiac or abdominal organ herniation. With EPP, cytoreduction is more effective than with P/D [77], and a higher amount of RT can be delivered [85]. On the other hand, EPP is a complex operation, which should be performed in selected centers and by skilled surgeons only. Postoperative morbidity is frequent, occurring in up to 60% of patients [14]. Major complications include atrial fibrillation, prolonged intubation, vocal cord paralysis, deep vein thrombosis, technical complications (patch dehiscence, intrathoracic hemorrhage), tamponade, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac arrest, and empyema. However, as more experience has been gained with the procedure, the mortality rate has declined from 30% in the early series [86] to <10% in modern series [14, 87–89]. In the largest published series, Sugarbaker et al. [14] reported a 3.4% mortality rate in 328 patients, suggesting that in expert hands EPP can now be considered a relatively safe procedure for selected patients with MPM.

Because evidence-based recommendations derived from randomized clinical trials do not exist, there has been a long debate regarding which technique is more appropriate. Interpretation and comparison of data in surgical series are very difficult because they are based on retrospective case series and noncomparative phase II studies only, and because in most studies RT and chemotherapy were added [78]. Moreover, some authors have incorporated data from earlier years, or updated old series in new papers, or extracted subsets of patients from previous studies, which makes result interpretation even more difficult. In a large retrospective series with long follow-up, no survival difference was observed between EPP and P/D patients [90].

Surgery alone has not been tested extensively in MPM; therefore, the results of the main trials on P/D and EPP are discussed in the present review within the section on multimodality treatment.

	RT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
The role of RT in the treatment of MPM is not well defined yet [91]. There is no evidence that RT alone affects survival, although several studies have demonstrated that it can indeed improve symptoms like dyspnea, dysphagia, vena cava obstruction, and, mainly, pain [92, 93]. Three small randomized controlled trials have evaluated the role of prophylactic external beam RT in reducing the frequency of thoracic procedure tract metastases [94–96]. The results of these trials are conflicting: in one only a significant reduction in tract malignant seeding was reported [94], and when the data were pooled, there was not sufficient evidence to definitively recommend prophylactic radiation on thoracic diagnostic tracts; that must be decided on an individualized case assessment [91]. Although tolerance to RT improves with dose fractionation, curative RT is difficult to deliver to patients with MPM because of the large volumes of the lungs, liver, heart, spinal cord, and even kidneys that would receive potentially toxic doses. Therefore, few trials considering definitive radical irradiation in these patients are available. In a review of MPM patients treated with different doses of RT using palliation as the endpoint, only one of 23 patients who had received <40 Gy achieved symptom improvement, while four of six patients who had been given >40 Gy had satisfactory symptom palliation [97]. In a phase II study on 47 patients, Linden et al. [98] delivered hemithoracic RT at a dose of 40 Gy in 20 fractions, alone or in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Symptom control was poor, and 100% of patients experienced radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis, 23% radiation pneumonitis, and 4% bronchopleural fistula. A prospective nonrandomized study from Finland has evaluated different multimodality treatment programs, using various hemithoracic irradiation schedules in combination with chemotherapy. Regimens included conventionally fractionated RT, split-course therapy with an additional boost to the major tumor areas, hypofractionation, hyperfractionation, or a combination of hypo- and hyperfractionation. The authors treated >100 patients in different, consecutive time periods [99, 100] and concluded that the results achieved by the altered fractionation regimens do not differ from those obtained with conventional fractionation; moreover, toxicities, namely, radiation pneumonitis and fibrosis, were severe. More recently, Zierhut et al. [101] reported the Heidelberg group experience over a 12-year time span on three-dimensionally planned RT delivered to 42 MPM patients, mostly with palliative intent. The median delivered dose was 40 Gy, with a range of 7.5–60 Gy and various fractionation schedules; the median overall survival duration was 5.4 months after RT and the median progression-free survival time was 2 months [101]. None of the above-mentioned studies included formal measures of quality of life or a symptom control analysis. Based on the results of these early studies, radical RT alone or combined with chemotherapy should not be offered as a curative treatment option to patients with MPM.

RT has more often been added to surgery in an attempt to improve local control and reduce local failure [102]. Studies of adjuvant RT are analyzed in the Multimodality Treatment section below.

Following the limitations of RT in MPM, because of the diffuse nature of the disease, several new treatment techniques have been implemented [103]. Recently, a novel modality of irradiation, known as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), has been developed for the treatment of several tumors. IMRT is used to deliver dose distributions that conform to complicated convex and concave target volumes. This is potentially advantageous for large, irregular targets with critical structures in close proximity [104], such as in the case of MPM [105–107].

	MULTIMODALITY TREATMENT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Failure of single-modality treatments to increase survival in MPM patients has led to a variety of multimodality approaches [8, 108]. Cytoreductive surgery (P/D or EPP) has been added to systemic and/or intrapleural chemotherapy, and to external-beam or intraoperative RT, with the main aim of improving local control. Other procedures, such as hyperthermia and photodynamic therapy, have been used in small noncontrolled trials [108]. Early studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by EPP and hemithoracic RT have been published, and confirmatory trials on larger series of patients are ongoing [109].

Surgery and Postoperative RT

P/D Plus RT
Gupta et al. [84] have recently reported a retrospective review including 123 patients treated with P/D and adjuvant RT at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from 1974 to 2003. Intraoperative brachytherapy was added in nearly half of the cases. The 1-year actuarial local control rate for all patients was 42%; the median overall survival duration was 13.5 months. Radiation dose <40 Gy, nonepithelial histology, and left-sided disease were negative prognostic factors. The authors concluded that P/D with adjuvant RT is not an effective treatment option for patients with MPM [84].

EPP Plus RT
In a phase II trial published by Rusch et al. [110], 88 patients were resected (70% with EPP) and 57 received adjuvant hemithoracic radiation at a dose of 54 Gy. Treatment proved to be feasible and generally well tolerated. The median survival time was 33.8 months for stage I–II and 10 months for stage III–IV tumors. Patients with advanced disease at presentation had a high risk for distant relapse, suggesting the need for systemic therapy to be added to this regimen. Acceptable RT dose distributions were obtained using a combined photon and electron technique with blockade of critical normal structures [85].

Intraoperative RT
Two small series of MPM patients treated with intraoperative RT (IORT) have been reported. Rosenzweig et al. [111] observed 13 patients (7 EPP, 6 P/D) treated with IORT and postoperative external-beam RT. Treatment turned out to be prohibitively toxic, with serious complications mainly in the EPP group. Lee et al. [112] have carried out a retrospective review of 24 patients treated with IORT and external beam RT; the median overall survival time was 18.1 months. In spite of this aggressive RT treatment, the most frequent type of failure was locoregional.

Clinical Implementations of IMRT
A few centers have implemented IMRT clinically in small patient series [106, 113, 114]. Münter et al. [113] reported on the use of a standard fractionation schedule of a total dose of 40–50 Gy in a small series of 11 patients with unresectable MPM who had experienced failure of surgery or first-line chemotherapy. The 1-year overall survival rate after RT was 18%. No severe acute or late side effects, especially no severe lung toxicity, were reported. The authors concluded that for palliative situations IMRT might be suitable only for patients with a small tumor burden, but its use should be better applied to patients resected with EPP [113]. Forster et al. [106] have described the pilot MD Anderson Cancer Center experience with IMRT in seven MPM patients treated after EPP. Acute toxicity was mild; the most severe side effects were nausea or vomiting. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months, no disease recurrence within the ipsilateral hemithorax was observed [106]. These results were updated by the same group in a series of 57 sequential MPM patients, in which an excellent local control rate was reported (93%), with a 3-year disease-free survival rate of 55% in patients without nodal metastases at surgery, and with distant metastases as the leading cause of death [115]. In a recent paper on the initial experience with IMRT as adjuvant therapy after EPP conducted at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, a high rate of fatal pneumonitis (6 of 13 patients) was reported [114]. Therefore, great caution in the use of IMRT in MPM patients is recommended until a clearer understanding of the dose-volume effects of this technique for this patient population is gained.

EPP and Adjuvant Chemoradiation
The largest series evaluating multimodality treatment in MPM has been reported by the Brigham and Women's Hospital group in Boston. An early report on 120 patients [87] was subsequently updated in a paper reporting the results of EPP followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and RT in a total of 183 patients [88]. In that study, careful patient selection was applied based on a standardized preoperative assessment including radiological evaluation (CT and MRI scans and echocardiograms) and accurate pulmonary and cardiac function tests. From 1980 to 1997, 140 men and 43 women of 31–76 years of age were enrolled. Seven perioperative deaths occurred, which is equal to a mortality rate of 3.8%. Perioperative morbidity occurred in 50% of patients. The 176 survivors were given adjuvant treatment after a recovery period of 4–6 weeks. Chemotherapy was administered first; several different regimens were evaluated over time; platinum-based schedules were used since 1985. Hemithoracic RT was delivered at a dose of 30 Gy, and the mediastinum received 40 Gy. A boost dose was given to areas of gross residual disease, positive resection margins, or positive lymph nodes, for a total cumulative dose to the boost region of 54 Gy. The median survival duration was 19 months, with 2- and 5-year survival rates of 38% and 15%, respectively. The subset analysis identified three prognostic variables significantly associated with longer survival: epithelial cell type, negative resection margins, and extrapleural nodes without metastases (Table 4) [88]. A subset of these 183 patients was reviewed to assess the pattern of failure. Forty-six patients with a median follow-up of 18 months were analyzed [116]. Disease recurrence was observed in 25 patients (54%); locoregional relapse was seen in 35% of cases, abdominal recurrence in 26%, and contralateral chest recurrence in 17%. Hence, despite this aggressive protocol, locoregional recurrence was still the predominant mode of failure. However, the high rate of systemic failure suggests that a multimodality approach might have an impact in the natural history of the disease.

Surgery and Intrapleural Chemotherapy/Photodynamic Therapy
Intrapleural chemotherapy has the theoretical advantage of achieving high local drug concentrations and prolonged drug exposure with less systemic toxicity; on the other hand, activity is limited by tissue penetration of the drug. In a Memorial Sloan-Kettering study, P/D with intrapleural cisplatin and mitomycin was used to treat 28 patients, most of whom also received systemic chemotherapy. The median survival duration was 17 months; 80% of patients had locoregional recurrence; one perioperative death and two cases of grade 4 nephrotoxicity occurred [119]. Other authors have used hyperthermic cisplatin lavage after P/D based on the rationale that hyperthermia has been shown to induce cell death and also seems to improve the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents [120]. Richards et al. [121] recently reported the results of a phase I–II study of P/D and intraoperative intracavitary hyperthermic cisplatin lavage in MPM patients not candidates for EPP. Cisplatin was administered at a sequentially escalated dose, from 50 to 250 mg/m². An apparent dose-related survival benefit was observed; patients with epithelial tumors treated with high-dose cisplatin lavage had a 26-month median survival time.

Photodynamic therapy combines light with a photosensitizer having selective uptake in cancer cells. In two small trials [122, 123] this technique did not seem to add a survival benefit to resected MPM patients.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
The difficulty in providing adjuvant chemotherapy in EPP patients and the introduction into clinical practice of apparently effective chemotherapy regimens in recent years have spurred investigations on a neoadjuvant treatment approach to MPM (Table 5) [109, 124]. In a pilot study, Weder et al. [125] treated 19 MPM patients with clinical stage T1–3, N0–2, M0 disease—the most frequent being T2N0—with three cycles of neoadjuvant cisplatin and gemcitabine. The response rate to chemotherapy was 32%; EPP was performed in 16 patients with no perioperative mortality; major surgical complications occurred in six patients. Postoperative RT was delivered to 13 patients. The median survival time was 23 months; 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 79% and 37%, respectively [125]. The results of this single-center study were recently confirmed by a multicenter phase II trial (SAKK 17/00) [126], in which the same inclusion criteria as the pilot trial allowed the enrollment of 61 patients. The resectability rate was 61%; the median survival duration of the whole population was 19.8 months; in the 45 patients undergoing EPP, the median survival time was 23 months. This approach was not associated with more psychological distress. In these studies, complications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP are a major concern. However, in a pooled analysis of the two trials, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates (62% and 3.2%, respectively) were comparable with those observed after EPP alone in the Brigham series [127]. Recently, Flores et al. [128] reported on a phase II trial of induction chemotherapy, EPP, and postoperative high-dose RT in 21 patients with locally advanced (stage III–IV) MPM. Patients received four cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine and, in the absence of disease progression, underwent EPP and adjuvant hemithoracic RT (54 Gy). The partial response rate to chemotherapy was 26%; eight of nine patients undergoing surgical exploration received EPP. The overall median survival duration was 19 months; the median survival time for EPP patients was 33.5 months. Finally, Rea et al. [129] reported on a single-center experience of induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and gemcitabine, EPP, and postoperative RT (45 Gy) in 21 patients. The resectability rate was 81%, the perioperative morbidity rate was 52%, and no mortality was observed. The median survival duration of the whole series was 25.5 months; patients who received EPP had a 5-year survival of rate of 24%.

	CONCLUSIONS

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
MPM remains a difficult disease to treat. No standard therapy exists, and randomized studies are lacking [133]. However, in the last few years, much progress has been made in this field.

The combination of pemetrexed with a platinum derivative can now be considered as standard in unresectable disease. Schedules with carboplatin should be considered, particularly in elderly and unfit patients. Although there is no consensus about the optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy, no evidence of a benefit with prolonged administration exists, and the use of six courses seems a reasonable option. Pemetrexed or a pemetrexed-containing regimen should be administered as second-line therapy in patients who have not received it as first-line treatment. Pemetrexed-pretreated patients should be enrolled ideally in dedicated prospective trials.

Radical surgery (EPP) and multimodality treatments are increasingly used, but the role of this aggressive approach should be further confirmed. Induction chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant RT is promising. Clear, reproducible, and safe RT protocols are needed. Outside of clinical trials, multimodality treatments should be limited to patients with early (T1–T2) disease with no evidence of nodal involvement at the preoperative assessment. Careful patient staging and stratification based on the use of validated prognostic indexes [2, 3], and of new prognosticators such as FDG-PET [134], are essential to refer patients to the proper treatment and to avoid unnecessary and distressing treatments when they are not indicated.

Functional imaging, mainly with FDG-PET, is providing new insights into staging and response evaluation to chemotherapy and targeted agents in MPM.

Finally, advances in the knowledge of MPM molecular mechanisms hopefully will lead to the development of novel targeted agents for the treatment of advanced and early-stage disease.

	DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
The authors indicate no potential conflicts of interest.

	REFERENCES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Staging Chemotherapy Targeted Therapies Surgery RT Multimodality Treatment Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 

1. Robinson BWS, Musk AW, Lake AR. Malignant mesothelioma. Lancet 2005;366:397–408.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Curran D, Sahmoud T, Therasse P et al. Prognostic factors in patients with pleural mesothelioma: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:145–152.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Herndon JE, Green MR, Chahinian AP et al. Factors predictive of survival among 337 patients with mesothelioma treated between 1984 and 1994 by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Chest 1998;113:723–731.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Alberts AS, Falkson G, Goedhals L et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: A disease unaffected by current therapeutic maneuvers. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:527–535.[Abstract]
5. Law MR, Gregor A, Hodson ME et al. Malignant mesothelioma of the pleura: A study of 52 treated and 64 untreated patients. Thorax 1984;39:255–259.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Ceresoli GL, Locati LD, Ferreri AJM et al. Therapeutic outcome according to histologic subtype in 121 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2001;34:279–287.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Favaretto A. Overview on ongoing or planned clinical trials in Europe. Lung Cancer 2005;49(suppl 1):S117–S121.[Medline]
8. Neragi-Miandoab S. Multimodality approach in management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:14–19.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Robinson BWS, Lake RA. Advances in malignant mesothelioma. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1591–1603.[Free Full Text]
10. Zucali PA, Giaccone G. Biology and management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:2706–2714.[CrossRef][Medline]
11. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. van Meerbeeck JP, Gaafar R, Manegold C et al. Randomized phase III study of cisplatin with or without raltitrexed in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: An intergroup study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group and the National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6881–6889.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Vogelzang NJ, Porta C, Mutti L. New agents in the management of advanced mesothelioma. Semin Oncol 2005;32:336–350.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Ahamad A, Stevens CW, Smythe WR et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: A novel approach to the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:768–775.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Rusch VW. A proposed new international TNM staging system for malignant pleural mesothelioma. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Chest 1995;108:1122–1128.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Benamore RE, O'Doherty MJ, Entwisle JJ. Use of imaging in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clin Radiol 2005;60:1237–1247.[CrossRef][Medline]
18. Van Meerbeeck JP, Boyer M. Consensus report: Pretreatment minimal staging and treatment of potentially resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2005;49(suppl 1):S123–S127.[Medline]
19. Metintas M, Ucgun I, Elbek O et al. Computed tomography features in malignant pleural mesothelioma and other commonly seen pleural diseases. Eur J Radiol 2002;41:1–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Heelan RT, Rusch VW, Begg CB et al. Staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: Comparison of CT and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1039–1047.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Hierholzer J, Luo L, Bittner RC et al. MRI and CT in the differential diagnosis of pleural disease. Chest 2000;118:604–609.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Rice DC, Erasmus JJ, Stevens CW et al. Extended surgical staging for potentially resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:1988–1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Schouwink JH, Kool LS, Rutgers EJ et al. The value of chest computed tomography and cervical mediastinoscopy in the preoperative assessment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1715–1719.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Edwards JG, Stewart DJ, Martin-Ucar A et al. The pattern of lymph node involvement influences outcome after extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:981–987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Carretta A, Landoni C, Melloni G et al. 18-FDG positron emission tomography in the evaluation of malignant pleural diseases – a pilot study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;17:377–383.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Flores RM, Akhurst T, Gonen M et al. Positron emission tomography defines metastatic disease but not locoregional disease in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;126:11–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Erasmus JJ, Truong MT, Smythe WR et al. Integrated computed tomography-positron emission tomography in patients with potentially resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma: Staging implications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:1364–1370.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Truong MT, Marom EM, Erasmus JJ. Preoperative evaluation of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: Role of integrated CT-PET imaging. J Thorac Imaging 2006;21:146–153.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JGJV, de Bruin H et al. Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for response evaluation in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2004;43:63–69.[CrossRef][Medline]
30. Ceresoli GL, Chiti A, Zucali PA et al. Early response evaluation in malignant pleural mesothelioma by positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4587–4593.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Steele JPC, Klabatsa A. Chemotherapy options and new advances in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:345–351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Berghmans T, Paesmans M, Lalami Y et al. Activity of chemotherapy and immunotherapy on malignant mesothelioma: A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Lung Cancer 2002;38:111–121.[CrossRef][Medline]
33. O'Brien MER, 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Muers MF, Rudd RM, O'Brien MER et al. BTS randomised feasibility study of active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: ISRCTN 54469112. Thorax 2004;59:144–148.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Byrne MJ, Davidson JA, Musk AW et al. Cisplatin and gemcitabine treatment for malignant mesothelioma: A phase II study. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:25–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
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.[CrossRef][Medline]
37. van Haarst JM, Baas P, Manegold Ch et al. Multicentre phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Br J Cancer 2002;86:342–345.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Steele JPC, Shamash J, Evans MT et al. Phase II study of vinorelbine in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3912–3917.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Margery J, Dabouis G, Dark G et al. Vinflunine (VFL) in first line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): Final results of a European phase II study. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):47a.
40. van Meerbeeck J, Debruyne C, van Zandwijk N et al. Paclitaxel for malignant pleural mesothelioma: A phase II study of the EORTC Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. Br J Cancer 1996;74:961–963.[Medline]
41. Vorobiof DA, Rapoport BL, Chasen MR et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: A phase II trial with docetaxel. Ann Oncol 2002;13:412–415.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Bottomley A, Gaafar R, Manegold C et al. Short-term treatment-related symptoms and quality of life: Results from an international randomized phase III study of cisplatin with or without raltitrexed in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: An EORTC Lung-Cancer Group and National Cancer Institute, Canada, Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1435–1442.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Boyer MJ, Jassem J, Liepa AM et al. Symptom and quality of life advantages for pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin in treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2003;41(suppl 2):19a.
44. Hughes A, Calvert P, Azzabi A et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3533–3544.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Favaretto AG, Aversa SML, Paccagnella A et al. Gemcitabine combined with carboplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: A multicentric phase II study. Cancer 2003;97:2791–2797.[CrossRef][Medline]
46. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Castagneto B, Mencoboni M, Degiovanni D et al. Pemetrexed (MTA) and carboplatin (CBDCA) in the treatment of advanced pleural mesothelioma (MPM). J Clin Oncol 2006;24:7093a.
48. Hodgson JT, McElvenny DM, Darnton AJ et al. The expected burden of mesothelioma mortality in Great Britain from 2002 to 2050. Br J Cancer 2005;92:587–593.[Medline]
49. Ceresoli GL, Castagneto B, Zucali PA et al. Pemetrexed in combination with carboplatin in elderly patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):46a.
50. van den Bogaert DPM, Pouw EM, van Wijhe G et al. Pemetrexed maintenance therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 2006;1:25–30.[Medline]
51. Fizazi K, Doubre H, Le Chevalier T et al. Combination of raltitrexed and oxaliplatin is an active regimen in malignant mesothelioma: Results of a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:349–354.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Vogelzang NJ. Gemcitabine and cisplatin: Second-line chemotherapy for malignant mesothelioma? J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2626–2627.[Medline]
53. Giaccone G, O'Brien MER, Byrne MJ et al. Phase II trial of ZD0473 as second-line therapy in mesothelioma. Eur J Cancer 2002;38(suppl 8):S19–S24.
54. Porta C, Zimatore M, Bonomi L et al. Raltitrexed-oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy is inactive as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients. Lung Cancer 2005;48:429–434.[CrossRef][Medline]
55. Sorensen JB, Sundstrom S, Perrell K et al. Pemetrexed second-line treatment in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) following platinum-based first-line treatment. Ann Oncol 2006;17(suppl 9):216a.
56. Jassem J, Ramlau R, Santoro A et al. A randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in previously treated patients (pts) with advanced pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Ann Oncol 2006;17(suppl 9):214a.
57. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58. Zucali PA, Garassino I, Ceresoli GL et al. Treatment with gemcitabine and vinorelbine (GEMVIN) as second-line chemotherapy in pemetrexed-pretreated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):48a.
59. Serke M, Xanthopoulos A, Bauer T. Second line chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma with oxaliplatin/gemcitabine. Ann Oncol 2006;17(suppl 9):231a.
60. Destro A, Ceresoli GL, Falleni M et al. EGFR overexpression in malignant pleural mesothelioma. An immunohistochemical and molecular study with clinico-pathological correlations. Lung Cancer 2006;51:207–215.[CrossRef][Medline]
61. Edwards JG, Swinson DEB, Jones JL et al. EGFR expression: Associations with outcome and clinicopathological variables in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2006;54:399–407.[CrossRef][Medline]
62. Catalano A, Gianni W, Procopio A. Experimental therapy of malignant mesothelioma: New perspectives from anti-angiogenic treatments. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2004;50:101–109.[Medline]
63. Govindan R, Kratzke RA, Herndon JE 2nd et al. Gefitinib in patients with malignant mesothelioma: A phase II study by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:2300–2304.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Garland L, Rankin C, Scott K et al. Molecular correlates of the EGFR signaling pathway in association with SWOG S0218: A phase II study of oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor OSI-774 (NSC-718781) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3007a.
65. Mathy A, Baas P, Dalesio O et al. Limited efficacy of imatinib mesylate in malignant mesothelioma: A phase II trial. Lung Cancer 2005;50:83–86.[CrossRef][Medline]
66. Cortese JF, Gowda AL, Wali A et al. Common EGFR mutations conferring sensitivity to gefitinib in lung adenocarcinoma are not prevalent in human malignant mesothelioma. Int J Cancer 2006;118:521–522.[CrossRef][Medline]
67. Jahan T, Gu L, Wang X et al. Vatalanib in patients with previously untreated advanced malignant mesothelioma (MM): Preliminary analysis of a phase II study by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 30107). Lung Cancer 2005;49(suppl 2):222a.
68. Baas P, Boogerd W, Dalesio O et al. Thalidomide in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2005;48:291–296.[CrossRef][Medline]
69. Kindler HL, Vogelzang NJ, Chien K et al. SU5416 in malignant mesothelioma: A University of Chicago phase II consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2001;20:1359a.
70. Kindler HL, Karrison T, Lu C et al. A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) plus bevacizumab (B) or placebo in patients (pts) with malignant mesothelioma (MM). J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7019a.
71. Janne PA, Wang XF, Krug LM et al. Phase II trial of sorafenib (BAY 43–9006) in malignant mesothelioma: CALGB 30307. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):51a.
72. Kelly WK, O'Connor OA, Krug LM et al. Phase I study of an oral histone deacetylase inhibitor, suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid, in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3923–3931.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
73. Park DJ, Lenz HJ. The role of proteasome inhibitors in solid tumors. Ann Med 2004;36:296–303.[CrossRef][Medline]
74. Gordon GJ, Mani M, Maulik G et al. Preclinical studies of the proteosome inhibitor bortezomib (Velcade) in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):50a.
75. Fennell D, Gaudino G, Porta C et al. Proteasome inhibitors for treatment of malignant mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):50a.
76. Treasure T. Debate: There is no role for radical surgery in the management of pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):42a.
77. Flores R. Debate: Surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma; a guaranteed complete response. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):42a.
78. Maziak DE, Gagliardi A, Haynes AE et al. Surgical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: A systematic review and evidence summary. Lung Cancer 2005;48:157–169.[CrossRef][Medline]
79. Treasure T, Duffy N, Tan C et al. The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) trial update. Lung Cancer 2006;54(suppl 1):44a.
80. Neragi-Miandoab S. Malignant pleural effusion, current and evolving approaches for its diagnosis and management. Lung Cancer 2006;54:1–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
81. Viallat JR, Rey F, Astoul P et al. Thoracoscopic talc poudrage pleurodesis for malignant effusions. A review of 360 cases. Chest 1996;110:1387–1393.[CrossRef][Medline]
82. Canto A, Guijarro R, Arnau A et al. Videothoracoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma with associated pleural effusions. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;45:16–19.[Medline]
83. Rusch VW. Pleurectomy/decortication in the setting of multimodality treatment for diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;9:367–372.[Medline]