Staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: comparison of CT and MR imaging

OBJECTIVE: This article compares the accuracy of CT with that of MR imaging in staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled in a prospective staging protocol based on the International Mesothelioma Interest Group staging system. Sixty-five patients underwent CT and MR imaging and a surgical procedure (excluding percutaneous needle biopsy) to stage and resect the tumor. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed. CT and MR scans were interpreted independently by observers who were unaware of the results of the other imaging study; these imaging findings were compared with the results of surgery and pathologic examination. RESULTS: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for eight of 10 features revealed by imaging showed no statistically significant differences between CT and MR imaging. However, MR imaging was superior to CT in revealing invasion of the diaphragm (A(z) = .55 for CT versus .82 for MR imaging) and in revealing invasion of endothoracic fascia or solitary resectable foci of chest wall invasion (A(z) = .46 for CT; A(z) = .69 for MR imaging). Several anatomic regions could not be evaluated because positive findings at surgery were rare. CONCLUSION: CT and MR imaging are of nearly equivalent diagnostic accuracy in staging malignant pleural mesothelioma. MR imaging is superior to CT in revealing solitary foci of chest wall invasion and endothoracic fascia involvement and in showing diaphragmatic muscle invasion; however, this advantage does not affect surgical treatment. For cost reasons, CT should be considered the standard diagnostic study before therapy.     

The palliative benefits of MVP (mitomycin C, vinblastine and cisplatin) chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: With the rising incidence of malignant mesothelioma (MM), it is important to optimise treatment to control symptoms, maintain quality of life and, if possible, prolong life. We have analysed prospectively collected data to evaluate a frequently used palliative chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 1986 and May 2002 all patients with inoperable pleural mesothelioma were considered for treatment with MVP (mitomycin C 8 mg/m2 every 6 weeks, vinblastine 6 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) chemotherapy. Symptoms were assessed by physician assessment at baseline and after each cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients were treated with MVP for mesothelioma. Forty-three per cent had a performance status (PS) 2 or worse. The response rate was 15.3%, with 68.6% having stable disease. Sixty-nine per cent reported an improvement in symptoms; in particular there were good responses for pain (71%), cough (62%) and dyspnoea (50%). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (22%). Median overall survival was 7 months, with 1-year survival 31% and 2-year survival 11%. Median survival for patients with PS 0/1 was 10 months, and was 6 months for patients with PS 2/3. Poor prognostic factors in univariate analysis included poor PS, weight loss, mixed or sarcomatoid histology, low haemoglobin and high white blood cell count. Excluding pathological subtype, the prognostic significance of poor PS and weight loss were retained in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Palliation of symptoms in MM is achievable with current cisplatin-based treatments.     

Gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized study of the London Lung Cancer Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III randomized trial compared two chemotherapy regimens, gemcitabine plus carboplatin and mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin, in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The regimens were compared with regard to effects on survival, response rates, toxicity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had previously untreated stage IIIB or IV NSCLC suitable for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Randomly assigned patients were to receive four cycles, each at 3-week intervals, of carboplatin area under the curve of 5 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (GCa) or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1 (MIC). RESULTS: Between February 1999 and August 2001, 422 patients (GCa, n = 212; MIC, n = 210) were randomly assigned in the United Kingdom. The majority of patients received the intended four cycles (GCa, 64%; MIC, 61%). There was a significant survival advantage for GCa compared with MIC (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0. 93; P = .008). Median survival was 10 months with GCa and 7.6 months with MIC (difference, 2.4 months; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0), and 1-year survival was 40% with GCa and 30% with MIC (difference, 10%; 95% CI, 3% to 18%). Overall response rates were similar (42% for GCa v 41% for MIC; P = .84). More thrombocytopenia occurred with GCa (P = .03), but this was not associated with increased hospital admission or fatality. GCa caused less nausea, vomiting, constipation, and alopecia and was associated with fewer admissions for administration and better quality of life. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced NSCLC, GCa chemotherapy was shown to be a better-tolerated treatment that conferred a survival advantage over MIC.     

Is boosting the immune system in sepsis appropriate?

A relative immunosuppression is observed in patients after sepsis, trauma, burns, or any severe insults. It is currently proposed that selected patients will benefit from treatment aimed at boosting their immune systems. However, the host immune response needs to be considered in context with pathogen-type, timing, and mainly tissue specificity. Indeed, the immune status of leukocytes is not universally decreased and their activated status in tissues contributes to organ failure. Accordingly, any new immune-stimulatory therapeutic intervention should take into consideration potentially deleterious effects in some situations.