A Retrospective Analysis of Epidemiology Prognostic Factor and Response of Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine | ||||
| Article 27, Volume 70, Issue 1, January 2018, Page 155-170 PDF (589.27 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.12816/0042979 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Dalia A El-Khodary; Khaled K Elghoniemy; Wesam R EL Ghamry; Heba R Saleh 
| ||||
| Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine Faculty of Medicine - Ain Shams University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) represents a common malignant disease. It is an aggressive tumor arising from the mesothelial cells lining the pleura. There is an extremely poor prognosis and a vast majority of MPM patients are diagnosed in an advanced stage. Rapid progression of the disease, no effective therapeutic approach and resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy resulted in a median survival time of less than 12 months. Aim of the Work: this study aimed to analyze the clinic pathological profile, the various prognostic factors and treatment response of malignant mesothelioma patients in our center in terms of overall survival and progression free survival. Patients and Methods: this retrospective was conducted on Malignant Mesothelioma patients who presented to the Department of Clinical Oncology, Ain Shams University from 1 January, 2011 to 31 December, 2014. Results: the mean age of the included patients were 61.04 years with male predominance 50.6% and female 49.1%. Occupational risk was documented in only 11.1% of included patients; most patients live in the industrial environment (67.9%) and the rest in non industrial environment (32.1%). All patients had negative family history of cancer. All patients had negative surgical history, 66.7% of patients had positive history of asbestos exposure. The commonest co morbidity among the studied patients were HTN as it was accounted for 24.7% of the included patients followed by diabetes mellitus in 16% of patients on the other hand, only 3.7% of patients had no co morbidity. Dyspnea was the commonest symptoms (77.8%) among the included patients, followed by cough (33.3%) and chest pain in 12.3%, the other symptoms with lower presentation included hemoptysis and anemia. P.S 1(28.4%) was recorded among the included patients and 53.1% patients had P.S 2 while, rest of patients 18.5% had P.S 3. Patients were diagnosed by CT chest and pleural biopsy either US guided or CT guided, chest X ray, thoracoscopic biopsy, FNAC and open pleural biopsy. The results also showed that the median PFS among the included patients was 2 months. Median OAS was 6.1 months. Conclusion: best survival data in patients with MPM were currently reported from groups using multimodality treatment including MCR achieved either by EPP or extrapleural decortication for patients qualifying as far as tumor stage and functional reserve were concerned. In general, several treatment combinations have been applied ranging from systemic (neo- or adjuvant) to localized chemotherapy, neo- or adjuvant radiotherapy and others. Recommendations: The choice of the surgical procedure should be tailored according to tumor stage, performance status, and institutional experience. Morbidity and mortality of these treatment approaches have been reduced at experienced centers indicating that this complex treatment should be performed at dedicated high volume mesothelioma centers. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Epidemiology; Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 123 PDF Download: 343 |
||||
