Presentation on theme: "Malignant Pleural Effusion: Prevalence ~ 200,000 MPE / year in USA 1:4 Lung Cancer pt; 1:3 Breast; 9:10 Mesothelioma ~ 100,000 MPE from Lung Cancer / yr."— Presentation transcript:
Malignant Pleural Effusion: Prevalence ~ 200,000 MPE / year in USA 1:4 Lung Cancer pt; 1:3 Breast; 9:10 Mesothelioma ~ 100,000 MPE from Lung Cancer / yr in Europe Pleural effusion is the first sign of cancer in 25% of patients with MPE Light RW & Lee YCG. Textbook of Pleural Disease, 2 nd ed. 2008
Malignant Pleural Effusions 95% MPM pts suffer from a pleural effusion 95% MPM pts suffer from a pleural effusion Dyspnea most common presenting symptom Dyspnea most common presenting symptom Fear of ‘drowning to death’ Fear of ‘drowning to death’
Malignant Effusion: significant burden Western Australia (population 2 million): ~8,000 inpatient bed days per year US$10 million inpatient cost per year
Myths in Malignant Effusions Although MPE common recent advances in knowledge has shed light on many myths in - Why symptoms develop - Diagnostic workup and limitations - Pleurodesis and its limitations - Indwelling pleural catheters: pros and cons
Myth: Patients with malignant effusions are breathless because the fluid compresses on the lung, restricting its expansion.
Why are patients breathless? Effects on Diaphragm: Weight of the effusion profoundly affects the diaphragm Dyspnea related to effect on the diaphragm: - No dyspnea if diaphragm domed and moves normally - Severe dyspnea if diaphragm inverted and not move with respiration Lee YCG & Light RW. in Encyclopedia of Respiratory Disease 2006 Effects on Lung Function: For 1 L fluid drained: FEV 1 or FVC 0.2 L; TLC 0.4 L Lung Compression not the key factor
Why are patients breathless? The pleural cavity expands to accommodate the fluid. Altered respiratory mechanics contribute to breathlessness
Why are patients breathless? Drainage of effusion remove weight from hemidiaphragm and restore respiratory mechanics
Courtesy: Dr Naj Rahman Small effusion Diaphragm normal Large effusion Diaphragm inverted
2.93kg Sofia Lee born Sept 09 3kg 3L effusion
Myth: Drainage of effusion in patients with a trapped lung is not useful.
Drainage of effusion in patients with a trapped lung can still improve symptoms 70/M Metastatic Thyroid Cancer
Myth: The more fluid sent for cytology, the more likely you can make a malignant diagnosis.
Pleural fluid for Cytology Analyses ‘More likely to make a malignant diagnosis on cytology if you send more fluid?’ True or False No significant increase in sensitivity of cytology when >50mL of fluid is sent: Swiderek J et al Chest 2010 Abouzgheib W et al Chest 2009 Sallach SM et al Chest 2002 Anderson CB et al Cancer 1974
Cytology diagnostic sensitivity 20-60% depends on: type of tumor (adeno >> mesothelioma) experience of cytologists tumor load Benign MPM TTF-1 Light RW & Lee YCG. Textbook of Pleural Disease, 2 nd ed Indication: Diagnosis of Pleural Malignancy
Myth: Pleuroscopy or Thoracoscopy biopsy can safely exclude malignant pleural disease.
Pleuroscopy / Medical Thoracoscopy Jacobaeus performing thoracoscopy Felice Cova Tassi GF. International Pleural Newsletter 2004
Thoracoscopy is not gold standard 142 Medical Thoracoscopy / Pleuroscopy Negative Predictive Value 90% False negative occurs – all mesothelioma Similar rate to previous papers - despite advances in immunohist/thoracoscopy
Mesothelioma: nodular lesions
Mesothelioma: diffuse thickening biopsy often fibrous tissue only false negative possible
Myth: FDG PET is not useful in management of malignant pleural diseases.
PET Limited diagnostic value: Malignancy vs benign pleural diseases Malignancy vs benign pleural diseases Mesothelioma vs metastatic carcinoma Mesothelioma vs metastatic carcinoma West SD & Lee YCG. Clin Pulm Med 2006
Percutaneous biopsy guided by PET/CT Evolving option. In selected patients can be useful.
Response – 1 cycle chemo Francis et al J Nucl Med 2007;48: Prognosis Nowak et al. Clin Cancer Res; 2010, 16(8); 2409–17. Semiquantitative FDG PET using volume-based parameter of TGV
Novel Tracers in mesothelioma FLT – Fluorothymidine Thymidine is a pyrimidine analogue incorporated into DNA CELL PROLIFERATION tracer Not influenced by pleural inflammation, infection or pleurodesis Courtesy Prof Ros Francis (Australia)
baseline post chemo FLT PET response assessment Courtesy Prof Ros Francis (Australia)
Hypoxia imaging in mesothelioma FMISO PET-CT FDG PET-CT
18F-Annexin Phase I: apoptosis marker Scan before vs after chemotherapy to assess response
Myth: Pleurodesis is the standard first choice for management of malignant pleural effusions.
This approach is now strongly challenged i) Pleurodesis (talc) is less efficacious as often reported and can induce significant complications ii) Aim for management is relief of Dyspnea and QoL: Drainage is the key Pleural Effusion: Management Light RW & Lee YCG. Textbook of Pleural Diseases 2 nd ed 2008
Courtesy Dr Rodriguez Panadero
Courtesy Dr Carla Lamb Controversy: Is talc better delivered via thoracoscopy (poudrage) or chest tube (slurry) ‘Talc poudrage is superior: Distribute talc over entire pleural surface’ Fact or Myth?
TALC IS NOT GLUE !!! Even spread over pleura not essential
Dresler CM. Chest 2005: Multicenter phase III study talc poudrage (n=242) vs slurry (n=240) at 6 months < 50%
Thoracoscopic poudrage v Bedside pleurodesis Dresler et al. Chest 2005 Poudrage n=242 Slurry n=240 Successful Pleurodesis (30 d) 78%71% p=NS Yim AP et al. Ann Thorac Surg 1996 Poudrage n=28 Slurry n=29 No recurrence 2726 p=NS Terra RM et al. Chest 2009 Poudrage n=30 Slurry n=30 No symptomatic recurrence 2526 p=NS Mohsen et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010 Poudrage n=22 Iodine n=20 No further intervention 2017 p=NS
Failed VATS Pleurodesis
Dresler CM. Chest 2005: CALGB phase III study l More side effects from thoracoscopic (VATS) poudrage l 2.3% patients died from ARDS Complications of Talc Pleurodesis Thoracoscopic Poudrage (n=223) Chest Tube Slurry (n=196) Pneumonia (antibiotics)21 (9%)7 (4%)p=0.03 Respiratory Failure18 (8%)8 (4%)p=0.007 Fatal Resp Failure5 (2%)6 (3%)p=NS
Significant shortcomings: Success rate low ( 70%) even in selected patients Unsuitable in trapped lung Overall <50% pts benefit Side effects common: can be lethal Talc Pleurodesis
Do we really need to create pleurodesis? Relieve symptoms without pleurodesis using Ambulatory Small Bore Catheter Drainage Ambulatory Small Bore Catheter Drainage
IPC significantly reduce hospital days for patients with malignant effusions over talc pleurodesis Fysh E et al. Chest 2012
JAMA 2012 in press
Randomized Trial on Management of Malignant Effusion using Indwelling Pleural Catheters ( British Lung Foundation) Malignant Pleural Effusions n=110 Visual Analog Score for breathlessness (daily) QoL: Wks 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 39, 52 Ambulatory indwelling catheter drainage Standard care & in- patient talc pleurodesis randomize
From: Effect of an Indwelling Pleural Catheter vs Chest Tube and Talc Pleurodesis for Relieving Dyspnea in Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusion: The TIME2 Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA. 2012;307: Indwelling Pleural Catheters offer the same improvement in QoL as talc pleurodesis
Puri V et al. Ann Thorac Surg.2012 Treatment of Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis The most cost-effective treatment for a malignant pleural effusion (in USA setting): Indwelling Pleural Catheter if survival short (3 mths) Bedside Pleurodesis if survival > 12 mths Cost-Effectiveness
Define place of IPC in management algorithm of MPE Define optimal management and aftercare Significant potential to grow in its use in both malignant and non- malignant effusions Fysh E and Lee YCG. J Thorac Oncol 2011
Myth: Indwelling pleural catheters are associated with significant and serious complications eg infection, protein loss.
n=Incidence Mild Pain after insertion20/5635.7% Symptomatic loculation44/6217.0% Pain during drainage8/1475.4% Catheter Occlusion29/6244.6% Pneumothorax15/4383.4% Tumour Seeding20/5963.4% Empyema29/ % Skin infection/ Cellulitis22/8322.6% Complications of Indwelling Catheters Wrightson J, Fysh E, Maskell N, Lee YCG. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2010
Catheter Tract Metastases Incidence 0-6% Response to radiotherapy IPCs withstand irradiation Janes SM, Lee YCG et al. Chest 2007
IPC Removal Auto-pleurodese: No drainage 4-6 wk. No fluid on CXR Pleural infection: Only if uncontrolled sepsis No symptom improvement with drainage Removal as outpatient Careful dissection around the cuff. PULL HARD! Fracture of IPC during removal a risk
IPC Fracture Pro-fibrotic cuff to secure IPC in place Dense subcut adhesions develop over time Can be difficult/impossible to free adhesions to remove Fracture can occur, often at cuff level Pro-fibrotic cuff to secure IPC in place Dense subcut adhesions develop over time Can be difficult/impossible to free adhesions to remove Fracture can occur, often at cuff level
IPC Fracture Safe to leave fractured IPC in situ Safe to leave fractured IPC in situ No increased infection risk No increased infection risk No need to retreive No need to retreive Fysh et al. Chest 2012
Myth: Pleural effusion is always the cause of the breathlessness in patients with a malignant pleural effusion. Myth: Malignant pleural mesothelioma seldom metastasize.
Breathlessness Always consider other concomitant causes of dyspnea - Lung parenchymal causes Consolidation, Trapped lung, Asbestosis - Lung vascular and lymphatic causes Emboli, Lymphangitis - Cardiac causes Myocardial and Pericardial diseases; Arrhythmia - Deconditioning
Mesothelioma in Western Australia & Bristol: A two-centre post-mortem study Largest post-mortem series in MPM (n=318) Mesothelioma not a local disease: Metastatic spread common Extra-pleural metastases 85.2% Nodal metastases 57.1% Extra-thoracic metastases 59.7%
Known (L) MPM with loculated effusion Presented acute dyspnea
Results: Mesothelioma metastasizes Extra-thoracic Sites Liver29.1% Peritonium24.2% Bone15.0% Adrenals11.7% Spleen11.3% Kidneys9.5% G I tract8.0% Thyroid7.3% Brain2.9%
Known (R) MPM with loculated effusion Presented acute dyspnea Pulmonary emboli 6%; Cause of death in 4% of MPM
Median age of MPM (UK) 75 yrs old Co-morbidity common
70% of asbestos workers were heavy smokers COPD common
Summary Weight of malignant effusion contributes significantly to dyspnea. Pleural fluid cytology is useful but large volume beyond 60mL adds little diagnostic sensitivity. Pleuroscopy biopsy can be false negative (~10%). Imaging guided biopsy useful alternatives. Indwelling pleural catheter and talc pleurodesis offer different advantages. Talc poudrage has no advantages over slurry.
The incidences of mesothelioma and malignant pleural effusion are likely to continue to rise…
Courtesy Prof Bai (Shanghai)
Pleural Effusions and Vienna Percussion (stony) dullness Percussion (stony) dullness described 1808 by a Prof of Medicine at Vienna University Prof Josef Leopold Auenbrugger Son of innkeeper; used to watch his father tapping on wine barrels for level of wine left
If only we are elephants… Elephant are auto-pleurodesed and live happily without a pleural cavity, and never have to worry about effusions! West J. International Pleural Newsletter 2004