Do the Amount of Fluid, Histopathology, Radiology and Pleurodesis Status Affect the Survival in Malignant Pleural Effusions?

Objective & Hypothesis:INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this study was to identify the most common pleural malignancies leading to malign pleural effusion (MPE).

📊

Key Findings & Data:RESULTS: The most common causes of MPE were lung cancer (73%), breast cancer (8.3%) and mesothelioma (7%).

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Successful pleurodesis had a significant contribution to the survival.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this study was to identify the most common pleural malignancies leading to malign pleural effusion (MPE). The secondary objective was to evaluate the relationship between the amount of fluid and radiological findings, etiologies, treatment methods and survival. METHODS: We retrospectively included cases of MPE with a tissue diagnosis. RESULTS: The most common causes of MPE were lung cancer (73%), breast cancer (8.3%) and mesothelioma (7%). In patients who were offered chemical pleurodesis, pleurodesis was successful in nearly 31.1%. No relation wasfound between the amount of pleural fluid and cell type,survival, pulmonary, extrapulmonary malignancy and mesothelioma, Patients live longer if pleurodesis was successful (p = 0.005). Median survival of patients with MPE due to pulmonary, extrapulmonary and mesothelioma, ORCID: 0000-0002-8939-336X respectively were 77 ± 12.8, 150 ± 48.4 and 365 ± 0 days. The survival of the patients with mesothelioma was significantly longer than others (P: 0.000). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The main cause of MPE was lung cancer, followed by breast cancer, unknown primary and mesothelioma. Chemical pleurodesis was a viable palliative measure for MPE. Successful pleurodesis had a significant contribution to the survival.

Özet

GİRİŞ ve AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın birincil amacı, malign plevral efüzyona (MPE) yol açan en yaygın plevral maligniteleri belirlemektir. İkincil amaç, sıvı miktarı ile radyolojik bulgular, etiyolojiler, tedavi yöntemleri ve sağkalım arasındaki ilişkiyi değerlendirmektir. YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Çalışmamıza retrospektif olarak doku tanısı almış MPE vakalarını dahil ettik. BULGULAR: MPE’nin en yaygın nedenleri akciğer kanseri (% 73), meme kanseri (% 8.3) ve mezotelyoma (% 7) idi. Kimyasal plöredez önerilen hastalarda plöredez yaklaşık% 31.1 oranında başarılı olmuştur. Plevral sıvı miktarı ile hücre tipi, sağkalım, pulmoner, ekstrapulmoner malignite ve mezotelyoma arasında ilişki bulunmadı, hastalar plöredez başarılı ise daha uzun sağkalıma sahipti (p= 0.005). Pulmoner, ekstrapulmoner ve mezotelyoma nedeniyle MPE’li hastaların medyan sağkalımı sırasıyla 77 ± 12.8, 150 ± 48.4 ve 365 ± 0 gündü. Mezotelyomalı hastaların sağkalımı diğerlerine göre anlamlı olarak daha uzundu (P: 0.000). TARTIŞMA ve SONUÇ: MPE’nin ana nedeni akciğer kanseriydi, ardından meme kanseri, primer bilinmeyen maligniteler ve mezotelyoma geldi. Kimyasal plöredez, MPE için geçerli bir palyatif önlemdi. Başarılı plöredezin sağkalıma önemli bir katkısı vardı.

🔖

Cite This Article

TATAR, D., ANAR, C., BATUM, Ö., KARADENİZ, G., BALCI, G., KÖMÜRCÜOĞLU, B., POLAT, G., BÜYÜKŞİRİN, M., SUSAM, S., AKSEL, N., GAYAF, M., GÜLDAVAL, F., AYRANCI, A., ÜÇSULAR, F., ÖZDOĞAN, Y., SALIK, B., TELLİOĞLU, E. (2022). Do the Amount of Fluid, Histopathology, Radiology and Pleurodesis Status Affect the Survival in Malignant Pleural Effusions?. Kocaeli Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 39–44. https://ajindex.com/articles/574710

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

Azzopardi M, Porcel MJM, Koegelenberg CFN, Lee YCG, Fysh ETH. Current controversies in the management of malignant pleural effusions. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2014;35(6):723-31
Fitzgerald DB, Koegelenberg CFN, Yasufuku K, Lee YCG. Surgical and non-surgical management of malignant pleural effusions. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2018;12(1):15-26.
Antony VB, Loddenkemper R,Astoul P, Boutin C, Goldstraw P, Hott J, et al. Management of malignant pleural effusions. Eur Respir J 2001;18(2):402-19
C F N Koegelenberg, S M Bennji, E Boer, P T Schubert, J A Shaw, B W Allwood, et al. The current aetiology of malignant pleural effusion in the Western Cape Province,South Africa S Afr Med J 2018;108(4):275-7.
Hsu C. Cytologic detection of malignancy pleural effusion: a review of 5,255 samples from 3,811 patients. Diagn Cytopathol 1987; 3: 8-12.
Hooper C, Lee YC, Maskell N, BTS Pleural Guideline Group. Investigation of a unilateral pleural effusion in adults: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65(2): ii4-17
A A Renshaw, B R Dean, K H Antman, D J Sugarbaker, E S Cibas. The role of cytologic evaluation of pleural fluid in the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Chest 1997; 111: 106-9. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.111.1.106 8. van Zandwijk N, Clarke C, Henderson D, Musk AW, Fong K, Nowak A,et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Dis 2013; 5: E254-307. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.11.28. PMID: 24416529; PMCID: PMC3886874
Scherpereel A, Astoul P, Baas P, Berghmans T, Clayson H, de Vuyst P, et al. Guidelines of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 479-95.
Segal A, Sterrett GF, Frost FA, Shilkin KB, Olsen NJ, Musk AW, et al. A diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma can be made by effusion cytology: results of a 20 year audit. Pathology 2013; 45: 44-8.
Henderson DW, Reid G, Kao SC, van Zandwijk N, Klebe S. Challenges and controversies in the diagnosis of mesothelioma: Part 1. Cytology-only diagnosis, biopsies, immunohistochemistry, discrimination between mesothelioma and reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, and biomark