Advertisement

Computed tomography features of local pleural recurrence in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated with intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy

  • Darragh HalpennyEmail author
  • Micheal Raj
  • Andreas Rimner
  • Junting Zheng
  • Marinela Capanu
  • Michelle S. Ginsberg
Chest
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

This study was conducted in order to describe the computed tomography (CT) features of local pleural recurrence in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma undergoing intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) as part of multimodality treatment.

Methods

In this observational study, 58 patients treated with IMPRINT between September 21, 2004, and December 1, 2014 were included. Baseline and follow-up CT scans were qualitatively assessed. On follow-up scans, pleural thickening was categorized as unchanged, decreased, or new/increased. New/increased pleural abnormality was subcategorized as diffuse smooth pleural thickening, diffuse nodular pleural thickening, focal pleural nodule, or multiple pleural nodules. To identify features more frequently present at the time of local recurrence, follow-up scans with local recurrence were matched to four control scans; exact conditional logistic regression was performed.

Results

Twenty-one (36%) patients had local pleural recurrence and 20 (34%) patients had nonpleural recurrence; 3 patients had both types of recurrence. The 1-year cumulative incidence rate of local recurrence was 27% (95% confidence interval 15, 39). On follow-up scans, three patterns of pleural abnormality were significantly associated with local recurrence: new/increased multiple pleural nodules (10 (48%) positive scans vs 0 control scans), new/increased diffuse nodular pleural thickening (7 (33%) positive scans vs 1 (1%) control scans), and new/increased focal pleural nodule (3 (14%) positive scans vs 1 (1%) control scan) (p < 0.001 for all).

Conclusions

Multiple new/increased pleural nodules are the feature most commonly present at local recurrence following IMPRINT; however, any pattern of increased nodular pleural thickening is suspicious.

Key Points

• In patients with mesothelioma receiving intensity-modulated pleural radiation as part of multimodality therapy, increasing multiple pleural nodules is the computed tomography feature most commonly present at local recurrence.

• In these patients, any CT pattern of increased nodular pleural thickening should be considered suspicious for local recurrence.

• The most common sites of nonpleural recurrence were lung parenchyma, thoracic lymph nodes, and peritoneum.

Keywords

Malignant mesothelioma Intensity-modulated radiotherapy Local neoplasm recurrence X-ray computed tomography Pleura 

Abbreviations

CIR

Cumulative incidence rate

CT

Computed tomography

FDG

Fluorodeoxyglucose

IMPRINT

Intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy

IQR

Interquartile range

MPM

Malignant pleural mesothelioma

mRECIST

Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

PACS

Picture archiving and communications system

PET

Positron emission tomography

Notes

Funding

This research was funded in part through the National Institute of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Michelle Ginsberg.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Merck (Andreas Rimner, not relevant to the submitted work), AstraZeneca (Andreas Rimner, not relevant to the submitted work), and Varian Medical Systems (Andreas Rimner, not relevant to the submitted work).

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Beebe-Dimmer JL, Fryzek JP, Yee CL et al (2016) Mesothelioma in the United States: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare investigation of treatment patterns and overall survival. Clin Epidemiol 8:743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Malignant pleural mesothelioma (Version 2.2018). www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf. Accessed 7.30.18
  3. 3.
    Flores RM, Pass HI, Seshan VE et al (2008) Extrapleural pneumonectomy versus pleurectomy/decortication in the surgical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 663 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135:620–626Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batirel HF, Metintas M, Caglar HB et al (2016) Adoption of pleurectomy and decortication for malignant mesothelioma leads to similar survival as extrapleural pneumonectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 151:478–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosenzweig KE, Zauderer MG, Laser B et al (2012) Pleural intensity-modulated radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:1278–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chance WW, Rice DC, Allen PK et al (2015) Hemithoracic intensity modulated radiation therapy after pleurectomy/decortication for malignant pleural mesothelioma: toxicity, patterns of failure, and a matched survival analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaikh F, Zauderer MG, von Reibnitz D et al (2017) Improved outcomes with modern lung-sparing trimodality therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 12:993–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendiratta-Lala M, Gu E, Owen D et al (2018) Imaging findings within the first 12 months of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 102(4):1063–1069Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trovo M, Linda A, El Naqa I, Javidan-Nejad C, Bradley J (2010) Early and late lung radiographic injury following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Lung Cancer 69:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahele M, Palma D, Lagerwaard F, Slotman B, Senan S (2011) Radiological changes after stereotactic radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 6:1221–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpenny D, Ridge CA, Hayes S et al (2015) Computed tomographic features predictive of local recurrence in patients with early stage lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Clin Imaging 39:254–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baldini EH, Richards WG, Gill RR et al (2015) Updated patterns of failure after multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 149:1374–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rimner A, Spratt DE, Zauderer MG et al (2014) Failure patterns after hemithoracic pleural intensity modulated radiation therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 90:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frauenfelder T, Tutic M, Weder W et al (2011) Volumetry: an alternative to assess therapy response for malignant pleural mesothelioma? Eur Respir J 38:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rusch VW, Gill R, Mitchell A et al (2016) A multicenter study of volumetric computed tomography for staging malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Thorac Surg 102:1059–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Byrne MJ, Nowak AK (2004) Modified RECIST criteria for assessment of response in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Oncol 15:257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tan C, Barrington S, Rankin S et al (2010) Role of integrated 18-fluorodeoxyglucose position emission tomography-computed tomography in patients surveillance after multimodality therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 5:385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang ZJ, Reddy GP, Gotway MB et al (2004) Malignant pleural mesothelioma: evaluation with CT, MR imaging, and PET. Radiographics 24:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Armato SG 3rd, Entwisle J, Truong MT et al (2008) Current state and future directions of pleural mesothelioma imaging. Lung Cancer 59:411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Armato SG 3rd, Blyth KG, Keating JJ et al (2016) Imaging in pleural mesothelioma: a review of the 13th International Conference of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Lung Cancer 101:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rusch VW, Godwin JD, Shuman WP (1988) The role of computed tomography scanning in the initial assessment and the follow-up of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 96:171–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adams H, Butchart EG (1992) Computed tomographic assessment of patients following radical surgery for malignant mesothelioma. Clin Radiol 45:120–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mirvis S, Dutcher JP, Haney PJ, Whitley NO, Aisner J (1983) CT of malignant pleural mesothelioma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 140:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Klaveren RJ, Aerts JG, de Bruin H, Giaccone G, Manegold C, van Meerbeeck JP (2004) Inadequacy of the RECIST criteria for response evaluation in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 43:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Labby ZE, Straus C, Caligiuri P et al (2013) Variability of tumor area measurements for response assessment in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Med Phys 40:081916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plathow C, Staab A, Schmaehl A et al (2008) Computed tomography, positron emission tomography, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for staging of limited pleural mesothelioma: initial results. Invest Radiol 43:737–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Plathow C, Klopp M, Thieke C et al (2008) Therapy response in malignant pleural mesothelioma—role of MRI using RECIST, modified RECIST and volumetric approaches in comparison with CT. Eur Radiol 18:1635–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feigen M, Lee ST, Lawford C et al (2011) Establishing locoregional control of malignant pleural mesothelioma using high-dose radiotherapy and (18) F-FDG PET/CT scan correlation. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 55:320–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pilling J, Dartnell JA, Lang-Lazdunski L (2010) Integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography does not accurately stage intrathoracic disease of patients undergoing trimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 58:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pinelli V, Roca E, Lucchini S et al (2015) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the pleural staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: how accurate is it? Respiration 89:558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Erasmus JJ, Truong MT, Smythe WR et al (2005) Integrated computed tomography-positron emission tomography in patients with potentially resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma: staging implications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:1364–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gerbaudo VH, Mamede M, Trotman-Dickenson B, Hatabu H, Sugarbaker DJ (2011) FDG PET/CT patterns of treatment failure of malignant pleural mesothelioma: relationship to histologic type, treatment algorithm, and survival. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Genestreti G, Moretti A, Piciucchi S et al (2012) FDG PET/CT response evaluation in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients treated with talc pleurodesis and chemotherapy. J Cancer 3:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rusch VW, Rosenzweig K, Venkatraman E et al (2001) A phase II trial of surgical resection and adjuvant high-dose hemithoracic radiation for malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122:788–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henley SJ, Larson TC, Wu M et al (2013) Mesothelioma incidence in 50 states and the District of Columbia, United States, 2003–2008. Int J Occup Environ Health 19:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darragh Halpenny
    • 1
    Email author
  • Micheal Raj
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Rimner
    • 3
  • Junting Zheng
    • 4
  • Marinela Capanu
    • 4
  • Michelle S. Ginsberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyLong Island Jewish Medical CenterNew Hyde ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations