Mesothelioma--VATS biopsy and lung mobilization improves diagnosis and palliation

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999 Dec;16(6)619-23

Grossebner MW, Arifi AA, Goddard M, Ritchie AJ. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, Cambridge, UK.

OBJECTIVES:  Mesothelioma is an increasingly frequent malignancy in which diagnosis is often delayed and disease diagnosed at an advanced stage. Earlier diagnosis and therapeutic intervention that can control recurrent pleural effusion may improve outlook and survival.

METHODS:  A prospective series of 25 patients in whom mesothelioma was suspected was referred for histological diagnosis by video assisted-thoracoscopy (VAT) after failure of other methods. At the same operative procedure drainage of pleural effusion, cytoreductive pleurectomy and lung mobilization was performed where possible. Complete follow-up was obtained.

RESULTS:  All patients had a histological diagnosis (100%) from the material sent for biopsy. In 23 patients this was mesothelioma, in two patients chronic empyema. All patients undergoing drainage of effusion, cytoreductive pleurectomy and lung mobilization subsequentl were diagnosed of having mesothelioma stages III to IV. Fifteen out of 21 who underwent lung mobilization had closure of the pleural space. Post operative air leak in this group was a mean of 5 days (2-12 days). Recurrent effusion occurred in only one patient. Eleven patients remain alive at 1-2 years post operation with no hospital admissions for recurrent pleural effusion. In the six out of 21 who did not have closure of the pleural space, one remained alive 9 months post surgery. Five died within 1-6 months of the procedure. The average number of further hospital admissions for repeat drainage of effusion was 3 (1-6).

CONCLUSIONS:  VATs provides adequate tissue for histological diagnosis where other methods fail. At the same operative sitting it provides a therapeutic intervention that allows drainage of effusion cytoreductive pleurectomy and lung mobilization in a significant number of cases. Where the pleural space can be closed this results in significantly fewer hospital admissions and appears to improve quality of life and length of survival. The price is a longer hospital stay due to prolonged air leak.

Reactive Mesothelial Hyperplasia vs Mesothelioma, Including Mesothelioma in Situ: a Brief Review

Abstract

In biopsy tissue, discrimination between reactive mesothelial hyperplasia and epithelial mesothelioma can pose a major problem for the surgical pathologist. Confidence in the diagnosis is often proportional to the amount of tissue available for study and depends largely on findings of invasion and the extent and cytologic atypia of the lesion, because there is no marker specific for the mesothelium and that discriminates consistently among normal, hyperplastic, and neoplastic mesothelial tissue. Therefore, mesothelioma in situ is diagnosable only when invasive epithelial mesothelioma is demonstrable in the same specimen, in a follow-up biopsy specimen, or at autopsy. Comparison of 22 cases of mesothelioma in situ that fulfill these requirements for diagnosis with 141 invasive mesotheliomas and 78 reactive mesothelioses indicates that strong linear membrane-related labeling for epithelial membrane antigen and silver-labeled nucleolar organizer region-positive material that occupies 0.6677 microm2 or more of the nucleus in an atypical in situ mesothelial lesion of the pleura are found consistently in neoplastic mesothelial cells. Although these findings may engender suspicion of mesothelioma in situ in high-risk persons, the criteria for diagnosis of pure mesothelial lesions of this type are still under study. Mesothelioma in situ should be considered proved only when unequivocal invasion is identified in a different area of the pleura or at a different time; a diagnosis of pure mesothelioma in situ should not be made in patients not exposed to asbestos.

Address Department of Anatomical Pathology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide South Australia, Australia.
Author Henderson DW; Shilkin KB; Whitaker D
Source Am J Clin Pathol, 110(3):397-404 1998 Sep