Current Treatment Options in Oncology

Our medical research library holds 19 studies published in Current Treatment Options in Oncology (2000–2025). Each entry links to the study's record on PubMed and, where there is one, to the publisher's page and a free full text. 19 have an abstract, the authors' own summary as PubMed records it: open "Abstract" to read it.

About the journal

• Publisher: Current Science, Inc
• Published: 2000 to the present, United States
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1527-2729 (print), 1534-6277 (electronic)
• Its record in the NLM Catalog

2020s

• Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy in Unresectable Pleural Mesothelioma: Overview of Efficacy, Safety, and Future Outlook. G.L. Ceresoli, L. Gianoncelli. 2025;26(5):398-414. Review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Pleural mesothelioma is an incurable cancer with unmet diagnostic and therapeutic needs. Due to its pattern of local spread, few patients are candidates for multimodality treatment and thus most patients only receive systemic therapy. Chemotherapy (pemetrexed plus platinum) was standard of care until the recent addition of immunotherapy (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy) as further first-line option. Physicians treating pleural mesothelioma should be aware of another option with Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, a locoregionally-applied therapy utilizing electric fields generated by a portable medical device, and delivered to the tumor by skin-placed arrays. TTFields therapy delivered to the thorax using the NovoTTF- 100L device concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum agent is approved for unresectable pleural mesothelioma in the US, and received Conformité Européenne certification in Europe, based on results from the phase 2 STELLAR study (EF- 23; NCT02397928), where TTFields-related toxicity was limited to mild-to-moderate reversible skin reactions. Overall survival in the STELLAR study with TTFields therapy was 18.2 months, with further post-hoc analysis showing extended survival in patients with epithelioid histology. Within the evolving landscape of systemic treatments, TTFields therapy represents a novel and clinically versatile therapeutic option in the battle against pleural mesothelioma without introducing additional toxicities other than mild-to-moderate skin irritation. While promising, additional research is needed to optimize clinical application of TTFields therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma, such as identifying the molecular determinants of therapy efficacy, and further investigation into the safe and effective delivery of TTFields therapy together with systemic agents, including immunotherapies.

  © 2025. The Author(s).

• Updates in Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. A. John, H. O'Sullivan, S. Popat. 2023;24(12):1758-1789. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive asbestos-associated thoracic malignancy that is usually incurable. As demonstrated in the landmark MARS2 trial, surgical resection does not improve survival outcomes and its role in managing MPM is limited. Whilst platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab was the standard first-line approach for unresectable disease, landmark phase 3 trials have now established the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in the upfront management of unresectable disease: either nivolumab-ipilimumab or carboplatin-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab. Patient selection for optimal strategy remains an ongoing question. For relapsed disease novel genomic-based therapies targeting a range of aberrations including losses of the tumour suppressor genes BAP1, CDKN2A and NF2, are being evaluated. Nonetheless, the future of MPM therapeutics holds promise. Here we overview current treatment strategies in the management of MPM.

  © 2023. Crown.

• A Review of Pharmacologic Management in the Treatment of Mesothelioma. E.P. Borrelli, C.G. McGladrigan. 2021;22(2):14. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Mesothelioma is a rare and severe form of cancer that is associated with asbestos exposure. Approximately 2500 Americans die annually from this condition with a median survival of 1 year. The latency period of this disease ranges anywhere from 20 to 70 years, with shorter latency periods associated with a higher exposure intensity to asbestos. Therefore, cases of mesothelioma are expected in the coming decades. This highlights the need for clinicians to understand the pharmacologic regimens available for treating this rare, yet serious malignancy. With multiple treatment regimens available in the treatment of this condition, clinicians should take an evidence-based approach and consider the totality of evidence and safety information while considering the best patient-centered approach for treatment. This article provides a review of current pharmacologic treatment options available for mesothelioma and goes into detail about the recommended medication regimens and dosages and the available evidence of efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety and estimates the annual cost of treatment for these medications on the U.S. healthcare system per patient. A brief introduction is provided for several promising agents currently under investigation for mesothelioma as well.

2010s

• Optimal Therapy of Advanced Stage Mesothelioma. M.M.J. Disselhorst, S.J.A. Burgers, P. Baas. 2017;18(8):48. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  The optimal treatment of patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has not yet been discovered. With the aid of an increased insight in the molecular pathways and the development of combinations of Immuno-Oncology (IO), drugs new therapies are available. The personalization of treatment by cell cultures and pathway analysis attracts more attention nowadays. It is conceivable that in the near future the treatment of patients with MPM will consist of a combination of IO drugs or specific pathway inhibitors.

• Local and systemic therapies for malignant pleural mesothelioma. D. Gomez, A.S. Tsao. 2014;15(4):683-99. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a challenging disease to treat with median overall survival times ranging between 9-17 months for all stages of disease. Recent clinical trials have improved our understanding of the biology of MPM. However, survival results are still not ideal. For early-stage MPM, patients should be evaluated for trimodality therapy in an experienced cancer center. If treating off-protocol, MPM patients should receive a surgical staging evaluation. The decision to proceed with surgical resection also should be considered after an extensive and thorough pulmonary and cardiac evaluation. If deemed a good surgical candidate, patients should receive surgical resection (pleurectomy/decortication or extrapleural pneumonectomy), adjuvant radiation therapy (hemithoracic external beam or intensity modulated radiation therapy), and either neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin-pemetrexed for 4 cycles). The optimal precise sequence of the trimodality is unclear and should be decided upon by a multidisciplinary consensus for each individual patient. In general, clinical trial participation should be encouraged. Several trials are currently underway to examine intraoperative therapies, vaccines, immunotherapy additions, and novel radiation therapy techniques. Advances in the field of MPM are reliant on participation in clinical trials and identifying biomarkers that are predictive for response to systemic therapies and prognostic for survival benefit.

• Chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. L.L. Garland. 2011;12(2):181-8. PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  All MPM patients with a good performance status should be considered for enrollment on clinical trials. With that said, the standard frontline therapy for fit MPM patients remains an antifolate/platinum doublet, based on large, well powered randomized clinical trials that showed not only a survival benefit for antifolate/platinum regimens but also improvements in quality of life and/or symptoms. For less fit patients, single agents can be used as frontline therapy. In the second line setting, there is benefit from retreatment with single agent pemetrexed after prior exposure to that agent, as well as after exposure to other chemotherapeutic agents. Other single chemotherapy agents and combinations are viable options for fit patients who have had relatively long time to progression after their frontline therapy. Additionally, several prognostic scales designed for MPM (CALGB and EORTC) provide additional means to better select patients for frontline and second line chemotherapy.

• Gene therapy for mesothelioma. A. Vachani, E. Moon, S.M. Albelda. 2011;12(2):173-80. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Mesothelioma represents an especially good target for gene therapy since few effective therapies exist, the disease remained relatively localized until late in its course, the tumor can be accessed relatively easily through the chest wall, and the thin layer of mesothelial cells offers a large surface area for efficient, rapid, and diffuse gene transfer. Gene therapy trials in mesothelioma have shown safety, and some limited evidence of efficacy. We present a review of clinical trials that have been performed in mesothelioma and describe several new approaches currently being pursued.

• Novel targeted therapies and vaccination strategies for mesothelioma. M. Bagia, A.K. Nowak. 2011;12(2):149-62. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Novel targeted therapies have found a niche in the treatment of many cancers, although the most responsive populations, best biomarkers of response, and appropriate treatment settings are still under investigation. With few exceptions, cancer vaccination strategies have not entered into routine management. In malignant mesothelioma, combination first-line chemotherapy with a platinum and pemetrexed remains the standard of care when systemic therapy is considered. Second-line chemotherapy is used but benefits are uncertain in the absence of appropriately controlled randomized trials. Currently, there are no novel targeted therapies or vaccinations that should be used in this disease outside the context of a clinical trial.

• Surgery for peritoneal mesothelioma. K.M. Turner, S. Varghese, H.R. Alexander. 2011;12(2):189-200. PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, progressive, and ultimately fatal disease in almost all afflicted individuals. MPM is a cancer that arises diffusely from the serosa of the abdominal cavity and progresses almost exclusively in this region; understanding its characteristic tumor biology has been the reasoning behind the development of treatment strategies designed to control disease progression in the peritoneum. This principally includes operative cytoreduction and hyperthermic intra-operative perfusion of intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). This approach has been administered either alone or in combination with early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC), or as a component of a more protracted multimodal approach employing initial debulking surgery, intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and whole abdominal radiotherapy. Median overall survivals of up to 7 years have been observed in series of patients selected for operative cytoreduction and HIPEC. Factors associated with good outcome are female gender, age less or equal to 60 years, and the ability to achieve a complete extirpation of all gross peritoneal disease. In patients with symptomatic ascites, complete palliation is achieved in almost all cases. However, this treatment strategy is not without complications and carries a morbidity of 25% and mortality up to 7%. Despite these risks, the best overall survival data have been associated with this surgical approach. At our institution, we advocate cytoreduction and HIPEC as the standard management for patients with MPM for whom operative cytoreduction appears possible and safe. We believe this treatment approach should be considered as the standard of care for patients with MPM.

• Surgical treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. A.J. Kaufman, R.M. Flores. 2011;12(2):201-16. PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) remains a rare and lethal disease that is directly related to asbestos exposure in the vast majority of cases. While the total number of cases remains low compared to other malignancies, the worldwide incidence is expected to increase over the next twenty years. Currently, survival rates remain dismal and there is no standard therapy or consensus regarding treatment. However, over the last fifteen years there have been substantial improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of MPM, including easier and more accurate diagnostic techniques, improved methods of staging, more effective systemic therapy, a remarkable decrease in operative mortality, marked improvements in local control with adjuvant therapy, and perhaps most important, an emphasis on multidisciplinary care and multimodality clinical trials. Despite these advances, optimal therapy for these patients remains highly controversial and the role of surgery is actively debated. Most controversy centers on whether surgery increases survival and whether a survival benefit is best achieved with extrapleural pneumonectomy or pleurectomy/decortication within a multimodal regimen. To date, trimodality therapy that includes surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation offers the best survival advantage. It is generally accepted that the main goals of surgery, within the framework of a multimodality approach, is not only complete resection if possible, but more realistically, the resection of all macroscopic disease as an adjunct to the delivery of chemotherapy and radiation. The surgical options available to obtain this goal include extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and pleurectomy/decortication (P/D). There are no randomized trials directly comparing EPP and P/D and the level of evidence supporting either technique remains low. Ultimately, the choice of operation depends on multiple factors including: disease stage, the patient's cardiopulmonary reserve, surgeon experience and philosophy, and the extent of planned adjuvant therapy. Yet, despite the inherent biases in most studies, the data thus far illustrates significant survival advantages with both P/D and EPP and surgeons should consider these approaches in select patients.

• The evolution of multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. M.G. Zauderer, L.M. Krug. 2011;12(2):163-72. PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare neoplasm of the pleural surfaces that has been associated with asbestos exposure. MPM generally spreads locally along the ipsilateral pleura, especially at presentation, with distant metastatic disease typically seen only in the later stages of the disease course. As such, surgical resection and other local therapies have long been pursued as a primary form of treatment. Surgical options include debulking of the pleura by pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) or a more aggressive extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) which also involves removal of the lung, diaphragm, and involved pericardium. Even after major resection, MPM almost always recurs locally and has a poor prognosis. As such, many groups have pursued multimodality therapy, treating resectable patients with EPP, along with hemithoracic radiation to decrease the risk of local recurrence and chemotherapy to decrease the risk of distant metastatic disease. However, EPP is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and many patients are not candidates for EPP due to underlying comorbid medical conditions. Additionally, many patients are unable to tolerate complete courses of adjuvant therapy after EPP. A large, multicenter retrospective analysis comparing EPP to P/D demonstrated better outcomes among those who underwent P/D. One challenge associated with P/D has been the delivery or radiation to the removed pleura with an intact lung. Yet, advances in radiation technique have allowed the exploration of high-dose radiation therapy after P/D. The ideal timing of chemotherapy relative to surgery and the role of intracavitary chemotherapy continue to be controversial issues. Clearly, MPM requires a multidisciplinary approach and, due to the myriad of open questions, much effort continues to focus on identifying the optimal combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

2000s

• Mesothelioma epidemiology, carcinogenesis, and pathogenesis. H. Yang, J.R. Testa, M. Carbone. 2008;9(2-3):147-57. Review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  The incidence of mesothelioma has gone from almost none to the current 2500-3000 cases per year in the USA. This estimate is an extrapolation based on information available from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program that collects information on approximately 12% of the US population. Mesothelioma is a cancer that is linked to exposure to carcinogenic mineral fibers. Asbestos and erionite have a proven causative role; the possible role of other mineral fibers in causing mesothelioma is being investigated. Asbestos is considered the main cause of mesothelioma in the US and in the Western world. The capacity of asbestos to induce mesothelioma has been linked to its ability to cause the release of TNF-alpha (that promotes mesothelial cells survival), other cytokines and growth factors, and of mutagenic oxygen radicals from exposed mesothelial cells and nearby macrophages. Some investigators proposed that as a consequence of the regulations to prevent exposure and to forbid and/or limit the use of asbestos, the incidence of mesothelioma in the US (and in some European countries) should have started to decline before or around the year 2000, and sharply decline thereafter. Unfortunately, there are no data available yet to support this optimistic hypothesis. Simian virus 40 (SV40) infection and radiation exposure are additional causes, although their contribution to the overall incidence of mesothelioma is unknown. Recent data from several laboratories indicate that asbestos exposure and SV40 infection are co-carcinogens in causing mesothelioma in rodents and in causing malignant transformation of human mesothelial cells in tissue culture. An exciting new development comes from the discovery that genetic susceptibility to mineral fiber carcinogenesis plays a critical role in the incidence of this cancer in certain families. It is hoped that the identification of this putative mesothelioma gene will lead to novel mechanistically driven preventive and therapeutic approaches.

• Systemic treatments for mesothelioma: standard and novel. H.L. Kindler. 2008;9(2-3):171-9. Review PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Systemic therapy is the only treatment option for the majority of mesothelioma patients, for whom age, co-morbid medical illnesses, non-epithelial histology, and locally advanced disease often preclude surgery. For many years, chemotherapy had a minimal impact on the natural history of this cancer, engendering considerable nihilism. Countless drugs were evaluated, most of which achieved response rates below 20% and median survival of <1 year. Several factors have hampered the evaluation of systemic regimens in patients with mesothelioma. The disease is uncommon, affecting only about 2500 Americans annually. Thus, most clinical trials are small, and randomized studies are challenging to accrue. There is significant heterogeneity within the patient populations of these small trials, for several reasons. Since all of the staging systems for mesothelioma are surgically based, it is almost impossible to accurately determine the stage of a patient who has not been resected. Patients with very early stage disease may be lumped together with far more advanced patients in the same study. The disease itself is heterogenous, with many different prognostic factors, most notably three pathologic subtypes--epithelial, sarcomatoid, and biphasic--that have different natural histories, and varying responses to treatment. Finally, response assessment is problematic, since pleural-based lesions are difficult to measure accurately and reproducibly. Assessment criteria often vary between trials, making some cross-trial comparisons difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, in recent years, there has been a surge of optimism regarding systemic treatment of this disease. Several cytotoxic agents have been shown to generate reproducible responses, improve quality of life, or prolong survival in mesothelioma. Drugs with single-agent activity include pemetrexed, raltitrexed, vinorelbine, and vinflunine. The addition of pemetrexed or raltitrexed to cisplatin prolongs survival. The addition of cisplatin to pemetrexed, raltitrexed, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or vinorelbine improves response rate. The combination of pemetrexed plus cisplatin is considered the benchmark front-line regimen for this disease, based on a phase III trial in 456 patients that yielded a response rate of 41% and a median survival of 12.1 months. Vitamin supplementation with folic acid is essential to decrease toxicity, though recent data suggests that there may be an optimum dose of folic acid that should be administered; higher doses may diminish the effectiveness of pemetrexed. There are also several unresolved questions about the duration and timing of treatment with pemetrexed that are the subject of planned clinical trials. It is essential to recognize that the improvements observed with the pemetrexed/cisplatin combination, though real, are still modest. Other active drugs or drug combinations may be more appropriate for specific individuals, and further research is still needed to improve upon these results. Since the majority of mesotheliomas in the United States occur in the elderly, non-cisplatin-containing pemetrexed combinations may be more appropriate for some patients. Now that effective agents have been developed for initial treatment, several classical cytotoxic drugs and many novel agents are being evaluated in the second-line setting. These include drugs targeted against the epidermal growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, src kinase, histone deacetylase, the proteasome, and mesothelin. Given the progress made in recent years, there is reason to believe that more effective treatments will continue to be developed.

• Malignant gonadal mesothelioma. N.P. Gupta, R. Kumar. 2002;3(5):363-7. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Malignant mesothelioma of the gonads is a rare and highly lethal disease. Most of these tumors arise from the tunica vaginalis, which is a continuation of the mesothelium similar to the pleura and the peritoneum. However, intratesticular and ovarian mesotheliomas have also been described. Occasionally, patients with localized disease at the time of detection have been known to survive for more than 10 years; however, the majority will not live beyond 5 years, with median survival being approximately 23 months. The principle reasons for this are difficulty in making a preoperative diagnosis and advanced stage at the time of treatment. Surgery forms the mainstay of management for all stages of the tumor. Adjuvant therapy in the form of chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy has negligible benefit. It is essential to diagnose this rare entity at the early stages to allow complete surgical extirpation. For the management of localized disease, we suggest the following protocol: initial staging of suspected cases with computed tomographic scan of the abdomen and pelvis; radical inguinal orchiectomy or hemiscrotectomy; retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in cases with positive nodes on scan or biopsy; and inguinal node dissection in cases requiring hemiscrotectomy. For advanced or recurrent disease, we suggest local radical resection with chemotherapy, including high-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin for two cycles of 5 days each; add local radiotherapy for uncontrolled locally advanced disease.

• Peritoneal mesothelioma. F. Mohamed, P.H. Sugarbaker. 2002;3(5):375-86. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Peritoneal mesothelioma is usually a rapidly fatal primary peritoneal surface malignancy with a median survival time of less than 1 year, mainly because of lack of effective treatment. The incidence is approximately one per 1,000,000; approximately one fifth to one third of all mesotheliomas are peritoneal. Because of its unusual nature, the disease has not been clearly defined in terms of its natural history, diagnosis, or management. Treatment options with intravenous chemotherapy are far from satisfactory. However, because malignant peritoneal mesothelioma usually remains confined to the peritoneal cavity for most of its natural history, regional chemotherapy is an attractive option. From a theoretic perspective, the treatments are most likely to succeed in selected patients with small-volume residual disease after cytoreductive surgery. Advantages of intraperitoneal chemotherapy include greatly enhanced drug concentrations in the peritoneal cavity and decreased systemic toxicity. In designing an intraperitoneal treatment strategy for the management of peritoneal mesothelioma, the limited number of active cytotoxic drugs and the timing of drug delivery pose problems. Prognosis as determined by clinical presentation, the completeness of cytoreduction, and gender (female patients survive longer than male patients) appears to be improved by the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Over the past decade, the management of these patients has evolved similarly to ovarian cancer treatment and now involves cytoreductive surgery, heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin, and early postoperative intraperitoneal paclitaxel. These perioperative treatments are followed by adjuvant intraperitoneal paclitaxel and second-look cytoreduction. Prolonged disease-free survival and reduced adverse symptoms with the current management strategy are documented by a high complete response rate as assessed by a negative second look. This multimodality treatment approach with debulking surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy has resulted in a median survival of 50 to 60 months. Peritoneal mesothelioma is an orphan disease that is treatable, with expectations for "potential" cure in a small number of patients diagnosed and treated early with definitive local/regional treatments. A prolonged high quality of life is possible in the majority of patients.

• Primary pericardial mesothelioma. N.T. Eren, A.R. Akar. 2002;3(5):369-73. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Pericardial mesothelioma is a rare cancer for which treatment options are limited. Operative intervention in pericardial mesothelioma is primarily for effusion control, for cytoreduction before multimodal therapy, or to deliver and monitor innovative intrapericardial therapies. Misdiagnosis is common. Early detection of the disease is the only hope for survival. Echocardiography, pathologic examination of pericardial fluid and pericardial biopsy, Gallium-67 scintigraph, Ber-EP4 antibody, and immunohistochemical procedures can be used. Magnetic resonance imaging is emerging as the best modality for demonstrating the nature and extent of the constrictive process, and the infiltration to the cardiac wall and great vessels. Failure of surgical techniques is usually associated with mesothelioma with entrapped heart, a large solid tumor mass, and a long history of pericardial effusion. If the tumor is localized, resection is the only hope for this rare, but lethal, entity. No single treatment modality is efficient by itself. The exact role of intracavitary chemotherapy or irradiation remains to be defined. Preliminary clinical application of photodynamic therapy and attempts at inhibiting the effects of growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, and vaccine treatments are being explored. Adenoviral molecular chemotherapy recently completed phase I testing. Clinical trials for pleural mesothelioma remain important as clinicians seek to improve the outcome for patients with pericardial mesothelioma. Early diagnosis and multidisciplinary patient care is essential for improved surgical outcome. In the future, combined therapeutic strategies involving radical surgery, radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, and immunomodulation may have a role in the treatment of pericardial mesotheliomas.

• Intracavitary therapies for mesothelioma. C.F. Verschraegen. 2001;2(5):385-94. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  The diagnosis of mesothelioma needs to be defined histologically. The staging system has been recently redefined anatomically, but may not be applicable to extrapleural mesothelioma. Further clinicopathologic studies need to be performed to molecularly classify the disease further, according to prognosis. Intracavitary therapy has a definite role in the treatment of mesothelioma. Randomized studies of intracavitary therapies are needed to define the best treatment option. The role of complementary therapeutic modalities such as surgery and radiotherapy needs to be defined by randomized studies. There is an urgent need to better understand the biology of mesothelioma, which may lead to more focus on molecularly relevant therapies.

• Photodynamic therapy for mesothelioma. S.M. Hahn, R.P. Smith, J. Friedberg. 2001;2(5):375-83. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Multiple trials of traditional cancer therapies for malignant pleural mesothelioma (including surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy) have not convincingly demonstrated that any one treatment is superior to supportive care alone. Although there have been reports of long-term survivors who were treated with aggressive surgery combined with radiation and aggressive multi-agent chemotherapeutic regimens, these patient populations are highly selected and results cannot be generalized to a larger population. Despite attempts to use aggressive multimodality therapies, disease recurs in most patients. Local failure in particular is a large part of the natural history of mesothelioma, especially after surgery alone. Therefore, one of the major considerations in the development of new treatments is the inclusion of aggressive local therapies. Photodynamic therapy (PDT), a local treatment modality, is being evaluated as an adjuvant therapy to surgical resection. Clinical use of PDT requires the use of a photosensitizing agent and light of a wavelength specific to the absorption characteristics of the sensitizer in the presence of oxygen. The treatment effect of PDT is superficial, mostly because of the limited depth of light absorption in tissues. Therefore, it is theoretically an ideal treatment for tissue surfaces and body cavities after surgical debulking procedures. One theoretical advantage of PDT is that it can be used to treat the lung surface after a pleurectomy; therefore, patients may be treated with a pleurectomy rather than with an extrapleural pneumonectomy. Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of PDT in the treatment of mesothelioma. Clinical studies have not proven convincingly that the use of PDT is superior to the use of other adjuvant therapies or to surgery alone. The advent of newer photosensitizers and improved laser technology has led to a renewed interest in evaluating PDT. Additional studies are necessary to determine the role of PDT in the treatment of mesothelioma.

• Malignant pleural mesothelioma. H.L. Kindler. 2000;1(4):313-26. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Despite innumerable trials of surgery, radiotherapy, and countless chemotherapeutic drugs, it is unclear whether any intervention has had a significant impact on more than a few highly selected patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Because most patients die of respiratory failure from extensive disease progression in the thorax, treatment usually includes attempts at local control. Unfortunately, radiotherapy is associated with significant complications in pleural mesothelioma, and surgery is feasible in only a small percentage of patients. Although there have been several single-institution reports of combined-modality therapy with extrapleural pneumonectomy, postoperative radiation, and chemotherapy in which prolonged survival has been observed, most patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have locally advanced disease, advanced age, or comorbid medical illnesses that preclude aggressive surgery. Therefore, the use of a systemic anticancer agent is the only treatment option for most patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Evaluation of effective chemotherapy regimens for this disease has been hampered by many factors. Because mesothelioma is an uncommon malignancy, most studies have enrolled small numbers of patients, and few trials have been randomized. The disease is heterogeneous, yet until recently there was no single staging system that could reliably predict survival, nor is there a universally accepted set of prognostic criteria for selecting a uniform group of patients. Response assessment has been limited by the inherent difficulties of reproducibly measuring pleural-based disease. The real impact of systemic chemotherapy on the natural history of malignant mesothelioma is still uncertain because phase III trials comparing chemotherapy with best supportive care have not yet been completed. Although nearly every class of cytotoxic agent has been evaluated in mesothelioma, response rates of greater than 20% have not been consistently demonstrated for any drug. The most active drug classes are the antifolates, the anthracyclines, and the platinums. Doxorubicin has historically been considered the gold-standard chemotherapy, although its true response rate is likely only 15%. The most active commercially available drug for mesothelioma so far appears to be gemcitabine. Although gemcitabine has a limited role as a single agent, it is quite active in combination with a platinating agent. The impressive 48% response rate reported for the combination of gemcitabine with cisplatin in a single phase II study has made this regimen the new standard of care for off-protocol treatment of this disease, although this trial still requires validation. With the recent introduction of several new agents with definite activity in this disease, the therapeutic nihilism previously associated with malignant pleural mesothelioma is gradually being replaced by a cautious optimism. Early trials of angiogenesis inhibitors, gene therapy, and vaccines offer additional avenues for treatment. As we begin to incorporate these active new drugs with each other and in adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment regimens, there is reason to believe that superior results for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma can be achieved in the near future.

Browse every journal in the library or the library by type of article, or return to medical research.