No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Reply: To PMID 25534527

Our plain-English summary of Reply: To PMID 25534527, by R.M. Flores, E. Taioli, A.S. Wolf (The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2015).

You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a review

The study

In plain English

This item is a letter, not a new study. The authors wrote it in reply to a letter by Cao and colleagues that criticized the authors' earlier meta-analysis. That meta-analysis compared survival after pleurectomy decortication with survival after extrapleural pneumonectomy in mesothelioma. The reply reports no new data. The authors said the main result still stood: overall outcome favored pleurectomy, even when residual tumor was left behind and even though different types of pleurectomy were grouped together. They said that their main analysis, of short-term survival, did not show statistically significant heterogeneity between studies. They said the secondary analysis of 2-year survival did show heterogeneity, which they presumed was because only 7 studies were included. They explained that their median-survival figure was only a visual aid, not a statistical comparison. They described the Allen study cited by Cao and colleagues as outdated. They also said it was an invited paper that was not part of a rigorous peer-reviewed journal process. The authors concluded that extrapleural pneumonectomy showed no advantage over pleurectomy. The letter does not discuss asbestos exposure.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

  • Design: Letter to the editor (reply to correspondence about the authors' own published meta-analysis); no new data
  • Who was studied: No new population. The letter discusses the studies pooled in the authors' earlier meta-analysis of surgery for mesothelioma; the 2-year survival subgroup included 7 studies
  • Exposure: Not an asbestos exposure. The comparison is between two operations for mesothelioma: pleurectomy (with decortication) and extrapleural pneumonectomy
  • Main results:
    • The authors said the overall outcome in their meta-analysis favored pleurectomy, even when residual tumor was left and different pleurectomy types were grouped together
    • The authors said the main analysis of short-term survival showed no statistically significant heterogeneity (p values for the Quick test of 1 and 0.5; I-squared heterogeneity of 0%)
    • The authors said the 2-year survival subgroup analysis did show statistical heterogeneity, which they presumed was because few studies (7) were included. They said 2 years was chosen because most included studies reported that time frame
    • The authors said their median-survival figure made no statistical comparison and was only a visual aid showing how many studies favored each procedure
    • The authors argued that which type of pleurectomy can be done depends on the invasiveness of the patient's tumor, not usually on the surgeon's skill
    • The authors described the Allen study cited by Cao and colleagues as outdated. They said it was an invited paper and not part of a rigorous peer-reviewed journal process. They recommended comparing results with current studies that use immunohistochemistry, TNM staging, computed tomography and modern surgical techniques
  • The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, despite its perceived better oncologic result, extrapleural pneumonectomy had no advantage over pleurectomy in their study
  • Limitations the authors state:
    • The authors acknowledged statistical heterogeneity in the 2-year survival subgroup analysis, which they attributed to the small number of studies included

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Mesothelioma.

Browse more research in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, or return to medical research.

Cited on this site

How to cite it

Cite the study

R.M. Flores, E. Taioli, A.S. Wolf. Reply: To PMID 25534527. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2015;100(3):1133-4. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.04.085. PMID: 26354656.

Cite our summary

“Reply: To PMID 25534527.” AsbestosClaims.Law Library. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/research/reply-to-pmid-25534527-2015-26354656.

ACL Doc numbers and their short links never change. See how to cite the Library.

Talk with an asbestos lawyer

Start with what you remember, and we'll take it from there.

This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.