The mesothelioma and radical surgery feasibility study

Our plain-English summary of The mesothelioma and radical surgery feasibility study, by P. Goldstraw (Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 2010).

The study

• Author: P. Goldstraw
• Journal: Journal of Thoracic Oncology
• Published: 2010;5(2):287
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This item is a short letter to the editor, not a research study. The author wrote as Chair of the Trial Steering Committee for the mesothelioma and radical surgery (MARS) trial. The letter commented on the published preliminary results of the MARS feasibility study by Treasure and colleagues and on an accompanying editorial by Dr. Rusch. It reported no new data and no patients, and it said nothing about asbestos exposure. The author pointed out that the original trial design required 50 cases to be randomized in 1 year, but that 3 plus years proved necessary to reach that number. The author wrote that this suggested that those who had expressed concern about whether the randomization was feasible were "not completely wrong." The author argued that this must have a profound impact on the question posed in any follow-up study. The author also noted that the authors of the trial article and the editorial seemed to hold differing opinions on that question. The author declared no conflicts of interest.

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 (commentary by the chair of the trial's steering committee); no new data
• Who was studied: No participants studied; the letter comments on the published MARS feasibility study (a randomized trial of radical surgery in mesothelioma) and an accompanying editorial by Dr. Rusch
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the original MARS trial design required randomization of 50 cases in 1 year, but 3 plus years proved necessary to reach that accrual
  • The author noted that the trial article's authors and the editorial seemed to hold differing opinions on the question for any follow-up study
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the slow accrual suggested that those who had expressed concern about the feasibility of randomization were not completely wrong, and that this must have a profound impact on the question posed in any follow-up study

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study — T. Treasure, L. Lang-Lazdunski, et al. (2011)
• A feasibility study evaluating Surgery for Mesothelioma After Radiation Therapy: the "SMART" approach for resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma — B.C. Cho, R. Feld, et al. (2014)
• Radical surgery for mesothelioma — T. Treasure, D. Waller, et al. (2004)
• Pretreatment serum C-reactive protein levels predict benefit from multimodality treatment including radical surgery in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a retrospective multicenter analysis — B. Ghanim, M.A. Hoda, et al. (2012)
• Comorbidity, postoperative morbidity and survival in patients undergoing radical surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma — M. Infante, E. Morenghi, et al. (2016)
• Predictors of long-term survival following radical surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma — A. Nakas, D. Waller (2014)

Browse more research in Journal of Thoracic Oncology, or return to medical research.