BackgroundMalignant mesothelioma (MM) carries a poor prognosis and response rates to palliative chemotherapy remain low. Identifying patients with MM that are unlikely to respond to chemotherapy could prevent futile treatments and improve patient quality of life. Studies have suggested that soluble mesothelin is a potential biomarker for early diagnosis and prognosis of MM. We set out to explore the utility of serum mesothelin in routine clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a prospective exploratory study of serum mesothelin levels in 53 consecutive patients with MM at our institution between April 2009 and February 2011. Survival was assessed and analysed by mesothelin level as both continuous and categorical variables using Cox regression models. Differences in response rate between treatment groups were assessed by the Kruskal-Wallis Test.ResultsAll 53 patients, who had been given study information agreed to participate. The patients’ median age was 69 (range 24–90). Median mesothelin level was 2.7 nM and this value was used to dichotomize categories: ≤2.7 nM (low) and >2.7 nM (high). The progression free survival (PFS) for low vs high mesothelin was 8.0 vs 5.1 months (HR 1.8, p-0.058). When mesothelin was accessed as a continuous variable for PFS the HR was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01 - 1.06; p = 0.013). The overall survival (OS) for low vs high mesothelin was 17.2 vs 11.3 months (HR 1.9, p = 0.088). When mesothelin was assessed as a continuous variable for OS the HR was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.99 - 1.04; p = 0.073). Thirty patients received chemotherapy of which 18 had a pre-chemotherapy serum mesothelin level. In these 18 patients, the pre-chemotherapy mesothelin level did not correlate with response.ConclusionsA single random sample provides information about patient prognosis but does not predict treatment response. We suggest further prospective validation of mesothelin testing as a prognostic biomarker.

The study examined the impact of using a quality of life (QoL) questionnaire during a clinic to identify QoL issues and to improve QoL. 138 patients were randomised (1:1:1) to either (1) an Intervention group that completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and Lung Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13) at baseline and received feedback during a clinic, (2) an Attention group that completed the questionnaire at baseline without feedback and (3) a Control group that did not complete the questionnaire. All patients completed the same questionnaire 6 weeks later and a contact diary during the study period. There was a significant difference between the Intervention and Control groups for the mean number of QoL issues identified at baseline (4.69 vs. 2.81, P = 0.006) and the mean number of actions taken (4.41 vs. 2.46, P = 0.004). At 6 weeks, there was no difference between the groups in global QoL (Intervention vs. Control group, P = 0.596; Attention vs. Control, P = 0.973). The results suggest that the completion of the EORTC QLQ-C30 LC13 with feedback improves communication and increases the number of QoL issues identified and actions taken. However, the intervention does not impact on QoL per se. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01213745.

We examined the accuracy and acceptability of a home telemonitoring system for patients receiving chemotherapy. Patients undergoing two cycles of chemotherapy (over six weeks) used the telemonitoring system to analyse their own blood (capillary) and to enter symptom and temperature data. The blood results obtained from self-testing were compared with those from a venous blood sample analysed in the hospital laboratory analyser (the gold standard). We also documented the number and type of alerts generated by the telemonitoring system. Acceptability (ease of use and patient satisfaction) was assessed using questionnaires. Ten patients (mean age 61 years, 60% female) provided 48-paired samples. None of the patients succeeded in obtaining all blood results within pre-defined limits of agreement (i.e. within 15% for haemoglobin, haematocrit, white cell count; and 20% for neutrophil count) during the study. However, the level of clinical agreement between the system and the laboratory standard was good; only three out of the 48 samples and two out of the 10 patients had differences in blood results that might have had clinical implications. The telemonitoring system correctly generated 42 alerts. The patients found the telemonitoring system easy to use. With further refinement this should become an acceptable component of routine clinical practice for monitoring patients receiving chemotherapy.

No abstract

No abstract