Boshuizen R C, Vd Noort V, Burgers J A, Herder G J M, Hashemi S M S, Hiltermann T J N, Kunst P W, Stigt J A, van den Heuvel M M
Dep. of Thoracic Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Dep. of Respiratory Medicine, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Biometrics Dep., The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lung Cancer. 2017 Jun;108:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.01.019. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
Symptomatic malignant pleural effusion (MPE) occurs frequently in patients with metastatic cancer. The associated prognosis is poor and the success rate of talc pleurodesis (TP) is low. Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are commonly inserted when TP has been unsuccessful.
We compared talc pleurodesis with the use of an indwelling pleural catheter in patients with recurrent MPE in a multicenter randomized controlled trial (superiority design). The primary endpoint was improvement from baseline in Modified Borg Score (MBS) 6weeks after randomized treatment. Secondary endpoints were hospitalization days, re-interventions, and adverse events.
Dyspnea improved significantly (p<0.01) after either treatment, but the magnitude of this improvement did not differ significantly between arms (median 3 and 1 for TP:IPC respectively in rest, p=0.16, (TP 13:IPC 16) and 3 and 1 during exercise, p=0.72 (TP 13:IPC 17)). There was no difference in dyspnea during exercise between TP and IPC at week 6 following treatment, while at rest TP patients (n=13) reported less dyspnea than IPC patients (n=18) (median 0 vs 1, p=0.002). Compared to TP, patients with an IPC had significantly less hospital days during randomized treatment (median: 0 vs 5, p<0.0001), and total hospitalizations for all causes (median: 1.6 vs 1.0, p=0.0035). Fewer IPC patients underwent more than one re-intervention (7/45 vs 15/43, p=0.09). The mean number of re-interventions was lower following IPC (0.21 vs 0.53, p=0.05). Equal number of adverse events occurred.
IPC was not superior in the primary endpoint, improvement of the modified Borg scale (MBS). However, IPC patients had lower hospital stay, fewer admissions and fewer re-interventions. The IPC is an effective treatment modality in patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion.
有症状的恶性胸腔积液(MPE)在转移性癌症患者中频繁出现。相关预后较差,滑石粉胸膜固定术(TP)的成功率较低。当TP治疗失败时,常插入留置胸腔导管(IPC)。
在一项多中心随机对照试验(优效性设计)中,我们比较了滑石粉胸膜固定术与留置胸腔导管在复发性MPE患者中的应用。主要终点是随机治疗6周后改良博格评分(MBS)较基线的改善情况。次要终点是住院天数、再次干预和不良事件。
两种治疗后呼吸困难均有显著改善(p<0.01),但两组间改善程度无显著差异(静息时TP组和IPC组的中位数分别为3和1,p=0.16,(TP组13例:IPC组16例);运动时分别为3和1,p=0.72(TP组13例:IPC组17例))。治疗后第6周,TP组和IPC组运动时的呼吸困难无差异,而静息时TP组患者(n=13)报告的呼吸困难比IPC组患者(n=18)少(中位数0对1,p=0.002)。与TP组相比,IPC组患者在随机治疗期间的住院天数显著减少(中位数:0对5,p<0.0001),以及所有原因导致的总住院次数(中位数:1.6对1.0,p=0.0035)。接受不止一次再次干预的IPC组患者较少(7/45对15/43,p=0.09)。IPC组的再次干预平均次数较低(0.21对0.53,p=0.05)。不良事件发生数量相等。
IPC在主要终点即改良博格量表(MBS)的改善方面并不优于TP。然而,IPC组患者的住院时间更短、入院次数更少且再次干预更少。IPC是有症状的恶性胸腔积液患者的一种有效治疗方式。