4.4 Article

A Clinical, Radiographic and Laboratory Evaluation of Prognostic Factors in 363 Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

期刊

RESPIRATION
卷 80, 期 6, 页码 480-487

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000321370

关键词

Asbestos exposure; Malignant pleural mesothelioma; C-reactive protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has a poor prognosis. Objectives: Only few studies in literature investigated the presence of pleural fluid and radiographic findings for the prognosis of MPM. Methods: We retrospectively investigated the hospital charts of 363 MPM patients who were diagnosed from January 1989 to March 2010. Survival time was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Pretreatment clinical, laboratory and radiographic features of each patient at the time of diagnosis were obtained from patients' charts. Results: The mean age of 363 patients (217 men, 146 women) was 50.6 +/- 11.2 years (range 19-85) and the mean survival time was 11.7 +/- 8.6 months (range 1-53). Histological types of MPM were epithelial (71.2%), mixed (15.9%) and sarcomatous type (4.9%). The frequency of disease stages were 31.4% for stage 1, 24.2% for stage 2, 28.6% for stage 3 and 15.8% for stage 4. The most frequent symptoms were dyspnea (82.1%), chest pain (68.3%) and weight loss (58.9%). Results of univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that a Karnofsky performance score <= 60, a pleural fluid glucose level <= 40 mg/dl, a C-reactive protein level > 50 mg/l, a serum lactate dehydrogenase level > 500 U/l, the presence of pleural fluid, pleural thickening > 1 cm and a platelet count of > 420 x 10(3)/mu l were found to be associated with poor prognosis in MPM. Conclusions: Our data suggest that low pleural fluid glucose and high C-reactive protein, the presence of pleural fluid and pleural thickening were associated with poor MPM prognosis. Further prospective studies are needed to highlight prognostic factors more clearly. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据