Biomarkers in mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer of pleural and peritoneal cells that is difficult to diagnose and monitor. Numerous studies have attempted to identify a blood- or pleural fluid-based biomarker that could be used in the diagnostic pathway. More recently, there has been interest in the ability of serum/plasma biomarkers to monitor mesothelioma, given the development of newer treatments and limitations of radiological assessment. The majority of research has focused on soluble mesothelin, a soluble glycoprotein expressed by mesothelial cells. Although soluble mesothelin lacks the sensitivity to be used as a standalone diagnostic marker, serial measurements may be informative, with rising concentrations indicating disease progression and poor survival. High concentrations of other soluble glycoproteins, such as osteopontin, fibulin-3 and vascular endothelial growth factor are independently associated with poor prognosis at baseline, although further research is required to ascertain any role outside of clinical trials. More recent literature has focused on the development of novel biomarkers from discovery cohorts. Although many DNA and mRNA biomarkers show promise in the diagnosis or screening of mesothelioma, none have been prospectively evaluated for use in clinical practice. In this review article, we highlight the potential utility of biomarkers and evaluate the existing literature. </jats:p

What is the role of a specialist regional mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting?:A service evaluation of one tertiary referral centre in the UK

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings are standard care for cancer in the UK and Europe. Professional bodies recommend that mesothelioma cases should be discussed at specialist multidisciplinary team meetings. However, no evidence exists exploring the role of the specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical activity of 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting and to determine how often a definitive diagnosis was made, whether the core requirements of the meeting were met and whether there was any associated benefit or detriment. DESIGN AND SETTING: A service evaluation using routinely collected data from 1 specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting in a tertiary referral hospital in the South-West of England. PARTICIPANTS: All cases discussed between 1/1/2014 and 31/12/2015. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was whether a definitive diagnosis was made. Secondary outcomes included whether treatment advice was offered, information on clinical trials provided or further investigations suggested. Additional benefits of the multidisciplinary team meeting and time taken from referral to outcome were also collected. RESULTS: A definitive diagnosis was reached in 171 of 210 cases discussed (81%). Mesothelioma was diagnosed in 153/210 (73%). Treatment advice was provided for 127 of 171 diagnostic cases (74%) and further investigations suggested for all 35 non-diagnostic cases. 86/210 cases (41%) were invited to participate in a trial, of whom 43/86 (50%) subsequently enrolled. Additional benefits included the avoidance of postmortem examination if the coroner was satisfied with the multidisciplinary team decision. The overall process from referral to outcome dispatch was <2 weeks in 75% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting was effective at making diagnoses and providing recommendations for further investigations or treatment. The core requirements of a specialist mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meeting were met. The process was timely, with most outcomes returned within 2 weeks of referral