Malignant pleural effusions

(1)

Malignant pleural eﬀusions

Joe B. Putnam Jr, MD

Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard,

Box 445 Houston, TX 77030-4095, USA

Pleural effusions are a significant public health problem. Diagnosis of over 1 million pleural effusions is estimated to occur yearly in the United States. Patients with pleural effusions are frequently symptomatic with dys-pnea and loss of function. Treatment goals for these patients should focus on relief or elimination of dyspnea, restoration of normal activity and func-tion, minimization or elimination of hospitalizafunc-tion, and efficient use of medical care resources [1,2]. Medical management, with treatment of the underlying cause, may be effective in some transudates. For exudates, man-agement may be more difficult. Malignant pleural effusions (MPE; those effusions associated with primary, concurrent, or distant neoplasms) may be more complex, with frequent recurrence. The arbitrary view of requiring pleural symphysis, achieved by in-hospital drainage, with pleurodesis achieved by sclerosis with chemical or other agents, may subject the patient to a prolonged hospitalization or to other interventions that may signifi-cantly reduce quality of life and remaining survival outside the hospital.

Pathophysiology

Pleural effusions occur between two membranes: the visceral (inner) layer of the pleura attached to the lungs, and the parietal (outer) layer attached to the chest wall. The ‘‘pleural space’’ normally is nonexistent and is lubricated by a slight amount of pleural fluid (10–20 cc) that provides lubrication between the pleura. Fluid (sera) continuously moves from the parietal pleura through the pleural space to be absorbed by the visceral pleura. The fluid is then drained into the lymphatic system. The fluid in the pleural space is minimized by a balance of Starling forces, oncotic pressure in the circula-tion, and negative pressure in the lymphatics of the lungs.

E-mail address:putnam@mdanderson.org (J.B. Putman).

(2)

In patients with primary malignancies, metastasis to the pleural space may cause significant shifts or fluid imbalance from derangements in the Starling forces that regulate the reabsorption of fluid within the pleural space. Movement of pleural fluid across the pleural space may involve over 5 to 10 L/d, and derangements in this movement may increase the normal amount of pleural fluid from 5 to 50 cc to a more significant amount. Other disease processes may also significantly affect the ability of the body to man-age its intrapleural fluid.

Pleural eﬀusions may occur in patients with

• increased capillary permeability caused by inﬂammation, infection, or pleural metastasis

• increased hydrostatic pressure as results from congestive heart failure

• decreased oncotic pressure from hypoalbuminia

• increase in the normal negative pressure (more negative intrathoracic pressure) secondary to atelectasis

• impaired or decreased lymphatic drainage secondary to obstruction of the normal lymphatic channels by tumor, radiation, or chemotherapy-induced ﬁbrosis

Although multiple mechanisms may contribute to the development of MPE, the physician must consider the options available for diagnosis and to select the one that is most easily applied.

Small effusions may occur in association with an intrathoracic neoplasm. If such effusions occur, the patient should have an ultrasound-directed aspi-ration for diagnosis. In patients with primary lung cancer, such small effu-sions must be evaluated. The presence of a cytologically positive effusion suggests that the patient is unresectable for cure (clinical stage IIIB) [3].

Patients with enormous pleural eﬀusions have mediastinal shift, with impairment of venous return to the heart. With much the same mechanism as tension pneumothorax, this tension hydrothorax should be drained to prevent impending cardiac and respiratory collapse.

Diagnosis

Etiology

Numerous benign, infectious, and malignant etiologies cause pleural effu-sions [4,5]. Twenty-five percent of all pleural effueffu-sions in a general hospital setting are secondary to cancer. Patients with cancers frequently develop recurrent MPE secondary to their disease. Thirty percent to 70% of all exu-dative effusions are secondary to cancer. Increased levels of vascular endo-thelial growth factor are present [6,7]. In patients with cancer, 50% to 60% of MPE are positive on first thoracentesis. In 25% of patients with cancer and a recurrent pleural effusion, malignant cells in the effusion may not be identified by pathologic examination [8]. Thoracoscopy is diagnostic in

(3)

greater than 90% of patients with MPE. The primary histologies for patients with MPE include non–small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, or other malignancies such as ovarian cancer. Median life expectancy ranges from 3 to 9 months, depending on the primary pathology [8–10].

History and physical examination

A thorough physical examination and careful history may reveal com-mon causes of pleural effusion (see display boxes 1 and 2). These causes include congestive failure, parapneumonic effusions after or in association with pneumonia, primary or secondary malignancies of the lung or pleural cavity, or pulmonary emboli. Patients may be diagnosed with MPE by screening chest radiograph, as happens in patients with small asymptomatic effusions, or they may have underlying symptoms of cough, dyspnea, or chest pain. Pleuritic chest pain may suggest inflammation or pulmonary embolus. The physical examination demonstrates decreased breath sounds, dullness to percussion, or a pleural rub.

Radiologic studies

Standard chest roentgenograms (posterior–anterior and lateral) may demonstrate blunting of the costophrenic angle suggestive of a small effu-sion. Patients with ‘‘white-out’’ of the chest may be identified by the subtle changes of widening of the intercostal spaces on the affected side. (This observation is in contrast to the expected findings of narrowed intercostal spaces, elevation of the hemidiaphragm, and shift of the mediastinum

toward the affected side when the lung is completely collapsed). Lateral decubitus films or bilateral decubitus films may be considered in patients that have a MPE. This radiologic examination can demonstrate free-flowing effusions on one or both sides. Typically, when bilateral effusions are present, and bilateral decubitus films can assess the side that contains the largest amount of fluid for subsequent evaluation or initial treatment. In patients with significant bilateral pleural effusions, treatment of both effu-sions may be required.

Box 1 Causes of transudates Congestive heart failure

Cirrhosis Atelectasis Nephrotic syndrome Peritoneal dialysis Myxedema Constrictive pericarditis

(4)

Computed tomography (CT) may demonstrate a small asymptomatic effusion that is not seen well even on the posterior–anterior and lateral chest radiograph. CT scan of the chest can assist in evaluation of parenchymal abnormalities (such as lung cancer), pleural abnormalities (eg, mesothe-lioma), and may be useful in the diagnosis of stable patients with pulmo-nary emboli. Loculated effusions can be identified and drained.

Other studies

In patients with loculated pleural effusions, as occur after multiple inad-equate or unsuccessful attempts at thoracentesis, ultrasound-directed or CT-directed placement of drainage catheters may be required. Loculated pleural fluid must be distinguished from significant pleural thickening resulting from inflammation, infection, tumor, or primary neoplasms (such as meso-thelioma).

Box 2 Causes of exudates Malignancy

Carcinoma, lymphoma, mesothelioma, breast cancer, lung cancer, other

Pulmonary embolism

Collagen vascular disease (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus) Tuberculosis

Asbestosis Pancreatitis

Esophageal perforation Trauma

Postcardiac injury syndrome Radiation pleuritis

Drug-induced

Drugs causing drug-induced lupus syndrome (procainamide, hydralazine, quinidine, isoniazid, penicillamine, and sulfonamide-related drugs) Nitrofurantoin Dantrolene Methysergide Procarbazine Methotrexate Chylothorax Meigs syndrome Sarcoidosis Yellow-nail syndrome

(5)

Patients with primary lung neoplasms may have obstructive pneumonia. Parapneumonic effusions can occur. Parapneumonic effusions may be treated with observation or like symptomatic pleural effusions that occur in patients with a primary lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, or other malignancies.

Thoracentesis

In patients in whom the diagnosis of pleural effusion is not clear, a tho-racentesis should be performed. In patients who are symptomatic, a thora-centesis should be performed for both diagnosis and therapeutic intent. Complete drainage of the effusion must be performed. Pleural biopsy may be performed with minimal difficulties to obtain a diagnosis when the pleu-ral fluid examination is nondiagnostic. Other diagnostic modalities must be tailored to the individual patient. Bronchoscopy, thoracoscopy, additional radiographic studies, and positron emission tomographic scans may be required to determine the presence or absence of malignancy causing pleural effusion.

Complications of thoracentesis or pleural biopsy include pneumothorax, bleeding, hypotension (vasovagal-related), re-expansion pulmonary edema, or infection. Symptoms related to thoracentesis include paroxysmal cough (from rapid expansion of alveoli in the previously deﬂated lung) and pain when the visceral and parietal membranes make initial contact. The pain may commonly occur in the shoulder or upper back.

Pleural ﬂuid characteristics

Evaluation of the fluid should include cytology, complete cell count, and culture and sensitivities. Pleural fluid and serum should be examined for total protein, glucose, LDH, and pH. Other chemistry evaluations may be performed when other diagnoses are of concern. Measurement of amylase in patients with pancreatitis, esophageal perforation, or esophageal malig-nancy, or elevation of triglycerides in patients with suspected chylothorax may be useful. Immunologic evaluation including antinuclear antibody and/or rheumatoid factor may be helpful in the diagnosis of autoimmune or collagen-vascular diseases. Pus or foul-smelling fluid represents empyema and should have complete and dependent drainage as soon as possible. Chylothorax presents as a milky-white–to–gray opalescent fluid, with a high triglyceride value. Chylothorax occurs with lymphatic obstruction or from thoracic duct injury. Bloody fluid may represent malignancy, trauma, or iatrogenic perforation of the intercostal artery, spleen, or liver, and so forth. Complete drainage with tube thoracoscopy may be required. A determina-tion of the hematocrit of the fluid may be necessary. Management of infected pleural effusion and empyema will not be discussed here.

(6)

Pleural eﬀusions are classiﬁed as transudate or exudate [4,11]. The patient with a transudate may have congestive heart failure, hypoalbuminemia, or cirrhosis. An exudate is diagnosed by a

• pleural ﬂuid protein:serum protein ratio>0.5

• pleural ﬂuid LDH:serum LDH ratio>0.6

• pleural ﬂuid LDH value of greater than two thirds of the normal limit for serum

Although multiple tests can be performed on pleural ﬂuid for diagnosis and treatment, these simple studies provide signiﬁcant information on pres-ence of a transudate or exudate, infection, or malignancy.

The amount of fluid drained during thoracentesis should be sufficient to obtain a diagnosis, relieve symptoms of dyspnea, and avoid re-expansion pulmonary edema or pneumothorax. General guidelines have suggested that the recommended limits are at 1000 to 1500 cc from one hemithorax during a single procedure. This recommendation must be placed in the context of the individual patient. The author suggests that the surgeon could drain up to 20 cc pleural fluid per kilogram of body weight as an outpatient procedure.

On occasion, a transudative MPE will occur (up to 5% of patients) [12]. Pulmonary embolism can result in a transudative eﬀusion in up to 30% of all cases.

Therapeutic options

In patients with transudates, the cause (ie, the patient’s underlying med-ical condition or disease) should be identified and treated. The patient with an asymptomatic pleural effusion may be simply observed. If the patient is symptomatic, simple and complete drainage for diagnosis and relief of dys-pnea may be accomplished as the initial intervention. This diagnostic and therapeutic thoracentesis provides excellent initial management. Should the fluid reoccur, the patient may be considered as having ‘‘recurrent pleural effusion’’ and be treated with several various methods. In patients with recalcitrant effusions that occur during or after treatment for a primary malignancy, management may be difficult.

All treatment options require one or more of the following items: drain-age of the pleural space, apposition of the visceral and pleural surfaces with complete expansion of the lung (usually), dispersion of a sclerosing agent throughout the pleural space, and maintenance of the pleural apposition until chemical or inﬂammatory pleuritis occurs and the pleural surfaces fuse. Treatment options include thoracentesis or repeat thoracentesis; tube tho-racostomy; drainage and sclerosis with talc [13,14], bleomycin, or other material [15]; a chronic indwelling pleural catheter (Pleurx, Denver Bio-medical, Golden, CO) [8]; pleuroperitoneal shunt [16,17]; or thoracoscopy with drainage and talc insuﬄation [18–20].

(7)

Thoracoscopy

Thoracoscopy may provide therapy by drainage and sclerosis with talc [21]. Thoracoscopy has high accuracy (greater than 90%) in diagnosis of pleural disease [22]. General anesthetic, thoracoscopy, and biopsy may be required for diagnosis; however, the beneﬁt to end-stage patients may be very limited. In patients in whom a diagnosis must be obtained for treatment considerations, drainage, multiple pleural biopsies, and treatment may all be performed at one sitting. More simple strategies should be considered ﬁrst. Surgical exploration and thoracoscopy are associated with risks of anes-thetic and thoracic manipulation. As a result, thoracoscopy or open explo-ration is warranted only in highly selected patients.

Patients with a parapneumonic eﬀusion should be evaluated and treated rapidly. Patients who have a parapneumonic eﬀusion with purulence, multi-ple loculations, a positive gram stain, or pH less than 7.2 should have urgent drainage.

Trapped lung

Patients with a ‘‘trapped lung’’ are another significant problem [23]. After drainage of pleural effusion, the underlying lung will remain collapsed (Fig. 1). To the inexperienced physician, this may mimic a pneumothorax. A chest tube may be placed; however, the ‘‘trapped lung’’ will not expand. Long-term use of the chest tube in an attempt to re-expand the lung may increase the risk of intrapleural infection and empyema. Standard tech-niques of thoracotomy and decortication may be considered to remove the pleural peel; however, this drastic and often unnecessary intervention in patients with extensive malignancy may be a disservice and pose a significant risk to the patient. Decortication is performed in patients with benign dis-eases in whom the pleural peel has been objectively demonstrated to cause restriction of ventilation, with progressive and refractory dyspnea. Expan-sion of the normal underlying lung can improve symptoms of dyspnea.

Patients who have significant pleural disease may have significant dys-pnea as a result of their pleural thickening. On the chest radiograph and CT scan, such a diagnosis may be difficult to distinguish from a MPE.

Treatment of MPE

The treatment of initial and recurrent MPE may be complex. Chest tube drainage, pleurodesis, pleural sclerosis, or drainage with a chronic indwel-ling pleural catheter is used most often for patients who have recurrent MPE. These patients have primary diagnoses of non–small cell or small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, ovarian cancer, or other malignan-cies. The median life expectancy in these patients is 90 days. Given the lim-ited survival in most patients, the goal of therapy must be to relieve

(8)

symptoms, minimize hospitalization, enhance function, and to provide the patient with some control over their disease process.

Although outpatient serial thoracenteses may be considered, the inconsis-tent application and drainage may result in loculations and further physical embarrassment to the patient. The pleural effusions can reaccumulate rapidly. In patients with a suspected MPE, a diagnostic and therapeutic thora-centesis should be performed. Evaluation of completeness of expansion of the lung within the hemithorax can be determined. In addition, an evalua-tion can be made to determine whether the pleural fluid was the cause of the Fig. 1. Trapped lung. This patient had chronic pleural effusion and trapped lung after therapy for ovarian carcinoma. (A) September 1993. No malignancy was ever diagnosed. The patient did well with repeated thoracenteses until the lung became ‘‘trapped’’ and failed to expand after tube thoracostomy. (B) December 1993. A pleuroperitoneal shunt was placed with initial good results; however, the fluid became loculated around the limbs of the catheter in May 1994 (C), requiring replacement.

(9)

patient’s dyspnea, pain, or other symptoms. In a small percentage of patients, the symptoms may be related to underlying pleural disease and not to the eﬀusion in patients with mesothelioma or other chronic pleural thickening.

After diagnostic and therapeutic thoracentesis, the patient should have fol-low-up to determine whether recurrent symptoms develop. If the pleural eﬀu-sion recurs, the patient may be treated in an optimal fashion with a chronic indwelling pleural catheter. This technique provides good resolution of symp-toms and is a cost-eﬀective solution to expensive alternatives of general anes-thesia, thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, and inpatient hospitalization [24].

Pleurodesis is performed to scar the visceral and parietal pleura together and obliterate the potential pleural space. A sclerosing agent is instilled within the hemithorax to induce an inﬂammatory reaction. With pleural symphysis, the pleural ﬂuid cannot accumulate and compress the function-ing lung or, at its extreme, the mediastinum.

Sclerosing agents

Almost all sclerosing agents [25] can produce fever, tachycardia, chest pain, and nausea. Because sclerosing agents may cause pain (talc, doxycy-cline, tetracydoxycy-cline, and so forth), the patient should be premedicated with pain medication (usually narcotics) prior to sclerosis instillation.

Talc is the most effective sclerosing agent used, and is often administered as a slurry [26,27]. When administered as a slurry through a chest tube or pleural catheter, talc slurry may be as effective as direct insufflation of talc powder via thoracoscopy [28]. After drainage of the pleural fluid, the slurry (4–6 g of talc in a solution of 100 cc saline with or without lidocaine) is instilled. Injection of 0.5% lidocaine (20–50 cc) into the pleural cavity prior to instillation of a sclerosing agent may help alleviate pain. With complete expansion of the lung and apposition of the visceral and parietal pleura, pleural symphysis can occur. In one prospective study [29], 501 patients were randomized to receive talc (4–5 g) by chest tube or by video-assisted thoracic surgery with drainage and talc insufflation. Multiple confounding problems were noted in each group, including death prior to 30 days (chest tube 13%, video-assisted thoracic surgery 9.4%), talc not administered, lung not re-expanded more than 90%, or no follow-up data. In evaluable 30-day survi-vors, recurrent effusion–free survival at 30 days was the same in both groups (chest tube 70%, 82/117; video-assisted thoracic surgery 79%, 103/131). Talc may cause adverse reactions such as microemboli and granulomatous tissue reactions [30].

Tetracycline has been commonly used in the past in association with tube thoracostomy [31]. Instillation of the tetracycline solution provides a faster pleurodesis and pleural symphysis than chest tube drainage alone; how-ever, it may cause signiﬁcant pain. Tetracyclinc is no longer commercially available for use as a sclerosant. Doxycycline is an available alternative to

(10)

tetracycline and is felt to have roughly equal eﬀectiveness [15,32,33]. Bleo-mycin (60 units) has been used as an alternative sclerosing agent and may have equivalent eﬀectiveness to tetracycline. It is expensive, however, and can have systemic toxicity [34,35].

After placement of the chemical agent, the chest tube should be clamped for a period of 2 to 4 hours. During this time, the patient should lie in the following positions: supine, right lateral decubitus position, problem, left lateral decubitus position and, for period of time, in the Trendelenburg and reverse Trendelenburg positions. Afterward, the chest tube should be unclamped and the residual ﬂuid allowed to drain. This may be repeated a day or two later if high volume chest tube output continues after the initial sclerosis. When the drainage is less than 200 to 300 cc per day, the chest tube may be removed. Although some physicians and surgeons wish to follow the results of treatment radiographically, no additional treatment would be recommended unless the patient becomes symptomatic. For that reason, a follow-up chest radiograph as a baseline study is recommended, and any additional chest radiographs should be obtained only when symptoms recur.

Other techniques

Thoracoscopy may also be considered as a therapeutic option. A small incision (or incisions) is made in the skin, and a small thoracoscope is passed through the incision to visualize the pleura. After drainage and biopsy, the sclerosing agent is placed under direct visualization onto the pleural surface. Several agents can be used for pleurodesis, including talc, bleomycin, and doxycycline [21,36]. Complications with this procedure include requirements for intubation and general anesthesia, and a small risk of bleeding and infec-tion. Pneumothorax is uniformly present and requires a chest tube for a short time after the procedure. Proponents of this procedure believe the scle-rosing agent can be more eﬃciently applied to the pleura; however, there are no studies showing one method to be superior to the other.

Surgical techniques (such as thoracoscopy, drainage, and talc poudrage) may not carry any objective advantages over simple drainage and instilla-tion of a talc slurry. Mechanical abrasion of the parietal pleura (using gauze) or other techniques such as laser or argon beam coagulator can be applied by thoracoscopic or open techniques. Pleurectomy carries excessive risk of mortality and cannot be generally recommended.

Pleurodesis or palliation?

In the past, successful treatment of MPE required hospitalization for chest tube, drainage, sclerosis and, it was hoped, pleural symphysis obliter-ation of the pleural space, with removal of drainage catheters. If pleurodesis could not be achieved during the patient’s hospitalization, the treatment was designated as ‘‘failed,’’ and the patient then was treated with the best

(11)

avail-able means. Pleural symphysis was required for discharge. In contrast, ‘‘patient-centered’’ treatment focuses on relief of the patient’s symptoms and restoration of normal function. Pleurodesis (pleural symphysis) or hospital-ization is not required in order to achieve these goals.

Palliation

Various temporary and semipermanent catheters have been applied to patients in an attempt to palliate symptoms of MPE [37–39]. Drainage by gravity of the pleural ﬂuid can be accomplished and pleurodesis can be achieved with sclerosis using several agents. Small studies have been per-formed, with early success [13,24,40–42].

The pleuroperitoneal shunt (Denver Biomedical, Golden, CO) has been used in selected patients. The catheter is placed intracorporeally via a sub-cutaneous tunnel, with fenestrated limbs placed into the pleural cavity and into the peritoneal cavity. A one-way valve within a subcutaneous pumping chamber allows the patient to pump and self-drain the ﬂuid on a daily basis (from the pleural cavity to the peritoneal cavity). The average pumping vol-ume per compression is 1 to 2 cc. The disadvantage of this approach is that the patient must pump or press the subcutaneous pumping chamber up to several hundred times daily to drain the ﬂuid (see Fig. 1).

The Pleurxcatheter is a soft silastic chronic indwelling catheter (Fig. 2). The patient or caregiver drains the pleural ﬂuid periodically by connecting the tubing to a disposable vacuum container to provide relief of dyspnea and potentially achieve spontaneous pleurodesis.

Technique of catheter insertion

A local anesthetic is administered, and the pleural fluid is located with a needle. After placing a flexible wire into the thorax (directed in a posterior-lateral direction), a counter incision is made inferiorly and medially to the wire, and a tunnel is created for the pleural catheter. The catheter is drawn through the tunnel and the Teflon cuff placed 1 cm within the tunnel, away from the skin edge. A peel-away sheath over a removable stylet is inserted over the wire and placed into the thorax. The stylet is withdrawn, and the catheter is threaded through the sheath into the thorax. The peel-away sheath is withdrawn. The two skin incisions are closed and the catheter secured to the skin. Immediate drainage of 1500 cc or more has been accom-plished in 38.4% of patients, 1000 to 1499 cc in 40.4% of patients, and less than 1000 cc in 21% of patients [8]. A chest roentgenogram is obtained to confirm position of the catheter in the chest, drainage of the fluid, and absence of pneumothorax (Fig. 3).

Patients and caregivers are instructed on self-drainage of their MPE. Typically, patients drain their eﬀusion at home every other day. When scant or no ﬂuid was obtained on three consecutive attempts, the patient comes to

(12)

the clinic for removal of the catheter. Patients are routinely evaluated in the clinic at 1-month intervals while the catheter is in place. After removal of the catheter, the patient is discharged to the care of their regular physician.

Evaluation of the Pleurxcatheter

To evaluate this alternative method of treatment of MPE, a prospective multi-institutional randomized trial was conducted to compare the eﬀective-ness and safety of an indwelling pleural catheter (Pleurx) with chest tube and doxycycline sclerosis for treatment of cancer patients with symptomatic recurrent MPE [8]. The possible beneﬁts of such treatment include primary outpatient management, improved quality of life, reduced medical costs, improved function, and spontaneous pleurodesis (pleural symphysis).

One hundred forty-four patients were randomized to either pleural cathe-ter drainage or to chest tube and doxycycline sclerosis (randomization ratio of 2:1, respectively). A modiﬁed Borg scale for dyspnea, the dyspnea component Fig. 2. Insertion of the Pleurx_{catheter. (A) The Pleurx}_{catheter. The catheter is a soft silastic}

catheter with multiple fenestrations within the pleural component of the catheter. A Teflon sheath provides a biologic-mechanical barrier to minimize the potential for infection. The one-way valve is accessed with a sterile plastic catheter for drainage. (B) The catheter is placed using a Seldinger technique. After adequate local anesthesia, confirmation of free-flowing pleural fluid, and determination of optimal placement position for the catheter, a larger bore needle is placed into the pleural fluid and a wire is advanced. The catheter is tunneled. A dilator covered with a peel-away sheath is placed over the wire. After removal of the dilator, the tunneled catheter is placed through the peel-away sheath into the chest.

(13)

of the Guyatt chronic respiratory questionnaire, and Karnofsky performance status score were used to compare the two groups. There was no diﬀerence between the two groups in performance status or initial dyspnea scores. Out-comes measured included control of pleural eﬀusion, hospitalization, morbid-ity, and survival. Overall survival was approximately 50% at 90 days. Lung and breast cancer histologies had a 90-day survival of approximately 70%; other histologies (as a group) had a 90-day survival of less than 40%.

After treatment, both groups showed similar improvements in the Guyatt chronic respiratory questionnaire scores and showed similar morbidity.

Fig. 3. (A) Chest roentgenograms (posterior–anterior and lateral). A significant free-flowing recurrent MPE is identified. (B) CT demonstrates a significant effusion, with compression of the right lower lobe. Some mediastinal and cardiac shift is noted. (C) Placement of the Pleurx catheter is accomplished with initial drainage of the recurrent MPE. Good placement along the posterior medial aspect of the hemithorax is accomplished. This is the initial chest roentgenogram immediately after placement of the catheter.

(14)

There was no treatment-related mortality, emergency operations, or major bleeding. Initial hospital treatment success was achieved in 64% of patients with a chest tube and sclerosis versus 92% of those with a chronic indwelling catheter. Spontaneous pleurodesis occurred in 70% of pleural catheter patients. Seventy-one percent of patients with a chest tube achieved pleural symphysis, although 28% of these patients developed recurrence of their pleural eﬀusion after treatment. Median survival was the same in both groups: 50% at 90 days.

Chronic indwelling pleural catheter and chest tube and sclerosis signiﬁ-cantly improved dyspnea from recurrent MPE. The pleural catheter had safety and eﬃcacy equivalent to chest tube and sclerosis. The hospitalization was shorter in the pleural catheter patients: 1 day versus 6.5 days.

Outpatient management of MPE using the Pleurxcatheter

Based on this experience, the outpatient management of patients with MPE with this indwelling pleural catheter was explored [43]. In this study, the author and colleagues hoped to identify significant cost savings. Hospi-talization and early charges with the pleural catheter versus the chest tube drainage and sclerosis were compared. Similar outcomes of pleural effusion control, hospitalization, morbidity, and survival were evaluated. One hun-dred consecutive patients treated with the pleural catheter (40 inpatient, 60 outpatient) and 100 consecutive patients treated with chest tube, sclero-sis, and drainage (all inpatients) were evaluated. No difference was found in Zubrod performance scores or symptoms in the two groups. Mean hospital-ization was 8 days for inpatients whether treated with a chest tube or pleural catheter. Overall, survival was 50% at 90 days. Survival did not differ by

(15)

treatment for any group. There were no pleural catheter–related deaths, no emergency operations, and no major bleeding. Eighty-one percent of patients having pleural catheter had no morbidity. The economic impact was signiﬁcant. For patients treated in-hospital, mean charges ranged from $7000 to $11,000. Patients treated as outpatients (all pleural catheter patients) had mean charges of $3400. Outpatient pleural catheter drainage was safe, cost eﬃcient, and successful, with minimal morbidity. No hospital-ization was required for patients initially evaluated as outpatients.

Cost of supplies and reimbursement has been a concern for a minority of patients who may live for months after placement of these catheters. In these patients, sclerosis has been applied successfully. Outpatient management of MPE with a Pleurxcatheter has become the author’s standard of care.

Summary

The management of pleural effusions and, in particular, recurrent MPE require an accurate assessment of the characteristics of the pleural fluid and the relief of the patient’s symptoms. Although a common problem, treat-ment of pleural effusions and MPE is highly variable. Selection of optimal treatment for the individual patient (or population of patients) requires a careful assessment of the benefits and associated risks of the therapy. Pleu-rodesis is an artificial measure of success that is hospital centered, not patient centered. Because patients with MPE have limited life expectancy, efforts to palliate or eliminate dyspnea, optimize function, eliminate hospi-talization, and reduce excessive end-of-life medical care costs may be best achieved with a chronic indwelling pleural catheter. The need for expensive supplies may temper the use of such outpatient management. Alternative techniques of tube thoracostomy, drainage, and sclerosis or thoracoscopy with drainage and talc poudrage also have benefits but are associated with variable hospitalization and increased medical costs.

References

[1] American Thoracic Society. Management of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1987–2001.

[2] Antunes G, Neville E. Management of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Thorax 2000;55:981–3. [3] Mountain CF. Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest

1997;111:1710–7.

[4] Light RW. Useful tests on the pleural ﬂuid in the management of patients with pleural eﬀusions. Curr Opin Pulm Med 1999;5:245–9.

[5] Light RW. Management of pleural eﬀusions. J Formos Med Assoc 2000;99:523–31. [6] Cheng D, Rodriguez RM, Perkett EA, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor in pleural

ﬂuid. Chest 1999;116:760–5.

[7] Zebrowski BK, Yano S, Liu W, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor levels and induction of permeability in malignant pleural eﬀusions. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:3364–8.

(16)

[8] Putnam JB Jr, Light RW, Rodriguez RM, et al. A randomized comparison of indwelling pleural catheter and doxycycline pleurodesis in the management of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Cancer 1999;86:1992–9.

[9] Sanchez-Armengol A, Rodriguez-Panadero F. Survival and talc pleurodesis in metastatic pleural carcinoma, revisited. Report of 125 cases. Chest 1993;104:1482–5.

[10] Burrows CM, Mathews WC, Colt HG. Predicting survival in patients with recurrent symptomatic malignant pleural eﬀusions: an assessment of the prognostic values of physiologic, morphologic, and quality of life measures of extent of disease. Chest 2000;117:73–8.

[11] Gazquez I, Porcel JM, Vives M, et al. Comparative analysis of Light’s criteria and other biochemical parameters for distinguishing transudates from exudates. Respir Med 1998;92:762–5.

[12] Ashchi M, Golish J, Eng P, et al. Transudative malignant pleural eﬀusions: prevalence and mechanisms. South Med J 1998;91:23–6.

[13] Marom EM, Patz EF Jr, Erasmus JJ, et al. Malignant pleural eﬀusions: treatment with small-bore-catheter thoracostomy and talc pleurodesis. Radiology 1999;210:277–81. [14] Patz EF Jr. Malignant pleural eﬀusions: recent advances and ambulatory sclerotherapy.

Chest 1998;113:74S–7S.

[15] Patz EF Jr, McAdams HP, Erasmus JJ, et al. Sclerotherapy for malignant pleural eﬀusions: a prospective randomized trial of bleomycin vs doxycycline with small-bore catheter drainage. Chest 1998;113:1305–11.

[16] Lee KA, Harvey JC, Reich H, et al. Management of malignant pleural eﬀusions with pleuroperitoneal shunting. J Am Coll Surg 1994;178:586–8.

[17] Ponn RB, Blancaﬂor J, D’Agostino RS, et al. Pleuroperitoneal shunting for intractable pleural eﬀusions. Ann Thorac Surg 1991;51:605–9.

[18] Aelony Y, King RR, Boutin C. Thoracoscopic talc poudrage in malignant pleural eﬀusions: eﬀective pleurodesis despite low pleural pH. Chest 1998;113:1007–12.

[19] Danby CA, Adebonojo SA, Moritz DM. Video-assisted talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural eﬀusions utilizing local anesthesia and IV sedation. Chest 1998;113:739–42. [20] Jacobi CA, Wenger FA, Schmitz-Rixen T, et al. Talc pleurodesis in recurrent pleural

eﬀusions. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1998;383:156–9.

[21] de Campos JR, Vargas FS, de Campos WE, et al. Thoracoscopy talc poudrage: a 15-year experience. Chest 2001;119:801–6.

[22] Petrakis I, Katsamouris A, Drossitis I, et al. Usefulness of thoracoscopic surgery in the diagnosis and management of thoracic diseases. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2000;41:767–71. [23] Pien GW, Gant MJ, Washam CL, et al. Use of an implantable pleural catheter for trapped

lung syndrome in patients with malignant pleural eﬀusion. Chest 2001;119:1641–6. [24] Belani CP, Pajeau TS, Bennett CL. Treating malignant pleural eﬀusions cost consciously.

Chest 1998;113:78S–85S.

[25] Schafers SJ, Dresler CM. Update on talc, bleomycin, and the tetracyclines in the treatment of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Pharmacotherapy 1995;15:228–35.

[26] Zimmer PW, Hill M, Casey K, et al. Prospective randomized trial of talc slurry vs bleomycin in pleurodesis for symptomatic malignant pleural eﬀusions. Chest 1997;112:430–4. [27] Antony VB. Pathogenesis of malignant pleural eﬀusions and talc pleurodesis. Pneumologie

1999;53:493–8.

[28] Hartman DL, Gaither JM, Kesler KA, et al. Comparison of insuﬄated talc under thoracoscopic guidance with standard tetracycline and bleomycin pleurodesis for control of malignant pleural eﬀusions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993;105:743–7.

[29] Olak J, Dresler CM. Sclerosis of pleural eﬀusions by talc thoracoscopy versus talc slurry: A Phase III study. Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB #9334). 1993.

[30] Kennedy L, Rusch VW, Strange C, et al. Pleurodesis using talc slurry. Chest 1994;106:342–6. [31] Martinez Moragon E, Aparicio Urtasun J, Sanchis Aldas J, et al. Pleurodesis con tetraciclinas en el tratamiento del derrame pleural maligno. Estudio retrospectivo de 91

(17)

casos [Tetracycline pleurodesis for treatment of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Retrospective study of 91 cases]. Med Clin 1993;101:201–4.

[32] Herrington JD, Gora-Harper ML, Salley RK. Chemical pleurodesis with doxycycline 1 g. Pharmacotherapy 1996;16:280–5.

[33] Prevost A, Nazeyrollas P, Milosevic D, et al. Malignant pleural eﬀusions treated with high dose intrapleural doxycycline: clinical eﬃcacy and tolerance. Oncol Rep 1998;5:363–6. [34] Noppen M, Degreve J, Mignolet M, et al. A prospective, randomised study comparing the

eﬃcacy of talc slurry and bleomycin in the treatment of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Acta Clin Belg 1997;52:258–62.

[35] Ong KC, Indumathi V, Raghuram J, et al. A comparative study of pleurodesis using talc slurry and bleomycin in the management of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Respirology 2000;5:99–103.

[36] Schulze M, Boehle AS, Kurdow R, et al. Eﬀective treatment of malignant pleural eﬀusion by minimal invasive thoracic surgery: thoracoscopic talc pleurodesis and pleuroperitoneal shunts in 101 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:1809–12.

[37] Pollak JS, Burdge CM, Rosenblatt M, et al. Treatment of malignant pleural eﬀusions with tunneled long-term drainage catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001;12:201–8.

[38] Saﬀran L, Ost DE, Fein AM, et al. Outpatient pleurodesis of malignant pleural eﬀusions using a small-bore pigtail catheter. Chest 2000;118:417–21.

[39] Smart JM, Tung KT. Initial experiences with a long-term indwelling tunnelled pleural catheter for the management of malignant pleural eﬀusion. Clin Radiol 2000;55:882–4. [40] Goﬀ BA, Mueller PR, Muntz HG, et al. Small chest-tube drainage followed by bleomycin

sclerosis for malignant pleural eﬀusions. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:993–6.

[41] Hsu WH, Chiang CD, Chen CY, et al. Ultrasound-guided small-bore Elecath tube insertion for the rapid sclerotherapy of malignant pleural eﬀusion. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1998;28:187–91.

[42] Parulekar W, Di Primio G, Matzinger F, et al. Use of small-bore vs large-bore chest tubes for treatment of malignant pleural eﬀusions. Chest 2001;120:19–25.

[43] Putnam JB Jr, Walsh GL, Swisher SG, et al. Outpatient management of malignant pleural eﬀusion by a chronic indwelling pleural catheter. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:369–75.