Cargando…

Mesothelioma in a developing country: a retrospective analysis of the diagnostic process

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of diagnosing patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) at a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving patients referred to a tertiary-care cancer center in Brazil between 2009 and 2020. The diagnostic process was divided in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gregório, Paulo Henrique Peitl, Terra, Ricardo Mingarini, Lima, Leonardo Pontual, Pêgo-Fernandes, Paulo Manuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36000688
http://dx.doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20220064
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of diagnosing patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) at a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving patients referred to a tertiary-care cancer center in Brazil between 2009 and 2020. The diagnostic process was divided into four steps: onset of symptoms, referral to a specialist visit, histopathological diagnosis, and beginning of treatment. The intervals between each phase and the factors for delays were evaluated. Data including clinical status, radiological examinations, staging, treatment modalities, and survival outcomes were collected. RESULTS: During the study period, 66 patients (mean age = 64 years) were diagnosed with MPM and underwent treatment. Only 27 (41%) of the patients had knowledge of prior exposure to asbestos. The median number of months (IQR) between the onset of symptoms and the first specialist visit, between the specialist visit and histopathological characterization, and between definite diagnosis and beginning of treatment was, respectively, 6.5 (2.0-11.4), 1.5 (0.6-2.1), and 1.7 (1.2-3.4). The knowledge of prior asbestos exposure was associated with a shorter time to referral to a specialist (median: 214 vs. 120 days; p = 0.04). A substantial number of nondiagnostic procedures and false-negative biopsy results (the majority of which involved the use of Cope needle biopsy) were found to be decisive factors for the length of waiting time. The mean overall survival was 11.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: The unfamiliarity of health professionals with MPM and the patient’s lack of knowledge of prior asbestos exposure were the major factors to cause a long time interval between the onset of symptoms and beginning of treatment. An overall survival shorter than 1 year is likely to have been due to the aforementioned delays.