A single-center retrospective cohort study of perioperative systemic chemotherapy in diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma

BACKGROUND: Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) is a rare variant of malignant mesothelioma, representing 10–15% of malignant mesothelioma cases. The preferred therapeutic approach is cytoreductive surgery (CRS) accompanied by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC); the role of systemic chemotherapy is not well established. While some limited retrospective studies report worse outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, our institution has favored the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for symptom relief and surgical optimization. The aim of our study was to assess the outcomes of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to those receiving adjuvant or no perioperative chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of treatment-naïve, non-papillary DMPM patients seen at our institution between 1/1/2009 and 9/1/2019. We explored the effect of type of systemic therapy on clinical outcomes and estimated median overall survival (mOS) using Kaplan-Meier curves. Hazard ratios (HR) calculated by Cox proportional hazard model were used to estimate effect of the exposures on overall survival. RESULTS: 47 patients were identified with DMPM (median age at diagnosis 61.2 years, 76.6% epithelioid histology, 74.5% white race, 55.3% known asbestos exposure). CRS was performed in 53.2% of patients (25/47); 76.0% of surgical patients received HIPEC (19/25). The majority received systemic chemotherapy (37/47, 78.7%); among patients receiving both CRS and chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was more common than adjuvant chemotherapy (12 neoadjuvant, 8 adjuvant). Overall mOS was 84.1 months. Among neoadjuvant patients, 10/12 underwent surgery, and 2 were lost to follow-up; the majority (9/10) had clinically stable or improved disease during the pre-operative period. There were numerical more issues with chemotherapy with the adjuvant patients (4/8: 2 switches in platinum agent, 2 patients stopped therapy) than with the neoadjuvant patients (2/10: 1 switch in platinum agent, 1 delay due to peri-procedural symptoms). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with worse mOS compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (mOS NR vs 95.1 mo, HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18–4.5, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: When used preferentially, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in DMPM patients was not associated with worse outcomes compared to adjuvant chemotherapy. It was well-tolerated and did not prevent surgical intervention.