A recent study by a group of Oxford researchers has led to the suggestion that prophylactic irradiation therapy (PIT) is not a good choice in the treatment of mesothelioma patients. PIT necessitates the use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), a procedure using small puncture wounds to insert video technology to aid in isolating problem areas, rather that a larger scale open surgery. The concern with VATS is that the puncture sights could raise the patients potential for metastases, development of cancer ‘seeds’ which could create a greater spread of mesothelioma.
Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer affecting the lining of lungs and other abdominal cavities. It grows in irregularly patterned tumors making it difficult to isolate and treat. Mesothelioma is also characterized by a long latency period, often between twenty and fifty years, in which the tumors develop, grow and spread, but cause no noticeable signs or symptoms. By the time symptoms demonstrate, the cancer is so far gone mesothelioma treatments only extends life expectancy and add to quality of life.
Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos, a toxic chemical used for decades in multiple industries in America and around the world. Today, building and equipment components contain countless components comprised of asbestos. As these materials break down and are destroyed with wear and damage, asbestos fibers are released into the air, threatening public health and safety.
Researchers conducted the study by closely examining over 300 case papers, specifically focusing on 9 incidents of mesothelioma. They concluded that PIT for mesothelioma patients might do more harm then good. In a report in Journal of Interactive and Cardiovascular Thoracic Surgery, they said, “One trial found that 23% of radiotherapy patients developed tract metastases compared to 10% of control patients… Time from procedure to tract metastases was in fact shorter in patients treated with RT (2.4 month RT vs. 6.4 months control). Another trial found that seeding of metastatic tumor to the intervention site occurred in 7% of RT sites vs. 10% of control sites.”
However, other papers have been written stating that no significant differences could be noted between mesothelioma patients who did or did not receive PIT using VATS. These reports encouraged providers to use PIT as an appropriate form of treatment for mesothelioma as long as consistent observation of the puncture wounds was included in follow-up care. One study actually showed there was a higher number of metastases occurrence in the control group than the group undergoing PIT. Other random studies have had varying results. Overall, metastases has not shown to limit life expectancy of mesothelioma patients.