Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Advances in pleural infection and malignancy

Eihab O. Bedawi, Julien Guinde, Najiib M. Rahman, Philippe Astoul
European Respiratory Review 2021 30: 200002; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0002-2020
Eihab O. Bedawi
1Oxford Pleural Unit, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eihab O. Bedawi
Julien Guinde
2Dept of Thoracic Oncology, Pleural Diseases and Interventional Pulmonology, North University Hospital, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Najiib M. Rahman
1Oxford Pleural Unit, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK
3NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philippe Astoul
2Dept of Thoracic Oncology, Pleural Diseases and Interventional Pulmonology, North University Hospital, Marseille, France
4Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philippe Astoul
  • For correspondence: pastoul@ap-hm.fr
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Pleural infection and malignancy are among the most common causes of pleural disease and form the mainstay of pleural practice. There has been significant research and increase in scientific understanding in these areas in the past decade. With regard to pleural infection, the rising incidence remains worrying. An increased awareness allowing earlier diagnosis, earlier escalation of therapy and the use of validated risk stratification measures may improve outcomes. In pleural malignancy, research has enabled clinicians to streamline patient pathways with focus on reducing time to diagnosis, definitive management of malignant pleural effusion and achieving these with the minimum number of pleural interventions. Trials comparing treatment modalities of malignant pleural effusion continue to highlight the importance of patient choice in clinical decision-making. This article aims to summarise some of the most recent literature informing current practice in these two areas.

Abstract

Pleural infection and malignancy are amongst the most common causes of pleural disease and form the mainstay of pleural practice. There has been significant increase in scientific understanding in these areas in the last decade. https://bit.ly/2zOV0KE

Advances in pleural infection

Pleural infection can be defined as bacterial invasion of the pleural space, forming an effusion that requires urgent drainage. It may be fibrinopurulent in the case of a “complicated parapneumonic effusion” (also known as stage 2) or frank pus where it is termed an “empyema”, associated with pleural organisation and scarring of the pleural membranes with consequent lung restriction (stage 3). It is important to note that even when pleural effusion is considered reactive (i.e. without bacterial invasion), in so-called “simple” parapneumonic effusion (stage 1), the mortality is 3–6-fold higher than pneumonia without effusion [1].

Pleural infection most commonly occurs as secondary infection in the context of severe or undertreated pneumonia, but recently and increasingly, primary pleural infection is being recognised without evidence of parenchymal infection (up to 30%; unpublished data), possibly due to advances in imaging and earlier computed tomography (CT) scanning. Despite the recent advances in understanding of the aetiology, pathogenesis and management, pleural infection continues to be associated with poor outcomes; with a median hospital stay of 10–12 days and 1-year mortality rates of 10–20%.

The following section will address some of the recent advances in the field of pleural infection with a focus on diagnostics, management and risk stratification.

Evolving epidemiology and rising incidence of pleural infection

In the early 21st century, a plethora of evidence emerged demonstrating a rise in the rates of pneumococcal disease with resultant increases in the incidence of pneumonia and pleural infection [2–4]. There appears to have been a shift in the age distribution towards a more elderly cohort being consistently reported [3]. Studies have suggested that widespread vaccination programmes might have caused a replacement phenomenon with nonvaccine serotypes becoming increasingly responsible for disease [5]. Early studies on the consequent effects on pleural infection incidence have been inconclusive [6, 7] and data from large epidemiological studies are eagerly awaited.

Nonetheless, the change in the epidemiology of pleural infection is not sufficiently explained by nonvaccine serotypes alone, and does not adequately cover nonpneumococcal pleural infection as well as pleural infection without pneumonia. An ageing population may explain the increasing incidence of pleural infection in older patients with comorbidities living longer with an increased risk of aspiration of oropharyngeal commensals, which is previously under-recognised. The use of more specific imaging such as CT and ultrasound is likely to have contributed to more accurate diagnoses. This is not to underestimate the role of increased awareness of pleural infection amongst clinicians, increasing involvement of specialist pleural services and growing research initiatives.

Diagnosis

Biomarkers in pleural infection

Despite much research in this area, the established pleural fluid pH continues to be the best predictor of need for drainage. Recent large, multicentre data have demonstrated high concordance rates of pleural fluid glucose with pH [8], which is particularly helpful in settings with no immediate access to a blood gas analyser or where contamination by air or local anaesthetic is suspected. The role of more novel biomarkers such as procalcitonin (PCT) in decision-making in pleural infection has been of interest. To date, serum PCT has not been shown to be superior to white cell count or C-reactive protein (CRP) in any aspect of diagnosis or management. Similarly, studies looking at pleural fluid PCT have also demonstrated low sensitivity and specificity [9, 10]. Studies have been somewhat limited by heterogeneous control populations and small numbers [10].

A number of other biomarkers, including inflammatory cytokines (tumour necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-8, IL-6 and IL-1β), enzymes (neutrophil elastase, myeloperoxidase, metalloproteinases, lipopolysaccharide binding protein, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 as well as CRP itself have been evaluated but so far none have been proven to outperform traditional criteria [11, 12]. Bactericidal permeability-increasing protein, a neutrophil granule protein with antimicrobial activity against bacteria, has shown positive results in a recent pleural fluid proteome profiling study but performance in a real-life clinical setting is yet to be demonstrated [13].

Novel pleural infection biomarker studies, in particular, are prone to incorporation bias, which occurs when a clinician makes the diagnosis of pleural infection based on routinely used tests, such as pleural fluid pH, making it more difficult to show superiority of newer laboratory markers [14]. The findings of a large prospective series of 308 pleural fluid samples from Porcel et al. [15] are summarised in table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Characteristics of pleural fluid tests distinguishing non-purulent uncomplicated and complicated parapneumonic effusions

Microbiological analysis

Despite having a clearly distinct microbiology from pneumonia [16, 17], the positive microbiology yield in pleural infection is similarly poor and in over half of cases, the culprit organisms remain unknown, and as a result, targeted antibiotic therapy remains a challenge. Theories for this low culture yield in pleural infection are likely to include a combination of low bacterial concentrations in hypoxic and acidic pleural fluid, initiation of antibiotic therapy prior to diagnostic sampling, as well as possibly causal microbes that are difficult to isolate in laboratories in routine practice due to stringent requirements. The current minimum standard should include obtaining pleural fluid samples for analysis in standard culture and BACTEC blood culture bottles [18], as well as obtaining serum blood cultures [19].

Nucleic acid amplification testing, based on extracting and deep sequencing the of the 16S rRNA bacterial gene, is an established, reliable and sensitive method of pathogen detection [20, 21]. In contrast to conventional PCR, it uses a real-time PCR, also known as quantitative PCR (qPCR), which monitors the amplification of a targeted DNA molecule during the PCR instead of at the end. This was shown to be a feasible technique in pleural infection samples acquired in the recent AUDIO study [22]. Given the unacceptable delays posed by current culture techniques, the capability of returning a result within a few hours of receiving clinical samples is of great interest. However, this is an area where further research is needed to explore the expected challenges to clinicians in the interpretation of multiple pathogen isolation, separating true polymicrobial infection and how this can potentially guide antibiotic stewardship in pleural infection [23].

The AUDIO study also demonstrated that in a single centre pilot, ultrasound-guided pleural biopsies could be safely conducted as part of the same chest drain insertion procedure using a cutting needle (figure 1) after diagnostic aspiration confirmed the diagnosis. Importantly, this increased the microbiological yield by a further 25% and was independent of previous antibiotic therapy [22]. Further large prospective studies are needed to determine how this simple, yet clearly important, step can be incorporated into future practice guidelines.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Real-time ultrasound-guided cutting-needle biopsy.

Management of pleural infection

Standard care: antibiotics, drain and support

Optimal and timely drainage of infected pleural collections to achieve sepsis control continues to be the priority of care in pleural infection. It is imperative that drainage is preceded by appropriate supportive measures, including fluids, thromboprophylaxis and nutritional support, as even when not always apparent, pleural infection represents a significant catabolic state.

Antibiotic choice should be dictated by local prescribing policies and often empirically with adequate aerobic and anaerobic cover unless culture results are available. The role of antibiotics in pleural infection has been recently reviewed [24]. The duration of course and timing of the switch from intravenous to oral has not been evaluated in randomised clinical trials, but generally should be governed by clinical response and experts would advocate a total of 4 weeks of antibiotic therapy.

The question of optimal chest tube size has not been studied in randomised trials specifically designed to address it. Retrospective analysis of large prospective data would suggest that small bore drains (<15 F) are noninferior in terms of efficacy and outcomes, and significantly more comfortable [25]. Attention should be paid to attaching a three-way tap to facilitate regular saline flushes (e.g. 30 mL three times a day) to overcome the potential blockage by frank pus. In clinically stable patients with a small empyema, chest tube drainage may be impractical, in which case prolonged antibiotic therapy and vigilant observation may suffice.

This combination of “medical therapy” will successfully resolve approximately two in three cases of pleural infection. In those with medical “treatment failure”, defined as persistent sepsis, persistent collection or nonresolving inflammatory markers (failure of CRP to fall by >50%), other rescue therapies should be considered [26].

Intrapleural enzyme therapy

The MIST-2 trial [27] represents one of the biggest advances in pleural infection in the last decade. This randomised control trial (RCT) demonstrated a clear advantage in radiographic clearance of infection in 52 participants in the combination tissue plasminogen activator and deoxyribonuclease (DNase) arm. Since its publication, over 400 patients in the literature have been successfully treated with intrapleural enzyme therapy (IET) [28–31]. These have included large case series of over 100 patients, studies involving dose alteration, and modification of the administration regimen and course duration [32–34]. The theory for the success of this combination therapy, as opposed to previous studies looking at fibrinolytics alone [19, 35], is that it works through the synergistic effects of direct fibrinolytics to disrupt septations, and DNase to reduce fluid viscosity. DNase has also been shown to interfere with biofilm of the bacteria, which may potentially enhance the effect of antibiotics and contribute to its action in the infected pleural space [36]. Additionally, there is a clear therapeutic lavage effect of IET that has been demonstrated in human and animal studies [37], evidenced by a 10-fold increase in fluid production seen in the experiments, as well as the initial acceleration of drainage seen clinically when these agents are used. This was assumed to be driven by cytokine, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), expression and protein release by mesothelial cells but recent data has demonstrated that pleural fluid MCP-1 levels did not correlate with drainage volume, suggesting there are likely to be additional pathways at play [38].

Saline irrigation

On the subject of therapeutic lavage, the Pleural Irrigation Trial [39] recently reported positive results in a single centre pilot RCT involving 35 participants. The protocol involved administering 250-mL bags of 0.9% sodium chloride directly into the thoracic cavity. The saline bags were hooked onto a drip stand and run through a giving set, at free flow rate by gravity, via a chest tube connected to a three-way tap. The tube was then clamped for 1h and then opened to allow free drainage. This was repeated three times a day for a total of nine irrigations. The primary end-point was reduction in pleural collection volume on CT, compared to standard care, which reached statistical significance. Saline irrigation was shown to reduce referrals to surgery but did not impact on length of hospital stay.

Therapeutic thoracentesis

Whilst more established in the algorithm of malignant pleural effusion management, there is some recent data to suggest that in select patients this approach may be a reasonable alternative to chest tube drainage [40, 41]. In “low-risk” patients with no evidence of systemic sepsis and who are otherwise well, iterative thoracentesis using aspiration catheters may facilitate early mobilisation and discharge with continued management in an outpatient or “ambulatory” setting.

Thoracoscopy

There has been growing interest in the role of medical local anaesthetic thoracoscopy (LAT) in pleural infection performed by physicians. Some European centres, as well as others around the world, advocate early LAT in pleural infection and have been practicing this for some time [42–44]. It is not a recommendation of established guidelines [26] and the evidence for this approach is largely based on case series. Theoretically, it would seem logical as a therapeutic option to allow catheter drainage of fluid, mechanical disruption of septations, followed by a chest tube placed under direct vision.

Brutsche et al. [42] reported on a retrospective series of 127 patients over 14 years with multiloculated empyema treated with LAT. They demonstrated a success rate (not requiring any further treatment interventions) of 91%, although half of these also had intrapleural fibrinolytics as adjuvant therapy. A complication rate of 9% was observed with 6% requiring conversion to thoracotomy. A similar success and complication rate was observed in the subsequent smaller series from Ravaglia et al. [45], with both studies concluding that LAT is a safe and feasible treatment option in multiloculated empyema.

Large, prospective, multicentre studies are needed, with sonographic stratification by stage of empyema to confirm the role of LAT in pleural infection. In 2017, the Studying Pleuroscopy in Routine Pleural Infection Treatment (SPIRIT) trial was set up as a multicentre, feasibility RCT to assess whether health services in the UK could deliver LAT as a therapeutic modality in a timely fashion for pleural infection, within their current set up. The study has been completed and results are likely to be published in 2021.

Surgery

Despite surgical literature in pleural infection being largely confined to case series and retrospective studies, there is clearly a group of patients who benefit from surgical intervention. Advances in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) techniques have improved the safety of the technique. In comparison with open techniques, studies have reported at least equivalent outcomes in mixed populations with stage 2/3 empyema [46, 47], most importantly in relation to postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. Yet these nonrandomised data should always be interpreted with caution. Delays to surgery have been associated with the highest risk of conversion to open thoracotomy with a reported rise in probability of 22–86%, between an interval of 12 and 16 days, respectively [48]. To date, there are no RCT data to inform patient selection, timing of surgery or whether surgery can truly improve clinical outcomes.

Predicting outcomes: risk stratification and scoring

Pleural infection represents significant heterogeneity. As well as affecting a variable population from young and fit, to older with comorbidities, the added difficulty in predicting outcomes is related to the variable presentations, from acute sepsis, to subacute indolent infection with weight loss and anorexia over weeks. There is undoubtedly a cohort of patients that would benefit from earlier aggressive treatment such as surgical intervention or IET as poor outcomes have been consistently attributed to delays in effective treatment [48, 49]. The surgical literature would suggest that there is still a clear selection bias giving preference to younger patients with fewer comorbidities (rather than severity of their condition) whom, by virtue of their underlying fitness, may have had a greater chance of overcoming their illness [3, 46]. We recently reported that regions with higher income economies, patients with pleural infection were older with higher in-hospital mortality [50]. The increasing use of IET means that fewer patients are now referred to surgery but despite evidence of it being cost-effective in a recent health economics analysis of MIST-2 [51], it still does carry a significant cost, which means it is difficult to justify for all patients. So how can clinicians risk stratify which patients may need early aggressive therapy?

Traditional predictors of outcome, such as fluid purulence, have not been borne out in clinical studies and large randomised data has shown that such pleural fluid characteristics cannot be used to predict poor outcomes. A robust clinical prediction model that could enable clinicians to triage patients in terms of risk would help direct aggressive and expensive therapy to the patients with the poorest outcomes or at least, facilitate earlier discussions. The RAPID score [52] is the first prognostic risk model specific to pleural infection, enabling outcome prediction at presentation. It was derived from examination of the baseline characteristics of the MIST-1 cohort [19] and validated on the MIST-2 cohort [27]. Five characteristics (renal (serum urea), age, purulence, infection source (community versus hospital) and dietary state (serum albumin)) were found to be strongly independently associated with poor outcome. The presence of each of these would result in a score giving an estimation of 3-month mortality.

Future directions

There remain many areas of unmet clinical need in pleural infection. Microbiological diagnosis remains challenging and whether the increased yield from pleural biopsy can alter the treatment paradigm and improve antibiotic stewardship is of great interest. Research into antibiotics in pleural infection is lacking and has been somewhat overshadowed by a focus on optimising fluid drainage. There are still key questions into antibiotic penetration, route, duration of therapy and assessing adequacy of treatment, that remain unanswered. Studies looking at measuring antibiotic penetration to pleural fluid with perhaps the potential to individualise dosing are also intriguing and eagerly awaited.

Ongoing research into the role of iterative thoracentesis is likely to inform future guidelines on patient selection (e.g. defining low risk based on RAPID score) [52], and whether this can be incorporated into outpatient treatment pathways.

The currently recruiting MIST-3 trial is a multicentre, UK-based, RCT assessing the feasibility of randomising patients with pleural infection to early VATS versus early IET, and should begin to add some important insights into patient selection for surgery and inform future head to head trials.

Ongoing research into IET is now focusing on a personalised approach to optimise the MIST-2 regime. IET is rapidly inactivated by plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-1 and it is now understood that this is present in variable concentrations in pleural fluid of adults with pleural infection, as demonstrated by the variability of the fibrinolysin inhibitor profile in the MIST-2 population. It is plausible that individual PAI-1 measurements in the future guiding dosing of IET could enhance both safety and efficacy. Although the MIST-2 dosing schedule was shown to be cost-effective in a recent health economics analysis [51], personalised dosing would certainly enhance this further.

New targets for IET that are less prone to PAI-1 activation are also on the horizon. Single chain urokinase plasminogen activator has proven durability with promising results in a recent phase 1 study [53], and may be an important advance in IET use in the near future. The RAPID score has undergone prospective validation in the international, multicentre observational study PILOT (unpublished data) and if the results of the validation cohort can be replicated, this could become a very useful tool to clinicians in the day-to-day management of pleural infection.

Conclusion

There has been an acceleration in studies addressing key management issues in pleural infection, and much of the treatment that was previously based on expert opinion is now evidence based The key event in most cases of pleural infection appears to be translocation of bacteria from the infected lung into the pleural space, an environment suited to bacterial replication. It would seem plausible that there are variations in bacterial virulence and inflammatory milieu of the host that govern why some patients present with simple parapneumonic effusions and others with complex parapneumonic effusions and empyema. A better understanding of these factors would allow us to better explain the different phenotypes seen in clinical practice and target treatment modalities accordingly. Risk stratification and earlier aggressive treatment may help improve the persistently poor outcomes of this morbid condition. Advances in IET may prove crucial for an increasing incidence amongst an ageing population whose fitness precludes access to surgical intervention.

Advances in pleural malignancy

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common clinical problem affecting thousands of people in Europe and the USA each year [54, 55]. The majority of MPE arises from lung cancer, breast cancer and lymphoma [56, 57], and it is estimated that more than one-third of patients with lung cancer suffer from an MPE during the course of their disease [58]. MPE is associated with a poor prognosis, even in the case of small, asymptomatic effusions that are not amenable to aspiration [58]. Median survival with an MPE is 3–12 months and individualised estimates can be made using the LENT scoring system (pleural lactate dehydrogenase rate, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, tumour type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) [55] or the PROMISE score that performed better to predict 3-month survival [59]. MPE most commonly presents with dyspnoea, chest pain or discomfort that often profoundly impacts patients’ quality of life (QoL). MPE can be challenging to manage and is associated with high mortality and healthcare burden. An estimated 126 000 hospital admissions are due to pleural malignancy each year in the USA [60], incurring high treatment costs, with an estimated 11.6% inpatient mortality. Despite major advances in cancer treatments, management options remain palliative and are directed at improving symptoms and QoL. Several factors should be taken into account in the management of MPE, including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, primary tumour site and the presence of trapped lung. Over the past decade, several RCTs have led to a paradigm shift in the management of MPE, and shed light into the need to incorporate precision medicine into the field of pleural malignancy. This section summarises the recent advances in the management of pleural malignancy through an overview on diagnosis and treatment aspects, with a focus on new concepts.

New concepts in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion

Imaging

Thoracic imaging is usually the first step that leads to suspicion of pleural malignancy. Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) has become the standard of care in the past decade for the evaluation of pleural effusion [61]. TUS can provide valuable information as it can estimate the quantity of pleural fluid and detect parietal pleural thickening, as well as visceral and/or parietal nodules, highly suggestive of underlying malignancy [62]. Septations or loculations are also better detected by TUS, guiding subsequent pleural manoeuvres. It is now well recognised that thoracentesis should always be performed under real-time ultrasound, or by marking at the bedside, significantly reducing the rate of post-procedural pneumothorax [63]. New concepts have emerged concerning the ability of TUS to diagnose MPE. Ultrasound elastography gives information on tissue elasticity and stiffness, and thus could be used as a diagnostic tool. In the recent study by Jiang et al. [64], two-dimensional shear wave elastography was applied to the parietal pleura in a cohort of patients presenting with malignant and benign pleural effusions. It consisted of applying a stress using an acoustic radiation force impulse on the tissue, with the purpose to identify a stiffer tissue and therefore increase the accuracy of ultrasound elastography for differentiating MPE from benign pleural effusion. Pleural ultrasound elastography seemed to be helpful in differentiating MPE from benign pleural disease, with a sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 91%, respectively. Although this is a novel and potentially promising technique, further studies are needed to establish its role in the workup of suspected malignant effusion. TUS can also be helpful in predicting lung expansion after pleural drainage, hence diagnosing trapped lung. Several ultrasound features, such as a decreased transmission of cardiac pulsations using tissue movement in M mode or deformation using speckle-tracking images, can identify a nonexpandable lung (NEL) [65]. If appropriately validated, these could supersede the classic radiographic description of NEL, defined as <50% pleural re-apposition on post-drainage radiograph, which has a poor interobserver agreement [66].

Contrast-enhanced CT is able to identify features suggestive of pleural malignancy, such as pleural thickening (e.g. circumferential parietal pleural or mediastinal, thickening >1 cm) and pleural nodules [67]. A CT score has been proposed to distinguish malignant from benign effusions [68] with a sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 94%, respectively, including items such as pleural lesions, lung nodule, liver metastases, abdominal mass and absence of cardiomegaly, pericardial effusions and pleural loculations. However, due to its low negative predictive value in the absence of pleural abnormalities, further investigations have to be done in case of suspicion of pleural malignancy. Concerning the role of positron emission tomography (PET), a recent meta-analysis reported a sensitivity of 81% but a low specificity of 74% [69]. Therefore, due to the high rate of false positives cases (e.g. inflammatory pleuritis or post-talc pleurodesis), PET should not be used as a standard of care for the diagnosis of MPE. Hence, to date, no imaging modality has been shown to diagnose a malignant effusion without the need for further cytohistological examination.

Thoracentesis: the cornerstone in the initial management of MPE

In cases of suspected MPE, thoracentesis should be the first step in the diagnostic process to obtain fluid for analysis, whilst concurrently aspirating a sufficient volume to provide a therapeutic effect. It is crucial to observe the symptomatic effect of this drainage. A recently published RCT demonstrated comparable levels of procedural comfort and dyspnoea improvement between active (manual) aspiration and gravity drainage [70]. Shortness of breath, one of the cardinal symptoms of pleural effusion, is rarely due to a lung problem, but rather attributable to diaphragmatic dysfunction secondary to compression by volume, leading to modification of diaphragm shape [71]. Thus, in the absence of symptomatic improvement with pleural drainage, alternative causes should be considered (e.g. pulmonary embolism, lymphangitis carcinomatosis). Thoracentesis can also identify NEL, when pleural aspiration is associated with negative pleural pressure and result in chest pain or post-procedure pneumothorax. Measurement of pleural pressure can be done using a pleural manometer, that allows an understanding of the impact of pleural effusion drainage on pleural pressure. In a normal lung, pleural pressure is negative (from −3 to −5 cmH2O) at the functional residual capacity, and becomes positive in the presence of a pleural effusion. While evacuating the fluid, pleural pressure decreases and become slightly negative at the end of the drainage. In contrast, patients with NEL have a different modifications and changes of pleural pressure. Indeed, in malignant condition, an entrapped lung, due to either proximal endobronchial obstruction, or more frequently visceral pleural thickening, can be seen. In these cases, pleural pressure is also positive prior to drainage, but rapidly become excessively negative (<−20 cmH2O) during the effusion removal, and thus could lead to patient's symptoms. Albeit a useful tool, a recent study reported that manometry measuring pleural pressure during thoracentesis does not reduce the risk of post-procedure chest pain or discomfort [72]. However, identify patients with NEL is crucial and, in this setting, pleural manometry could be an useful tool. Moreover, if adequate lung expansion occurs following drainage (either with thoracentesis or a chest tube) pleurodesis can be considered.

It has previously been assumed that repeated pleural fluid sampling increased the sensitivity after a first negative procedure [56], but the results of a recent prospective study have refuted this [73]. Overall, the sensitivity of pleural fluid cytology to detect a malignant effusion is 46%, with significant variability among tumour type. The highest cytological yield is observed for ovarian carcinoma (>95%), lung adenocarcinoma (>80%) and breast cancer (71%), with the poorest yield being for malignant mesothelioma (6%) [56, 73]. Therefore, the choice of investigation after a first negative thoracentesis should take into account the known or suspected primary tumour, so as to avoid futile interventions and not delay care. Through advances in precision medicine, identification of oncogenic driver mutations leading to targeted therapy has now become standard practice in nonsmall cell lung cancer. For the detection of EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, ALK and ROS1, pleural fluid cell-block seems to be adequate for mutation analysis (using DNA or next generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridisation) [74–77]. Since the relative development of immunotherapy, analysis of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) is crucial to select appropriate candidates for anti PD-L1 treatment [78–80]. Despite recent reports of good correlation between PD-L1 expression from pleural fluid cell-blocks specimen, compared to histological biopsies [81–83], the strength of evidence remains insufficient to negate the need to undertake histological biopsies, unless these are not feasible due to patient fitness.

Pleural biopsies

In cases of suspected MPE, histological analysis obtained through pleural biopsies is recommended, especially after negative pleural cytology [84]. Image-guided (CT or ultrasound) cutting-needle pleural biopsy can be safely performed under local anaesthesia with excellent diagnosis yields in cases of pleural abnormalities (e.g. pleural nodules or thickening) [85]. CT-guided biopsies have been shown to be superior to blind needle techniques with respective sensitivities of 87% versus 47% [86], possibly due to focal and patchy pleural involvement, as well as the obvious risk reduction in complications. PET–CT is routinely reserved for early stage disease but, in theory, it can be used to identify targets to better guide pleural biopsies. Whether or not this approach adds diagnostic value has been studied in the recently completed randomised multicentre TARGET trial that directly compared PET–CT versus CT-guided pleural biopsies in patients with suspected malignancy who have had one nondiagnostic biopsy [87].

There is an increasing evidence base relating to the diagnostic use of TUS-guided biopsies over the past 15 years. These can be easily and safely performed by pulmonologists with a diagnostic yield similar to those obtained with CT-guided biopsies, including for mesothelioma, and especially when the suspect lesion is >20 mm [88]. However, it should be noted that in the absence of pleural lesions such as thickening or nodularity, the diagnostic yield of image-guided biopsy significantly decreases and thoracoscopic pleural biopsies under direct vision should be performed where possible.

Both VATS and medical thoracoscopy can be performed to obtain sufficient pleural tissue with a similar diagnostic yield (>90%) for MPE [89–91], especially in cases of suspected malignant pleural mesothelioma [92]. Despite advances in techniques, drawbacks of VATS include significant post-operative pain [93] and the need for general anaesthesia with single lung ventilation. Medical thoracoscopy can be a safe alternative, performed under local anaesthesia or conscious sedation using a single port of entry. In the absence of adequate effusion, pneumothorax induction can be safely performed in a spontaneously breathing patient, to facilitate entry into the pleural space [94]. However, in a situation of pleural symphysis or adhesions that do not allow an easy access to the pleural cavity, VATS should be preferred. Forceps biopsies can be performed on the parietal pleura using a rigid thoracoscope through a 5- or 7-mm trocar. Flexi-rigid medical thoracoscopes can also be used as an alternative with a similar diagnostic yield to those obtained with a rigid instrument [95]. Tissue samples obtained with flexible forceps are smaller, but yield can potentially be increased using cryobiopsies, although the evidence for the latter in the pleura remains limited to safety and feasibility [96]. Moreover, thoracoscopy facilitates a “one-stop” diagnostic and therapeutic procedure including the option of instillation of sclerosing agents in the pleural cavity.

Management of malignant pleural effusion: what is new?

Despite new advances in the treatment of cancer, management options of MPE remain palliative and are primarily aimed at improving QoL. Few pleural malignancies can be controlled with systemic treatment but in most cases, MPE control requires a pleural intervention. Repetitive thoracentesis are recommended only when life expectancy is short (<1 month), due to the high rate of recurrence. Since the publication of the 2010 British Thoracic Society guidelines [97], talc pleurodesis has been the established first-line definitive treatment for MPE. Pleurodesis aims to perform a diffuse inflammatory pleural reaction with an activation of the coagulation system leading to fibrin deposition and adhesion between parietal and visceral pleura, in order to avoid the fluid accumulation [98]. Several sclerosing agents have been evaluated to obtain a pleurodesis but a recent review of literature emphasised the superiority of graded talc [99–101]. Placement of indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) was initially only advocated in patients unsuitable for pleurodesis in cases of trapped lung or after pleurodesis failure.

In the past 10 years, several RCTs and good quality data have led to a paradigm shift in the management options of MPE and the publication of new practical guidelines and a statement from the European Respiratory Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American Thoracic Society. They both emphasise the superiority of talc over other sclerosing agents [84, 102] and suggest that talc poudrage may be more effective than talc slurry [84]. This has now been superseded by the very recent publication of the TAPPS trial, which compared thoracoscopic talc poudrage versus talc slurry via chest tube and demonstrated overall equivalence in these two techniques, with no significant difference in the rate of pleurodesis failure at 90 days [103] (www.isrctn.com; ISRCTN47845793). IPC is also now recommended as a suitable alternative in first-line intervention [104, 105], bringing patient choice to the forefront of clinical decision-making. Patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) such as symptom palliation, hospitalisation length, functional status and QoL are now well recognised as treatment aims rather than pleural symphysis on radiological assessment.

Indwelling pleural catheters as an alternative first therapeutic intervention

IPC is a silicone tube of 15–16 Fr placed under local anaesthesia in the pleural cavity and tunnelled subcutaneously with a one-way valve at the distal extremity. A profibrotic cuff secures the catheter to the skin and provides a “bacterial protection” to the pleural cavity. It can be inserted on an ambulatory basis and allows outpatient drainage performed by a nurse or trained family members according to patient's symptoms. IPC related complications occur in approximately 10–20% of patients but are mostly minor (e.g. catheter malfunction and cellulitis) [106–110]. The main serious complication is infection of the pleural cavity (<5%), which in most cases does not require removal of the drain and may be controlled by antibiotics combined with frequent drainage. Interestingly, two-thirds of patients can develop pleurodesis after infection of the pleural cavity, mostly reported in case of Staphylococcus aureus infection [106].

In the past 7 years, RCTs have studied different outcomes of IPC for the management of MPE. Some of these studies have compared IPC versus talc slurry PROMs. They established that IPC improved breathlessness and QoL in a similar manner to talc slurry, as well as significantly reducing the initial length of hospitalisation (2.49 versus 4.98 days) and the pleural related days of hospitalisation for up to 12 months (10 versus 12 days) [109, 111].

Retrospective studies have previously reported a rate of spontaneous pleurodesis of ∼43% with a high variation between tumour type [104]. Spontaneous pleurodesis was defined by three consecutive drainages <50 mL with no pleural effusion on chest radiography. Higher rates were observed for breast and ovarian cancer (>70%), whereas it was shorter for lung cancer (44%) [110]. In more recent prospective RCTs, rate of spontaneous pleurodesis appears to be lower using the symptom-guided approach but can increase depending on the frequency of IPC drainage [55, 58]. Indeed, both the ASAP [112] and AMPLE-2 [113] trials favoured daily IPC drainage that led to higher rate of spontaneous pleurodesis (47% and 37%, respectively) compared to symptom-guided drainage (24% and 17%, respectively). Both drainage regimens improved dyspnoea with no difference in term of post-drainage pain [109].

A recent cost-effectiveness analysis of IPC versus talc slurry was performed [114] alongside the TIME2 trial [109]. For patients presenting a limited survival (<14 weeks), IPC was more cost-effective, but became most costly when at least 2 h nursing time per week was assumed for catheter drainage. This might impact the results reported by the ASAP and AMPLE-2 trial which favoured daily IPC drainage, even though shortening the duration of IPC treatment through earlier pleurodesis could potentially reduce the cost of ambulatory treatment.

Combined therapies using sclerosing agents and IPC

The aim of combining therapeutic interventions is to obtain the highest chance of pleurodesis with the shortest hospital stay, whilst being as minimally invasive as possible. Rapid pleurodesis consists of performing a talc poudrage during a medical thoracoscopy followed by the placement of an IPC during the same operation, in order to reduce the length of hospital stay through ambulatory drainage, and was performed in two studies. Both studies reported high rate of pleurodesis (>90%), a short median hospitalisation time (1.79 and 3 days, respectively) and removal of the catheter at a median of 8 days [115, 116]. Instillation of talc slurry through an IPC initially reported a high rate of pleurodesis in an outpatient setting [117]. More recently, the IPC-PLUS RCT analysed outcomes of this regimen while excluding trapped lung [118]. Participants received either talc slurry or saline through IPC 10 days after catheter placement. At 35 days, the rate of pleurodesis was higher in the talc group (43% versus 23%) and increased at 70 days (51% versus 27%). Albeit promising, pleurodesis rates reported with the talc regimen were lower than expected, especially in an enriched population considered “fit for pleurodesis”. Moreover, the 27% rate of spontaneous pleurodesis observed at day 70 was lower than those observed in initial retrospective studies, and in line with spontaneous pleurodesis rates observed in other RCT without additional intervention [109, 112].

Combining therapy by coating the IPC with a sclerosing agent, such as silver nitrate has reported promising outcomes. Intrapleural instillation of silver nitrate has initially been reported to be effective in animal and human studies to obtain pleurodesis, but its use has been limited due to adverse effects reported with high dose. A new drug-eluting IPC has recently been developed, and experimented on in an animal study. Pleurodesis scores were higher in the silver nitrate-coated IPC animal group and no toxicity or mortality was due to a silver-coated catheter [119]. A prospective clinical study including nine patients [120] reported the safety and efficiency of silver nitrate-coated IPC for the management of MPE with an expandable lung obtaining an 89% rate of pleurodesis. An ongoing multicentre RCT is currently assessing the efficiency of silver nitrate-coated IPC in term of pleurodesis rate at 30 days (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02649894).

Conclusions

Identifying pleural involvement in malignancy is fundamental as it has both therapeutic and prognostic implications. Thoracentesis is useful in the initial diagnostic workup as it facilitates a simultaneous therapeutic opportunity and assessment. However, frequently negative pleural fluid cytology mandates the need for pleural biopsies and, increasingly, the feasibility of “direct to biopsy” pathways are being studied. According to the tumour characteristics and operators’ skills, both image-guided cutting-needle or thoracoscopic biopsies can lead to a diagnosis in most cases. There is now high-level evidence suggesting equivalence in IPC versus talc pleurodesis, as well as slurry versus poudrage, and options for combining techniques. The onus is on clinicians to allow patient choice and priorities to dictate first-line treatment. Our understanding of the genesis of MPE to identify future targets for both systemic or intrapleural treatments and the knowledge of predictive parameters for pleurodesis success have to be increased to optimise MPE management (figure 2).

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

A practical algorithm for the management of malignant pleural effusion. IPC: indwelling pleural catheter; LENT: pleural lactate dehydrogenase rate, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, tumour type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

Footnotes

  • Previous articles in this series: No. 1: DeMaio A, Sterman D. Bronchoscopic intratumoral therapies for nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir Rev 2020; 29: 200028. No. 2: Chandrika S, Yarmus L. Recent developments in advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy. Eur Respir Rev 2020; 29: 190184. No. 3: Kniese CM, Musani AI. Bronchoscopic treatment of inoperable nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir Rev 2020; 29: 200035. No. 4: Rosell A, Stratakos G. Therapeutic bronchoscopy for central airway disease. Eur Respir Rev 2020; 29: 190178.

  • Provenance: Commissioned article, peer reviewed.

  • Number 5 in the Series “Interventional pulmonology” Edited by David Feller-Kopman and Hervé Dutau

  • Conflict of interest: E.O. Bedawi has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Guinde has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: N.M. Rahman reports grants from Roche and Genentech, and grants and personal fees from LTI USA, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: P. Astoul has nothing to disclose.

  • Received January 2, 2020.
  • Accepted June 12, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2021.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Dean NC,
    2. Griffith PP,
    3. Sorensen JS, et al.
    Pleural effusions at first ED encounter predict worse clinical outcomes in patients with pneumonia. Chest 2016; 149: 1509–1515. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2015.12.027
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Grijalva CG,
    2. Zhu Y,
    3. Nuorti JP, et al.
    Emergence of parapneumonic empyema in the USA. Thorax 2011; 66: 663–668. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.156406
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Farjah F,
    2. Symons RG,
    3. Krishnadasan B, et al.
    Management of pleural space infections: a population-based analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 133: 346–351. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.09.038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Burgos J,
    2. Lujan M,
    3. Falcó V, et al.
    The spectrum of pneumococcal empyema in adults in the early 21st century. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53: 254–261. doi:10.1093/cid/cir354
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Byington CL,
    2. Hulten KG,
    3. Ampofo K, et al.
    Molecular epidemiology of pediatric pneumococcal empyema from 2001 to 2007 in Utah. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48: 520–525. doi:10.1128/JCM.01200-09
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Chacon-Cruz E,
    2. Lopatynsky-Reyes EZ,
    3. Rivas-Landeros RM, et al.
    Trends in pediatric pneumococcal pleural empyema following pneumococcal conjugate 13-valent vaccination: 10 years of active surveillance in a Mexican hospital. Open Forum Infect Dis 2016; 3; 774. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.637
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Thomas M,
    2. Sheppard C,
    3. Guiver M, et al.
    S72 Paediatric pneumococcal empyema serotypes have not changed following introduction of the 13 valent pneumococcal vaccine. Thorax 2013; 68: A39. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202125
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Fitzgerald DB,
    2. Leong SL,
    3. Budgeon CA, et al.
    Relationship of pleural fluid pH and glucose: a multi-centre study of 2,971 cases. J Thorac Dis 2019; 11: 123–130. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.12.101
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Dixon G,
    2. Lama-Lopez A,
    3. Bintcliffe OJ, et al.
    The role of serum procalcitonin in establishing the diagnosis and prognosis of pleural infection. Respir Res 2017; 18: 30. doi:10.1186/s12931-017-0501-5
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. de Fonseka D,
    2. Maskell NA
    . The role of procalcitonin in the management of pleural infection. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2018; 24: 380–383. doi:10.1097/MCP.0000000000000481
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Okiror L,
    2. Coltart C,
    3. Bille A, et al.
    Thoracotomy and decortication: impact of culture-positive empyema on the outcome of surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46: 901–906. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Rovina N,
    2. Dima E,
    3. Psallidas I, et al.
    Interleukin-18 is up-regulated in infectious pleural effusions. Cytokine 2013; 63: 166–171. doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2013.04.017
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Wu K-A,
    2. Wu C-C,
    3. Chen C-D, et al.
    Proteome profiling reveals novel biomarkers to identify complicated parapneumonic effusions. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 4026. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04189-4
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Porcel JM
    . Pleural fluid biomarkers: beyond the Light criteria. Clin Chest Med 2013; 34: 27–37. doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2012.11.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Vives M,
    3. Cao G, et al.
    Biomarkers of infection for the differential diagnosis of pleural effusions. Eur Respir J 2009; 34: 1383–1389. doi:10.1183/09031936.00197208
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Maskell NA,
    2. Batt S,
    3. Hedley EL, et al.
    The bacteriology of pleural infection by genetic and standard methods and its mortality significance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 174: 817–823. doi:10.1164/rccm.200601-074OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hassan M,
    2. Cargill T,
    3. Harriss E, et al.
    The microbiology of pleural infection in adults: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1900542. doi:10.1183/13993003.00542-2019
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Menzies SM,
    2. Rahman NM,
    3. Wrightson JM, et al.
    Blood culture bottle culture of pleural fluid in pleural infection. Thorax 2011; 66: 658–662. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.157842
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Maskell NA,
    2. Davies CWH,
    3. Nunn AJ, et al.
    UK controlled trial of intrapleural streptokinase for pleural infection. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 865–874. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Patel JB
    . 16S rRNA gene sequencing for bacterial pathogen identification in the clinical laboratory. Mol Diagn 2001; 6: 313–321. doi:10.2165/00066982-200106040-00012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Lu X-X,
    2. Wu W,
    3. Wang M, et al.
    [16S rRNA gene sequencing for pathogen identification from clinical specimens]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 88: 123–126.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Psallidas I,
    2. Kanellakis NI,
    3. Bhatnagar R, et al.
    A pilot feasibility study in establishing the role of ultrasound-guided pleural biopsies in pleural infection (the AUDIO study). Chest 2018; 154: 776–772. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.02.031
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Janda JM,
    2. Abbott SL
    . 16S rRNA gene sequencing for bacterial identification in the diagnostic laboratory: pluses, perils, and pitfalls. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 2761–2764. doi:10.1128/JCM.01228-07
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Bedawi EO,
    2. Hassan M,
    3. McCracken D, et al.
    Pleural infection: a closer look at the etiopathogenesis, microbiology and role of antibiotics. Expert Rev Respir Med 2019; 13: 337–347. doi:10.1080/17476348.2019.1578212
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Rahman NM,
    2. Maskell NA,
    3. Davies CWH, et al.
    The relationship between chest tube size and clinical outcome in pleural infection. Chest 2010; 137: 536–543. doi:10.1378/chest.09-1044
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Davies HE,
    2. Davies RJO,
    3. Davies CWH
    . Management of pleural infection in adults: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65: Suppl. 2, ii41–ii53. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.137000
  27. ↵
    1. Rahman NM,
    2. Maskell NA,
    3. West A, et al.
    Intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator and dnase in pleural infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 518–526. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1012740
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Bédat B,
    2. Plojoux J,
    3. Noel J, et al.
    Comparison of intrapleural use of urokinase and tissue plasminogen activator/DNAse in pleural infection. ERJ Open Res 2019; 5: 00084-2019. doi:10.1183/23120541.00084-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Majid A,
    2. Ochoa S,
    3. Chatterji S, et al.
    Safety and efficacy of tissue plasminogen activator and DNase for complicated pleural effusions secondary to abdominal pathology. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14: 342–346. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201608-594BC
    OpenUrl
    1. Piccolo F,
    2. Popowicz N,
    3. Wong D, et al.
    Intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator and deoxyribonuclease therapy for pleural infection. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7: 999–1008.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Bishwakarma R,
    2. Shah S,
    3. Frank L, et al.
    Mixing it up: coadministration of tPA/DNase in complicated parapneumonic pleural effusions and empyema. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2017; 24: 40–47. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000334
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Popowicz N,
    2. Bintcliffe O,
    3. De Fonseka D, et al.
    Dose de-escalation of intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator therapy for pleural infection. The alteplase dose assessment for pleural infection therapy project. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14: 929–936. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201609-673OC
    OpenUrl
    1. Mehta HJ,
    2. Biswas A,
    3. Penley AM, et al.
    Management of intrapleural sepsis with once daily use of tissue plasminogen activator and deoxyribonuclease. Respiration 2016; 91: 101–106. doi:10.1159/000443334
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. McClune JR,
    2. Wilshire CL,
    3. Gorden JA, et al.
    Safety and efficacy of intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator and DNase during extended use in complicated pleural space infections. Can Respir J 2016; 2016: 9796768. doi:10.1155/2016/9796768
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Cameron R,
    2. Davies HR
    . Intra-pleural fibrinolytic therapy versus conservative management in the treatment of adult parapneumonic effusions and empyema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008: CD002312.
  33. ↵
    1. Hall-Stoodley L,
    2. Nistico L,
    3. Sambanthamoorthy K, et al.
    Characterization of biofilm matrix, degradation by DNase treatment and evidence of capsule downregulation in Streptococcus pneumoniae clinical isolates. BMC Microbiol 2008; 8: 173. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-8-173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Zhu Z,
    2. Hawthorne ML,
    3. Guo Y, et al.
    Tissue plasminogen activator combined with human recombinant deoxyribonuclease is effective therapy for empyema in a rabbit model. Chest 2006; 129: 1577–1583. doi:10.1378/chest.129.6.1577
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Kanellakis NI,
    2. Wrightson JM,
    3. Hallifax R, et al.
    Biological effect of tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and DNase intrapleural delivery in pleural infection patients. BMJ Open Respir Res 2019; 6: e000440. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000440
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Hooper CE,
    2. Edey AJ,
    3. Wallis A, et al.
    Pleural irrigation trial (PIT): a randomised controlled trial of pleural irrigation with normal saline versus standard care in patients with pleural infection. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 456–463. doi:10.1183/09031936.00147214
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Jouneau S,
    2. Letheulle J,
    3. Desrues B
    . Repeated therapeutic thoracentesis to manage complicated parapneumonic effusions. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2015; 21: 387–392. doi:10.1097/MCP.0000000000000171
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Letheulle J,
    2. Tattevin P,
    3. Saunders L, et al.
    Iterative thoracentesis as first-line treatment of complicated parapneumonic effusion. PLoS One 2014; 9: e84788. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084788
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Brutsche MH,
    2. Tassi G-F,
    3. Györik S, et al.
    Treatment of sonographically stratified multiloculated thoracic empyema by medical thoracoscopy. Chest 2005; 128: 3303–3309. doi:10.1378/chest.128.5.3303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tassi GF,
    2. Marchetti GP,
    3. Pinelli V, et al.
    Practical management of pleural empyema. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2010; 73: 124–129.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Sumalani KK,
    2. Rizvi NA,
    3. Asghar A
    . Role of medical thoracoscopy in the management of multiloculated empyema. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18: 179. doi:10.1186/s12890-018-0745-y
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Ravaglia C,
    2. Gurioli C,
    3. Tomassetti S, et al.
    Is medical thoracoscopy efficient in the management of multiloculated and organized thoracic empyema? Respiration 2012; 84: 219–224. doi:10.1159/000339414
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Marks DJB,
    2. Fisk MD,
    3. Koo CY, et al.
    Thoracic empyema: a 12-year study from a UK tertiary cardiothoracic referral centre. PLoS One 2012; 7: e30074. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Tong BC,
    2. Hanna J,
    3. Toloza EM, et al.
    Outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic decortication. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 220–225. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.09.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Lardinois D,
    2. Gock M,
    3. Pezzetta E, et al.
    Delayed referral and gram-negative organisms increase the conversion thoracotomy rate in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for empyema. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 79: 1851–1856. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.12.031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Meyer CN,
    2. Armbruster K,
    3. Kemp M, et al.
    Pleural infection: a retrospective study of clinical outcome and the correlation to known etiology, co-morbidity and treatment factors. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18: 160. doi:10.1186/s12890-018-0726-1
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Cargill TN,
    2. Hassan M,
    3. Corcoran JP, et al.
    A systematic review of comorbidities and outcomes of adult patients with pleural infection. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1900541. doi:10.1183/13993003.00541-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Luengo-Fernandez R,
    2. Penz E,
    3. Dobson M, et al.
    Cost-effectiveness of intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator and DNase in pleural infection: evidence from the MIST2 randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1801550. doi:10.1183/13993003.01550-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Rahman NM,
    2. Kahan BC,
    3. Miller RF, et al.
    A clinical score (RAPID) to identify those at risk for poor outcome at presentation in patients with pleural infection. Chest 2014; 145: 848–855. doi:10.1378/chest.13-1558
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Beckert L,
    2. Brockway B,
    3. Simpson G, et al.
    Phase I trial of the single-chain urokinase intrapleural LTI-01 in complicated parapneumonic effusions or empyema. JCI Insight 2019; 4: e127470. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.127470
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Mason RJ,
    2. Murray JF,
    3. Nadel JA, et al.
    1. Boylan A,
    2. Broaddus V
    . Tumours of the pleura. In: Mason RJ, Murray JF, Nadel JA, et al., eds. Murray and Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine. 4th Edn. Philadelphia, Elsevier, 2005.
  51. ↵
    1. Clive AO,
    2. Kahan BC,
    3. Hooper CE, et al.
    Predicting survival in malignant pleural effusion: development and validation of the LENT prognostic score. Thorax 2014; 69: 1098–1104. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205285
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Esquerda A,
    3. Vives M, et al.
    Etiology of pleural effusions: analysis of more than 3,000 consecutive thoracenteses. Arch Bronconeumol 2014; 50: 161–165. doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2013.11.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Sahn SA
    . Pleural diseases related to metastatic malignancies. Eur Respir J 1997; 10: 1907–1913. doi:10.1183/09031936.97.10081907
    OpenUrlAbstract
  54. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Gasol A,
    3. Bielsa S, et al.
    Clinical features and survival of lung cancer patients with pleural effusions. Respirology 2015; 20: 654–659. doi:10.1111/resp.12496
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Psallidas I,
    2. Kanellakis NI,
    3. Gerry S
    . Development and validation of response markers to predict survival and pleurodesis success in patients with malignant pleural effusion (PROMISE): a multicohort analysis. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 930–939. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30294-8
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Taghizadeh N,
    3. Tremblay A
    . Procedures performed during hospitalizations for malignant pleural effusions: data from the 2012 National Inpatient Sample. Respiration Dis 2018; 95: 228–234. doi:10.1159/000485934
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Corcoran JR,
    2. Tazi-Mezalek R,
    3. Maldonado M, et al.
    State of the art thoracic ultrasound: intervention and therapeutics. Thorax 2017; 72: 840–849. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209164
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Qureshi NR,
    2. Rahman NM,
    3. Gleeson FV
    . Thoracic ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion. Thorax 2009; 64: 139–143. doi:10.1136/thx.2008.100545
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Gordon CE,
    2. Feller-Kopman D,
    3. Balk EM, et al.
    Pneumothorax following thoracentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 332–339. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.548
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Jiang B,
    2. Li X-L,
    3. Yin Y, et al.
    Ultrasound elastography: a novel tool for the differential diagnosis of pleural effusion. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1802018. doi:10.1183/13993003.02018-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Salamonsen MR,
    2. Lo AKC,
    3. Ng ACT, et al.
    Novel use of pleural ultrasound can identify malignant entrapped lung prior to effusion drainage. Chest 2014; 146: 1286–1293. doi:10.1378/chest.13-2876
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Martin GA,
    2. Kidd AC,
    3. Tsim S, et al.
    Inter-observer variation in image interpretation and the prognostic importance of non-expansile lung in malignant pleural effusion. Respirology 2020; 25: 298–304. doi:10.1111/resp.13681
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Leung AN,
    2. Müller NL,
    3. Miller RR
    . CT in differential diagnosis of diffuse pleural disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154: 487–492. doi:10.2214/ajr.154.3.2106209
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Pardina M,
    3. Bielsa S, et al.
    Derivation and validation of a CT scan scoring system for discriminating malignant from benign pleural effusions. Chest 2015; 147: 513–519. doi:10.1378/chest.14-0013
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Porcel JM,
    2. Hernández P,
    3. Martínez-Alonso M, et al.
    Accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET imaging for differentiating benign from malignant pleural effusions: a meta-analysis. Chest 2015; 147: 502–512. doi:10.1378/chest.14-0820
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Lentz RJ,
    2. Shojaee S,
    3. Grosu HB, et al.
    The impact of gravity vs suction-driven therapeutic thoracentesis on pressure-related complications: the GRAVITAS multicenter randomized controlled trial. Chest 2020; 157: 702–711. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.10.025
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Thomas R,
    2. Jenkins S,
    3. Eastwood PR, et al.
    Physiology of breathlessness associated with pleural effusions. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2015; 21: 338–345. doi:10.1097/MCP.0000000000000174
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Lentz RJ,
    2. Lerner AD,
    3. Pannu JK, et al.
    Routine monitoring with pleural manometry during therapeutic large-volume thoracentesis to prevent pleural-pressure-related complications: a multicentre, single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 447–455. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30421-1
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Arnold DT,
    2. De Fonseka D,
    3. Perry S, et al.
    Investigating unilateral pleural effusions: the role of cytology. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1801254, doi:10.1183/13993003.01254-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Carter J,
    2. Miller JA,
    3. Feller-Kopman D, et al.
    Molecular profiling of malignant pleural effusion in metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinoma. The effect of preanalytical factors. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14: 1169–1176.
    OpenUrl
    1. DeMaio A,
    2. Clarke JM,
    3. Dash R, et al.
    Yield of malignant pleural effusion for detection of oncogenic driver mutations in lung adenocarcinoma. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2019; 26: 96–101. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000534
    OpenUrl
    1. Liu N,
    2. Sun RZ,
    3. Du J, et al.
    Comparison of epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations identified using pleural effusion and primary tumor tissue samples in non-small cell lung cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2018; 26: e44–e51. doi:10.1097/PAI.0000000000000543
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    1. Yang J,
    2. Lee OJ,
    3. Son SM, et al.
    EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinoma-associated malignant pleural effusion and efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cancer Res Treat 2018; 50: 908–916. doi:10.4143/crt.2017.378
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Carbone DP,
    2. Reck M,
    3. Paz-Ares L, et al.
    First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 2415–2426. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1613493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Reck M,
    2. Rodríguez-Abreu D,
    3. Robinson AG, et al.
    Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1823–1833. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606774
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Mok TSK,
    2. Wu YL,
    3. Kudaba I, et al.
    Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019; 393: 1819–1830. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32409-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Grosu HB,
    2. Arriola A,
    3. Stewart J, et al.
    PD-L1 detection in histology specimens and matched pleural fluid cell blocks of patients with NSCLC. Respirology 2019; 24: 1198–1203. doi:10.1111/resp.13614
    OpenUrl
    1. Xu J,
    2. Han X,
    3. Liu C, et al.
    PD-L1 expression in pleural effusions of pulmonary adenocarcinoma and survival prediction: a controlled study by pleural biopsy. Sci Rep 2018; 8: 11206. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-29156-5
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Heymann JJ,
    2. Bulman WA,
    3. Swinarski D, et al.
    PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung carcinoma: comparison among cytology, small biopsy, and surgical resection specimens. Cancer Cytopathol 2017; 125: 896–907. doi:10.1002/cncy.21937
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. Bibby AC,
    2. Dorn P,
    3. Psallidas I, et al.
    ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800349. doi:10.1183/13993003.00349-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Rahman NM,
    2. Gleeson FV
    . Image-guided pleural biopsy. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2008; 14: 331–336. doi:10.1097/MCP.0b013e3282fe9a04
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Maskell NA,
    2. Gleeson FV,
    3. Davies RJO
    . Standard pleural biopsy versus CT-guided cutting-needle biopsy for diagnosis of malignant disease in pleural effusions: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361: 1326–1330. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13079-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. de Fonseka D,
    2. Underwood W,
    3. Stadon L, et al.
    Randomised controlled trial to compare the diagnostic yield of positron emission tomography CT (PET-CT) TARGETed pleural biopsy versus CT-guided pleural biopsy in suspected pleural malignancy (TARGET trial). BMJ Open Respir Res 2018; 5: e000270. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2017-000270
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    1. Diacon AH,
    2. Schuurmans MM,
    3. Theron J, et al.
    Safety and yield of ultrasound-assisted transthoracic biopsy performed by pulmonologists. Respir Int Rev Thorac Dis 2004; 71: 519–522.
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. Harris RJ,
    2. Kavuru MS,
    3. Rice TW, et al.
    The diagnostic and therapeutic utility of thoracoscopy. A review. Chest 1995; 108: 828–841. doi:10.1378/chest.108.3.828
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rahman NM,
    2. Ali NJ,
    3. Brown G, et al.
    Local anaesthetic thoracoscopy: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65: Suppl. 2, ii54–ii60. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.137018
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    1. Menzies R,
    2. Charbonneau M
    . Thoracoscopy for the diagnosis of pleural disease. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 271–276. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-4-271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Greillier L,
    2. Cavailles A,
    3. Fraticelli A, et al.
    Accuracy of pleural biopsy using thoracoscopy for the diagnosis of histologic subtype in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer 2007; 110: 2248–2252. doi:10.1002/cncr.23034
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Bendixen M,
    2. Jørgensen OD,
    3. Kronborg C, et al.
    Postoperative pain and quality of life after lobectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or anterolateral thoracotomy for early stage lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 836–844. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00173-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Skalski JH,
    2. Astoul P,
    3. Maldonado F
    . Medical thoracoscopy. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 35: 732–743. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1395796
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Dhooria S,
    2. Singh N,
    3. Aggarwal AN, et al.
    A randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield of rigid and semirigid thoracoscopy in undiagnosed pleural effusions. Respir Care 2014; 59: 756–764. doi:10.4187/respcare.02738
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    1. Thomas R,
    2. Karunarathne S,
    3. Jennings B, et al.
    Pleuroscopic cryoprobe biopsies of the pleura: a feasibility and safety study. Respirology 2015; 20: 327–332. doi:10.1111/resp.12441
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Roberts ME,
    2. Neville E,
    3. Berrisford RG, et al.
    BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group, Management of a malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax 2010; 65 Suppl 2: ii32–ii40. doi:10.1136/thx.2010.136994
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Rodriguez-Panadero F,
    2. Montes-Worboys A
    . Mechanisms of pleurodesis. Respir Int Rev Thorac Dis 2012; 83: 91–98.
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Dresler CM,
    2. Olak J,
    3. Herndon JE, et al.
    Phase III intergroup study of talc poudrage vs talc slurry sclerosis for malignant pleural effusion. Chest 2005; 127: 909–915. doi:10.1378/chest.127.3.909
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Brant A,
    2. Eaton T
    . Serious complications with talc slurry pleurodesis. Respirology 2001; 6: 181–185. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1843.2001.00327.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Hassan M,
    2. Merce RM,
    3. Maskell NA, et al.
    Survival in patients with malignant pleural effusion undergoing talc pleurodesis. Lung Cancer Amst Neth 2019; 137: 14–18. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.09.003
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    1. Feller-Kopman DJ,
    2. Reddy CB,
    3. DeCamp MM, et al.
    Management of malignant pleural effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: 839–849. doi:10.1164/rccm.201807-1415ST
    OpenUrlPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Bhatnagar R,
    2. Piotrowska HEG,
    3. Laskawiec-Szkonter M, et al.
    Effect of thoracoscopic talc poudrage vs talc slurry via chest tube on pleurodesis failure rate among patients with malignant pleural effusions: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 323: 60–69. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19997
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Clive AO,
    2. Jones HE,
    3. Bhatnagar R, et al.
    Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016: CD010529. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub2
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Xia H,
    2. Wang XJ,
    3. Zhou Q, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e87060. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087060
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Fysh ETH,
    2. Tremblay A,
    3. Feller-Kopman D, et al.
    Clinical outcomes of indwelling pleural catheter-related pleural infections: an international multicenter study. Chest 2013; 144: 1597–1602. doi:10.1378/chest.12-3103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tremblay A,
    2. Michaud G
    . Single-center experience with 250 tunnelled pleural catheter insertions for malignant pleural effusion. Chest 2006; 129: 362–368. doi:10.1378/chest.129.2.362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Putnam JB,
    2. Light RW,
    3. Rodriguez RM, et al.
    A randomized comparison of indwelling pleural catheter and doxycycline pleurodesis in the management of malignant pleural effusions. Cancer 1999; 86: 1992–1999. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991115)86:10<1992::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-M
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Thomas R,
    2. Fysh ETH,
    3. Smith NA, et al.
    Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs talc pleurodesis on hospitalization days in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the AMPLE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 318: 1903–1912. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.17426
    OpenUrlPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Warren WH,
    2. Kim AW,
    3. Liptay MJ
    . Identification of clinical factors predicting Pleurx catheter removal in patients treated for malignant pleural effusion. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 33: 89–94. doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.10.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Davies HE,
    2. Mishra EK,
    3. Kahan BC, et al.
    Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 307: 2383–2389. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5535
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Wahidi MM,
    2. Reddy C,
    3. Yarmus L, et al.
    Randomized trial of pleural fluid drainage frequency in patients with malignant pleural effusions. The ASAP trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1050–1057. doi:10.1164/rccm.201607-1404OC
    OpenUrl
  101. ↵
    1. Muruganandan S,
    2. Azzopardi M,
    3. Fitzgerald DB, et al.
    Aggressive versus symptom-guided drainage of malignant pleural effusion via indwelling pleural catheters (AMPLE-2): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med 2018; 6: 671–680. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30288-1
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Olfert JAP,
    2. Penz ED,
    3. Manns BJ, et al.
    Cost-effectiveness of indwelling pleural catheter compared with talc in malignant pleural effusion. Respirology 2017; 22: 764–770. doi:10.1111/resp.12962
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. ↵
    1. Reddy C,
    2. Ernst A,
    3. Lamb C, et al.
    Rapid pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusions: a pilot study. Chest 2011; 139: 1419–1423. doi:10.1378/chest.10-1868
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. BoDNujaoude Z,
    2. Bartter T,
    3. Abboud M, et al.
    Pleuroscopic pleurodesis combined with tunneled pleural catheter for management of malignant pleural effusion: a prospective observational study. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol 2015; 22: 237–243. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000186
    OpenUrl
  105. ↵
    1. Ahmed L,
    2. Ip H,
    3. Rao D, et al.
    Talc pleurodesis through indwelling pleural catheters for malignant pleural effusions: retrospective case series of a novel clinical pathway. Chest 2014; 146: e190–e194. doi:10.1378/chest.14-0394
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Bhatnagar R,
    2. Keenan EK,
    3. Morley AJ, et al.
    Outpatient talc administration by indwelling pleural catheter for malignant effusion. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1313–1322. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1716883
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Tremblay A,
    2. Kearney CT,
    3. Hanks C, et al.
    Local and systemic effects of a silver nitrate coated indwelling pleural catheter in an animal model of pleurodesis. Exp Lung Res 2017; 43: 388–394. doi:10.1080/01902148.2017.1384865
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Bhatnagar R,
    2. Zahan-Evans N,
    3. Kearney C, et al.
    A novel drug-eluting indwelling pleural catheter for the management of malignant effusions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 197: 136–138. doi:10.1164/rccm.201701-0097LE
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 30 Issue 159 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Review: 30 (159)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Advances in pleural infection and malignancy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Advances in pleural infection and malignancy
Eihab O. Bedawi, Julien Guinde, Najiib M. Rahman, Philippe Astoul
European Respiratory Review Mar 2021, 30 (159) 200002; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0002-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Advances in pleural infection and malignancy
Eihab O. Bedawi, Julien Guinde, Najiib M. Rahman, Philippe Astoul
European Respiratory Review Mar 2021, 30 (159) 200002; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0002-2020
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Advances in pleural infection
    • Advances in pleural malignancy
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Lung imaging
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Series

  • New trends in pulmonary hypertension
  • Diagnostic workup of childhood interstitial lung disease
  • The world of rare interstitial lung diseases
Show more Series

Interventional pulmonology

  • Training in interventional pulmonology
  • Bronchoscopic management of asthma, COPD and emphysema
Show more Interventional pulmonology

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERR

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising
  • Sponsorship

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 0905-9180
Online ISSN: 1600-0617

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society