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

Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: an updated network meta-analysis

Alex Dipper, Hayley E. Jones, Rahul Bhatnagar, Nancy J. Preston, Nick Maskell, Amelia Clive
European Respiratory Review 2021 30: 210025; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0025-2021
Alex Dipper
1University of Bristol Academic Respiratory Unit, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hayley E. Jones
2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hayley E. Jones
Rahul Bhatnagar
1University of Bristol Academic Respiratory Unit, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy J. Preston
3International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nick Maskell
1University of Bristol Academic Respiratory Unit, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nick.maskell@bristol.ac.uk
Amelia Clive
4North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Talc slurry and poudrage are effective pleurodesis agents. IPCs have lower pleurodesis rates but comparable breathlessness control and reduced risk of repeat invasive procedures. It is essential that patients have access to a range of treatment strategies. https://bit.ly/38v30yw

To the Editor:

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a commonly encountered clinical problem, causing disabling breathlessness and affecting up to 15% of all patients with cancer [1]. Wider availability of indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) and recent development of different IPC drainage strategies has expanded the range of treatment approaches. Incorporating results from several high quality, large randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we have updated the 2016 Cochrane review [2] to determine the efficacy of different interventions for MPE. We performed a multiple interventions systematic review, pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) with the primary outcome of pleurodesis success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, breathlessness, quality of life, cost, mortality, survival, duration of inpatient stay and patient acceptability [3]. Here, we summarise key findings of the review to increase accessibility of the “take home” messages among the wider respiratory community.

Full details of the methods are reported in the Cochrane publication [3]. Through database searches, review of references of relevant publications and trials registry screening, we identified RCTs of intrapleural interventions for adults with symptomatic MPE. Two reviewers independently extracted data from eligible RCTs and completed the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Where two or more studies provided direct evidence on a treatment comparison, we performed pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model. For studies deemed to be jointly randomisable (whereby it is assumed that patients who fulfil inclusion criteria are equally likely to be randomised to any of the interventions), we performed a multiple interventions NMA of primary outcome data and secondary outcomes with sufficient data using a Bayesian random-effects model.

NMA of interventions in a connected network provided odds ratio estimates representing all possible pairwise comparisons, including those that had not been directly compared in RCTs. Estimates of the rank of each intervention in the network, with a 95% credible interval (Cr-I) were generated. We performed sensitivity analyses for our primary outcome by excluding trials with certain characteristics, such as those at high risk of bias, to assess whether heterogeneity was reduced. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and presented summary of findings tables for the most commonly studied interventions.

1415 records were identified, from which 156 full texts were assessed for eligibility. 18 studies met inclusion criteria, providing data from 2079 additional participants. These were combined with the 62 studies included in the 2016 review, giving a total of 80 studies of 5507 participants.

The primary NMA on pleurodesis failure included 55 studies (3758 participants) of 21 interventions, with five additional interventions included since the last iteration of this review. A number of interventions were not felt to be jointly randomisable (such as specific surgical techniques or tumour dependent intra-pleural chemotherapy) and hence not included in the network. Talc slurry was the most studied agent (907 participants randomised across 19 studies) and therefore used as the comparator in our summary of findings (table 1).

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

Summary of findings for pleurodesis failure#

Our primary NMA evaluating pleurodesis failure provided weak evidence that talc poudrage may have fewer pleurodesis failures than talc slurry via a standard chest drain (OR 0.50 (95% Cr-I 0.21–1.02)). However, pairwise meta-analysis of four statistically homogenous trials indicated comparable pleurodesis efficacy (OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.61–1.08)), further supported by a sensitivity NMA restricted to studies at low risk of bias (OR 0.78 (95% Cr-I 0.16–2.08)). IPCs without daily drainage were less likely to effect a definitive pleurodesis (enabling IPC removal) than talc slurry (OR for pleurodesis failure 7.60 (95% Cr-I 2.96–20.47)); however, pleurodesis efficacy may be increased by daily IPC drainage or administration of talc slurry via the IPC.

There was insufficient comparable data to perform a NMA on post-intervention breathlessness outcomes; however, additional data from newer RCTs did enable pairwise meta-analysis of post-intervention 100 mm visual analogue dyspnoea scores. Data from two studies demonstrated that IPCs (without daily drainage) provide equivalent breathlessness control when compared to talc slurry (mean difference −6.12 mm (95% CI −16.32–4.08)).

Meta-analysis of data from three studies demonstrated that participants who received an IPC were less likely to require a repeat invasive pleural procedure than those treated with talc slurry (OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.13–0.48)). The risk of repeat invasive intervention when treated with talc poudrage was similar to talc slurry (OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.59–1.56)).

We used NMA to compare rates of procedure-related fever and pain, which were the most widely reported adverse events. There was no statistical evidence for differences between commonly used interventions. Full results are available in the Cochrane publication [3].

Our updated review is the largest systematic review and NMA to date of evidence for the management of MPE, which attempts to combine all available randomised data on the wide variety of interventions. We included six additional studies evaluating IPCs which, when combined with the two studies included in the previous review, establish that IPCs provide an alternative first-line approach to MPE management. Although associated with lower definitive pleurodesis rates, comparable breathlessness control can be achieved, with a lower risk of requiring a repeat invasive pleural procedure compared to talc slurry. This may be advantageous to individuals who wish to avoid an inpatient stay and to minimise future invasive procedures. None of the included studies have quantified the overall healthcare utilisation of IPCs, including community drainages, which is a consideration for future research.

We now highlight that since comparable breathlessness control can be achieved by commonly utilised interventions, patient choice is likely to be a key determinant when selecting an intervention. This emphasises the importance of informed discussion to facilitate joint decision making.

The diversity of outcome measurement scales used by studies which assessed patient-related quality of life and symptom control precluded NMA of these outcomes. Although secondary outcomes of our review, these are important considerations when selecting a management strategy. The development of MPE specific, validated patient-reported outcome measurement tools would be hugely beneficial when combining data from future RCTs to increase the applicability of evidence to everyday practice.

The risk of bias in the included RCTs was substantial; only three out of 80 were judged as low risk across all seven domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We added summary of findings tables to this updated article and chose to include results from our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias (which we defined as a maximum of one high-risk domain), to reflect the estimates in which we had the greatest level of certainty. This produced a reduced heterogeneity estimate, indicating that bias may have contributed to the heterogeneity observed in the primary NMA. Methodological differences between studies, including definition of pleurodesis failure and time-point at which this was assessed, in addition to variation in drug doses and effects of differing tumour subtypes, may also have contributed to the heterogeneity observed, signifying the complexity of the MPE condition and its treatments.

Based on the available evidence, talc slurry and talc poudrage are effective methods for achieving a pleurodesis. Whilst IPCs are less likely to effect a pleurodesis, they confer a lower risk of requiring repeat invasive intervention. Breathlessness control is comparable for these commonly utilised interventions. It is therefore essential that a range of treatment strategies are accessible to patients depending on their clinical situation and that personal preferences are considered.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Dipper reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study.

  • Conflict of interest: H.E. Jones reports grants from NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit, University of Bristol, during the conduct of the study.

  • Conflict of interest: R. Bhatnagar reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study; and was the trial coordinator for the TAPPS and IPC-Plus studies but did not perform the data extractions, or any assessments of risk of bias or GRADE, for these studies for the purposes of this article.

  • Conflict of interest: N.J. Preston has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: N. Maskell reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study; and grants from Becton Dickenson, outside the submitted work. He was a member of the trial steering committee for TIME-1 and TIME-3 trials and co-author for one of the included studies in this article. He did not perform the data extractions, or any assessments of risk of bias or GRADE, for these studies for the purposes of this article.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Clive reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study. She was involved in coordinating and recruiting to the TIME-3 trial and the TAPPS trial and assisted with the data analysis. She did not perform the data extraction, or any assessments of risk of bias or GRADE, for these studies for the purpose of this article.

  • Support statement: In 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK commissioned the priority updating of this review to inform the guidance “Lung cancer: diagnosis and management” (NG122) (NIHR Project Reference: NIHR 129794). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received February 1, 2021.
  • Accepted March 8, 2021.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bibby AC,
    2. Dorn P,
    3. Psallidas I, et al.
    ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 55: 116–132. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezy258
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    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; 5: CD010529. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub2
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Dipper A,
    2. Jones HE,
    3. Bhatnagar R, et al.
    Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 4: CD010529. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub3
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 30 Issue 160 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Review: 30 (160)
  • 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.
Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: an updated network meta-analysis
(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
Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: an updated network meta-analysis
Alex Dipper, Hayley E. Jones, Rahul Bhatnagar, Nancy J. Preston, Nick Maskell, Amelia Clive
European Respiratory Review Jun 2021, 30 (160) 210025; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0025-2021

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: an updated network meta-analysis
Alex Dipper, Hayley E. Jones, Rahul Bhatnagar, Nancy J. Preston, Nick Maskell, Amelia Clive
European Respiratory Review Jun 2021, 30 (160) 210025; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0025-2021
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

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

More in this TOC Section

  • Reply to: “Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?”
  • Nicotine or tobacco abstinence?
  • Biochemical shunt: where and how?
Show more Correspondence

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