Back

Consensus Guideline for the Management of Patients with Peritoneal Mesothelioma

PSM Writing Group, ; PSM Consortium Group, ; Turaga, K. K.

2024-04-13 oncology
10.1101/2024.04.10.24305432 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTreatment of peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM) poses significant challenges owing to its rare incidence, heterogeneity and limited clinical evidence. This manuscript describes results from a national consensus aimed at addressing management of PeM. MethodsAn update of the 2018 Chicago Consensus Guidelines was conducted using a Modified Delphi technique, encompassing two rounds of voting. The levels of agreement for various pathway blocks were assessed. ResultsOf 101 participants responding in the first round of Modified Delphi voting, 95 (94%) responded in the second round. Over 90% consensus was achieved in 5/6 and 6/6 pathway blocks in rounds I and II, respectively. Observation was recommended for benign neoplasms, with guidance for interventions in the presence of symptoms or concerning clinicopathologic features. For malignant pathology, management was outlined based on a multidisciplinary assessment of patient characteristics, disease histology, and predictive success of medical and surgical interventions. Additional emphasis was placed on multimodal therapy for Intermediate-Risk and appropriate High-Risk patients. A rapid review demonstrated limited availability of data and inconclusive findings regarding optimal systemic therapy timing. There was unanimous support for considering clinical trial enrollment. ConclusionsGiven limited evidence, the consensus-driven pathway provides essential guidance regarding the management of PeM. To further direct clinical care, additional dedicated research to generate higher-quality evidence is needed.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.