Skip to main content
Download PDF

Predicting survival for patients with mesothelioma: development of the PLACE prognostic model

BMC Cancer volume 23, Article number: 698 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

The overall survival of patients with mesothelioma is poor and heterogeneous. At present, the prediction model for Chinese patients needs to be improved. We sought to investigate predictors of survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma and develop prognostic prediction models.

Methods

This Two-center retrospective cohort study recruited patients with pathologically diagnosed mesothelioma at Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital and Beijing Tong-Ren Hospital. We developed a new prognostic prediction model based on COX multivariable analysis using data from patients who were recruited from June 1, 2010 to July 1, 2021 in Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital (n = 95, development cohort) and validated this model using data from patients recruited from July 18, 2014 to May 9, 2022 in Beijing Tong-Ren Hospital (n = 23, validation cohort). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to estimate model accuracy.

Results

The parameters in this new model included PLT > 289.5(10^9/L) (1 point), Lymphocyte > 1.785(10^9/L) (-1point), Age > 73 years old (1 point), Calcium > 2.145(mmol/L) (-1point), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) > 2 (2 points). When the sum of scores < 0, it is recognized as a low-risk group; when the score is 0 ~ 3, it is recognized as a high-risk group. The survival rate of patients in the high-risk group was significantly lower than that in the low-risk group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.878; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.226–6.755; P < 0.001). The validation group had similar results (HR,3.574; 95%CI,1.064–12.001; P = 0.039). Furthermore, the areas under the curve 6 months after diagnosis in the two cohorts were 0.900 (95% CI: 0.839–0.962) and 0.761 (95% CI: 0.568–0.954) for development and validation cohorts, respectively.

Conclusion

We developed a simple, clinically relevant prognostic prediction model for PLACE by evaluating five variables routinely tested at the time of diagnosis. The predictive model can differentiate patients of Chinese ethnicity into different risk groups and further guide prognosis.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Substantial changes in the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Pleura and Pericardium since the 2015 WHO Classification. The most important two points about mesothelioma include that (1) localized and diffuse mesothelioma no longer include the term “malignant” as a prefix;(2) the three main histologic subtypes (i.e., epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid) remain the same but architectural patterns and cytologic and stromal features are more formally incorporated into the 2021 classification on the basis of their prognostic significance [1].

Previous studies have shown that mesothelioma is a primary pleural tumour associated with asbestos exposure with highly aggressive features [1,2,3]. The median survival time of untreated patients fluctuated from 8 to 14 months [4]. However, there is heterogeneity in patient survival among different populations [5, 6]. Mesothelioma is incurable, and it is clinically considered that the surgical effect is not good enough [7, 8]. Currently accepted chemotherapy regimens may improve survival by several months [9, 10]. Immunotherapy is also gradually becoming a prospect for mesothelioma treatment [11,12,13]. However, the treatment may have side effects such as vomiting and bone marrow transplantation, and at the same time, it will also increase the economic burden, and ultimately lead to a decrease in the quality of life of patients. It is difficult to make rational medical decisions when the exact survival period of some patients cannot be estimated [14]. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the independent predictive factors related to the prognosis of patients with mesothelioma, and further establish a prognosis prediction model to predict the possible survival time of patients. However, this is still challenging.

Some prognostic inflammation indices like the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) have been determined as independent prognostic factors [15,16,17,18]. At the same time, many prognostic prediction models that are inflammation-based have also been tested to determine the prognosis and guide multimodality treatment regimens [19,20,21,22,23,24].

For example, Fraser J. H. Brims establishes a predictive score based on whether the patient loses weight, histological type, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and peripheral blood hemoglobin and albumin indicators to predict the 18-month prognosis of unselected mesothelioma patients [25]. Beow Y. Yeap developed a prognostic prediction model based on mesothelioma prognostic tests, molecular subtypes, tumor volume and NLR in order to assess the expected outcome of newly diagnosed patients [26]. However, those predictors or models have not been widely used and verified in clinic yet for various reasons.

Our research group has previously evaluated the predictive performance of LENT [27] and BRIMS scores [25] based on the clinicopathological information of Chinese patients, and concluded that although the above models can stratify the prognostic risk of mesothelioma patients, the predictive performance still needs to be improved [28].

It is recognized that China is a country that produces a lot of asbestos. The incidence rate of malignant mesothelioma may continue to increase in the next decade [29]. The standardized incidence rate in 2016 was 0.53/1 million [30]. However, there is currently no prognostic prediction model for Chinese mesothelioma patients. Secondly, the ability of the published foreign prediction models to stratify the prognosis of Chinese mesothelioma patients still needs to be improved. Therefore, it is very urgent and important to comprehensively consider clinical, pathological and laboratory indicators to develop a prognosis prediction model to guide clinical decision-making. Therefore, we collected the information of patients from two centers in China. On the one hand, we observed the characteristics of mesothelioma patients in China, and on the other, we established and validated a prognostic model for the Chinese mesothelioma population.

Methods

Study population

In this retrospective study, patients with mesothelioma in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University from June 1, 2010 to July 1, 2021 were screened as a development cohort. Patients recruited from July 18, 2014 to May 9, 2022 in Beijing Tong-Ren Hospital were enrolled in the validation cohort. For both the development and validation cohorts, patients who met the following inclusion criteria were enrolled in the retrospective observational study. The inclusion criteria were older than 18 years old and diagnosed with mesothelioma by pathological examination. Exclusion criteria included a history of other malignancies or lack of laboratory information. Patients who ultimately entered the study were determined according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and all enrolled patients signed written informed consent. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University. This study population in the development cohort had previously been reported [28].

Data collection

Demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, laboratory indicators at the time of diagnosis but not treatment and follow-up survival information of all enrolled patients were comprehensively collected from the electronic medical record system. Demographic indicators included gender and age, clinical characteristics included ECOG PS score, smoking history, asbestos exposure history, diagnosis method, histological subtype, and treatment method. Laboratory indicators mainly included three aspects. The first part included various blood cell indicators in complete blood cytology. The second part included liver function, kidney function, blood lipid, protein and other indicators in biochemistry. The third part included prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and other indicators in coagulation. For the development and validation cohorts, we collected all examination information in the electronic medical record system from diagnosis to December 31, 2021 and August 1, 2022 respectively, and then all patients were followed up by telephone to collect the examination and prognosis information of patients in other hospitals. Finally, the survival status of the patients was determined.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables that were not normally distributed were represented by the median and interquartile range (IQR). Normally distributed continuous variables were shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD). We calculated the optimal cut-off value for continuous variables based on the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, and transformed the continuous variable into a categorical variable according to the optimal cut-off value. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Kaplan Meier was used to draw survival curves and log-rank test for differences between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by Cox logistic regressions. Univariate survival analysis was applied to detect potential independent factors associated with prognosis, and variables with P-values < 0.05 were further included to a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. We evaluate the points of each variable based on the magnitude of the regression coefficient. The sub term of each factor was the regression coefficient of the model divided by the minimum coefficient, and rounded to the nearest integer. Given the aim of the model was to provide prognostic information at diagnosis when this treatment data was not available. ROC curves were also used to evaluate the performance of predictive models. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 25.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). This study was reviewed by a professional epidemiologist.

Results

Patient characteristics

In the development cohort, between June 1, 2010 and July 1, 2021, a total of 101 patients were pathologically diagnosed as mesothelioma in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. Six patients were excluded for the following reasons. One patient’s laboratory results were missing and two patients’ specific subtypes could not been identified because the biopsy tissues were too small. Three patients were diagnosed as desmoplastic mesothelioma. Eventually 95 patients were included in the development cohort. Of the 95 patients, 49(51.6%) were male and 46(48.4%) were female. The median age was 64.2 years. ECOG PS was performed on all patients, eight patients (8.4%) had an ECOG PS of 0, 68 (71.6%) patients had an ECOG PS score of 1, 12 (12.6%) patients had an ECOG PS score of 2, and 7 (7.4%) patients had an ECOG PS score of 3. Thirty-nine patients (41.1%) had a history of smoking, and 26 patients (27.4%) had a clear history of asbestos exposure. 3(2.1%), 15(15.8%), 68(71.6%), and 10(10.5%) patients were diagnosed by cell blocks from malignant pleural effusion, ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy, medical thoracoscopy, and Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS), respectively. Eighty-one patients (85.2%) were epithelioid subtypes. Seven patients (7.4%) were sarcomatoid subtypes. Seven patients (7.4%) were biphasic subtypes. Eighty-eight patients (92.6%) received chemotherapy ± anti-angiogenesis therapy (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population in the development and validation cohorts
Full size table

Twenty-three patients were included in the validation cohort. Of the 23 patients, 14(60.9%) were male and 9(39.1%) were female. The median age was 61.7 years. ECOG PS was performed on all patients, fourteen patients (60.9%) had an ECOG PS of 0, 9 (39.1%) patients had an ECOG PS score of 1. Seven patients (30.4%) had a history of smoking. Only one patient (4.3%) had a clear history of asbestos exposure. Twenty-one patients were diagnosed by medical thoracoscopy, and the other two patients were diagnosed by ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy and VATS respectively. Seventeen patients (73.9%) were epithelioid subtypes. 5 patients (21.7%) were sarcomatoid subtypes.1 patient (4.3%) was biphasic subtype. Thirteen patients (56.5%) received chemotherapy ± anti-angiogenesis therapy (Table 1).

Available hematological indices of complete blood cytology, biochemistry, coagulation in these two cohorts were listed in Table 1. As indicated by the chi-square test and independent-sample T test, most baseline variables and laboratory examinations in the development cohort were similar to those in the validation cohort (Table 1).

Development of the new PLACE prognostic score model

In the development cohort, during the 57 (28,100) months of follow-up, all patients’ median survival time was 24 (12, 52) months. 67 patients died during follow-up and 28 patients were still alive. Univariate analysis showed that age, ECOG PS, histology, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), serum calcium, lymphocyte, monocyte, hemoglobin, platelet, prealbumin, high density lipoprotein (HDL), PT, fibrinogen might have a significant correlation with the prognosis of mesothelioma (Table 2). Indicators with significant differences in univariate were included into the multivariate analysis. Finally, age (HR: 2.017; 95%CI: 1.114–3.652; P = 0.021), ECOG-PS (HR: 3.392; 95%CI: 1.288–8.937; P = 0.013), serum calcium (HR: 0.430; 95%CI: 0.253–0.732; P = 0.002), lymphocyte (HR: 0.446; 95%CI: 0.209–0.950; P = 0.036), PLT (HR: 1.935; 95%CI: 1.002–3.738; P = 0.049) were determined as an independent risk factor for prognosis in patients with mesothelioma (Table 3).

Table 2 Univariable Cox regression analyses for the prognosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma patients in the development cohort
Full size table
Table 3 Multivariate Cox regression analyses for the prognosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma patients in the development cohort
Full size table

According to age, ECOG PS, serum calcium, lymphocyte, PLT indicators, a PLACE model was established to predict the prognosis of mesothelioma patients. Patients received − 1 point when the following conditions were met: Calcium > 2.145(mmol/L), Lymphocyte > 1.785(10^9/L). The patient gets 1 point when the following conditions were met: Age > 73(years), PLT > 289.5(10^9/L). The patient gets 2 points when the following conditions were met: ECOG PS > 2 (Table 4).

Table 4 New score for the prognosis among malignant pleural mesothelioma patients in the development cohort
Full size table

In adding the scores for each item, patients were considered as the low risk when the sum of each score was between − 2 and − 1 points. When the sum is between 0 and 3, the patient was determined to be the high-risk group. Median survival in the low-risk group of 42 patients was 52(39, 86) months. The median survival time of the high-risk group consisting of 53 patients was 17 (8, 24) months (Table 5). The survival rate of the high-risk group was significantly lower than that of the low-risk group (HR: 3.878; 95% CI: 2.226–6.755; P < 0.001) (Table 5) (Fig. 1A). At 6 months after diagnosis, the area under curve (AUC) of the prognostic prediction model was 0.900 (95% CI 0.839–0.962) (Fig. 1B). Hosmer-Lemeshow showed χ2 = 5.601, P = 0.587.

Table 5 Median survival of different risk group patients in the development cohort
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Kaplan-Meier curves (A) and receiver operating characteristic curves at 6 months (B) stratified by the new score group in the development cohort

Full size image

Evaluation of the LENT and BRIMS score

We classified the patients in the development cohort according to the LENT and BRIMS scoring standards and evaluated the prognostic stratification ability of these two scores in this cohort. The results showed that the LENT score could stratify the prognosis (P = 0.017) (Fig. 2A), but the BRIMS score could not effectively stratify the prognosis (P = 0.054) (Fig. 2B). However, both of these scores’ KM curves intersect in the early stage of diagnosis.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by the LENT score (A) and BRIMS score (B) in the development cohort

Full size image

Validation of the new PLACE prognostic score model

The new prognostic model was tested in a validation cohort of 23 patients, during the 10 (6,14) months of follow-up, all patients’ median survival time was 10 (8,13) months. 12 patients died during follow-up and 11 patients were still alive. Thirteen patients were determined to be the low-risk group. Median survival in the low-risk group was 11(8, -) months. There were ten patients in the high-risk group. The median survival time of the high-risk group was 9 (4, 10) months. The survival rate of the high-risk group was significantly lower than that of the low-risk group (HR: 3.574; 95% CI: 1.064–12.001; P = 0.039) (Table 6) (Fig. 3A). At 6 months after diagnosis, the AUC of the prognostic prediction model was 0.761 (95% CI 0.568–0.954) (Fig. 3B). Hosmer-Lemeshow showed χ2 = 4.286, P = 0.509.

Table 6 Median survival of different risk group patients in the validation cohort
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan-Meier curves (A) and receiver operating characteristic curves at 6 months (B) stratified by the new score group in the validation cohort

Full size image

Discussion

This study mainly collected unselected Chinese patients diagnosed with mesothelioma over 10 years. By evaluating the laboratory parameters and clinical data routinely collected during diagnosis, a prognostic prediction model for evaluating age, ECOG PS, calcium, lymphocytes and platelets was established and validated. According to this model, mesothelioma patients were divided into two distinct prognostic risk groups. Prognosis of patients differs significantly between high and low risk groups.

Characteristics of mesothelioma patients in China

In the development and validation cohort of this study, women accounted for 48.4% and 39.1% respectively which differed from most studies where the frequency was around 10-25% [31,32,33] in most studies. This study is a retrospective cohort study of two centres in China, and the sample size of patients involved is relatively small, so it is possible to be different from other studies in gender composition.

It is well known that there is a significant correlation between the occurrence of MPM and asbestos exposure [2, 3]. Most occupations exposed to asbestos require more intensive manual labour, such as the construction or shipbuilding industry. Therefore, men have more opportunities to obtain such jobs and are more likely to be exposed to asbestos. Only 22.9% of the patients in this study had a clear history of asbestos exposure. This also potentially suggests the reason for the low proportion of men in this study. However, in some studies, the proportion of women is as high as 40 − 50% [34, 35]. This suggests that the gender proportion of MPM varies in different regions. In the future, it is still necessary to further analyse and summarize the big data covering all regions of the world.

Interestingly, previous studies have shown that the prognosis of women with mesothelioma is generally better than that of men [36]. There are two possible reasons: on the one hand, the high estrogen receptor-beta expression on mesothelioma tumours has been shown to have better survival [37]. The expression of estrogen and estrogen receptor beta in female patients was significantly higher than that in male patients. On the other hand, women are generally more sensitive, so they will visit doctors earlier than men for diagnosis and treatment [38]. This also explained why the overall survival of patients in this study was better.

Because mesothelioma is a relatively rare tumour with no specific symptoms, and is usually initially diagnosed as an advanced stage, and most of the patients are elderly, the above factors foreshadow a poor prognosis. However, the average age of patients at the time of diagnosis in this study is younger than that in other studies [39, 40]. Analysing the reasons, we think that with the continuous improvement of the public’s awareness of health examination, routine physical examination is widely used in China. Therefore, more and more young people are diagnosed at the early stage of the disease, which also provides opportunities for follow-up treatment.

We also consulted some relevant literature on race and mesothelioma. The results showed that race may be significantly related to the incidence rate and survival rate of MPM. Specifically, the incidence rate of mesothelioma in white patients is higher than that in black patients and patients of other races [41]. Whites have been shown to be independently associated with poor overall survival [42]. This may be because black patients are more likely to be diagnosed in the later stage of the disease and are less likely to receive surgical treatment [43] due to limited economic conditions, higher education, etc.

In addition, the median survival time of patients in this study was significantly longer than that in other studies. We analyze the following reasons: Firstly, as we said above, female patients account for a large proportion in this study, and the prognosis of female patients is good. Secondly, previous studies have shown that the prognosis of patients with epithelioid mesothelioma was better than that of sarcomatoid mesothelioma [44]. Most of the patients in this study had epithelioid mesothelioma. Thirdly, most patients have young age, good ECOG PS and received chemotherapy and/or anti angiogenic therapy. The fourth point is that due to the rarity of mesothelioma patients, the time span of this study was very long, and some patients failed to have a general examination. The clinical tumor stage of 44 patients can be evaluated systemically. The results showed that all 44 patients were in stage I - III.

Necessity of establishing prognostic prediction models

Mesothelioma is a rare but aggressive tumour of incompletely understood pathogenesis. In addition to asbestos exposure, it is very heterogeneous on a molecular level. Worldwide the incidence and mortality rates vary greatly [45, 46]. The management of mesothelioma remains complex. Despite the current treatment paradigm of multimodality therapy including chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy, there was no breakthrough in treatment, it still has a poor prognosis.

In the past few decades, clinicians have conducted in-depth research on many indicators from different perspectives such as basic epidemiological variables, laboratory examination results, imaging features and pathological characteristics and established many different predictive models [39, 47, 48]. However, there is currently no specific prognosis prediction model for mesothelioma patients in China. Secondly, the ability of published Western predictive models to stratify the prognosis of Chinese patients with mesothelioma is very limited. Therefore, the necessity and importance of the prognostic prediction model developed in this study specifically for Chinese patients with mesothelioma is very significant.

The characteristic of this model was that it was a prognosis prediction model specifically targeting the comprehensive clinical characteristics and laboratory indicators of Chinese mesothelioma patients. The advantage was that the clinical and laboratory indicators in the model are daily monitoring content, and there was no need to add additional physical and economic burden to the patient. Moreover, the discrimination and calibration abilities of this model were relatively good. The disadvantage was that the included pathological and imaging features were not comprehensive. The limitation was that the sample size of the model establishment and validation cohort was small, and there were similarity in the population, which did not target all patients with mesothelioma. The potential problem in the use process lies in the low universality, and the ability to predict the prognosis of patients with another central mesothelioma remains to be further explored.

Comparison with the LENT and BRIMS score

As we have described before [28], Although LENT could effectively stratify the patients with mesothelioma in China, BRIMS was difficult to effectively stratify the prognosis. However, the KM curves of both of these two scores crossed at the early stage of diagnosis. After 18 months of follow-up, the two risk groups began to separate. The reason might be related to the composition of special patient population. Therefore, the ability of these two foreign scores to evaluate the prognosis of mesothelioma in China was relatively limited, and its validation still needed to be further confirmed by large sample studies.

Age and prognosis

Our multivariate analysis showed that the prognosis of elderly patients with mesothelioma was worse than that of young patients. This was consistent with the results of many previous studies [35, 47], which was easy to understand. Elderly patients generally had more basic diseases, poor pulmonary function, and limited access to treatment. However, the age factor was still a controversial topic. Because some researchers had reached the opposite conclusion [49, 50] who believed that the tumor invasiveness of elderly patients might also be low.

ECOG PS and prognosis

Previous studies had shown that ECOG PS was a subjective assessment, as it is mainly based on activities of daily living, depending on the information provided by patients and caregivers [51]. It was usually the cornerstone of the prognosis of advanced cancer, and poor ECOG PS was an independent risk factor for the prognosis of solid tumours [52]. In this study, ECOG PS was significantly related to prognosis, so we included ECOG PS in the new prediction model. Most patients had good ECOG PS scores. Only some patients could not live normally due to a large amount of pleural effusion or basic diseases. The prognosis of such patients was usually poor.

Calcium and prognosis

This study was the first clinical study to study the effect of calcium in peripheral blood on the prognosis of mesothelioma patients. This study suggested that low serum calcium levels might be significantly associated with poor prognosis in mesothelioma patients. Previous studies had shown that low serum calcium levels might lead to poor prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer [53], gastric cancer [54] and nasopharyngeal carcinoma [55]. However, some studies have reached the opposite conclusion [56, 57].It was well known that the low electrolyte concentration in blood tests was usually considered as an indicator of the overall poor condition of cancer patients. The low oral intake of tumour patients, large consumption of tumour inconvenient movement of patients might lead to a decrease in serum calcium levels. In addition, the causes might also include the occurrence of bone metastasis, use of chemotherapy drugs [58], tumour lysis syndrome [59]. In addition, tumour induced inflammation might change endothelial/vascular renal function, and might also lead to decreased calcium reabsorption [54]. It was reported that calcium homeostasis was involved in the regulation of cancer related biological processes including cell proliferation, tumorigenesis, migration and invasion, angiogenesis [60, 61]. Ultimately, the incidence of death increased. The above results indicated that calcium played an important role in the occurrence and development of cancer [60, 61]. However, only a few basic studies have shown that Cav3.2 [62] and KCa1.1 [63] are specifically expressed in mesothelioma tissue samples. Therefore, the specific correlation and mechanism between calcium and prognosis of mesothelioma patients still need to be further explored.

Platelet and prognosis

The high level of platelet count was shown to be a bad influence factor on survival in this study, which has also been proved in our study corroborating with other studies [64,65,66,67,68]. The reason may be that tumor cells release a series of cytokines, stimulate megakaryocytes and lead to an increase in platelet levels [69]. In turn, platelets can protect cancer cells from the influence of high shear force, and can also form adhesion bridges between tumor cells and capillaries, thus promoting the growth, invasion and metastasis of tumors [70, 71]. Finally, it leads to poor prognosis of patients.

Lymphocyte and prognosis

At present, the pathogenesis of mesothelioma has not been fully elucidated, since asbestos exposure is closely related to the occurrence of mesothelioma [72], it is speculated that the inflammatory response may promote tumorigenesis. Cellular and soluble components of the tumor microenvironment play critical roles in cancer development and prognosis [73]. Lymphocytes are an important part of the host immune system. They can activate potent anti-tumor cellular immune responses and inhibit micro-metastases. Elevated lymphocyte counts were significantly associated with clinical benefits from chemotherapy and immunotherapy in patients with mesothelioma [74,75,76].

This study has some limitations. First, selection bias is unavoidable due to the nature of retrospective studies with small sample sizes. The diagnosis time span of patients is large, and the development of treatment and technology may affect the outcome of the disease to a certain extent. Secondly, our study lacks relevant genetic molecular variables and imaging variables. Thirdly, the number of people in the validation cohort was small and the follow-up time was short, which might affect the effectiveness of validation. Fourthly, due to the large time span of patients included, most patients could not be given standard general examination in the early years, so most patients could not be determined accurate clinical stages. Fifth, our cohort was too restrictive in localized at only two hospital centres. Furthermore, the time frame for the validation cohort was not optimally overlapped with that of the development cohort, which leaves room for bias. In the future, we will actively seek multi-centre cooperation around the world, and simultaneously carry out prospective research in order to solve the problem mentioned above.

Conclusion

This study has developed and verified a model specifically targeting pleural mesothelioma that is suitable for the regional characteristics of China—PLACE by evaluating the results of evaluating factors of age, ECOG PS, calcium, lymphocyte and PLT. Although this was established in a small cohort at a single facility, the above indicators are common clinical laboratory tests which are easy to obtain, highly repeatable and have uniform testing standards in different medical institutions. The new model can classify patients into two risk subgroups. There were significant differences in the prognosis of patients in different risk groups. According to this model, clinicians could try to identify high-risk patients and choose more appropriate treatment options. However, the proposed model can only be applied to patients of Chinese ethnicity now and not currently generalizable to the overall global population. In addition, although patients from two hospitals were included in this study, the overall sample size was still small. Moreover, there are deviations between the development and validation cohorts. Therefore, the stratification ability of the new model should be further validated in the future prospective multi-centre and large sample studies worldwide.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

HR:

Hazard radio

CI:

Confidence interval

NLR:

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

PLR:

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

LMR:

Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio

ECOG PS:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status

PT:

Prothrombin time

APTT:

Activated partial thromboplastin time

IQR:

Interquartile range

SD:

Standard deviation

ROC:

Receiver Operating Characteristic

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

AST:

Aspartate Transaminase

HDL:

High density lipoprotein

WBC:

White blood cell

ALT:

Alanine transaminase

LDL:

Low density lipoprotein

AUC:

Area under curve

TT:

Thrombin time

References

  1. Sauter JL, Dacic S, Galateau-Salle F, Attanoos RL, Butnor KJ, Churg A, Husain AN, Kadota K, Khoor A, Nicholson AG, et al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the Pleura: advances since the 2015 classification. J Thorac Oncol. 2022;17(5):608–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tsao A, Wistuba I, Roth J, Kindler H. Malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin oncology: official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2081–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel A, Bogner P, Klippenstein D, Ramnath N. Malignant pleural mesothelioma after household exposure to asbestos. J Clin oncology: official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;26(33):5480–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Menis J, Pasello G, Remon J. Immunotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a review of literature data. Translational lung cancer research. 2021;10(6):2988–3000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yap T, Aerts J, Popat S, Fennell D. Novel insights into mesothelioma biology and implications for therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(8):475–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blum Y, Meiller C, Quetel L, Elarouci N, Ayadi M, Tashtanbaeva D, Armenoult L, Montagne F, Tranchant R, Renier A, et al. Dissecting heterogeneity in malignant pleural mesothelioma through histo-molecular gradients for clinical applications. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):1333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee Y. Surgical resection of mesothelioma: an evidence-free practice. Lancet (London England). 2014;384(9948):1080–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Treasure T, Lang-Lazdunski L, Waller D, Bliss J, Tan C, Entwisle J, Snee M, O’Brien M, Thomas G, Senan S, et al. Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the mesothelioma and radical surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(8):763–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Vogelzang N, Rusthoven J, Symanowski J, Denham C, Kaukel E, Ruffie P, Gatzemeier U, Boyer M, Emri S, Manegold C, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin oncology: official J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;21(14):2636–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zalcman G, Mazieres J, Margery J, Greillier L, Audigier-Valette C, Moro-Sibilot D, Molinier O, Corre R, Monnet I, Gounant V, et al. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London England). 2016;387(10026):1405–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gounant V, Brosseau S, Zalcman G. Immunotherapy, the promise for present and future of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) treatment. Therapeutic Adv Med Oncol. 2021;13:17588359211061956.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dozier J, Zheng H, Adusumilli P. Immunotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: current status and future directions. Translational lung cancer research. 2017;6(3):315–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Baas P, Scherpereel A, Nowak A, Fujimoto N, Peters S, Tsao A, Mansfield A, Popat S, Jahan T, Antonia S, et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London England). 2021;397(10272):375–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Clive A, Bhatnagar R, Psallidas I, Maskell N. Individualised management of malignant pleural effusion. The Lancet Respiratory medicine. 2015;3(7):505–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tanrikulu A, Abakay A, Komek H, Abakay O. Prognostic value of the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio and other inflammatory markers in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Environ Health Prev Med. 2016;21(5):304–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tural Onur S, Sokucu S, Dalar L, Iliaz S, Kara K, Buyukkale S, Altin S. Are neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and platelet/lymphocyte ratio reliable parameters as prognostic indicators in malignant mesothelioma? Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016;12:651–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinato D, Mauri F, Ramakrishnan R, Wahab L, Lloyd T, Sharma R. Inflammation-based prognostic indices in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2012;7(3):587–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vigneri P, Martorana F, Manzella L, Stella S. Biomarkers and prognostic factors for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Future Oncol (London England). 2015;11:29–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pavic M, Bogowicz M, Kraft J, Vuong D, Mayinger M, Kroeze S, Friess M, Frauenfelder T, Andratschke N, Huellner M, et al. FDG PET versus CT radiomics to predict outcome in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10(1):81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Leuzzi G, Rea F, Spaggiari L, Marulli G, Sperduti I, Alessandrini G, Casiraghi M, Bovolato P, Pariscenti G, Alloisio M, et al. Prognostic score of long-term survival after surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a Multicenter Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(3):890–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ma M, Yu N, Wu B. High systemic immune-inflammation index represents an unfavorable prognosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Manage Res. 2019;11:3973–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ghanim B, Hoda M, Winter M, Klikovits T, Alimohammadi A, Hegedus B, Dome B, Grusch M, Arns M, Schenk P, et al. Pretreatment serum C-reactive protein levels predict benefit from multimodality treatment including radical surgery in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a retrospective multicenter analysis. Ann Surg. 2012;256(2):357–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Linton A, Pavlakis N, O’Connell R, Soeberg M, Kao S, Clarke S, Vardy J, van Zandwijk N. Factors associated with survival in a large series of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma in New South Wales. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(9):1860–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Opitz I, Friess M, Kestenholz P, Schneiter D, Frauenfelder T, Nguyen-Kim T, Seifert B, Hoda M, Klepetko W, Stahel R, et al. A new Prognostic score supporting treatment allocation for Multimodality Therapy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: a review of 12 years’ experience. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2015;10(11):1634–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brims F, Meniawy T, Duffus I, de Fonseka D, Segal A, Creaney J, Maskell N, Lake R, de Klerk N, Nowak A. A Novel Clinical Prediction Model for Prognosis in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma using decision Tree Analysis. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2016;11(4):573–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yeap B, De Rienzo A, Gill R, Oster M, Dao M, Dao N, Levy R, Vermilya K, Gustafson C, Ovsak G, et al. Mesothelioma Risk score: a New Prognostic pretreatment, clinical-molecular Algorithm for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2021;16(11):1925–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Clive A, Kahan B, Hooper C, Bhatnagar R, Morley A, Zahan-Evans N, Bintcliffe O, Boshuizen R, Fysh E, Tobin C, et al. Predicting survival in malignant pleural effusion: development and validation of the LENT prognostic score. Thorax. 2014;69(12):1098–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang S, Zhang Y, Feng W, Shi Z, Shi H, Zhang Y. Prediction modeling using routine clinical parameters to stratify survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients complicated with malignant pleural effusion. Thorac Cancer. 2021;12(24):3304–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhai Y, Hui Z, Chen W, Ying J, Li J, Gao S. The epidemic of malignant mesothelioma in China: a prediction of incidence during 2016–2030. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2022;11(12):2403–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. [Chinese guideline for clinical diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. (2021 Edition)]. Zhonghua zhong liu za zhi [Chinese journal of oncology] 2021, 43(4):383–394.

  31. Yeap BY, De Rienzo A, Gill RR, Oster ME, Dao MN, Dao NT, Levy RD, Vermilya K, Gustafson CE, Ovsak G, et al. Mesothelioma Risk score: a New Prognostic pretreatment, clinical-molecular Algorithm for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol. 2021;16(11):1925–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Messina G, Bove M, Natale G, Di Filippo V, Opromolla G, Rainone A, Leonardi B, Martone M, Fiorelli A, Vicidomini G et al. Diagnosis of malignant pleural disease: Ultrasound as “a detective probe”. Thorac Cancer 2022.

  33. Ossowski S, Hung YY, Banks K, Hsu D, Herrinton L, Ashiku S, Patel A, Suga JM, Velotta JB. Improving outcomes in malignant pleural mesothelioma in an integrated health care system. J Thorac Dis. 2022;14(9):3352–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang Y, Tang J, Zhou X, Chen W, Zhang S, Li Y, Zhou D, He L, Tang Q. Diagnostic ability and its influenced factors of ultrasound-guided percutaneous pleural needle biopsy diagnosis for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Front Surg. 2022;9:1022505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cimen F, Agackiran Y, Duzgun S, Aloglu M, Senturk A, Atikcan S. Factors affecting the life expectancy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: our 10 years of studies and experience. Med (Baltim). 2022;101(39):e30711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chouaid C, Assie JB, Andujar P, Blein C, Tournier C, Vainchtock A, Scherpereel A, Monnet I, Pairon JC. Determinants of malignant pleural mesothelioma survival and burden of disease in France: a national cohort analysis. Cancer Med. 2018;7(4):1102–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Pinton G, Brunelli E, Murer B, Puntoni R, Puntoni M, Fennell DA, Gaudino G, Mutti L, Moro L. Estrogen receptor-beta affects the prognosis of human malignant mesothelioma. Cancer Res. 2009;69(11):4598–604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Taioli E, Wolf AS, Camacho-Rivera M, Flores RM. Women with malignant pleural mesothelioma have a threefold better survival rate than men. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(3):1020–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Brims FJ, Meniawy TM, Duffus I, de Fonseka D, Segal A, Creaney J, Maskell N, Lake RA, de Klerk N, Nowak AK. A Novel Clinical Prediction Model for Prognosis in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma using decision Tree Analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(4):573–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Clive AO, Kahan BC, Hooper CE, Bhatnagar R, Morley AJ, Zahan-Evans N, Bintcliffe OJ, Boshuizen RC, Fysh ET, Tobin CL, et al. Predicting survival in malignant pleural effusion: development and validation of the LENT prognostic score. Thorax. 2014;69(12):1098–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Taioli E, Wolf AS, Moline JM, Camacho-Rivera M, Flores RM. Frequency of Surgery in Black Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Dis Markers 2015, 2015:282145.

  42. Saddoughi SA, Abdelsattar ZM, Blackmon SH. National Trends in the epidemiology of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a National Cancer Data Base Study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(2):432–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Flores RM, Riedel E, Donington JS, Alago W, Ihekweazu U, Krug L, Rosenzweig K, Adusumilli PS, Carbone M, Pass HI. Frequency of use and predictors of cancer-directed surgery in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma in a community-based (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and end results [SEER]) population. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(10):1649–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Remon J, Nadal E, Dómine M, Ruffinelli J, García Y, Pardo J, López R, Cilleruelo A, García-Campelo R, Martín P, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: treatment patterns and outcomes from the spanish Lung Cancer Group. Lung cancer (Amsterdam Netherlands). 2020;147:83–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Scherpereel A, Opitz I, Berghmans T, Psallidas I, Glatzer M, Rigau D, Astoul P, Bölükbas S, Boyd J, Coolen J et al. ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 2020, 55(6).

  46. McCambridge A, Napolitano A, Mansfield A, Fennell D, Sekido Y, Nowak A, Reungwetwattana T, Mao W, Pass H, Carbone M, et al. Progress in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2017. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2018;13(5):606–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chen S, Yu W, Shao S, Xiao J, Bai H, Pu Y, Li M. Establishment of predictive nomogram and web-based survival risk calculator for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a SEER database analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1027149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Jiang Y, Zhang C, Chen Y, Zhao S, He Y, He J. Prognostic risk assessment model for alternative splicing events and splicing factors in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Med 2022.

  49. Asciak R, Kanellakis N, Bibby A, Kidd A, Gerry S, Mercer R, Maskell N, Blyth K, Fsadni P, Montefort S et al. The association between pleural fluid exposure and survival in pleural mesothelioma. Chest 2021.

  50. Ringgaard Petersen T, Panou V, Meristoudis C, Weinreich U, Røe O. Clinical prognostic factors in pleural mesothelioma: best supportive care and anti-tumor treatments in a real-life setting. Acta Oncol (Stockholm Sweden). 2021;60(4):521–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Laird BJ, Kaasa S, McMillan DC, Fallon MT, Hjermstad MJ, Fayers P, Klepstad P. Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer: a comparison of clinicopathological factors and the development of an inflammation-based prognostic system. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5456–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rocha BM, Ross DD, Paiva CE, McGovern J, Paiva BS, Preto DD, Donald CM, Maia YC, Laird BJ. Inflammation and performance status: the cornerstones of prognosis in advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 2022.

  53. Shiratori F, Suzuki T, Yajima S, Oshima Y, Nanami T, Funahashi K, Shimada H. Preoperative low serum calcium levels predict poor prognosis for patients with esophageal Cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;28(2):96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Xu J, Chen X, Wang X, Zhu C, Hu Y, Yang X, Xu C, Shen X. Preoperative hyponatremia and Hypocalcemia Predict Poor Prognosis in Elderly Gastric Cancer Patients. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:8765–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Huang SY, Chen Y, Tan XR, Gong S, Yang XJ, He QM, He SW, Liu N, Li YQ. Serum calcium levels before Antitumour Therapy Predict Clinical Outcomes in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:13111–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Gastanaga VM, Schwartzberg LS, Jain RK, Pirolli M, Quach D, Quigley JM, Mu G, Scott Stryker W, Liede A. Prevalence of hypercalcemia among cancer patients in the United States. Cancer Med. 2016;5(8):2091–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Vassilopoulou-Sellin R, Newman BM, Taylor SH, Guinee VF. Incidence of hypercalcemia in patients with malignancy referred to a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer. 1993;71(4):1309–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ajero PM, Belsky JL, Prawius HD, Rella V. Chemotherapy-induced hypocalcemia. Endocr Pract. 2010;16(2):284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mirrakhimov AE, Ali AM, Khan M, Barbaryan A. Tumor lysis syndrome in solid tumors: an up to date review of the literature. Rare Tumors. 2014;6(2):5389.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Cui C, Merritt R, Fu L, Pan Z. Targeting calcium signaling in cancer therapy. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2017;7(1):3–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Monteith GR, Prevarskaya N, Roberts-Thomson SJ. The calcium-cancer signalling nexus. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(6):367–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ranzato E, Martinotti S, Magnelli V, Murer B, Biffo S, Mutti L, Burlando B. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate induces mesothelioma cell death via H2 O2 -dependent T-type Ca2 + channel opening. J Cell Mol Med. 2012;16(11):2667–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Cheng Y, Wright C, Kirschner M, Williams M, Sarun K, Sytnyk V, Leshchynska I, Edelman J, Vallely M, McCaughan B, et al. KCa1.1, a calcium-activated potassium channel subunit alpha 1, is targeted by mir-17-5p and modulates cell migration in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mol Cancer. 2016;15(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Bille A, Krug LM, Woo KM, Rusch VW, Zauderer MG. Contemporary analysis of prognostic factors in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(2):249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Curran D, Sahmoud T, Therasse P, van Meerbeeck J, Postmus PE, Giaccone G. Prognostic factors in patients with pleural mesothelioma: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):145–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Herndon JE, Green MR, Chahinian AP, Corson JM, Suzuki Y, Vogelzang NJ. Factors predictive of survival among 337 patients with mesothelioma treated between 1984 and 1994 by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Chest. 1998;113(3):723–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kircheva DY, Husain AN, Watson S, Kindler HL, Durkin A, Vigneswaran WT. Specimen weight and volume: important predictors of survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49(6):1642–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Tagawa T, Anraku M, Morodomi Y, Takenaka T, Okamoto T, Takenoyama M, Ichinose Y, Maehara Y, Cho BC, Feld R, et al. Clinical role of a new prognostic score using platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7(11):1898–906.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Alexandrakis MG, Passam FH, Perisinakis K, Ganotakis E, Margantinis G, Kyriakou DS, Bouros D. Serum proinflammatory cytokines and its relationship to clinical parameters in lung cancer patients with reactive thrombocytosis. Respir Med. 2002;96(8):553–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Yin W, Zheng G, Su S, Liang Y. The value of COX-2, NF-κB, and blood routine indexes in the prognosis of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Oncol Res Treat. 2019;42(6):334–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Peterson JE, Zurakowski D, Italiano JE Jr, Michel LV, Connors S, Oenick M, D’Amato RJ, Klement GL, Folkman J. VEGF, PF4 and PDGF are elevated in platelets of colorectal cancer patients. Angiogenesis. 2012;15(2):265–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Roberts H, Patsios D, Paul N, DePerrot M, Teel W, Bayanati H, Shepherd F, Johnston M. Screening for malignant pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer in individuals with a history of asbestos exposure. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2009;4(5):620–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Cersosimo F, Barbarino M, Lonardi S, Vermi W, Giordano A, Bellan C, Giurisato E. Mesothelioma Malignancy and the Microenvironment: Molecular Mechanisms. Cancers 2021, 13(22).

  74. Billé A, Krug L, Woo K, Rusch V, Zauderer M. Contemporary analysis of prognostic factors in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac oncology: official publication Int Association Study Lung Cancer. 2016;11(2):249–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Marcq E, Siozopoulou V, De Waele J, van Audenaerde J, Zwaenepoel K, Santermans E, Hens N, Pauwels P, van Meerbeeck J, Smits E. Prognostic and predictive aspects of the tumor immune microenvironment and immune checkpoints in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6(1):e1261241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Guazzelli A, Hussain M, Krstic-Demonacos M, Mutti L. Tremelimumab for the treatment of malignant mesothelioma. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2015;15(12):1819–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the subjects who participated in this study.

Funding

This study was not supported by any source of funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yuan Zhang

    Present address: Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Hospital, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100005, China

  2. Yuan Zhang Nan Li and Ran Li contributed equally to this work.

  3. Xiaofang Liu and Shu Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongtinan Rd, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China

    Yuan Zhang & Shu Zhang

  2. Department of Radiology, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Gongtinan Rd, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China

    Nan Li

  3. Department of Respiratory and Critical Medicine, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100005, China

    Ran Li & Xiaofang Liu

  4. Department of Pathology, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital , Capital Medical University, 8 Gongtinan Rd, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China

    Yumei Gu

Authors
  1. Yuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ran Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yumei Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaofang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YZ, NL and RL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Software, Writing – original draft. YMG: Data curation, Visualization. SZ and XFL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review &editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University. It was conducted in accordance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Li, N., Li, R. et al. Predicting survival for patients with mesothelioma: development of the PLACE prognostic model. BMC Cancer 23, 698 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11180-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11180-y

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us