review

Annals of Oncology 17: 16151619, 2006

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl060
Published online 6 April 2006

Current treatment options and biology of peritoneal

mesothelioma: meeting summary of the first NIH
peritoneal mesothelioma conference
R. Hassan1*, R. Alexander1, K. Antman1, P. Boffetta2, A. Churg3, D. Coit4, P. Hausner5,
R. Kennedy6, H. Kindler7, M. Metintas8, L. Mutti9, M. Onda1, H. Pass10, A. Premkumar1,
V. Roggli11, D. Sterman12, P. Sugarbaker13, R. Taub14 & C. Verschraegen15
1

National Cancer Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA; 2International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France; 3University of British Columbia, Canada;
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; 5University of Maryland; 6Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center; 7University of Chicago, Chicago, USA;
8
Osmangazi University, Turkey, 9Local Health Unit 11, Vercelli, Italy; 10Karmanos Cancer Institute; 11Duke University Medical Center; 12University of
Pennsylvania; 13Washington Hospital Center; 14Columbia University; 15University of New Mexico, USA
4

Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the peritoneum with about 250 new cases diagnosed each year
in the United States. It is the second most common site for mesothelioma development and accounts for
1020% of all mesotheliomas diagnosed in the United States. A meeting sponsored by the NIH Office of Rare
Diseases was held in Bethesda, Maryland on September 13 and 14, 2004. The objective of this meeting
was to review the epidemiology, biology and current surgical and medical management of peritoneal
mesothelioma. In addition, the meeting also discussed clinical and pre-clinical evaluation of novel treatments for
mesothelioma as well as ongoing laboratory research to better understand this disease. This report summarizes
the proceedings of the meeting as well as directions for future clinical and basic research.
Key words: cancer, mesothelioma, peritoneal

introduction
Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare neoplasm that
develops from the mesothelial cells lining the peritoneum and
like pleural mesothelioma is also associated with asbestos
exposure in many patients [1]. Only about one-fifth of
mesotheliomas occur in the peritoneum. A recent analysis of the
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program of
the NCI estimated approximately 250 new cases of peritoneal
mesothelioma in the United States each year [2]. Though the
overall incidence of peritoneal mesothelioma was higher in
males than females, a higher proportion of females develop
mesothelioma involving the peritoneum compared to males.
The best treatment results have been obtained from specialized
centers using a combination of tumor debulking and
intraoperative chemotherapy. Clearly there is a need to better
understand the molecular basis of this disease as well as develop
guidelines for treating such patients.
A meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland, on September
1314th, 2004, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health,
Office of Rare Disease and chaired by Dr Raffit Hassan of the
National Cancer Institute. The meeting was organized into five
*Correspondence to: Dr R. Hassan, Laboratory of Molecular Biology,
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 37 Convent Drive, Room 5116,
Bethesda, MD 208924264 USA. Tel: +1 (301) 451-8742; Fax: +1 (301) 402-1344;
E-mail: [email protected]

2006 European Society for Medical Oncology

sessions that dealt with: (1) genetics and epidemiology of

mesothelioma, (2) pathologic and radiologic aspects of
peritoneal mesothelioma, (3) surgical management of peritoneal
mesothelioma, (4) medical management of peritoneal
mesothelioma and (5) clinical and pre-clinical evaluation of
novel treatments for mesothelioma. Each session consisted of
lectures by experts followed by an open discussion. This article
will highlight some of the information presented at the meeting.
The meeting also included a presentation by Christopher
E. Hahn of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation
(MARF), a national nonprofit organization working on
mesothelioma who mentioned that MARF has awarded more
than $1.3 million for research since being founded in 1999
and therefore represents a significant new funding source for
mesothelioma researchers.
Dr Karen Antman (National Cancer Institute, USA) the
keynote speaker for the meeting provided an overview of
mesothelioma in general with a focus on peritoneal
mesothelioma. She mentioned that because of its non-specific
symptoms, peritoneal mesothelioma is often diagnosed late, and
in women is often confused with ovarian cancer. However,
improvements in immunohistochemistry now allow
pathologists to make a more accurate diagnosis. Because of
the difficulty of conducting randomized trials in a rare disease
such as peritoneal mesothelioma most of the information
regarding its management is obtained from single institution

review

Received 7 February 2006; revised 22 February 2006; accepted 24 February 2006

review
Phase I/II studies. Some of these studies show that surgical
debulking and intraperitoneal chemotherapy result in longer
than expected overall survival. However, selection bias could
account for the observed survivals. Dr Antman stated that
national and international collaborations would be necessary
to perform large trials to define the optimal treatment of
peritoneal mesothelioma. Dr Antman also touched on some
of the issues regarding peritoneal mesothelioma: Does complete
resection improve survival? Why do women survive longer
then men? What chemotherapy to use? Does the better
prognosis of epithelial compared to sarcomatoid peritoneal
mesothelioma suggest two different diseases? Some of these
questions were addressed by speakers in the conference.

genetics and epidemiology of

peritoneal mesothelioma
This session was chaired by Dr Kenneth Cantor (National
Cancer Institute, USA) and Dr Courtney Broaddus
(University of California San Francisco, USA) and included
presentations regarding the genetics and epidemiology of
mesothelioma with an emphasis on peritoneal mesothelioma.
This session began with a presentation by Dr Harvey I. Pass
(Karmanos Cancer Institute, USA), who described the
importance of genomic and proteomic in mesothelioma as an
aid in early detection/monitoring, prognostication, and new
target drug discovery. He presented work by his group using
gene arrays to identify novel combinations of known and
unknown genes which can reliably predict progression and
survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma who had surgical
cytoreduction [3]. In addition, proteomic data from his lab
has identified a combination of 46 biomarkers in malignant
mesothelioma (MM) pleural effusion that can help distinguish
benign and non-MM effusions from MM pleural effusions. Dr
Pass also mentioned that their preliminary laboratory studies
suggest that soluble mesothelin related (SMR) protein could
potentially help monitor MM disease status as well as be an
early detection serum marker [4]. Dr Pass felt that such
genomic and proteomic studies are likely to be important in
peritoneal mesothelioma as well.
Dr Paolo Boffetta (International Agency for Research on
Cancer, Lyon, France) discussed the epidemiology of peritoneal
mesothelioma. His studies have found that although the
geographical patterns of peritoneal mesothelioma parallel
pleural mesothelioma the rates are consistently lower. Overall,
Europe experiences 1 to 2 cases of peritoneal mesothelioma per
million per year. His studies have also shown that while in highrisk, industrialized countries the ratio between pleural and
peritoneal mesotheliomas is on the order of 1030:1, in low-risk
countries the ratio is 310:1, suggesting that heavy exposure
to asbestos increases predominantly the risk of pleural
mesotheliomas. Dr Boffetta mentioned that in studies with an
adequate number of cases, a strong association has been found
between the estimated occupational exposure to asbestos and
the risk of peritoneal mesothelioma [2, 5]. Also, cases of
peritoneal mesothelioma have been reported following
exposure to erionite and thorotrast [6].
Dr Muzaffer Metintas (Osmangazi University, Turkey)
described the Turkish experience with malignant mesothelioma

1616 | Hassan et al.

Annals of Oncology

that is endemic in some rural parts of Anatolia, Turkey. He

presented data from his studies that have shown that the high
risk of mesothelioma in this region is due to environmental
exposure to asbestos-contaminated soil mixtures [7]. Mineral
analysis of these white-soil samples identified contamination
predominantly with tremolite. In addition, erionite exposure
has caused mesothelioma in three villages of the Cappadocia
region. Cumulative low exposure to the asbestos fibers has
resulted in a higher-than-average incidence of malignant
mesotheliomas with a mean latent period of 56 years. The
country of Turkey represents a special case of high incidence
of malignant mesothelioma due to environmental exposure. In
the year 2002, it was estimated that more than 250,000 people
have been exposed to asbestos in villages, and about 3,000
villagers to erionite in Cappadocia. Researchers expect Turkey to
experience 600 new cases of malignant mesothelioma annually
until 2030. Because of epidemiologic work by Turkish
researchers the use of white soil containing asbestos fibers
for housing construction has declined significantly.

pathologic and radiologic aspects of

peritoneal mesothelioma
This session was chaired by Dr Elliott Kagan (Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, USA) and Dr Jorge
Carrasquillo (National Institutes of Health, USA) and
included presentations regarding imaging studies as well as
pathology of this disease.
This session started with a presentation by Dr Ahalya
Premkumar (National Institutes of Health, USA). She
mentioned that CT is the method of choice for imaging this
tumor, although it requires the use of oral and intravenous
contrast agents to distinguish tumors from nearby tissues [8].
CT scanning can reveal thickening, infiltration and tumor
nodules involving the peritoneum, mesentery and omentum.
Other findings include ascites, masses involving the bowel
serosa, extensions into the liver, spleen and abdominal wall,
adenopathy and distant tumor metastases. MRI provides good
resolution, but requires longer scan times during which
respiratory motion and bowel peristalsis can blur images. PET
scans may be useful and provide functional imaging, although
without high resolution. However, PET-CT may be able to
preserve the high resolution of CT and at the same time provide
functional imaging. Dr Premkumar stressed the fact that the
diffuse spread of peritoneal mesothelioma makes it difficult to
do accurate tumor measurements.
Dr Victor Roggli (Duke University Medical Center, USA)
spoke about the pathologic features of malignant peritoneal
mesothelioma. He mentioned that the peritoneum is the
second most common site for malignant mesothelioma,
accounting for 10% of cases in his series. The histologic
spectrum is the same as for pleural mesothelioma, although
pure sarcomatoid variant is much less common in the
peritoneum. Malignant mesothelioma must be differentiated
from other adenocarcinomas and immunohistochemistry can
be helpful to make this distinction. Mesotheliomas usually stain
positive for calretinin, cytokeratins 5/6, WT-1,
thrombomodulin, and mesothelin but negative for the

Volume 17 | No. 11 | November 2006

Annals of Oncology

adenocarcinoma markers CEA, Leu-M1, Ber-Ep4, B72.3, Bg8,

and MOC-31. Electron microscopy can be helpful in making
the diagnosis in difficult cases. Dr Roggli mentioned that
asbestos is the most widely recognized etiologic factor for
peritoneal mesothelioma. In his series, fiber analysis studies
show that 75% of peritoneal mesotheliomas in men are
asbestos-related, whereas only 33% of cases in women show
an elevated lung fiber content [9]. The main fiber type
implicated in the USA is amosite whereas chrysotile has not
been convincingly shown to cause peritoneal mesothelioma.
The second pathologist to speak in this session was
Dr Andrew Churg (University of British Columbia, Canada)
who talked about the difficulties in separating benign from
malignant mesothelial proliferations [10]. He explained that the
best guide to making this separation is true stromal invasion
into the fat of the chest wall or peritoneum, or the underlying
organs. However, he cautioned that invasion must be
differentiated from entrapment, a common occurrence in the
serosal membranes particularly in areas of active inflammation.
Dr Churg also discussed well-differentiated papillary
mesothelioma, a lesion of uncertain but generally benign
biologic behavior [11]. These tumors have a distinct papillary
growth pattern and do not invade the underlying stroma.
Well-differentiated papillary mesotheliomas must be
separated from ordinary diffuse malignant mesothelioma
that have focal papillary architecture.

surgical management of peritoneal

mesothelioma
This session was chaired by Dr Karen Antman (National
Cancer Institute, USA) and Dr James Pingpank (National
Cancer Institute, USA) and included presentations by speakers
who have pioneered surgical approaches for this disease.
Dr Paul Sugarbaker (Washington Hospital Center, USA)
described his groups approach to treating this disease. This
includes cytoreductive surgery to remove all tumors as well as
peritonectomy followed by hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion
with cisplatin and doxorubicin [12]. Dr Sugarbaker discussed
the potential advantages of this approach including
administering chemotherapy before adhesion develop that
can limit distribution of chemotherapeutic agents. Also
hyperthermia has been shown to have direct tumoricidal activity
and can enhance the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. The overall
median survival of 68 patients with peritoneal mesothelioma
treated at the Washington Hospital between 1989 and 2003
was 67 months with a projected 3-year survival rate of
approximately 64%. In their series female patients had
a longer median survival and the results were also better in
patients with epithelial and cystic forms of the disease. Resulting
morbidities include bile leak, small bowel fistulas, and bleeding.
Older patients, especially past age 70, experience an increased
morbidity from the treatment. Dr Sugarbaker felt that this
aggressive approach for the treatment of peritoneal
mesothelioma has resulted in improved overall survival
compared to previously published reports.
Dr Richard Alexander (National Cancer Institute, USA)
presented the NCI experience in treating peritoneal

Volume 17 | No. 11 | November 2006

review
mesothelioma. The NCI has pursued a regimen involving
laparotomy, surgical removal of tumor and diseased organs, and
continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion of cisplatin
administered for 90 min. This is followed by early postoperative intraperitoneal administration of paclitaxel and 5fluorouracil. In a cohort of 49 patients treated in this fashion
at a median follow-up of 28 months, median overall survival was
92 months [13]. The main factors associated with survival were
age less than 60 years, residual tumor masses at the end of
cytoreductive surgery less than 1 cm and a history of previous
surgical debulking. Dr Alexander also mentioned that their
group has looked at quality of life (QOL) measures in these
patients. Their results showed that while the physical scores were
lower at 6 weeks after treatment, reflecting the impact of the
surgical procedures on QOL, these measures showed a
significant and sustained improvement over baseline after 3
months throughout the study.
Dr Daniel Coit (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,
USA) provided a third piece of evidence for the benefits of
surgical debulking for peritoneal mesothelioma. His group
performed a retrospective review of natural history, treatment,
and outcome for 37 patients with peritoneal mesothelioma
treated at their institution between 1982 and 2002. Of these 37
patients 62% underwent >75% debulking and 81% received
some form of chemotherapy, most commonly intraperitoneal
chemotherapy. The estimated median survival of these patients
was 58 months. The only factors independently associated with
improved survival were the ability to achieve at least a 75%
debulking and male gender. Dr Coit felt that these results were
comparable to other reported series in which more aggressive
surgical debulking and hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal
perfusion have been used. Based on these observations, he
concluded that it is more likely the biology of the disease,
rather than the intensity of the treatment, that determines
outcome in these patients.

medical management of peritoneal

mesothelioma
The session regarding the medical management of peritoneal
mesothelioma was chaired by Dr Robert Kreitman (National
Cancer Institute, USA) and Dr Julie Brahmer (Johns Hopkins
University, USA).
The session started with an introduction by Dr Claire
Verschraegen (University of New Mexico, USA) regarding
the natural history of peritoneal mesothelioma and how this
influences treatment decisions. She mentioned that in
addition to the symptoms of abdominal pain, distension
and ascites peritoneal mesothelioma can be associated with
hypoalbuminemia, night sweats, inguinal and umbilical
hernia, and hypercoagulability. Laboratory investigations
show an increased platelet count in about 50% of patients
and many patients also have elevation of the tumor marker
CA-125. Dr Verschraegen mentioned that for all
mesotheliomas, single-agent general chemotherapy has a
response rate of 10 to 15% while as combination
chemotherapies improve the response rate to about 25%. A
new drug combination such as cisplatin plus pemetrexed that

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl060 | 1617

review
have shown promise in pleural mesotheliomas may also be
effective in peritoneal mesothelioma [14]. Immunotherapeutic
agents such as interferon and various cytokines may have
a role in treating this disease especially when the amount of
disease is minimal [15].
Dr Robert Taub (Columbia University, USA) presented
data regarding their multimodality approach for treating
this disease. Eligibility criteria for patients to go on their
protocol includes a histologic diagnosis of peritoneal
mesothelioma, lack of mesothelioma in the chest, good
performance status, no prior abdominal radiotherapy, and no
more than two prior systemic chemotherapies or one prior
intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The treatment protocol
includes surgical debulking followed by intraperitoneal
administration of cisplatin, doxorubicin and gamma
interferon, second laparotomy with attempted resection of
any residual disease and intraoperative hyperthermic
perfusion with cisplatin and mitomycin followed
subsequently by whole abdominal radiotherapy [16]. The
median overall survival of the 27 patients treated in this study
was 68 months. Dr Taub mentioned that this cohort of
patients included four patients with the sarcomatoid form of
peritoneal mesothelioma, who died at a mean of 4 months
and for whom the treatment had essentially no effect.
Dr Petr Hausner (University of Maryland, USA) suggested
that peritoneal mesotheliomas could originate in the omental or
mesenteric milky spots. The milky spots are small specialized
accumulations of macrophages, T and B lymphocytes formed
around postcapillary venules connected by lymphatics and
covered by leaky mesothelial cells. Possibly evolutional
predecessors of lymph nodes, these milky spots may also be
associated with mesothelioma metastases [17]. Dr Hausner felt
that the study of milky spots could increase our understanding
of mesothelioma origin and metastases and lead to new
therapeutic strategies.
Dr Hedy Kindler (University of Chicago, USA) spoke about
novel agents that are currently undergoing evaluation for the
treatment of mesothelioma. These include drugs targeting
molecular pathways such as signal transduction or angiogenesis
[18]. Dr Kindler described ongoing clinical trials in
mesothelioma of ZD1839 (Iressa, AstraZeneca) that inhibits
epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and imatinib
mesylate (Gleevec, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) an inhibitor of
the tyrosine kinases associated with platelet derived growth
factor (PDGF) receptor, c-kit and Bcr-Abl. Dr Kindler next
talked about clinical trials of drugs targeting the vascular
endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a growth factor that appears
to play an important role in mesothelioma biology. She
described the three VEGF inhibitors in clinical trials for
mesothelioma including SU5416, thalidomide and
bevacizumab. Of these agents bevacizumab (Avastin,
Genentech) an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody is being
evaluated in a randomized Phase II trial of gemcitabine plus
cisplatin with bevacizumab or placebo with time to disease
progression as the primary endpoint of this trial. The results
of this trial will be important to determine if bevacizumab
improves the outcome of patients with mesothelioma similar
to that seen for other solid tumors using a combination of
chemotherapy and bevacizumab.

1618 | Hassan et al.

Annals of Oncology

clinical and pre-clinical evaluation of

novel treatments for mesothelioma
The final session of this meeting dealt with pre-clinical
and clinical evaluation of novel agents for mesothelioma
treatment and was chaired by Dr Ira Pastan (National Cancer
Institute, USA) and Dr Jeffrey Schlom (National Cancer
Institute, USA).
Dr Raffit Hassan (National Cancer Institute, USA), talked
about targeting mesothelin for mesothelioma therapy. He
explained that mesothelin is a cell surface protein that is highly
expressed in mesotheliomas and is a good target for cancer
therapy given its limited expression in normal tissues. They have
developed a recombinant anti-mesothelin immunotoxin, SS1P,
which is currently being tested in Phase I clinical trials [19].
Dr Hassan then provided an update of this study and mentioned
that a total of 25 patients including 8 patients with peritoneal
and 5 patients with pleural mesothelioma have been treated
thus far. The treatment has been well tolerated and shows
promising clinical activity including resolution of ascites and
stable disease in several patients. After completion of this
Phase I study they plan to conduct Phase II studies of SS1P
either alone or in combination with chemotherapy in
mesothelioma.
Dr Masanori Onda (National Cancer Institute, USA)
presented data about the isolation of new monoclonal
antibodies (Mab MN and Mab MB) directed against mesothelin.
These antibodies, which react with different epitopes on the
mesothelin protein, appear to be very useful for detecting
mesothelin by immunohistochemistry, fluorescence-activated
cell sorting, Western blotting and ELISA. Dr Onda felt that these
antibodies could be valuable reagents to study mesothelin
function as well as potentially useful for immunotherapy of
mesothelin expressing tumors.
The next speaker in this session Dr Luciano Mutti (Local
Health Unit 11 Vercelli, Italy) talked about his work to
identify new targets for mesothelioma therapy such as their
studies involving the PI3K/AKT and the nuclear factor
(NF)-kB signaling pathways. He described their in vitro
models showing that SV40 activates the cell survival pathway
P13K/AKT, whereas asbestos can activate the NFkB pathway.
Dr Mutti also presented data from their laboratory showing
that several inhibitors of P13K/AKT currently being tested
and bortezomib that blocks NFkB activation could be
potentially useful for the treatment of mesothelioma [20].
Dr Daniel Sterman (University of Pennsylvania, USA)
described their work on cancer gene therapy for mesothelioma.
Their group developed a recombinant, replication
incompetent adenovirus (Ad) expressing the herpes simplex
thymidine kinase (HSVtk) gene that showed in vitro and
in vivo efficacy in animal models of mesothelioma.
Subsequently, they have been conducting clinical trials in
patients with pleural mesothelioma using intrapleural
injection of Ad.HSVtk [21]. Their clinical results show that
this treatment is safe and well tolerated. They observed
a number of clinical responses in their patients including two
long-term survivors who are more than 5 years from their
initial therapy and have received no treatment since. Dr Sterman
speculated that induction of antitumor response by

Volume 17 | No. 11 | November 2006

Annals of Oncology

Ad.HSVtk may be partly responsible for the efficacy of this

therapy. He also mentioned that their group is currently
conducting clinical trials of gene transfer using an adenovirus
encoding the cytokine IFN-b with the goal of inducing both
tumor cell death as well as augmenting natural and T-cell
antitumor immune response.
The last speaker in this session Dr Ronald Kennedy (Texas
Tech University Health Sciences Center, USA) presented
his studies regarding the simian virus 40 (SV40) viral
oncoprotein, large tumor antigen (Tag). SV40 is an oncogenic
DNA virus that has been associated with various human
malignancies including mesothelioma. He mentioned their
laboratory has developed an in vivo murine experimental
pulmonary metastasis model to assess tumor immunity based
upon vaccination strategies utilizing SV40 Tag as the target
antigen [22]. Their studies have demonstrated that both the
recombinant protein as well as plasmid DNA immunization
provides complete tumor immunity within this experimental
pulmonary metastasis model. Tumor immunity was associated
primarily with antibody response following recombinant
SV40 Tag immunization with a CD8+CTL response following
plasmid DNA immunization. Dr Kennedy felt that such
strategies represent a promising area of research for
mesothelioma treatment and should be further investigated
in light of the potential for antigen cross-presentation and
epitope spreading.

summary
This meeting provided an opportunity for experts in
mesothelioma research and treatment to focus specifically on
peritoneal mesothelioma. The proceedings of this meeting
should be a useful resource to physicians and patients to get the
latest information on the management of this disease. We also
feel that this meeting will lead to regular scientific meetings
and workshops focused on peritoneal mesothelioma resulting
in improved understanding and treatment of this disease.

acknowledgements
We thank the National Institutes of Health, Office of Rare
Diseases and the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer
Institute for providing support and funding to organize this
meeting. We would also like to thank Dr Stephen Groft of
the National Institutes of Health, Office of Rare Diseases for
valuable advice in organizing this meeting. We also acknowledge
Donald W. Cunningham and Robert Mann for editorial
assistance.

references
1. Spirtas R, Heineman EF, Bernstein L et al. Malignant mesothelioma: attributable
risk of asbestos exposure. Occup Environ Med 1994; 51: 804811.

Volume 17 | No. 11 | November 2006

review
2. Price B, Ware A. Mesothelioma trends in the United States: an update based on
surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program data from 1973 through
2003. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159: 107112.
3. Pass HI, Liu Z et al. Gene expression profiles predict survival and progression
of pleural mesothelioma. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 849859.
4. Robinson BW, Creaney J, Lake R et al. Mesothelin-family proteins and diagnosis
of mesothelioma. Lancet 2003; 362: 16121616.
5. Selikoff U, Hammond EC, Seidman H et al. Mortality experience of insulation
workers in the United States and Canada, 19431976. Ann NY Acad Sci 1979;
330: 91116.
6. Maurer R, Egloff B. Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma after cholangiography
with thorotrast. Cancer 1975; 36: 13811385.
7. Metintas S, Metintas M, Ucgun I, Oner U. Malignant mesothelioma due to
environmental exposure to asbestos: follow-up of a Turkish cohort living in
a rural area. Chest 2002; 122: 22242229.
8. Whitley NO, Brenner DE, Antman KH et al. CT of peritoneal mesothelioma:
analysis of eight cases. Am J Roentgenol 1982; 138: 531535.
9. Roggli VL, Sharma A, Butnor KJ et al. Malignant mesothelioma and
occupational exposure to asbestos: a clinicopathologic correlation of 1445
cases. Ultrastruct Pathol 2002; 26: 5565.
10. Churg A, Colby TV, Cagle P. The separation of benign and malignant mesothelial
proliferations. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 11831200.
11. Daya D, McCaughey WT. Well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma of the
peritoneum. A clinicopathologic study of 22 cases. Cancer 1990; 65: 292296.
12. Sugarbaker PH, Welch LS, Mohamed F, Glehen O. A review of peritoneal
mesothelioma at the Washington Cancer Institute. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2003;
12: 605621.
13. Feldman AL, Libutti SK, Pingpank JF et al. Analysis of factors associated with
outcome in patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma undergoing surgical
debulking and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 45604567.
14. Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed
in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant
pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 26362644.
15. Freedman RS, Vadhan-Rai S, Butts C et al. Pilot study of Flt3 ligand comparing
intraperitoneal with subcutaneous routes on hematologic and immunologic
responses in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and mesotheliomas. Clin
Cancer Res 2003; 9: 52285237.
16. Taub RN, Keohan ML, Chabot JC, Fountainks, Plitsas M. Peritoneal
mesothelioma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2000; 1: 303312.
17. Krist LF, Kerremans M, Broekhuis-Fluitsma DM. Milky spots in the greater
omentum are predominant sites of local tumour cell proliferation and
accumulation in the peritoneal cavity. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1998; 47:
205212.
18. Kindler HL. Moving beyond chemotherapy: novel cytostatic agents for malignant
mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2004; 45S: S125S127, 2004.
19. Hassan R, Bera T, Pastan I. Mesothelin: a new target for immunotherapy. Clin
Cancer Res 2004; 10: 39373942.
20. Sartore-Bianchi A, Nici L, Porta C, Chatterjee D, Mutti L, Calabresi P. The
combination of the novelcamptothecin analogue Gimatecan (ST1481) plus the
proteasome inhibitor PS341 produces an enhanced pro-apoptotic effect in
a malignant mesothelioma cell line. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 2003; 44:
742 (Abstr R729).
21. Sterman DH, Treat J, Litzky LA. Adenovirus mediated herpes simplex virus
thymidine kinase gene delivery in patients with localized malignancy: results of
a phase I clinical trial in malignant mesothelioma. Hum Gene Ther 1998; 9:
10831092.
22. Watts AM, Shearer MH, Pass HI, Bright RK, Kennedy RC. Comparison of simian
virus 40 large T antigen recombinant protein and DNA immunization in the
induction of protective immunity from experimental pulmonary metastasis.
Cancer Immunol Immunother 1999; 47: 34351.

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl060 | 1619