Extrapleural Pneumonectomy
Extrapleural Pneumonectomy: The Most Radical Surgical Treatment for Pleural Mesothelioma
Executive Summary
Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) is the most radical surgical procedure used in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), involving the en bloc removal of the affected lung, visceral and parietal pleura, ipsilateral pericardium, and ipsilateral hemidiaphragm.[1][2] First described by Sarot in 1949 for tuberculous empyema and later applied to mesothelioma by Butchart and colleagues in 1976, EPP was once the cornerstone of aggressive multimodal mesothelioma treatment.[3]
The procedure gained prominence through the work of Dr. David Sugarbaker at Brigham and Women's Hospital, whose 1999 landmark series of 183 patients demonstrated 3.8% perioperative mortality and, in a carefully selected subgroup with epithelioid histology, negative nodes, and complete resection margins, a remarkable 46% five-year survival rate.[3][4] However, the trajectory of EPP changed dramatically following the MARS trial in 2011, which found worse survival in the EPP group compared to no surgery, and the MARS 2 trial in 2024, which showed that even the less radical pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) did not improve survival over chemotherapy alone.[5][6]
Current guidelines from the NCCN, BTS, and ASCO now recommend P/D over EPP, with EPP reserved for highly selected patients at specialized centers of excellence.[7][8] For mesothelioma patients and their families evaluating surgical options, understanding the risks, benefits, and evolving evidence surrounding EPP is critical to making informed treatment decisions.[9][10]
Key Facts
| Key Facts: Extrapleural Pneumonectomy (EPP) |
|---|
|
What Is Extrapleural Pneumonectomy?
Extrapleural pneumonectomy is defined as the en bloc surgical removal of the ipsilateral lung together with the visceral and parietal pleura, ipsilateral pericardium, and ipsilateral hemidiaphragm for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma.[1][11] The procedure represents the most aggressive surgical approach to mesothelioma, designed to achieve macroscopic complete resection (MCR) of all visible tumor by removing every pleural surface and the organs they encase.[2]
The term extrapleural refers to the surgical plane of dissection, which lies outside the parietal pleura. This distinguishes EPP from standard pneumonectomy (lung removal alone) and from pleurectomy/decortication (P/D), which removes the pleura but preserves the lung.[1] Radical mediastinal lymph node dissection is performed concurrently to assess nodal disease, which is one of the strongest prognostic factors determining survival after EPP.[12]
EPP is never performed in isolation. It is always part of a multimodal treatment strategy that typically combines surgery with chemotherapy (usually cisplatin and pemetrexed) and, in some protocols, hemithoracic radiation therapy.[10][3] The rationale for combining these modalities is that surgery addresses local disease while chemotherapy and radiation target microscopic residual cancer cells that cannot be removed surgically.
How Is EPP Performed?
The EPP procedure is performed through an extended posterolateral thoracotomy, with the incision beginning midway between the posterior scapular tip and the spine and extending along the sixth rib to the costochondral junction.[1] The latissimus dorsi and serratus anterior muscles are divided, and the sixth rib is typically resected to provide adequate surgical exposure. The posterior periosteum in the bed of the sixth rib is incised to expose the extrapleural plane.
The surgical sequence proceeds as follows:[1][2]
- Incision and exposure of the parietal pleura via posterolateral thoracotomy
- Extrapleural dissection using combined sharp and blunt technique, separating tumor-bearing pleura from the chest wall, continuing to the apex, mediastinum, esophagus, and great vessels
- En bloc resection of the lung, pleura, pericardium, and diaphragm with division of the hilar structures (pulmonary artery, pulmonary veins, and mainstem bronchus)
- Radical lymph node dissection of mediastinal lymph node stations
- Reconstruction of the diaphragm and pericardium with synthetic patches
The diaphragm and pericardium are reconstructed using Gore-Tex (PTFE) patches. Routine pericardial reconstruction has been shown to reduce the incidence of cardiac herniation, a potentially fatal complication.[13] Published data on operative duration are limited, with informal estimates citing 6 to 10 hours for the complete procedure. The literature distinguishes standard EPP from extended EPP, which involves additional resection of chest wall structures, great vessels, or esophageal muscularis beyond the standard specimen.[1]
Who Is a Candidate for EPP?
Patient selection is the single most important factor determining outcomes after EPP. Current practice restricts EPP candidacy to a narrow subset of mesothelioma patients meeting stringent clinical criteria.[7][9]
Staging Requirements
EPP candidates must have clinical early-stage disease, typically T1 to T3, N0 (no lymph node involvement). N2 mediastinal nodal disease is a major adverse prognostic factor. In the Sugarbaker 529-patient series, patients with N2 disease had a median survival of only 13 months compared to 26 months for N0 patients, leading many centers to consider N2 involvement a contraindication to EPP.[12] Preoperative mediastinal staging with mediastinoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound is recommended to exclude N2 disease before proceeding.[14]
Histological Requirements
Epithelioid histology is the only subtype routinely considered for EPP.[3] Biphasic mesothelioma carries a significantly worse prognosis and is approached with caution at most centers. Sarcomatoid histology is generally excluded from curative-intent surgery, including EPP, due to its aggressive biology and uniformly poor surgical outcomes.[4][15]
Cardiopulmonary and Performance Requirements
EPP requires sufficient cardiopulmonary reserve to tolerate permanent single-lung physiology. Specific thresholds vary by institution but generally include adequate predicted postoperative FEV1, acceptable DLCO, and satisfactory cardiac function assessed by echocardiography.[14] Performance status must be ECOG 0 to 1. There is no formal age cutoff, though outcomes deteriorate with advancing age, and most contemporary protocols exercise caution with patients over 70 years.[12][16]
What Are the Survival Outcomes After EPP?
Survival after EPP varies dramatically depending on patient selection, histology, nodal status, and completeness of resection. The following data represent the largest published series.[9][11]
Overall EPP Survival
| Series | Patients | 30-Day Mortality | Median OS | 5-Year Survival |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sugarbaker 1999 | 183 | 3.8% | 19 months | 15% |
| Sugarbaker 2014 | 529 | 5.0% | 18 months | 14% |
| Flores 2008 | 385 (EPP arm) | 7.0% | 12 months | — |
| MARS Trial 2011 | 24 (16 completed) | 12.5% | 14.4 months | — |
Survival by Nodal Status
Lymph node involvement is the strongest independent prognostic variable after EPP. The Sugarbaker 529-patient series demonstrated a clear survival gradient:[12]
| Node Status | Patients | Median OS |
|---|---|---|
| N0 (negative) | 224 | 26 months |
| N1 | 118 | 17 months |
| N2 | 181 | 13 months |
| N3 | 5 | 7 months |
The Favorable Triad
The most cited finding in EPP outcomes research is the favorable triad identified by Sugarbaker in 1999: patients with epithelioid histology, negative resection margins, and negative extrapleural lymph nodes achieved 68% two-year survival, 46% five-year survival, and a median of 51 months. This subgroup comprised only 31 of 183 patients (17%).[3] This result has not been consistently replicated at other centers but remains the benchmark cited by EPP advocates.[10][2]
What Complications Can Occur After EPP?
EPP carries substantially higher morbidity and mortality than P/D. The overall major complication rate after EPP is approximately 62% compared to 27.9% for P/D, and 30-day operative mortality is 6.8% versus 2.9% for P/D.[17][11]
Major Complications
| Complication | EPP Rate | P/D Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Overall morbidity | 62.0% | 27.9% |
| 30-day mortality | 6.8% | 2.9% |
| Atrial fibrillation | 17.6–44.2% | 7.4% |
| Bronchopleural fistula | 2.3% | 0.4% |
| DVT/PE | 3.3% | 1.4% |
| Serious respiratory complications | 10.0% | 6.4% |
Atrial fibrillation is the most common complication, occurring in 44.2% of patients in the Sugarbaker 328-patient series (2004).[18] Other significant complications include vocal cord paralysis (6.7%), prolonged intubation (7.9%), bronchopleural fistula, cardiac herniation if pericardial reconstruction fails, empyema, and pulmonary embolism.[18][19] A 2022 meta-analysis confirmed that atrial fibrillation, hemorrhage, pulmonary embolism, air leak, and reoperation were all significantly increased after EPP compared to P/D (p < 0.05).[20] Pulmonary embolism has been identified as the most common cause of perioperative mortality following EPP.[19][9]
Median postoperative hospital stay is approximately 10 to 11 days, with national database analysis reporting a mean length of stay of 11.2 days.[12][21]
How Does EPP Affect Quality of Life?
EPP results in substantially greater pulmonary function loss than P/D. A 2021 study from Zurich documented FEV1 declining from 76% predicted to 48% predicted after EPP, compared with 82% to 65% after P/D.[22][10]
A 2018 systematic review encompassing 659 patients (102 EPP, 432 P/D) across 14 datasets found that quality of life remained compromised at 6 months following both procedures, but P/D patients had better scores across all measures including physical function, social function, and global health status.[23] Critically, only P/D patients demonstrated return to baseline quality of life at 12 months; EPP patients did not reach pre-surgical quality of life levels within the study follow-up periods.[23][4]
In the MARS trial, quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group at all time points, with particularly striking differences at 6 weeks post-surgery (global health: 33.3 versus 75.0), though the small sample size limited statistical significance.[5] Despite these findings, the 2021 Zurich study argued that quality of life alone should not be used as an argument against EPP, noting that both procedures ultimately achieved similar long-term functional outcomes in survivors.[22] This remains a minority view in the mesothelioma surgical community.[2]
How Does EPP Compare to Pleurectomy/Decortication?
The EPP versus P/D debate is the central controversy in mesothelioma surgery, with accumulating evidence favoring the less radical lung-sparing approach.[16][2]
Arguments for EPP
Proponents of EPP argue that complete removal of the lung allows for more thorough macroscopic complete resection in certain anatomic configurations where tumor extensively involves the visceral pleura.[1] EPP also enables full-dose hemithoracic radiation therapy without the risk of radiation pneumonitis, since no lung tissue remains to be damaged.[10] The Sugarbaker favorable triad data, showing 46% five-year survival in selected patients, remains the strongest argument for EPP in appropriate candidates.[3] Additionally, local recurrence rates are lower after EPP (33%) compared to P/D (65%) in registry data.[24]
Arguments Against EPP
The evidence against EPP has grown substantially. The MARS trial (2011) randomized 50 patients and found median survival of only 14.4 months for EPP versus 19.5 months without EPP (HR 2.75).[5] While designed as a feasibility study, the results were striking. The MARS 2 trial (2024) showed that even the less morbid P/D did not improve survival over chemotherapy alone (19.3 versus 24.8 months), further undermining the rationale for the more radical EPP.[6]
Meta-analyses consistently show EPP carries 2.5-fold higher short-term mortality than P/D (4.5% vs. 1.7%, Taioli 2015, 2,903 patients) and significantly higher overall morbidity (62% vs. 27.9%).[25][17] While EPP achieves better local control (33% local recurrence vs. 65% for P/D), it is associated with higher distant recurrence (66% vs. 35%), possibly due to immunosuppression from losing the lung and its lymphatic tissue.[24][11] Modern radiation techniques including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy can now deliver targeted pleural radiation with the lung in situ, weakening one of the historical advantages of EPP.[7]
| Metric | EPP | P/D | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30-day mortality | 4.5% | 1.7% | Taioli 2015 (n=2,903) |
| Overall morbidity | 62.0% | 27.9% | Batirel systematic review |
| Local recurrence | 33% | 65% | Flores 2008 |
| Distant recurrence | 66% | 35% | Flores 2008 |
What Role Does EPP Play in Multimodal Treatment?
EPP is never performed as a standalone treatment. It is always integrated into a multimodal strategy combining surgery with systemic chemotherapy and, in many protocols, radiation therapy.[9][10]
The Sugarbaker Trimodal Protocol
The classic Brigham and Women's protocol follows the sequence: EPP followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin and pemetrexed) followed by hemithoracic radiation therapy.[3] A multicenter phase II trial of neoadjuvant pemetrexed/cisplatin followed by EPP and radiation achieved median overall survival of 16.8 months for intention-to-treat patients and 29.1 months for patients completing all three modalities, with surgical mortality of 3.7%.[4]
The SMART Protocol
The Surgery for Mesothelioma After Radiation Therapy (SMART) protocol, developed by de Perrot and colleagues at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, reverses the traditional treatment sequence: accelerated hemithoracic IMRT (25 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by EPP within approximately one week.[26] The published phase II results from 96 treated patients demonstrated 30-day mortality of only 1% (one patient) and grade 3-4 complications in 49%. For the epithelioid, node-negative subgroup (19 patients), the SMART protocol achieved a remarkable median survival of 65.9 months.[26][2]
EPP and Immunotherapy
Several phase I and II clinical trials are investigating the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with surgical resection for mesothelioma. Perioperative pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab are all under active study.[27] However, most contemporary surgical immunotherapy trials use P/D rather than EPP as the surgical modality, reflecting the broader shift away from EPP.[27][28]
What Are the Recurrence Patterns After EPP?
Understanding where mesothelioma recurs after EPP is essential for planning adjuvant treatment and surveillance. The foundational study by Baldini and colleagues (1997) characterized recurrence patterns in 49 patients undergoing EPP with adjuvant chemotherapy and hemithoracic radiation, finding an overall recurrence rate of 54% at a median of 19 months.[29][11]
An updated 2015 analysis of 169 patients treated from 2001 to 2010 with modern adjuvant regimens found a higher overall recurrence rate of 75% at a median of 13.1 months. The distribution of recurrence sites remained strikingly similar to the 1997 report despite advances in radiation technique:[30]
| Recurrence Site | 1997 (n=49) | 2015 (n=169) |
|---|---|---|
| Ipsilateral hemithorax (local) | 35% | 54% |
| Abdomen | 26% | 39% |
| Contralateral hemithorax | 17% | 28% |
| Other distant sites | 8% | 5% |
When comparing recurrence patterns between EPP and P/D, EPP achieves better local control (33% local recurrence vs. 65% for P/D) but is associated with significantly higher distant recurrence (66% vs. 35%).[24] This paradox may result from the immunosuppressive effect of removing the lung and its lymphatic tissue, which may compromise the body's ability to contain distant spread.[15][9]
How Much Does EPP Cost?
EPP is among the most expensive surgical procedures for mesothelioma. Based on 2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data, the mean hospital cost for pneumonectomy in mesothelioma patients was $62,408 (95% CI: $48,385 to $76,431), compared to $53,993 for P/D and $24,901 for the average mesothelioma hospitalization.[21][31]
These figures represent hospital charges only and do not include surgeon and anesthesia fees, the cost of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation therapy, rehabilitation, or long-term follow-up care. A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the full EPP multimodal pathway to the P/D pathway or to chemotherapy alone has not been published.[21] For more detailed information on treatment costs, see our comprehensive guide. Mesothelioma patients may offset these expenses through asbestos trust fund claims and legal compensation.[28][31]
What Do Current Medical Guidelines Say About EPP?
The consensus of major medical guidelines has shifted decisively away from EPP and toward lung-sparing approaches.[4][9]
| Organization | Year | Position on EPP |
|---|---|---|
| NCCN | 2025 | P/D recommended over EPP; surgery limited to stage I disease |
| ASCO | 2025 | Hemithoracic adjuvant RT may be offered post-EPP at centers of excellence; neoadjuvant RT + EPP only in clinical trials |
| ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO | 2020 | Radical surgery candidates should be treated in clinical trials at dedicated centers |
| British Thoracic Society | 2018 | "Do not offer Extra-Pleural Pneumonectomy in MPM" (Grade B recommendation) |
The BTS recommendation against EPP is the most explicit, while the ASCO guidelines maintain a narrow window for EPP at centers of excellence with hemithoracic radiation capability.[8][7] The European joint guidelines emphasize that both EPP and extended P/D remain options in principle but should be performed within clinical trials at specialized mesothelioma centers.[14][15]
Where Is EPP Performed?
Surgical volume and institutional expertise are strongly correlated with EPP outcomes. Patients treated at specialized mesothelioma centers have been reported to have 20 to 40% better survival than those at general hospitals, with surgical mortality two to three times lower at high-volume centers.[32][33]
| Center | Key Surgeons | Notable Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Brigham and Women's / Dana-Farber | David Sugarbaker (d. 2018), Raphael Bueno | Largest single-institution EPP series (529+ patients) |
| Memorial Sloan Kettering | Valerie Rusch, Raja Flores | 663-patient international registry |
| MD Anderson Cancer Center | David Rice | Pioneering lung-sparing techniques |
| Princess Margaret, Toronto | Marc de Perrot | SMART protocol innovator |
| University Hospital Zurich | Walter Weder, Isabelle Opitz | EPP mortality 2.2% in Swiss multimodality trial |
A retrospective single-institution study spanning 18 years confirmed that higher patient volumes were associated with lower perioperative morbidity and better overall survival, with mortality rates of 6% or less documented only at high-volume centers performing EPP as part of multimodality treatment.[11][10]
Frequently Asked Questions
Is EPP still performed for mesothelioma?
Yes, but in very limited circumstances. EPP is still performed at a small number of high-volume mesothelioma centers for highly selected patients with early-stage (T1-3, N0), epithelioid mesothelioma and excellent performance status. However, its use has declined significantly following the MARS trial results, and current guidelines from the NCCN and BTS recommend P/D over EPP.[7][8][2]
What is the difference between EPP and P/D?
EPP removes the entire affected lung along with the pleura, pericardium, and diaphragm. P/D removes only the pleura (and sometimes the pericardium and diaphragm in extended P/D) while preserving the lung. P/D has lower operative mortality (1.7% vs. 4.5%), lower morbidity (27.9% vs. 62%), and is now the preferred surgical approach for mesothelioma.[25][17][11]
What is the Sugarbaker favorable triad?
The favorable triad refers to the combination of epithelioid histology, negative surgical margins, and negative extrapleural lymph nodes. In the Sugarbaker 1999 study, 31 patients with all three favorable factors achieved 46% five-year survival and median survival of 51 months, the best outcomes ever reported for EPP.[3][9]
What is the SMART protocol?
SMART (Surgery for Mesothelioma After Radiation Therapy) is an experimental protocol developed at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto that reverses the traditional treatment sequence by delivering accelerated hemithoracic radiation (25 Gy in 5 fractions) before EPP. In the epithelioid, node-negative subgroup, the SMART protocol achieved median survival of 65.9 months with only 1% 30-day mortality.[26][10]
Can I receive compensation for mesothelioma treatment costs?
Yes. Mesothelioma patients may be eligible for compensation through multiple pathways, including asbestos trust fund claims, personal injury lawsuits, VA benefits for veterans, and workers' compensation. Over $30 billion remains available in active asbestos trust funds. An experienced mesothelioma attorney can help evaluate which compensation options apply to your specific situation.[31][28][34]
What are the contraindications for EPP?
Absolute contraindications include sarcomatoid histology, N3 nodal disease, distant metastatic disease, contralateral pleural involvement, poor performance status (ECOG 2 or higher), and insufficient cardiopulmonary reserve for single-lung physiology. Relative contraindications include N2 mediastinal nodal disease, biphasic histology, advanced age over 70 to 75 years, T4 disease with chest wall invasion, and significant cardiac comorbidity.[12][14][2]
Related Pages
- Mesothelioma Surgery Overview — comprehensive guide to all surgical options
- Pleurectomy and Decortication (P/D) — the preferred lung-sparing alternative
- Mesothelioma Treatment Costs — financial analysis of treatment options
- Understanding Your Diagnosis — diagnosis types, staging, and prognosis
- Mesothelioma Diagnosis and Staging
- Mesothelioma Settlements and Verdicts
- Asbestos Trust Funds — $30+ billion available for mesothelioma victims
| ⚠ Statute of Limitations Warning: Filing deadlines vary by state from 1-6 years from diagnosis. Texas allows 2 years from diagnosis or discovery. Contact an attorney immediately to preserve your rights. |
|
Free, Confidential Case Evaluation Call (866) 222-9990 or visit dandell.com/contact-us No upfront fees • Experienced representation • National practice |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Extra-pleural pneumonectomy, Annals of Translational Medicine, PMC6462700 (2019)
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Mesothelioma Surgery, Danziger & De Llano
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Resection margins, extrapleural nodal status, and cell type determine postoperative long-term survival in trimodality therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 183 patients, Sugarbaker DJ et al., Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (1999)
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Mesothelioma Treatment, Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised trial, Treasure T et al., Lancet Oncology (2011)
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2), Lim E et al., Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2024)
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Treatment of Pleural Mesothelioma: ASCO Guideline Update, Journal of Clinical Oncology (2025)
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 British Thoracic Society Guideline for the investigation and management of malignant pleural mesothelioma, Thorax (2018)
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 Mesothelioma Treatment Options, Danziger & De Llano
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 Mesothelioma Treatment, Mesothelioma.net
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Mesothelioma Surgery Options, Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 Novel prognostic implications of combined N1 and N2 lymph node status after extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 529 patients, Sugarbaker DJ et al., Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2014)
- ↑ Diaphragmatic and pericardial reconstruction after surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma, PMC5830557, Journal of Visualized Surgery (2018)
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma, European Respiratory Journal (2020)
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Mesothelioma.net
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 MesotheliomaAttorney.com
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Pleurectomy/decortication versus extrapleural pneumonectomy for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma, Batirel HF, Journal of Thoracic Disease (2013)
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Prevention, early detection, and management of complications after 328 consecutive extrapleural pneumonectomies, Sugarbaker DJ et al., Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2004)
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Complications following radical surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma, Shanghai Chest (2018)
- ↑ Meta-analysis of survival after extrapleural pneumonectomy versus pleurectomy/decortication in malignant pleural mesothelioma, Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery (2022)
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Costs of medical care for mesothelioma, Lung Cancer, PMC6637828 (2019)
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Quality of Life Is Not Deteriorated After Extrapleural Pneumonectomy Compared to Pleurectomy/Decortication, Ploenes T et al., Frontiers in Surgery (2021)
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Systematic review of quality of life following pleurectomy decortication and extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma, Schwartz RM et al., BMC Cancer (2018)
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 Extrapleural pneumonectomy versus pleurectomy/decortication in the surgical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 663 patients, Flores RM et al., Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2008)
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Meta-analysis of survival after pleurectomy decortication versus extrapleural pneumonectomy in mesothelioma, Taioli E et al., Annals of Thoracic Surgery (2015)
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma after radiotherapy (SMART): final results of a multicentre, phase 2 trial, de Perrot M et al., Lancet Oncology (2021)
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Immunotherapy advances in pleural mesothelioma, PMC12905100 (2025)
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 Mesothelioma Claims, MesotheliomaAttorney.com
- ↑ Patterns of failure after trimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma, Baldini EH et al., Annals of Thoracic Surgery (1997)
- ↑ Updated patterns of failure after multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma, Baldini EH et al., Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2015)
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 Mesothelioma Compensation, Danziger & De Llano
- ↑ Top 6 Mesothelioma Treatment Centers, Mesothelioma Lawyers Near Me (2026)
- ↑ Danziger & De Llano, Mesothelioma Attorneys
- ↑ Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
Cite error: <ref> tag with name "nci" defined in <references> is not used in prior text.