Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 16;16(7):e0254866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254866

Different patterns of pneumothorax in patients with soft tissue tumors treated with pazopanib: A case series analysis

Hisaki Aiba 1,*, Hiroaki Kimura 1, Satoshi Yamada 1, Hideki Okamoto 1, Katsuhiro Hayashi 1,2, Shinji Miwa 1,2, Yohei Kawaguchi 1, Shiro Saito 1,2, Takao Sakai 1, Tsutomu Tatematsu 3, Ryoichi Nakanishi 3, Hideki Murakami 1
Editor: Robert S Benjamin4
PMCID: PMC8284672  PMID: 34270626

Abstract

To investigate pneumothorax patterns in pazopanib treatment by focusing on the positional relationship between the visceral pleura and metastatic lung tumor, we examined 20 patients with advanced soft tissue tumors who developed lung metastases and underwent pazopanib treatment between 2012 and 2019. Pneumothorax was classified into two types based on the location of the metastatic lesion around the visceral pleural area before pazopanib treatment: subpleural type, within 5 mm from the pleura; and central type, >5 mm from the pleura. We investigated the rates of pneumothorax and the associated risk factors. Five patients experienced pneumothorax (three subpleural and two central types). Cavitation preceded pneumothorax in 83% of patients and led to connection of the cavitated cyst of the metastatic lesion to the chest cavity in the shorter term in patients with the subpleural type. Conversely, a more gradual increase in the cavity size and sudden cyst rupture were observed in the central type. The risk factors for pneumothorax were cavitation after initiating pazopanib and intervention before pazopanib, either ablation or surgery. The location of the metastatic lesions was not a risk factor for the occurrence of pneumothorax. In conclusion, pneumothorax is an adverse event associated with pazopanib treatment. Therefore, attention must be paid to predisposing factors such as the formation of cavitation after pazopanib initiation and previous interventions to the lungs. Moreover, because subpleural pneumothorax tends to occur earlier than the central type, a different time course can be anticipated based on the positional relationships of the metastatic lesions to the visceral pleura.

Introduction

Pazopanib, a multi-channel kinase inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of soft tissue tumors in 2012 based on the results of a phase III clinical trial. Although pneumothorax was not a common adverse event in this trial, with an incidence of only 3.3% [1], subsequent real-world studies indicated a higher incidence of 7%–15% [2, 3]. Because this critical adverse event interrupts treatment and may even require treatment cessation [2], management of pneumothorax is essential in the clinical setting. Based on our clinical experience, we identified two types of pneumothorax in patients treated with pazopanib from two different metastatic lesions: subpleural and central types (Figs 1 and 2). This study aimed to investigate the pattern of pneumothorax. We proposed different types of pneumothorax focusing on the positional relationship between metastatic lesions and the pleura and presented their clinical features. We also proposed an appropriate treatment strategy for pneumothorax development after pazopanib treatment.

Fig 1. Subpleural type pneumothorax.

Fig 1

Panels a-c indicate the scheme of the subpleural type pneumothorax. The metastatic tumors are indicated as purple lesions (a). After initiating pazopanib, the tumors shrank and were sometimes accompanied with the formation of a degenerated cavity when pazopanib was effective on the tumors (b). Regarding the metastatic lesion located around or attached to the visceral pleura, pneumothorax (blue arrow) occurred at the junction between the chest cavity and ruptured cavity (c).

Fig 2. Central type pneumothorax.

Fig 2

Panels a–c indicate the scheme of the central type pneumothorax. After initiating pazopanib, some metastatic lesions changed to degenerated cysts. After cavitation, air leaked (black arrows) continuously to the cavity (a and b). Ultimately, the high pressure in the cavity caused the rupture of the cyst and pneumothorax (blue arrow, c). This pattern sometimes forms an intractable large fistula in the chest cavity and is accompanied by pleural dissemination of tumors and massive bleeding.

Materials and methods

Patients and pazopanib protocol

From 2014 to 2019, 32 patients with advanced soft tissue tumors were treated with pazopanib at the Nagoya City University Hospital. All patients received at least one cycle of an anthracycline-containing regimen. All patients had a performance status (PS) of 0–2 before pazopanib treatment, and the inclusion criteria in the package insert [4] were followed. None of these patients had a past medical history of cavity lung lesions, infection (e.g., tuberculosis, non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection, aspergilloma), sarcoidosis, or primary lung cancer. After excluding 12 patients with extra-pulmonary metastases, a total of 20 patients were included in the analysis. The patients’ baseline characteristics, including age, sex, PS, pathological diagnosis, number of lung lesions, and pretreatment history of lung disease, were retrospectively reviewed from the medical records following full anonymization. The initial pazopanib dose was 800 mg (once daily, orally), and the dose was reduced based on the occurrence of adverse events (e.g., diarrhea, nausea, loss of appetite, hypertension, hand-foot syndrome) or patient status.

Radiographic analysis and definition of pneumothorax

Chest computed tomography (CT, 2-mm slice) was performed before the initiation of pazopanib and repeated at every visit for 3–6 months to monitor metastatic lesions. Additional CT was performed in accordance with the patient’s symptoms. All metastatic target lesions were evaluated by a single observer (HA) who classified the target lesions as subpleural (i.e., located within 5 mm or attached to the visceral pleura) or central (i.e., located > 5 mm from the visceral pleura) based on the images before the initiation of pazopanib treatment. Measurements were evaluated at the point where the distance between the visceral pleura and the tumor ridge was tangentially minimized in axial CT images. In addition, cavitation, defined as a degenerated change of metastatic lesion into a cyst storing air after pazopanib [5], was carefully observed as it preceded the pneumothorax.

Treatment of pneumothorax

The severity of pneumothorax was categorized based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events CTCAE 5.0 and the size of the collapse. The size was evaluated by measuring the length from the lung margin to the chest wall on chest radiography [6]. “Small” pneumothorax was defined as “small rim of air around the lung (< 2 cm),” “moderate” as “collapsed about halfway to the heart,” and “complete” as “airless lung or separation from the diaphragm.” Treatment was performed according to the guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians or British Thoracic Society [6]. Asymptomatic patients or those with a small pneumothorax were closely monitored and/or administered oxygen therapy. Further, pazopanib administration was discontinued for 3–4 weeks until recovery of pneumothorax. Meanwhile, symptomatic patients or those with moderately sized to complete pneumothorax (> 2 cm) were primarily treated with drainage or aspiration using a one-way valve or water seal device for 5–7 days. Meanwhile, pleurodesis with 5–10 KE of picibanil (Chugai Pharmaceutical, Tokyo, Japan) was considered for repeated or refractory pneumothorax. Video-associated thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) was performed only for the removal of resilient blebs/bullae or fistulas.

Statistical analysis

All values are presented as either mean ± standard deviation or median with range, depending on the distribution. The chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA), and P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nagoya City University (No 60-19-0029) and was conducted in compliance with the guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. Due to retrospective setting, the ethical committee permitted exemption to acquire written consents to use their medical records/samples and to participate in the study. Instead, the protocol of this study was announced in the form of opt-out on the web site in Clinical Research Management Center of Nagoya City University. Those who were not willing to participate were excluded.

Results

The mean patient age was 56.3 ±18.8 years, and 14 patients were men and 6 were women (Table 1). The histological subtypes included undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma in 9 patients, leiomyosarcoma in 3 patients, and others in 8 patients. Multiple metastatic lesions (> 10 lesions) were observed in 10 patients. The median pazopanib treatment period was 3.5 months (range, 1–51 months). At the end of the study, 16 patients died of the disease, while four patients were alive with the disease. The details of the patients’ characteristics are shown in S1 Table.

Table 1. Analysis of the different characteristics affecting the incidence of pneumothorax (chi-square test).

Characteristics Incidence of pneumothorax p-value
Sex Male 3/14 0.848
Female 2/6
Histology UPS 2/8 1.0
Others 3/12
Previous interventions to lungs before pazopanib administration Yes 3/4 0.010
No 2/16
Cavitation of the metastatic lesion Yes 5/6 <0.001
No 0/14
Treatment response to pazopanib PR 4/9 0.069
SD or PD 1/11
Presence of subpleural lesions Yes 4/18 0.389
No 1/2
Initial dose of pazopanib (mg/day) 800 4/7 0.015
Under 800 1/13

Abbreviations: UPS, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

Incidence of pneumothorax

Five patients were diagnosed with pneumothorax. The percentage was 15.6% (5/32) considering all patients and 25.0% (5/20) considering patients with lung metastasis. The symptoms of the first pneumothorax were dyspnea (n = 3; on exertion, 1; and resting condition, 2) and chest pain (n = 1); one patient had no complaints. The median time from the initiation of pazopanib to the first pneumothorax was 3 months (range, 2 weeks to 20 months). In total, three and two patients developed pneumothorax from the subpleural and central lesions, respectively. The first pneumothorax occurred at 2 weeks, 3 weeks, and 8 months after initiation of pazopanib in the three patients with the subpleural type and at 3 months and 20 months in the two patients with the central type. Representative cases are shown in Figs 3 and 4. Pazopanib treatment was restarted in 3 of the 5 patients after recovery from pneumothorax only if there were no other drug choices, but pneumothorax recurred in all three patients. Overall, the total incidence of pneumothorax was 15 times in five patients.

Fig 3. Representative case of pneumothorax from a subpleural type lesion.

Fig 3

A 57-year-old woman was diagnosed with unclassified pleomorphic sarcoma in the right lower leg with multiple lung metastases. Before initiating pazopanib (800 mg), both central (black arrow) and subpleural type (white arrow) metastases without cavitation were observed (a and b). Cavitation of the metastatic lesion was observed in the lung parenchyma (central type, black arrow, c) and around the subpleural lesion after 2 weeks. One month after initiating pazopanib, pneumothorax occurred from the subpleural type lesion (white arrow, d), but the central lesion did not rupture. Because of the good response of the multiple lung metastases to pazopanib, the patient was restarted on pazopanib after the first pneumothorax. Bilateral pneumothorax from the sub-pleural areas (left [the same place as first metastasis], right [S5], left [S5], left [S1+2) occurred consecutively. As regards cavitation in the central area, the pre-existing cavitation had slightly increased in size but never ruptured.

Fig 4. Representative case of pneumothorax from a central type lesion.

Fig 4

A 63-year-old man was diagnosed with unclassified pleomorphic sarcoma in the right thigh without any metastasis. The patient developed a single metastasis after 1 year; thus, lobectomy with video-associated thoracoscopic surgery was performed. Another single metastasis of the left lobe (central lesion, white arrow, a) was observed; thus, pazopanib 600 mg was initiated. (b) After 2 months, cavitation of the metastatic lesion was observed (white arrow). (c) The cavitation increased gradually in size, and (d) after 6 months, the patient developed dyspnea and was then diagnosed with severe pneumothorax with a mediastinal shift and accompanying bleeding. (e) Chest drainage was performed; however, the patient’s status did not improve. Thus, lobectomy with intractable fistula (white arrow) was performed. (f) Macroscopic image of the resected specimen indicating a massive necrotic area (white arrow) along the fistula to the degenerative cavity.

With respect to the location of metastatic lung lesions, 285 lesions per patient (14.3 ±12.9) were detected before the induction of pazopanib. Seventeen patients had both central and subpleural lesions, two patients had only central lesions, and one patient had only subpleural lesions. Of these, 171 lesions (8.6 ±9.3 lesions per patient) were subpleural, and 114 lesions (5.7 [±4.5] lesions per patient) were central. Twelve cases of pneumothorax, including recurrence, were observed in subpleural lesions (7.0%, 12/171); three cases of pneumothorax (2.6%, 3/114) were from central lesions. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of pneumothorax according to the tumor location (chi-square, p = 0.104).

Treatment

For the subpleural type, asymptomatic patients or those with small size pneumothorax (2 incidents in 2 patients) were administered conservative treatment, while a chest drainage tube was inserted in patients with moderately sized or complete pneumothorax (10 incidents in 3 patients). In total, the treatment efficacy of chest tube insertion was 60% (6/10). For resistant cases, pleurodesis was performed. This resulted in remission in all cases.

All cases of central type pneumothorax involved a complete pneumothorax (three incidents in two patients). The pneumothorax was uncontrollable in all cases using a chest tube; thus, pleurodesis or VATS was performed, depending on the recovery after re-expansion of the lung and the estimated size of the fistula.

Factors associated with pneumothorax

Cavitation was observed after the initiation of pazopanib in 30% (6/20) of patients and preceding the first pneumothorax in 83% of the patients (5/6); however, none of the patients without pneumothorax also developed cavitation (p<0.001, chi-square analysis). With respect to classification according to treatment response, 45% (9/20) and 55% (11/20) were evaluated as partial responders and inadequate responders (stable disease or progressive disease). Cavitation of the lung lesion was observed in 50% (5/10) of the partial responders and 10% (1/10) of the inadequate responders (stable disease or progressive disease), but there was no significant association between treatment response to pazopanib and cavitation (p = 0.051). Likewise, pneumothorax occurred in 44% (4/9) of partial responders and 9% (1/11) of inadequate responders (stable disease or progressive disease), but there was no significant association between treatment response to pazopanib and cavitation (p = 0.069). Moreover, the predisposing factor for pneumothorax was previous lung treatment (e.g., metastasectomy or radiofrequency ablation for the resection of metastatic lesions) before pazopanib administration (75% [3/4] vs. 13% [2/16], p = 0.01, Table 1), although the location of the pneumothorax was not directly related to the surgical site. In addition, the initial dose of pazopanib was associated with the rate of pneumothorax (57% [4/7] vs. 8% [1/13], p = 0.015, Table 1) in comparison to the maximum dose (800 mg).

Discussion

Pneumothorax is a serious adverse event of pazopanib treatment, and there have been case reports and series on pneumothorax occurring after pazopanib treatment [2, 7, 8]. In Japan, Nakano et al. reported a 10.3% incidence of pneumothorax, and the risk factor was lung metastatic tumor measuring > 3 cm and a history of pneumothorax [2]. Although the cause was unclear, the incidence rate was higher than that in the multi-center clinical trials of pazopanib (3% in the PALETTE study) [1]. In this study, we classified pneumothorax into two types: subpleural and central. In the subpleural type, the metastatic lesion was located around or attached to the visceral pleura. Typically, after cavitation of the metastatic tumor, pneumothorax occurs at the junction between the chest cavity and the ruptured cavity. In contrast, in the central type, the metastatic lesion was located distal to the pleura. After cavitation, the check-valve mechanism occurred, or air leaked continuously into the cavity. Finally, the high pressure caused enlargement of the cavity, resulting in rupture and pneumothorax. This indicates that careful monitoring is essential to note a gradual increase in the cavity size.

We observed that pneumothorax from subpleural lesions occurred much faster after the initiation of pazopanib and was occasionally refractory when compared with that from central lesions. Meanwhile, central pneumothorax is slower in onset but is sometimes intractable owing to the formation of an untreatable large fistula between the visceral pleura and the cavity (caused by continuous massive air leakage into the cavity). Despite the limited number of cases in this study, this classification may be useful for clinicians to predict the timing and severity of pneumothorax.

We assumed that the cause of the central pneumothorax was similar to pneumatocele. Pneumatocele is defined an air-filled cyst that develops within the lung parenchyma. It often occurs in respiratory infections, trauma, or mechanical ventilation [9, 10]. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, it has been considered to be caused by parenchymal necrosis and check-valve bronchiolar obstruction [11]. Another study proposed local collection of air in the interstitial tissue [12]. In our case series, a gradually enlarging cyst was observed, and a necrotic tract from the cyst to the pleural membrane was observed on the resected specimen (Fig 4). This finding suggested that, compared with subpleural pneumothorax, central type pneumothorax is preceded by more extensive necrosis.

The formation of a cavity is often facilitated by several antiangiogenic agents, including pazopanib [13, 14]. In this study, cavitation of the tumor preceded pneumothorax in most cases. Cavitation of lung metastases may also be associated with the treatment response to pazopanib and, simultaneously, with the risk of pneumothorax [15, 16], thus making treatment challenging. In our department, continuation or re-administration of pazopanib is only considered when pazopanib is effective at controlling tumor progression or when treatment options are limited. However, all patients developed recurrence of pneumothorax; thus, this should be carefully considered in patients with a history of pneumothorax after pazopanib treatment, and other alternative chemotherapeutics should also be considered. A balance between pazopanib efficacy and adverse events is important for planning treatment.

The exact reasons for the high rate of pneumothorax occurrence are unclear, but the selection of patients with naturally cyst-forming characteristics might have influenced the results of this study. Upon analyzing the natural characteristics of sarcomas, cyst-forming metastases in the lung, unrelated to pazopanib, had been previously reported [17]. In this study, we analyzed patients who had pre-existing cavitation (Pt No. 2) and cystic changes in metastatic lesions after cessation of pazopanib (Pt No. 8), which acted as the initiation point for the occurrence of pneumothorax. This phenomenon was supported by the fact that secondary pneumothorax has rarely been reported in cases of kidney cancer, for which pazopanib has also been approved [18].

This study has some limitations. First, during the early phase of the study period, new drugs for advanced soft tissue sarcoma, including eribulin or trabectedin, were not approved; thus, treatment options were limited. This may have increased the incidence of pneumothorax in high-risk patients (i.e., those with a previous history of pneumothorax or with a degenerative cavity) and recurrence of pneumothorax. Second, this study was performed at a single institution, and a limited number of patients were included in the study, thus posing a limitation toward performing multivariate analyses and reaching a precise conclusion. Moreover, only one race (East Asian) was included in this study. Although it has been proven that the metabolism of pazopanib does not differ among races [19], the dose of pazopanib (800 mg) used in the PALETTE study might have been excessive for the population in our study, as East Asians are characterized by relatively small body stature. In fact, a real-world study of pazopanib usage in Japan revealed that the average dose of pazopanib was approximately 600 mg [3]. The relationship between pneumothorax and the dose of pazopanib was not proven, and the dose might have influenced the study findings. Third, detection bias for pneumothorax affected the results of this study. The symptoms of pneumothorax are highly varied. Some patients are nearly asymptomatic while others experience such symptoms as dry cough, chest pain, and dyspnea, resulting in severe distress during breathing. Efforts to identify pneumothorax might have influenced the results. However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to classify pneumothorax after pazopanib treatment according to its pattern.

Conclusion

Pneumothorax is considered a severe adverse event of pazopanib treatment. Although precise prediction might be difficult, close attention must be paid to the predisposing factors, including the formation of cavitation after the initiation of pazopanib and previous interventions performed on the lungs. Moreover, from the viewpoint of the positional relationship, where the subpleural type tends to occur earlier than central pneumothorax and because the central type may be challenging to treat owing to the larger fistula between the chest cavity and the degenerated cavity, different behaviors can be anticipated. Thus, the location of the metastatic lesion should be considered during decision-making in order to observe such lesions in the lungs.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Summary of patient characteristics and treatment courses.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff members of the Division of Pathology of Nagoya City University Hospital for evaluating the histological specimens and staff members of the Department of Radiology of Nagoya City University Hospital for evaluating the radiological images.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.van der Graaf WT, Blay JY, Chawla SP, Kim DW, Bui-Nguyen B, Casali PG, et al. ; EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group; PALETTE study group. Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;19: 1879–1886. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60651-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nakano K, Inagaki L, Tomomatsu J, Motoi N, Gokita T, Ae K, et al. Incidence of pneumothorax in advanced and/or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma patients during pazopanib treatment. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26(6): 357. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nakamura T, Matsumine A, Kawai A, Araki N, Goto T, Yonemoto T, et al. The clinical outcome of pazopanib treatment in Japanese patients with relapsed soft tissue sarcoma: A Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group (JMOG) study. Cancer 2016;122(9): 1408–1416. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Evaluation and Licensing Division [Internet]. Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Report on the Deliberation Results [Cited 29 June 2019]. Available from: https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000153553.pdf.
  • 5.MacDuff A, Arnold A, Harvey J; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65 Suppl 2: ii18–ii31. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.136986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Soulsby T. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of spontaneous pneumothorax: Do we comply with them and do they work? Emerg Med J. 1998;15(5): 317–321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nakahara Y, Fukui T, Katono K, Nishizawa Y, Okuma Y, Ikegami M, et al. Pneumothorax during pazopanib treatment in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma: Two case reports and a review of the literature. Case Rep Oncol. 2017;10(1): 333–338. doi: 10.1159/000463380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Verschoor AJ, Gelderblom H. Pneumothorax as adverse event in patients with lung metastases of soft tissue sarcoma treated with pazopanib: a single reference centre case series. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2014;4: 14. doi: 10.1186/2045-3329-4-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Al-Saleh S, Grasemann H, Cox P. Necrotizing pneumonia complicated by early and late pneumatoceles. Can Respir J. 2008;15: 129–132. doi: 10.1155/2008/136708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sangro P, Bilbao I, Fernández-Ros N, Iñarrairaegui M, Zulueta J, Bilbao J, et al. Pneumatocele during sorafenib therapy: first report of an unusual complication. Oncotarget. 2017;9: 6652–6656. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Quigley MJ, Fraser RS. Pulmonary pneumatocele: pathology and pathogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150: 1275–1277. doi: 10.2214/ajr.150.6.1275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Boisset GF. Subpleural emphysema complicating staphylococcal and other pneumonia. J Pediatr. 1972;81: 259–266. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(72)80292-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Crabb SJ, Patsios D, Sauerbrei E, Ellis PM, Arnold A, Goss G, et al. Tumor cavitation: impact on objective response evaluation in trials of angiogenesis inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3): 404–410. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.2545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Marom EM, Martinez CH, Truong MT, Lei X, Sabloff BS, Munden RF, et al. Tumor cavitation during therapy with antiangiogenesis agents in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3(4): 351–357. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318168c7e9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Interiano RB, McCarville MB, Wu J, Davidoff AM, Sandoval J, Navid F. Pneumothorax as a complication of combination antiangiogenic therapy in children and young adults with refractory/recurrent solid tumors. J Pediatr Surg. 2012;50(9): 1484–1489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Çelik B, Sürücü ZP, Yılmaz V, Çelik HK. A case report of secondary simultaneous bilateral pneumothorax due to pazopanib treatment. Turk Thorac J. 2018;19(1): 49–51. doi: 10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2018.030118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hasegawa S, Inui K, Kamakari K, Kotoura Y, Suzuki K, Fukumoto M. Pulmonary cysts as the sole metastatic manifestation of soft tissue sarcoma: case report and consideration of the pathogenesis. Chest. 1999;116(1):263–5. doi: 10.1378/chest.116.1.263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, Reeves J, Hawkins R, Guo J, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(8): 722–731. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1303989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Deng Y, Sychterz C, Suttle AB, Dar MM, Bershas D, Negash K, et al. Bioavailability, metabolism and disposition of oral pazopanib in patients with advanced cancer. Xenobiotica. 2013; 43(5):443–53. doi: 10.3109/00498254.2012.734642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Robert S Benjamin

27 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10938

Different patterns of pneumothorax in patients with soft tissue tumors treated with pazopanib: A case series analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aiba,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert S Benjamin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an interesting study that presents important and useful information, but it needs some clarification. Please recheck the numbers. You state that there were 32 patients treated, 4 were excluded due to extrapulmonary metastases, but that left 19 patients. What about the other 9? The manuscript focuses on 20 patients. Where did the other 1 come from? More discussion should be placed on the extraordinarily high response rate, which is typically 5%, and whether the "nonresponding" patient who had pneumothorax had a response that did not qualify for PR. Are Japanese patients more likely to respond to this therapy or simply more likely to develop pneumothorax than caucasians. Please address these questions as well as others raised in the review process.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include the full name of the ethics committee that approved your study in the manuscript Methods.

3. Please state whether the data were obtained retrospectively from medical records. If so, in the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your study, including: a) whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them; b) the date range (month and year) during which patients' medical records/samples were accessed; c) the source of the medical records/samples analyzed in this work (e.g. hospital, institution or medical center name).

In addition, we note that you obtained consents from participants to take part in your study. In the Ethics Statement on the online submission form and the manuscript Methods , please clarify the context in which consent was obtained, and specify whether patients provided:

    1) Consent to use their medical records/samples in research

    2) Consent to undergo the procedure

    3) Consent to take part in the study reported in this manuscript.

If the ethics committee waived the need for additional informed consent, please state this.

Thank you for your attention to these requests.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Detailed analysis of pazopanib and pneumothorax

2. Follow up data on what happened to pt was very helpful and need for pleurodesis is helpful for clinicians.

3. Timing of PTX and cavitation is instructive and helpful.

4. Case summary instructive if space needed, can omit

5.

Reviewer #2: 1. In Materials, p4 line 72, you indicated 19 patients evaluated, but all the findings are about 20 patients.

2. In Discussion, p 11 line 203, I think you 'observed' the difference between the behavior of central and subpleural lesions, rather than 'hypothesized' about it.

3. Use the terminology that the lesions or cavities were central or subpleural rather than the pneumothorax. The pneumothorax is always pleural in location.

4. Table 1 Cavitation of lesions, appears that 6 pts had ptx, 5/5 + 1/15. The text page 8 reads that 5/6 patients with cavitation had ptx and 0/14 patients without cavitation had ptx. Clarify this.

5. Did patients have multiple cavities? Both central and subpleural? Were recurrent ptx related to the same lesion or multiple lesions? Was the rupturing lesion always identified?

6. Figure 1 and 2 could probably be adequately done with 2 or 3 parts each instead of 3-5 parts. Or left out completely in favor of figures 3 and 4.

7. Add some description of time course from cavitation to ptx. Did cavities continually increase? Did some cavities increase but never rupture? Was there a size that made rupture likely? What was the minimum time from cavitation to rupture? Did cavities that didn't rupture persist or improve?

8. Although previous intervention was associated with more ptx, those numbers seem very small for any strong statement. Were the interventions spatially related to the cavitating lesions, i.e. was it the lesion previously intervened on or even the same lung, that went on to cavitate?

9. Were patients always symptomatic when ptx discovered?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Gregory W. Gladish, MD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 16;16(7):e0254866. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254866.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Jun 2021

Additional Editor Comments:

� This is an interesting study that presents important and useful information, but it needs some clarification. Please recheck the numbers. You state that there were 32 patients treated, 4 were excluded due to extrapulmonary metastases, but that left 19 patients. What about the other 9? The manuscript focuses on 20 patients. Where did the other 1 come from?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for these inconsistencies in numerical data. We have amended them accordingly (line 74).

� More discussion should be placed on the extraordinarily high response rate, which is typically 5%,

Response: The exact reasons why the number of pneumothorax cases was higher in this study are unclear, but we have presumed several reasons.

1. Pre-existing cavity before pazopanib administration: In this study, there were patients who had pre-existing cavitation (Pt No. 2) and cystic changes in metastatic lesions after cessation of pazopanib (Pt No. 8), which acted as the pivot for the occurrence of pneumothorax. However, it is difficult to distinguish whether pazopanib facilitates augmentation of the pre-existing cavity or the natural course of metastatic lesions (line 246-254).

2. Some patients with pneumothorax were asymptomatic during the diagnosis. The detection bias, which was caused by more frequent CT analysis, is the reason for the high rate of pneumothorax cases (line 272-274).

3. The dose of pazopanib was related to the occurrence of pneumothorax. In this study, we found that the maximum dose of pazopanib (800 mg) was related to the incidence of pneumothorax (4/7 [800] vs. 1/13 [under 800], p=0.015, chi-square analysis) (line 197-199, 262-267).

4. Re-administration of pazopanib might be one of the reasons for the high rates. Until the acceptance of trabectedin or eribulin, the choice to treat the metastatic lesion had been limited in Japan, and we were reluctant to administer pazopanib again (line 240-245).

� and whether the "nonresponding" patient who had pneumothorax had a response that did not qualify for PR.

Response: Patients who achieved PR following pazopanib therapy occasionally experienced pneumothorax due to the degeneration of the tumor, resulting in an air cavity (4/9 [PR], 1/11 [SD or PD], p=0.069, chi-square analysis) (line 188-194). However, in thus study, we experienced cases of pneumothorax due to necrosis, which is caused by the natural progression of the tumor and is not related to the pazopanib response (pre-existing cavitation case, Pt no. 2). Pt no. 8 (44-year-old man, extraskeletal chondrosarcoma) experienced pneumothorax after cessation of pazopanib. This might be related to the natural characteristics of soft tissue sarcomas (line 262-267).

� Are Japanese patients more likely to respond to this therapy or simply more likely to develop pneumothorax than caucasians. Please address these questions as well as others raised in the review process.

Response: The fundamental study of pazopanib revealed no apparent racial differences in metabolism (Yanli Deng, et al. Bioavailability, metabolism and disposition of oral pazopanib in patients with advanced cancer, Xenobiotica, 43:5, 443-453, DOI: 10.3109/00498254.2012.734642). We considered the dose of the PALETTE study (800 mg) might be relatively higher for the small physique of our population. This might be one of the reasons for the high rate (264-271).

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include the full name of the ethics committee that approved your study in the manuscript Methods.

Response: I have added the name of Ethics Committee in the Methods (line 114-117).

3. Please state whether the data were obtained retrospectively from medical records. If so, in the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your study, including: a) whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them; b) the date range (month and year) during which patients' medical records/samples were accessed; c) the source of the medical records/samples analyzed in this work (e.g. hospital, institution or medical center name).

Response: The medical records were retrospectively acquired. We have confirmed that all data were fully anonymized before the analysis. The data include medical records and samples analyzed in this study (line 76-77).

In addition, we note that you obtained consents from participants to take part in your study. In the Ethics Statement on the online submission form and the manuscript Methods , please clarify the context in which consent was obtained, and specify whether patients provided:

1) Consent to use their medical records/samples in research

2) Consent to undergo the procedure

3) Consent to take part in the study reported in this manuscript.

Response: We have added these comments accordingly (line 114-117).

Reviewer #1: 1. Detailed analysis of pazopanib and pneumothorax

2. Follow up data on what happened to pt was very helpful and need for pleurodesis is helpful for clinicians.

3. Timing of PTX and cavitation is instructive and helpful.

4. Case summary instructive if space needed, can omit

Response: Thank you for your positive acknowledgment of our manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

� In Materials, p4 line 72, you indicated 19 patients evaluated, but all the findings are about 20 patients.

Response: We apologize for this proofreading oversight. We have amended it accordingly (line 74).

� 2. In Discussion, p 11 line 203, I think you 'observed' the difference between the behavior of central and subpleural lesions, rather than 'hypothesized' about it.

Response: You are correct. We have revised the description (line 220).

� 3. Use the terminology that the lesions or cavities were central or subpleural rather than the pneumothorax. The pneumothorax is always pleural in location.

Response: As you correctly mentioned, the pneumothorax is always pleural in location. We apologize for not being explicit earlier and have thus revised it to the exact location to avoid any misunderstanding.

� 4. Table 1 Cavitation of lesions, appears that 6 pts had ptx, 5/5 + 1/15. The text page 8 reads that 5/6 patients with cavitation had ptx and 0/14 patients without cavitation had ptx. Clarify this.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for this oversight. The correct description is 5/6, 0/14 (p<0.001); this has been amended in the revised manuscript (line 183-185, and Table).

� 5. Did patients have multiple cavities? Both central and subpleural? Were recurrent ptx related to the same lesion or multiple lesions? Was the rupturing lesion always identified?

Response: I have added the following information to the revised manuscript

� Whether the patients had multiple cavities (line 141-144).

� Supplemental Table: whether the re-ruptured lesions were the same. In this study, we experienced a ruptured lesion alternatively on the left and right sides (Pt No. 2 and 3).

� The ruptured lesions were assumed by comparing consecutive CT images with the cavitated area.

� 6. Figure 1 and 2 could probably be adequately done with 2 or 3 parts each instead of 3-5 parts. Or left out completely in favor of figures 3 and 4.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I have reduced the number of figures in deference to the reviewer’s instructions (figure 2).

� 7. Add some description of time course from cavitation to ptx.

Response: The detail of the time course has been depicted in annotations in the Supplemental Table.

� The patient (no. 2, 73-year-old woman, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma) with bilateral multiple metastases with or without cavitation had been identified before administering pazopanib. For solid metastases, radiofrequency ablation was performed for bilateral lung metastases four times. Then, lobectomy of the left lower lobe was performed. Two months after surgery, pazopanib was administered (800 mg). At that time, there were many metastases with small cavitation (approximately 10 mm) and prominent cavitation in the left lung (S5, 26 mm, central lesion). After the initiation of pazopanib treatment, the patient’s condition was well controlled. However, the prominent cavity increased to 57 mm, though the other cavities did not increase. Subsequently, pneumothorax occurred. This pneumothorax was not related to the previously intervened area. After drainage and pleurodesis, the pneumothorax was maintained for 6 months. However, a second pneumothorax occurred in the same cavity.

� Patient no. 4, 15-year-old, male, extraskeletal osteosarcoma: Bilateral multiple metastases without cavitation were identified. Two weeks after the initiation of pazopanib, approximately half of the metastatic lesions degenerated into several cavity. At the same time, the patient complained of chest pain; pneumothorax that occurred from the subpleural lesion of the right lung was detected. Two weeks after drainage, pazopanib was initiated. However, after 2 weeks, an asymptomatic small pneumothorax was noted in the subpleural lesion of the left lung. Subsequently, the continuation of pazopanib was considered difficult. However, repeated pneumothorax occurred on both sides.

� Patient no. 8 (44-year-old, male, extraskeletal chondrosarcoma): Under the administration of pazopanib, the lung metastases were controlled as stable disease. Six months after treatment, rapid growth and appearance of new lesions were noted. At the same time, cavitation of the subpleural lesion in the right lung appeared. Owing to the progressive form of the disease, pazopanib was discontinued. One week after cessation, pneumothorax occurred in the right lung from the cavitation area and was treated with drainage. After recovery from pneumothorax, re-initiation of pazopanib was difficult because of the patient’s condition. With an increase in the number of metastatic lesions, several lesions accompanied degenerated cysts. This indicated that these cavitations were not related to the administration of pneumothorax but rather to the natural course of the tumor.

� Did cavities continually increase? Did some cavities increase but never rupture? Was there a size that made rupture likely? What was the minimum time from cavitation to rupture? Did cavities that didn't rupture persist or improve?

Response:

� Indeed, some cavities that had increased and never ruptured existed. One patient (representative case, Figure 3) had several cavities in both the central and subpleural lesions. Pneumothorax occurred in the subpleural lesion, and the central lesion was stable. This implies that pneumothorax can easily occur in subpleural lesions (line 148 - 159).

� The size of the cavity is an important independent factor. However, the location of the cavity and proximity to the pleural membrane are important. This is because pneumothorax occurs from the aperture to the ventral pleural membrane. We should be caution for the rapidly increasing central lesion, but pneumothorax from the subpleural lesion can frequently occur from a small lesion. It is difficult to define the cut-off value for size.

� Regarding the time from cavitation (at the detected day) to rupture, for the central type, it was 19 months (No. 1) and 3 months (No. 2), and for the subpleural type, it was 1 weeks (No. 3), the same day (No. 4), and 1 week (No. 8) (Supplemental table).

� In this study, we did not experience any cavities that had shrunk.

� 8. Although previous intervention was associated with more ptx, those numbers seem very small for any strong statement. Were the interventions spatially related to the cavitating lesions, i.e. was it the lesion previously intervened on or even the same lung, that went on to cavitate?

Response: As you correctly mentioned, the sample size was too small to provide such as a strong conclusion. Interventions to the lung were not directly related to the ruptured field (i.e., the cavitation was not related to anastomotic leakage). Indirect relationships via unknow factors (e.g., fibrosis around surgical site, burden for the remaining lung, stress by the invasive procedure and anesthesia) have been indicated (line 194-197).

� 9. Were patients always symptomatic when ptx discovered?

Response: I have expounded on this concern in the revised manuscript. The symptoms of pneumothorax were versatile, ranging from nearly asymptomatic to chest pain and dyspnea on exertion to severe dyspnea (line 129-132)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos-rebut (2).docx

Decision Letter 1

Robert S Benjamin

6 Jul 2021

Different patterns of pneumothorax in patients with soft tissue tumors treated with pazopanib: A case series analysis

PONE-D-21-10938R1

Dear Dr. Aiba,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Robert S Benjamin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have satisfactorily responded to the reviewers comments The manuscript is now acceptable for publication. I would suggest 2 further small revisions. In line 143, the close parenthesis should be moved to the end of the line; and in line 149, add the words "statistically significant" before the word difference.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Robert S Benjamin

8 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-10938R1

Different patterns of pneumothorax in patients with soft tissue tumors treated with pazopanib: A case series analysis

Dear Dr. Aiba:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Robert S Benjamin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Summary of patient characteristics and treatment courses.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos-rebut (2).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES