Pleurectomy/decortication versus extrapleural pneumonectomy in pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival, mortality, and surgical trends

Background: The optimal surgical approach for malignant pleural mesothelioma (PM) remains a topic of debate. While extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) offers radical resection, it is associated with significant morbidity. Pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) is less extensive but may offer comparable oncologic outcomes with reduced perioperative risk. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically evaluate and quantitatively compare survival outcomes, 30-day postoperative mortality, and baseline characteristics between patients undergoing P/D and EPP for PM. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched up to May 2025. Studies comparing EPP and P/D in PM that reported on survival, mortality, or baseline demographics were included. Data from 24 retrospective studies were extracted. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed by geographic region and publication year. Results: P/D was associated with a significantly improved overall survival compared to EPP in the primary analysis (mean difference = 7.01 months; 95% CI: 1.15–12.86; p = 0.018), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 98.5%). In a sensitivity analysis excluding one statistical outlier, the survival benefit remained significant (mean difference = 4.31 months; 95% CI: 1.69–6.93), and heterogeneity was markedly reduced. The 30-day mortality rate was also significantly lower for P/D (odds ratio = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.13–0.88; p = 0.027). Patients undergoing P/D were, on average, 3.78 years older than those undergoing EPP (p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed in the sex distribution between groups. Subgroup analyses by region and publication year confirmed the robustness of the findings. Meta-regression did not reveal substantial modifiers of survival. Conclusions: P/D demonstrates superior overall survival and reduced perioperative mortality compared to EPP, without evidence of baseline demographic confounding. These findings, derived from retrospective comparative studies, support the preferential use of P/D in eligible patients, particularly in high-volume centers, given its favorable safety profile and superior median survival. However, the absence of randomized trials directly comparing P/D and EPP and the potential influence of patient selection warrant cautious interpretation, and surgical decisions should be tailored to individual patient factors within a multidisciplinary setting.