Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Malignant pleural effusions: the patient experience
  1. Rachel Jones1,
  2. Henry Steer1,
  3. Nancy Preston2 and
  4. Paul Perkins3,4
  1. 1Respiratory Medicine, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK
  2. 2International Observatory of End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  3. 3Sue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK
  4. 4Palliative Medicine, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paul Perkins, Sue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice, Cheltenham GL53 0QJ, Gloucestershire, UK; paul.perkins{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

To the editor

We commend Twose et al for their qualitative study conducted with 16 patients who had therapeutic thoracocentesis for malignant pleural effusions (MPEs).1 Respiratory symptoms improved while constitutional symptoms did not; and even though symptomatic benefit was only for a matter of days, patients thought that it was worth any discomfort.

We conducted a similar study with 10 patients with MPE who were identified by the pleural team at a large district general hospital. Patients were interviewed 4 weeks after a talc pleurodesis or placement of an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC). An IPC is a plastic tube which can be placed during a day case procedure and allows intermittent fluid drainage in the community.

A semistructured electronically recorded interview was conducted …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @nancypreston16

  • Contributors PP conceived the study. RJ, HS and NP made substantial contribution to its design. RJ collected the data. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data and critically revised drafts of the paper. They also read and approved the final version of the manuscript. PP is the guarantor.

  • Funding Funding for this study was received from the Gloucestershire Hospitals Chest Fund and the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Research and Innovation Forum Fund.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by Gloucestershire Research Support Service, the Sue Ryder Research Governance Group, the National Research Ethics Service Committee West Midlands (REC Reference 16/WM/0222).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Unpublished data are held by Sue Ryder Leckhampton Court Hospice.