Pharmacokinetics of intrapleural recombinant interleukin-2 in immunotherapy for malignant pleural effusion

Current State of Pleural-Directed Adjuncts Against Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Multimodality therapy including surgical resection is the current paradigm in treating malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a thoracic surface cancer without cure. The main limitation of all surgical approaches is the lack of long-term durability because macroscopic complete resection (R1 resection) commonly predisposes to locoregional relapse. Over the years, there have been many studies that describe various intrapleural strategies that aim to extend the effect of surgical resection. The majority of these approaches are intraoperative adjuvants. Broadly, there are three therapeutic classes that employ diverse agents. The most common, widely used group of adjuvants are comprised of direct therapeutics such as intracavitary chemotherapy (± hyperthermia). By comparison, the least commonly employed intrathoracic adjuvant is the class comprised of drug-device combinations like photodynamic therapy (PDT). But the most rapidly evolving (new) class with much potential for improved efficacy are therapeutics delivered by specialized drug vehicles such as a fibrin gel containing cisplatin. This review provides an updated perspective on pleural-directed adjuncts in the management of MPM as well as highlighting the most promising near-term technology breakthroughs.

Interleukin-2 reverses CD8(+) T cell exhaustion in clinical malignant pleural effusion of lung cancer

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a poor prognostic sign for cancer patients, whereas the functional condition of MPE CD8(+) T cells is unknown. Intracavitary immunotherapy with interleukin (IL)-2 has been proven effective in controlling MPE. To elucidate the underlying mechanism, 35 lung cancer (LC) patients with MPE and 12 healthy donors were included in this study. For the IL-2 therapy experiments, after draining partial MPE, we treated 14 patients by administrating IL-2 (3 or 5 × 10(6) U in 50 ml saline) into the thoracic cavity. Before and after IL-2 treatment (40-48 h), the MPE and peripheral blood (PB) were obtained from the subjects. PB from healthy volunteers was collected as control. The expression of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), granzyme B (GzmB), interferon (IFN)-γ and the proliferation were analysed in CD8(+) T cells from MPE and PB. The CD8(+) T cells in the MPE of LC patients showed lowest GzmB, IFN-γ and proliferation but highest PD-1 expression, compared with that in PB of LC patients and healthy donors. IL-2 treatment reduced the expression of PD-1, increased the expression of GzmB and IFN-γ and enhanced the proliferation of CD8(+) T cells in MPE. In addition, IL-2 treatment reduced carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) level in MPE. These results indicate that MPE CD8(+) T cells exhibit exhaustion phenotype which can be reversed by IL-2 therapy.

Intrapleural administration of lipoplatin in an animal model

BACKGROUND

Lipoplatin is a new liposomal cisplatin already tested in solid tumors with encouraging results. Little is known about the activity of lipoplatin administered intrapleurally (IP).

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess in an animal model the pharmacokinetics, and potentially induced histopathological lesions of lung and kidney after IP vs. IV injection of lipoplatin.

METHODS

15 male Wistar rats were assigned to an IV group at dose 10mg/kg of lipoplatin (group 1) and to IP groups at 10 (group 2) or 20mg/kg (group 3) equal to 60 and 120 mg/m(2) in humans respectively. After lipoplatin administration, serial plasma samples were analyzed by atomic absorption spectrometry for the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), and the total body clearance (CL). Pleura, lungs and kidneys of the rats were histologically examined for possible lesions.

RESULTS

The C(max) was significantly higher in groups 1 vs. 2 (p = 0.02) and vs. 3 (p = 0.01). The AUC of groups 3 vs. 1 was significantly higher (p = 0.028) but the AUC of groups 2 vs. 1 was significantly lower (p = 0.02). CL in IP rats did not differ considerably compared to the IV. Inflammatory changes were noted in the pleura of IP rats and mild kidneys lesions in IV group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the IV route, IP20 administration of lipoplatin yielded higher AUC, equal CL, but a significantly lower C(max). As C(max) is a determinant of lipoplatin toxicity, IP administration might offer a more effective therapeutic index while improving tolerability. We noted fibrotic changes in the pleura of IP rats, and mild kidneys changes in IV rats, as expected.

Lymphohistiocytoid Variant of Malignant Mesothelioma of the Pleura: A Series of 22 Cases

The lymphohistiocytoid variant of diffuse malignant mesothelioma is rare with very few cases described in the literature. It is characterized by mesothelial cells with a histiocytelike appearance and an associated dense lymphoid infiltrate. We studied clinicopathologic features and immunohistochemical patterns of a series of 22 cases. The histiocytelike cells had a mesothelial immunophenotype: AE1/AE3 (100%), calretinin (100%), CK5/6 (46%), and EMA (52%). The prominent lymphoid component showed a cytotoxic T-cell immunophenotype. Prognosis was similar to that of a large series of epithelioid diffuse malignant mesotheliomas. Formely, it was classified within the sarcomatoid type. We suggest that it should be reclassified as an epithelioid variant because of its similar behavioural characteristics. There was no evidence of Epstein-Barr virus-related infection.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma--an update

Exposure to asbestos is the most frequent, but not exclusive, cause of malignant mesothelioma. Clinical features include dyspnea, cough, nonspecific chest pain, weight loss and night sweats. Diagnosis may be complicated by histologic difficulties. Thoracoscopic techniques are proving beneficial, but no one method of imaging has proven superior, and disease staging is inconsistent. Conventional treatments such as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy have had variable impacts, although chemotherapy is useful in palliation and can improve both survival and quality of life. There is hope for new antimetabolite agents. The role of radical surgery is yet to be evaluated in a large trial. New radiotherapeutic techniques to improve local control are promising. Multimodality treatments appear to be the most successful for management of potentially resectable disease. It is likely that biological markers will improve accuracy in staging and prognosis. With new treatments based on better understanding of the biology of the disease, there is cautious optimism for the future for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Malignant mesothelioma: options for management

In the past, there has been a tendency to think of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma as one disease in therapeutic terms, regardless of histological type and tumor stage. This does not happen with other tumors, yet it is equally illogical and inappropriate in mesothelioma. As with other tumors, early diagnosis-while the disease is still in stage I, or even at an in situ stage-must be the goal so that therapy can be maximized, particularly if immunotherapy or gene therapy is to be used. Patients with pure epithelial mesothelioma have a better prognosis and respond better to trimodality therapy. Stage I patients who meet fitness criteria should be offered the option of radical surgery in combination with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Further research is required to determine the optimum neoadjuvant and adjuvant modalities, particularly the timing of individual drugs, use of hyperthermia, and route of administration. The place of immunotherapy and gene therapy as adjunctive treatments also remains to be defined. For example, it may be possible to reduce tumor bulk and perhaps downstage the disease with immunotherapy before radical surgery, if treatment is started early enough. Gene therapy may have a role either preoperatively or in destroying the microscopic disease that remains after radical surgery. These and other combinations of treatment need to be tested in well-designed clinical trials, probably on a multicenter basis (to enroll a sufficient number of patients). Finding the means to improve treatment for sarcomatous and mixed histology mesothelioma remains a challenge. At present, radical surgery does not seem worthwhile for these patients when combined with currently employed chemotherapy and radiotherapy; however, chemotherapy combinations used for treating other sarcomas need to be evaluated as adjunctive therapy before radical surgery is abandoned altogether as a mode of treatment. A collaborative approach involving thoracic surgeons, basic scientists and oncologists, and physicians with experience in treating mesothelioma is essential. Despite its increasing frequency, mesothelioma is still a relatively rare tumor, so treatment should be concentrated in relatively few supraregional centers to maximize expertise and allow innovative treatment combinations to be implemented with the greatest chance of success. Evaluation of new therapeutic approaches will be achieved more rapidly if these supraregional centers collaborate in multicenter trials. The nihilistic approach of simply waiting until the mesothelioma epidemic eventually begins to decline spontaneously in 20 or 30 years is untenable in view of the hundreds of thousands of deaths that will result if no effective treatment is found.

Intrapleural infusion of activated macrophages and gamma-interferon in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a phase II study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Intrapleural immunotherapy has shown some activity in patients with malignant mesothelioma. We conducted a multicentric pilot phase II study to evaluate the tolerance and the activity of intrapleurally infused autologous human activated macrophages (AM Phi) in patients with stage IA, IB, and IIA malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

DESIGN

AM Phi derived from in vitro monocyte culture were infused into the pleura of patients every week for 8 consecutive weeks. Each infusion was followed 3 days later by an intrapleural injection of 9 millions units of gamma-interferon (gamma-IFN) in an attempt to prolong the in vivo activation of infused AM Phi. Response was assessed by CT scan and thoracoscopy when possible. If the patient's disease progressed after AM Phi treatment, an additional treatment was left to the choice of the investigator.

PATIENTS

Nineteen patients with histologically proven stage IA, IB, or IIA MPM were enrolled. Two patients were excluded before any AM Phi infusion because of complications impeding infusion. Seventeen patients were actually treated. After completion of the AM Phi cellular therapy, 10 patients were treated with chemotherapy as their diseases progressed.

RESULTS

The overall response rate of patients actually treated was 14%. When including the two patients enrolled but not treated, the overall response "in intention to treat" was 11%; two patients had a partial response, with a duration of response of 30 months and 3 months, respectively. One patient, who could not be evaluated by thoracoscopy because of pleural symphysis, is still alive without any clinical or radiologic sign of disease 69 months after treatment. No major adverse effects were observed during the infusion of either AM Phi or gamma-IFN, and there was no interruption of treatment because of toxicity. However, symphysis was observed in 7 of 14 patients who received the complete treatment. The median survival of patients actually treated, including those who received chemotherapy after AM Phi, was 29.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Combined infusion of AM Phi and gamma-IFN was well tolerated in patients with MPM; however, it had limited antitumor activity.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma remains a difficult tumor to treat, much less cure. Currently, the best chance for long-term survival lies with early diagnosis and aggressive surgical extirpation, but given the typically long delay between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis, this is only possible with a high index of suspicion and an aggressive diagnosis workup. Early referral to a tertiary center experienced in the treatment of MPM may be important for several reasons: (1) decreased risk of tumor spread along multiple thoracenesis/biopsy tracts, (2) the availability of specialized pathologic assays for definitive diagnosis, (3) the availability of critical staging modalities (aggressive mediastinoscopy +/- thoracoscopy, MRI scans performed according to specific mesothelioma protocols, and perhaps PET scans), (4) surgical experience with pleurectomy/decortication and/or extrapleural pneumonectomy, that may decrease morbidity and mortality, and (5) the availability of novel adjuvant protocols. Single-modality therapy is unlikely to result in long-term survival. Aggressive surgery is required for optimal debulking, and extrapleural pneumonectomy may offer better local control compared with pleurectomy/ecortication. Delivery of optimal radiation schedules, which may involve large fractions as well as large total doses, is limited by the presence of nearby dose-limiting structures. Current chemotherapy is severely lacking in producing objective responses and improved survival although gemcitabine and IL-2 may be active agents to be combined with radiation and/or other agents. Hyperthermia, photodynamic therapy, intracavitary therapy, and gene therapy are all relatively new techniques under active investigation that should be supported by enrollment in on-going protocols. Predictably, many of these techniques provide greater benefit when used in the setting of adjuvant protocols or minimal residual disease, emphasizing the importance of multimodality therapy.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma presenting as spontaneous pneumothorax: a case series and review

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is thought to arise from the mesothelial cells that line the pleural cavities. Most patients initially experience the insidious onset of chest pain or shortness of breath, and it rarely presents as spontaneous pneumothorax.

CASE REPORTS

We report four patients who presented in this manner. Three of the patients were exposed to asbestos directly or indirectly at shipyards during World War II; the fourth was exposed as an insulator's wife. Two of our cases were not recognized to have MPM on histologic examination at first thoracotomy and remained asymptomatic for 12 and 22 months, respectively. In none of the patients described herein, was spontaneous pneumothorax the cause of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Since many people were exposed to asbestos during and after World War II, spontaneous pneumothorax in a patient with the possibility of such exposure should raise the suspicion of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a critical review

Malignant mesothelioma remains a uniformly fatal disease and best supportive care continues to be the standard treatment. Neither chemotherapy nor surgery has been shown to prolong survival. Radiotherapy is not curative but is useful for prophylaxis against needle-track metastases and for symptom palliation. Combinations of therapies have been tried but most studies were uncontrolled and selection bias makes the results impossible to interpret. The combination of extrapleural pneumonectomy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy attracted much interest, but the subsequent results were disappointing in a highly selected group of patients. Randomized controlled trials are desperately needed to provide definitive information on experimental treatments. It is also important to develop better measures of disease response and to assess quality of life issues in clinical trials. If patients are to receive therapies other than palliation, they should only do so in the setting of randomized controlled trials under approved protocols.

Pleural mesothelioma

The increasing incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), better knowledge of its pathogenesis with a strong implication of asbestos fibers, and some promising therapeutic results have led to a new interest in the management of patients with this disease. The diagnosis of MPM is easier because of new immunohistochemical markers that recognize the mesothelial cells with good specificity and sensitivity on pleural biopsy samples ideally obtained by thoracoscopy. Moreover, this endoscopic procedure allows the physician to make the diagnosis of MPM at an early stage, which is the key of the therapeutic management of this disease. If radiotherapy is necessary in preventing the malignant seeding after pleural procedures in patients, the lack of comparative studies did not show the superiority of a given treatment against another. A new international staging of the disease, however, allows physicians to discriminate several groups of patients for such comparative studies--in particular, for testing the efficacy of intrapleural therapy, e.g., cytokines--for early-stage MPM and multimodal management, i.e., extrapleural pneumonectomy, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy for more advanced diseases, has led to prolonged survival in carefully selected patients. To reach this target, all patients must be enrolled in protocols. The usual pessimism for the management of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma is over.

Intrapleural administration of interleukin-2 for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: a Phase II study

BACKGROUND

The prognosis associated with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is poor in spite of surgery, radiotherapy, photodynamic therapy, or chemotherapy. Therefore, new therapeutic strategies, including intrapleural immunotherapy, are being investigated. Several clinical studies have demonstrated objective antitumoral responses to intrapleural interleukin-2 (IL-2) administration in the treatment of malignant pleurisy. The maximum tolerated dose, 24 x 10(6) IU/m2/day for 5 days, was determined in a Phase I study. Based on these results, a Phase II study was conducted, in which intrapleural IL-2 (21 x 10(6) IU/m2/day for 5 days) was given to patients with MPM.

METHODS

Patients with histologically documented MPM were evaluated for response 36 days after treatment by computed tomography scan and thoracoscopy with biopsies. Toxicity was recorded and graded according to World Health Organization criteria. Survival was calculated from the start of treatment to death according to the Kaplan-Meier method, and the survival of responders and nonresponders was compared using the log rank test.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients entered this study. Of the 22 cases of MPM, 19 were epithelial, 2 were mixed, and 1 was fibrosarcomatous. Three patients had Stage IA disease, 1 had Stage IB, 16 had Stage II, 1 had Stage III, and 1 had Stage IV (Butchart classification). All patients received their planned treatment. No dose reduction or interruption occurred. There were 11 partial responses and 1 complete response. Stable disease occurred in 3 patients and disease progression in 7 patients. The overall median survival time was 18 months; the median survival time of responders differed significantly from that of nonresponders (28 months vs. 8 months, P < 0.01). The 24- and 36-month survival rates for responders were 58% and 41%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that intrapleural administration of IL-2 is well tolerated and has antitumor activity in patients with MPM. The authors recommend a dose of 21 x 10(6) IU/m2/day for 5 days. However, determination of the schedule of IL-2 and its superiority to conventional treatment in a Phase III study has yet to be accomplished.

Palliative medicine and the medical oncologist. Defining the purview of care

The fusion of palliative medicine and medical oncology, in practice and in education, can provide a better standard of patient care, reduce the risk of oncologist burnout, and increase the likelihood of patient family and physician satisfaction. There need be no gulf between these disciplines, and only together do they represent truly comprehensive cancer care. The realization of this fusion will require the participation of individual clinicians, program directors, and the policy makers for cancer centers, professional organizations, and the health care regulatory authorities. It is a logical next step in the evolution of medical oncology.