Retrospective response analysis of BAP1 expression to predict the clinical activity of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy in mesothelioma

Diagnostic performance of immunohistochemistry markers for malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and subtypes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) poses diagnostic challenges due to its resemblance to benign pleural pathologies and different histological subtypes. Several immunohistochemistry markers have been employed to aid in accurate diagnosis.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of various immunohistochemistry markers in malignant pleural mesothelioma diagnosis and its histological subtypes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the literature for articles on using different immunohistochemical markers in MPM and its histological subtypes. EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Virtual Health Library were searched for studies published up to August 2023. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria to assess the quality of the included articles. Meta-analyses were performed to determine prevalence using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

103 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a diverse range of immunohistochemistry markers. EMA and desmin-loss exhibited high sensitivity (96% and 92%, respectively) in distinguishing malignant pleural mesothelioma from benign pleural pathologies. Specificity was notably high for both BAP1-loss and survivin expression at 100%. Subtype-specific analyses demonstrated that EMA and HEG1 were sensitive markers for epithelioid mesothelioma, while GLUT1 showed high sensitivity for sarcomatoid mesothelioma. In cases comparing epithelioid mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma, CAM5.2 and calretinin displayed high sensitivity, while WT1 and BAP1-loss demonstrated exceptional specificity for malignant epithelioid mesothelioma. In the case of sarcomatoid mesothelioma and sarcomatoid lung carcinoma, GATA3 exhibited the most heightened sensitivity, while GATA3 and D2-40 displayed the best specificity for sarcomatoid malignant mesothelioma diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Immunohistochemistry markers are essential in accurately diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma and its histological subtypes. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive insight into the diagnostic performance of these markers, facilitating their potential clinical utility in the discrimination of malignant pleural mesothelioma from other pleural pathologies and the differentiation of malignant pleural mesothelioma subtypes.

BAP1 loss induces mitotic defects in mesothelioma cells through BRCA1-dependent and independent mechanisms

The tumour suppressor BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) is the most frequently mutated cancer gene in mesothelioma. Here we report novel functions for BAP1 in mitotic progression highlighting the relationship between BAP1 and control of genome stability in mesothelioma cells with therapeutic implications. Depletion of BAP1 protein induced proteasome-mediated degradation of BRCA1 in mesothelioma cells while loss of BAP1 correlated with BRCA1 loss in mesothelioma patient tumour samples. BAP1 loss also led to mitotic defects that phenocopied the loss of BRCA1 including spindle assembly checkpoint failure, centrosome amplification and chromosome segregation errors. However, loss of BAP1 also led to additional mitotic changes that were not observed upon BRCA1 loss, including an increase in spindle length and enhanced growth of astral microtubules. Intriguingly, these consequences could be explained by loss of expression of the KIF18A and KIF18B kinesin motors that occurred upon depletion of BAP1 but not BRCA1, as spindle and astral microtubule defects were rescued by re-expression of KIF18A and KIF18B, respectively. We therefore propose that BAP1 inactivation causes mitotic defects through BRCA1-dependent and independent mechanisms revealing novel routes by which mesothelioma cells lacking BAP1 may acquire genome instability and exhibit altered responses to microtubule-targeted agents.

Analysis of new treatments proposed for malignant pleural mesothelioma raises concerns about the conduction of clinical trials in oncology

In this commentary, using existing clinical trial data and FDA approvals we propose that there is currently a critical need for an appropriate balancing between the financial impact of new cancer drugs and their actual benefit for patients. By adopting "pleural mesothelioma" as our clinical model we summarize the most relevant pertinent and available literature on this topic, and use an analysis of the reliability of the trials submitted for registration and/or recently published as a case in point to raise concerns with respect to appropriate trial design, biomarker based stratification and to highlight the ongoing need for balancing the benefit/cost ratio for both patients and healthcare providers.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

METHODS

In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia).

INTERPRETATION

Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma.

FUNDING

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

BAP1 and YY1 regulate expression of death receptors in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive, and incurable cancer arising from the mesothelial lining of the pleura, with few available treatment options. We recently reported that loss of function of the nuclear deubiquitinase BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1), a frequent event in MPM, is associated with sensitivity to tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL)–mediated apoptosis. As a potential underlying mechanism, here we report that BAP1 negatively regulates the expression of TRAIL receptors: death receptor 4 (DR4) and death receptor 5 (DR5). Using tissue microarrays of tumor samples from MPM patients, we found a strong inverse correlation between BAP1 and TRAIL receptor expression. BAP1 knockdown increased DR4 and DR5 expression, whereas overexpression of BAP1 had the opposite effect. Reporter assays confirmed wt-BAP1, but not catalytically inactive BAP1 mutant, reduced promoter activities of DR4 and DR5, suggesting deubiquitinase activity is required for the regulation of gene expression. Co-immunoprecipitation studies demonstrated direct binding of BAP1 to the transcription factor Ying Yang 1 (YY1), and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays revealed BAP1 and YY1 to be enriched in the promoter regions of DR4 and DR5. Knockdown of YY1 also increased DR4 and DR5 expression and sensitivity to TRAIL. These results suggest that BAP1 and YY1 cooperatively repress transcription of TRAIL receptors. Our finding that BAP1 directly regulates the extrinsic apoptotic pathway will provide new insights into the role of BAP1 in the development of MPM and other cancers with frequent BAP1 mutations.

BAP1-Altered Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Outcomes With Chemotherapy, Immune Check-Point Inhibitors and Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors

Objectives

Little is known regarding the outcomes of systemic treatments in BAP1-altered malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

Materials and Methods

Forty five patients with MPM [group A: eight MPM patients with BAP1 inactivating mutation/copy number loss (FoundationOne^® CDx/TEMPUSxT), selected from the electronic databases of four Israeli cancer centers (ICC); group B: 37 consecutive (years 2016–2018) MPM patients selected from the electronic databases of two ICC—of those six patients without a BAP1 alteration (group B1) and 31 patients not tested for BAP1 (group B2)] were analyzed for ORR, PFS (mRECIST), and OS with 1^st-line platinum/pemetrexed+/−antiangiogenic drug (CT, n-28), immune check-point inhibitors (ICPi, n-16) and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi, n-4). OS since diagnosis (OSDx) was assessed.

Results

There were no differences in ORR or mPFS with CT between the groups: ORR-50% vs. 47% vs. 50% vs. 47% (p>0.9), mPFS-9.1mo (95% CI, 1.2–16.1) vs. 9.2mo (95% CI, 2.9–13.3) vs. 7.2mo (95% CI, 2.3-NR) vs. 10.9mo (95% CI, 2.9–20.3) (p>0.8) in groups A, B, B1, and B2, respectively. There were no differences in ORR or mPFS with ICPi between the groups: ORR-0% vs. 27% vs. 33% vs. 25% (p>0.2), mPFS-2.5mo (95% CI, 1.4–3.7) vs. 3.0mo (95% CI, 1.3–10.5) vs. 2.0mo (95% CI, 1.9-NR) vs. 4.5mo (95% CI, 0.3–10.5) (p>0.3) in groups A, B, B1, and B2, respectively. In group A, no responses were seen with PARPi; mPFS with PARPi was 1.8mo (95% CI, 1.8-NR). OSDx was 98.3mo (95% CI, 9.7–98.3) vs. 19.4mo (95% CI, 9.7–47.3) vs. 18.8mo (95% CI, 8.5-NR) vs. 19.5mo (95% CI, 8.3–82.2) in groups A, B, B1, and B2, respectively (p>0.3).

Conclusions

BAP1-altered MPM, as compared to non-selected MPM, is characterized by similar efficacy of CT and ICPi. Numerically longer OS in BAP1-altered MPM may reflect favorable tumor biology. No responses were observed with PARPi.

The critical role of BAP1 mutation in the prognosis and treatment selection of kidney renal clear cell carcinoma

Background

The BAP1 mutation is commonly found kidney renal clear cell carcinoma (KIRC) and a potential biomarker of individualized therapy. We evaluated the clinical significance of BAP1 mutation in the prognosis and treatment therapies for KIRC. Potential key pathways and related genes associated with these mechanisms were also identified in this investigation.

Methods

We identified the relevant data of patients BAP1 mutated on the cBioPortal and the compounds with significant selectivity to BAP1 mutations on the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC). And then, we identified the differences in mRNA expression levels of biological function annotation and pathways between mutated and wild type BAP1 patients by GSEA analysis. Furthermore, we screened the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between BAP1 mutated and wild typed in KIRC patients and performed the GO and KEGG analysis. Finally, we conducted a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network to investigate the interaction between proteins encoded by candidate DEGs.

Results

Review of the TCGA data revealed 41 patients (10%) with KIRC displayed the BAP1 mutation. Further analysis led to the identification of 730 DEGs, while 617 genes were shown to be down-regulated, with 113 genes displaying upregulation. GO and KEGG pathway analysis indicated DEGs as enriched in metabolism, drug metabolism-cytochrome P450, and Drug-metabolizing enzymes. Subsequently, the top 10 hub genes, ranked by the degree in the PPI network were identified. Furthermore, our findings verify that the BAP1 mutation was associated with the deterioration of prognosis in patients with KIRC. Additionally, analysis of the GDSC database revealed that KIRC patients with BPP1 mutation are more prone to responding to Linsitinib.

Conclusions

Our investigation identified the main pathways and relevant genes related to the BAP1 mutation in KIRC, which can contribute to the development of targeted treatment strategies for enhanced prognostic predictions of KIRC.

Questioning the prognostic role of BAP-1 immunohistochemistry in malignant pleural mesothelioma: A single center experience with systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The prognostic role of BRCA1 associated protein-1 (BAP1) expression in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a matter of debate. We aimed to clarify whether MPM patients with loss of BAP1 expression have better overall survival (OS) compared to BAP1 positive patients.

METHODS

BAP1 immunohistochemical staining of tumor samples from 60 MPM patients treated at our institution with first-line chemotherapy was evaluated. A systematic literature search was also performed. Only cohort studies that investigated BAP1 by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and reported hazard ratio (HR) values for OS obtained through multivariate analysis (or adjusted for histotype) were considered. A dataset comprising 638 MPM patients was added to our cohort and included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In our cohort, 23 samples (38 %) were BAP1 positive/retained (≥1 %) and 37 samples (62 %) were BAP1 negative/loss. BAP1 loss was associated with epithelioid histotype (p 0.01). Median OS times were 14.8 months (95 % CI: 10.7-29.3) and 18.1 months (95 % CI: 11.2-25.8) for negative and positive BAP1 expression, respectively (p 0.2). At multivariate analysis, again no differences were observed among the two groups (p 0.81). Similarly, the meta-analysis consisting of 698 patients showed no difference in terms of OS according to BAP1 status (HR 1.11; 95 % CI, 0·76-1·61; p 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

BAP1 expression is not an independent prognostic factor for MPM patients and it should not be considered without taking into account tumor histotype. Future studies should investigate its predictive role in patients treated with new emerging therapies such as immunotherapy.

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: State-of-the-Art on Current Therapies and Promises for the Future

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive cancer of the pleural surface associated with asbestos exposure. The median survival of MPM patients is a mere 8-14 months, and there are few biomarkers and no cure available. It is hoped that, eventually, the incidence of MPM will drop and remain low and constant, given that most nations have banned the use of asbestos, but in the meantime, the incidence in Europe is still growing. The exact molecular mechanisms that explain the carcinogenicity of asbestos are not known. Standard therapeutic strategies for MPM include surgery, often coupled with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, in a small percentage of eligible patients and chemotherapy in tumors considered unresectable with or without adjuvant radiotherapy. In recent years, several new therapeutic avenues are being explored. These include angiogenesis inhibitors, synthetic lethal treatment, miRNA replacement, oncoviral therapies, and the fast-growing field of immunotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Of particular promise are the multiple options offered by immunotherapy: immune checkpoint inhibitors, tumor vaccines, and therapies taking advantage of tumor-specific antigens, such as specific therapeutic antibodies or advanced cell-based therapies exemplified by the CAR-T cells. This review comprehensively presents both old and new therapeutic options in MPM, focusing on the results of the numerous recent and on-going clinical trials in the field, including the latest data presented at international meetings (AACR, ASCO, and ESMO) this year, and concludes that more work has to be done in the framework of tailored therapies to identify reliable targets and novel biomarkers to impact MPM management.