Nivolumab for the treatment of unresectable pleural mesothelioma

Neoantigen Vaccines; Clinical Trials, Classes, Indications, Adjuvants and Combinatorial Treatments

Simple Summary

Personalized neoantigen vaccines are a diverse group of personally tailored cancer vaccines that strengthen patients´ own immune reaction against cancer antigens. We analyzed 147 neoantigen vaccine clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov database and showed that peptide vaccines were the dominating vaccine type, while there were multiple new neoantigen vaccine types in the field. We also showed that neoantigen vaccines were mostly used in the treatment of small cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and glioma. According to our results neoantigen vaccines work at their best when combined with other treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The effect of some neoantigen vaccine types were also often promoted with adjuvant therapy where poly-ICLC were the most recurrent adjuvant choice.

Abstract

Personalized neoantigen vaccines are a highly specific cancer treatment designed to induce a robust cytotoxic T-cell attack against a patient’s cancer antigens. In this study, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov for neoantigen vaccine clinical trials and systematically analyzed them, a total of 147 trials. Peptide vaccines are the largest neoantigen vaccine type, comprising up to 41% of the clinical trials. However, mRNA vaccines are a growing neoantigen vaccine group, especially in the most recent clinical trials. The most common cancer types in the clinical trials are glioma, lung cancer, and malignant melanoma, being seen in more than half of the clinical trials. Small-cell lung cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer are the largest individual cancer types. According to the results from the clinical trials, neoantigen vaccines work best when combined with other cancer treatments, and popular combination treatments include immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Additionally, half of the clinical trials combined neoantigen vaccines with an adjuvant to boost the immune effects, with poly-ICLC being the most recurrent adjuvant choice. This study clarifies the rapid clinical trial development of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an emerging class of cancer treatment with increasingly diversified opportunities in classes, indications, and combinatorial treatments.

Repurposing therapeutics for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) - Updates on clinical translations and future outlook

INTRODUCTION

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy affecting the mesothelial cells in the pleural lining surrounding the lungs. First approved chemotherapy against MPM was a platinum/antifolate (cisplatin/pemetrexed) (2003). Since then, no USFDA approvals have gone through for small molecules as these molecules have not been proven to be therapeutically able in later stages of clinical studies. An alternative to conventional chemotherapy can be utilization of monoclonal antibodies, which are proven to improve patient survival significantly as compared to conventional chemotherapy (Nivolumab + Ipilimumab, 2020).

AREA COVERED

Drug repurposing has been instrumental in drug discovery for rare diseases such as MPM and multiple repositioned small molecule therapies and immunotherapies are currently being tested for its applicability in MPM management. This article summarizes essential breakthroughs along the pre-clinical and clinical developmental stages of small molecules and monoclonal antibodies for MPM management.

EXPERT OPINION

For rare diseases such as malignant pleural mesothelioma, a drug repurposing strategy can be adapted as it eases the financial burden on pharmaceutical companies along with fast-tracking development. With the rise of multiple small molecule repurposed therapies and innovations in localized treatment, MPM therapeutics are bound to be more effective in this decade.

The Updating of Biological Functions of Methyltransferase SETDB1 and Its Relevance in Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma

SET domain bifurcated 1 (SETDB1) is a histone H3 lysine 9 (H3K9) methyltransferase that exerts important effects on epigenetic gene regulation. SETDB1 complexes (SETDB1-KRAB-KAP1, SETDB1-DNMT3A, SETDB1-PML, SETDB1-ATF7IP-MBD1) play crucial roles in the processes of histone methylation, transcriptional suppression and chromatin remodelling. Therefore, aberrant trimethylation at H3K9 due to amplification, mutation or deletion of SETDB1 may lead to transcriptional repression of various tumour-suppressing genes and other related genes in cancer cells. Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer worldwide in which SETDB1 amplification and H3K9 hypermethylation have been indicated as potential tumourigenesis markers. In contrast, frequent inactivation mutations of SETDB1 have been revealed in mesothelioma, an asbestos-associated, locally aggressive, highly lethal, and notoriously chemotherapy-resistant cancer. Above all, the different statuses of SETDB1 indicate that it may have different biological functions and be a potential diagnostic biomarker and therapeutic target in lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Emerging avenues in immunotherapy for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

The role of immunotherapy in cancer is now well-established, and therapeutic options such as checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being approved in many cancers such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare orphan disease associated with prior exposure to asbestos, with a dismal prognosis. Evidence from clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors in this rare disease, suggest that such therapies may play a role as a treatment option for a proportion of patients with this cancer.

MAIN TEXT

While the majority of studies currently focus on the established checkpoint inhibitors (CTLA4 and PD1/PDL1), there are many other potential checkpoints that could also be targeted. In this review I provide a synopsis of current clinical trials of immunotherapies in MPM, explore potential candidate new avenues that may become future targets for immunotherapy and discuss aspects of immunotherapy that may affect the clinical outcomes of such therapies in this cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The current situation regarding checkpoint inhibitors in the management of MPM whilst encouraging, despite impressive durable responses, immune checkpoint inhibitors do not provide a long-term benefit to the majority of patients with cancer. Additional studies are therefore required to further delineate and improve our understanding of both checkpoint inhibitors and the immune system in MPM. Moreover, many new potential checkpoints have yet to be studied for their therapeutic potential in MPM. All these plus the existing checkpoint inhibitors will require the development of new biomarkers for patient stratification, response and also for predicting or monitoring the emergence of resistance to these agents in MPM patients. Other potential therapeutic avenues such CAR-T therapy or treatments like oncolytic viruses or agents that target the interferon pathway designed to recruit more immune cells to the tumor also hold great promise in this hard to treat cancer.

Malignant mesothelioma: Advances in immune checkpoint inhibitor and mesothelin-targeted therapies

Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. For many years, the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved first-line treatment for unresectable mesothelioma was pemetrexed plus cisplatin. However, the recent approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as frontline treatment for patients with pleural mesothelioma marks a significant milestone for the treatment of this disease. In this review, the authors describe recent advances in therapeutic strategies for the treatment of patients with advanced, unresectable mesothelioma, highlighting the emerging use of immunotherapy and mesothelin-targeted therapies for the management of malignant mesothelioma.

Treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma in a community practice setting

Aim: To assess real-world treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients & methods: Retrospective database analysis. Results: In all, 469 patients received first-line systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at community centers. Median follow-up from diagnosis was 11.6 months. Pemetrexed + platinum was the most common first-line SACT; similar proportions of patients received cisplatin or carboplatin with pemetrexed. Only a small proportion of patients received second- and third-line therapies. Median overall survival for first-line SACT was 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.7-14.2). Results were similar with pemetrexed + cisplatin and pemetrexed + carboplatin. Median overall survival with second-line SACT was 6.4 months (95% CI: 5.1-7.6). Conclusion: There is a need for more effective SACTs for advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Ingredients such as trehalose and hesperidin taken as supplements or foods reverse alterations in human T cells, reducing asbestos exposure-induced antitumor immunity

Exposure of human immune cells to asbestos causes a reduction in antitumor immunity. The present study aimed to investigate the recovery of reduced antitumor immunity by several ingredients taken as supplements or foods, including trehalose (Treh) and glycosylated hesperidin (gHesp). Peripheral blood CD4⁺ cells were stimulated with IL-2, anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies for 3 days, followed by further stimulation with IL-2 for 7 days. Subsequently, cells were stimulated with IL-2 for an additional 28 days. During the 28 days, cells were cultured in the absence or presence of 50 μg/ml chrysotile asbestos fibers. In addition, cells were treated with 10 mM Treh or 10 μM gHesp. Following culture for 28 days, reverse transcription-quantitative PCR was performed to assess the expression levels of transcription factors, cytokines and specific genes, including matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP-7), nicotinamide nucleotide transhydrogenase (NNT) and C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 3, in unstimulated cells (fresh) and cells stimulated with PMA and ionomycin (stimuli). The results demonstrated that compared with the control group, chrysotile-exposure induced alterations in MMP-7, NNT and IL-17A expression levels were not observed in the 'Treh' and 'gHesp' groups in stimulated cells. The results suggested that Treh and gHesp may reverse asbestos exposure-induced reduced antitumor immunity in T helper cells. However, further investigation is required to confirm the efficacy of future trials involving the use of these compounds with high-risk human populations exposed to asbestos, such as workers involved in asbestos-handling activities.

Irinotecan and Gemcitabine as Second-Line Treatment in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma following Platinum plus Pemetrexed Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-pemetrexed combination chemotherapy is the current standard primary treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). It was first approved for untreated and unresectable MPM in the 2003 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. However, to date, standard treatments for patients with MPM who previously underwent chemotherapy, as recommended by the NCCN Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma guidelines, have been inadequate. To explore treatment options for such patients, we performed this retrospective study of patients who received irinotecan plus gemcitabine as second-line therapy for MPM.

METHODS

We investigated 62 patients diagnosed with unresectable MPM between January 2008 and October 2017 who experienced recurrence following cisplatin treatment (or carboplatin) plus pemetrexed or pemetrexed monotherapy as first-line treatment, and who underwent irinotecan plus gemcitabine combination therapy as second-line treatment. Irinotecan (60 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (800 mg/m2) were administered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, including a 1-week washout period. Our endpoints were efficacy, survival period, and toxicity.

RESULTS

patients' median age was 65 years (range 50-79), and the histological MPM types were epithelioid (n = 48), sarcomatoid (n = 6), biphasic (n = 6), and desmoplastic (n = 2). One patient experienced a partial response, 40 had stable disease, and 21 had progressive disease. The disease control rate was 66.1% and the response rate 2.1%. Additionally, the median progression-free and overall survival time were 5.7 and 11.3 months, respectively. The most common adverse events were neutropenia (32.2%), loss of appetite (16.1%), nausea/diarrhea (11.3%), and thrombocytopenia/phlebitis (9.7%). Grade 3 adverse events included neutropenia (12.9%) and thrombocytopenia/phlebitis (2.1%); however, all adverse events were managed with symptomatic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that second-line irinotecan plus gemcitabine combination therapy did not produce marked tumor shrinkage, it achieved a relatively high disease control rate of >65% with an acceptable toxicity profile. Hence, the combination of irinotecan plus gemcitabine may be considered for MPM treatment, with consideration of combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors as a potential next step.

PD-L1 and prognosis in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: a meta-analysis and bioinformatics study

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been controversial according to previous investigations. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the potential prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression in MPM.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were thoroughly searched for relevant original articles published before 9 April 2020. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated. The results of the meta-analysis were verified using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset.

RESULTS

In total 16 studies were included in our meta-analysis. A high PD-L1 expression was associated with a poor OS (HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.28-1.83, p < 0.001), but not a grave PFS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82-1.39, p = 0.643) in MPM. Furthermore, the PD-L1 expression correlated with the sarcomatoid + biphasic type of MPM (odds ratio = 4.32, 95% CI = 2.16-8.64, p < 0.001). TCGA data indicated that PD-L1 was a significant prognostic factor for OS (HR = 2.069, 95% CI = 1.136-3.769, p = 0.0175), but not for PFS (HR = 1.205, 95% CI = 0.572-2.539, p = 0.624), which was in accordance with the results of the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

A high PD-L1 expression is a significant prognostic factor for poor OS of patients with MPM. We therefore suggest that PD-L1 expression levels can be used to predict the clinical outcomes of patients with MPM in the future.