Re-challenge with pemetrexed in advanced mesothelioma: a multi-institutional experience

Efficacy and safety of rechallenge [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RLT after initial partial remission in patients with mCRPC: evaluation of a prospective registry (REALITY study)

AIM

Rechallenge of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy (RLT) was proposed for patients who initially responded to PSMA-RLT experiencing partial remission, but relapsed into progression after a certain period of remission. However, only limited data is available regarding this approach. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy and safety profile of one or more series of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RLT rechallenge in patients from a prospective registry (REALITY Study, NCT04833517) after they initially benefited from PSMA-RLT.

METHODS

Forty-seven patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had biochemical response to initial [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RLT followed by disease progression received at least one (up to three) series of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RLT rechallenge. Biochemical response rates based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum value, PSA-based progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Adverse events of the treatment were assessed according to 'common terminology criteria for adverse events' (CTCAE).

RESULTS

After one series of RLT rechallenge, a PSA decline of at least 50% was achieved in 27/47 patients (57.4%). The median PFS of all patients was 8.7 mo and the median OS was 22.7 mo, each calculated from the administration of the first rechallenge series. Patients who responded (PSA decline > 50%) to the rechallenge showed a median OS of 27.3 mo. Regarding PFS, a significant correlation (r = 0.4128, p = 0.0323) was found for these patients comparing initial and rechallenge RLT. Ten patients received a second and 3 patients received a third rechallenge series with 8/10 and 3/3 patients responding to repeated RLT rechallenge. No severe deterioration of adverse events rated by CTCAE criteria was observed.

CONCLUSION

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RLT rechallenge is associated with significant PSA response and encouraging survival outcome as well as a very favourable safety profile and should therefore be considered as a straight-forward treatment option in mCRPC patients, who previously benefited from PSMA-RLT.

ONCOS-102 plus pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a randomized phase 2 study investigating clinical outcomes and the tumor microenvironment

BACKGROUND

ONCOS-102, an oncolytic adenovirus expressing granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, can alter the tumor microenvironment to an immunostimulatory state. Combining ONCOS-102 with standard-of-care chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) may improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomized study, patients with unresectable MPM received intratumoral ONCOS-102 (3×1011 virus particles on days 1, 4, 8, 36, 78, and 120) and pemetrexed plus cisplatin/carboplatin (from day 22), or pemetrexed plus cisplatin/carboplatin alone. The primary endpoint was safety. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, objective response rate, and tumor immunologic activation (baseline and day 36 biopsies) were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 31 patients (safety lead-in: n=6, randomized: n=25) were enrolled. Anemia (15.0% and 27.3%) and neutropenia (40.0% and 45.5%) were the most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) in the ONCOS-102 (n=20) and chemotherapy-alone (n=11) cohorts. No patients discontinued ONCOS-102 due to AEs. No statistically significant difference in efficacy endpoints was observed. There was a numerical improvement in OS (30-month OS rate 34.1% vs 0; median OS 20.3 vs 13.5 months) with ONCOS-102 versus chemotherapy alone in chemotherapy-naïve patients (n=17). By day 36, ONCOS-102 was associated with increased T-cell infiltration and immune-related gene expression that was not observed in the control cohort. Substantial immune activation in the tumor microenvironment was associated with survival at month 18 in the ONCOS-102 cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

ONCOS-102 plus pemetrexed and cisplatin/carboplatin was well tolerated by patients with MPM. In injected tumors, ONCOS-102 promoted a proinflammatory environment, including T-cell infiltration, which showed association with survival at month 18.

Genomic and transcriptomic analysis of a diffuse pleural mesothelioma patient-derived xenograft library

BACKGROUND

Diffuse pleural mesothelioma (DPM) is an aggressive malignancy that, despite recent treatment advances, has unacceptably poor outcomes. Therapeutic research in DPM is inhibited by a paucity of preclinical models that faithfully recapitulate the human disease.

METHODS

We established 22 patient-derived xenografts (PDX) from 22 patients with DPM and performed multi-omic analyses to deconvolute the mutational landscapes, global expression profiles, and molecular subtypes of these PDX models and compared features to those of the matched primary patient tumors. Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS; MSK-IMPACT), immunohistochemistry, and histologic subtyping were performed on all available samples. RNA sequencing was performed on all available PDX samples. Clinical outcomes and treatment history were annotated for all patients. Platinum-doublet progression-free survival (PFS) was determined from the start of chemotherapy until radiographic/clinical progression and grouped into < or ≥ 6 months.

RESULTS

PDX models were established from both treatment naïve and previously treated samples and were noted to closely resemble the histology, genomic landscape, and proteomic profiles of the parent tumor. After establishing the validity of the models, transcriptomic analyses demonstrated overexpression in WNT/β-catenin, hedgehog, and TGF-β signaling and a consistent suppression of immune-related signaling in PDXs derived from patients with worse clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate that DPM PDX models closely resemble the genotype and phenotype of parental tumors, and identify pathways altered in DPM for future exploration in preclinical studies.

Platinum-Based Chemotherapy 'Rechallenge' in Advanced Non-ovarian Solid Malignancies

Platinum-based chemotherapy forms the backbone of treatment for many solid cancers. However, resistance inevitably develops in those with advanced disease. Platinum rechallenge is a well-established concept in the management of ovarian cancer, small cell lung cancer and germ cell tumours. In other solid malignancies there is a lack of quality evidence to support platinum rechallenge, yet it is a widely adopted strategy. Often, patients are within the last year of life, making questions of efficacy, treatment-related toxicity and quality of life critical factors for treatment recommendations. In this overview we appraise the available evidence for platinum rechallenge and strategies being developed to attempt resensitisation of tumours to platinum-based chemotherapy.

Systemic treatment in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma - real life experience

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of the pleural cavity linked to asbestos exposure. The combination of pemetrexed and platinum is a standard first-line therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Despite some progress, almost all MPM patients experience progression after first-line therapy. The second-line treatment is still being under discussion and there are very limited data available on the second-line and subsequent treatments.

Methods

The retrospective analysis included 57 patients (16 females and 41 males) from two Polish oncological institutions treated for advanced mesothelioma between 2013 and 2019. We analysed the efficacy of first-line and second-line therapy: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR).

Results

In the first-line treatment, 55 patients received pemetrexed-based chemotherapy (PBC) and two cisplatin in monotherapy. Patients’ characteristics at baseline: median age was 64.2 years, ECOG PS ≤ 1 (86.2%), epithelial histology (85.7%). Median PFS and OS were 7.6 months and 14 months, respectively. Patients with ECOG PS ≤ 1 vs > 1 had a longer median OS (14.8 months vs 9.7 months, p = 0.057). One-year OS and PFS were 60.9% and 32.0%, respectively. Disease control rate (DCR) was 82.5%. Response to first-line therapy: PFS ≥ 6 months and PFS ≥ 12 months had a significant impact on median OS. Twelve patients received second-line therapy (seven PBC and five other cytotoxic single agents: navelbine, gemcitabine, or adriamycin/vincristine/methotrexate triplet). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 months and 7.2 months, respectively. DCR was 83%. One-year OS and PFS were 37% and 16.7%, respectively.

In the group receiving PBC, OS was prolonged by 4.5 months compared to the non-PBC group (6.0 months vs 10.5 months, p = 0.47).

Conclusion

Patients who benefited from first-line therapy and had prolonged PFS at first-line and achieve PFS longer than 6 months at first-line should be offered second-line treatment. Consideration of retreatment with the same cytotoxic agent could to be a viable option when no other treatment are available.

A Glimpse in the Future of Malignant Mesothelioma Treatment

Malignant mesothelioma (MMe) is a rare neoplasm with few therapeutic options available. The landscape of effective therapy for this disease remained unchanged in the last two decades. Recently, however, the introduction of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) led to small, but nevertheless, promising improvements. However, many efforts are still needed to radically improve the prognosis of MMe. In this review, we analyze all those therapeutic strategies for MMe that are still in a preclinical or early clinical phase of development. In particular, we focus on novel antiangiogenic drugs and their possible combination with immunotherapy. Furthermore, we describe also more complex strategies such as microRNA-loaded vectors, oncolytic viruses, and engineered lymphocytes.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) - The status of systemic therapy

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) remains a malignancy with poor prognosis. Despite initial disappointing response rates to single-agent chemotherapy, upfront platinum and anti-folate-based combination chemotherapy has remained the backbone of treatment for PM for the last three decades. The role of maintenance chemotherapy remains unclear; switch-maintenance gemcitabine has shown improvements in progression-free but not overall survival. The addition of antiangiogenic agents to chemotherapy yielded modest improvements in survival, both upfront in combination with platinum-pemetrexed, and in the relapsed setting. Immunotherapy, particularly PD-(L)1 inhibitors, has shown important but variable effectiveness in relapsed PM when used as monotherapy, and is an important salvage treatment after first-line chemotherapy. Furthermore, the randomized phase 3 trial of ipilimumab-nivolumab versus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy demonstrated improved overall survival favouring ipilimumab-nivolumab (HR 0.74, 96.6% CI 0.60-0.91; p = 0.0020), establishing this regimen as the new standard first-line treatment for PM, particularly in those with non-epithelioid histology. Increased interest in PM genomics has led to development of novel personalized therapeutics, such as those targeting DNA repair and EZH2 pathways, however with variable outcomes in trials. Targeting the membrane glycoprotein mesothelin and arginine deprivation are other important strategies under ongoing investigation. The field of PM is changing and new treatments bring hope to a largely lethal and poor prognostic malignancy. Despite these developments, current challenges include understanding the role of combination and multimodality treatments, drivers of resistance to treatment, and establishing predictive biomarkers to improve patient selection and treatment sequencing.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: recent developments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, but aggressive tumor with still poor prognosis. In this article, we focus on recent developments in the management of MPM including diagnosis, staging, biomarkers, and treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Molecular markers such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PDL-1), Breast Cancer gene 1-associated protein gene, and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) have prognostic impact and should be considered for assessment in patient samples. In addition to histological subtype and tumor pattern, tumor volumetry plays an increasing important role in staging, assessment of treatment response, and prediction of survival. Several new blood-based biomarkers have been recently reported including peripheral blood DNA methylation, microRNAs, fibulin, and high-mobility group box 1, but have not been established in clinical routine use yet. Regarding treatment, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and vaccination are considered as new promising strategies. Moreover, extended pleurectomy/decortication is favored over extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy represents a possible approach in combination with EPP and pleurectomy/decortication. Intracavitary treatment options are promising and deserve further investigations.

SUMMARY

Overall, there has not been a real breakthrough in the treatment of MPM. Further research and clinical trials are needed to evaluate outcome and to identify new potential treatment candidates.

The minimum standard of care for managing malignant pleural mesothelioma in developing nations within the Asia-Pacific Region

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an incurable malignancy associated with high symptom burden and poor prognosis. The relationship between asbestos exposure and MPM incidence is well-established. The incidence rate of MPM in Australia and New Zealand is among the highest globally. Matching the experience of other nations with legal restrictions on asbestos, incidence is expected to fall. In contrast, the incidence of MPM is rising in the developing nations of the Asia-Pacific as consumption and mining (albeit to a lesser extent) of asbestos continues. The incidence of MPM in these nations is currently low or unknown, reflecting insufficient latency periods since industrial use of asbestos, deficient resources for accurate diagnosis, and lack of occupational disease or cancer registries. The landscape of treatment for MPM is rapidly changing with combination immunotherapy now demonstrating improved survival in the first-line setting. Considering vast global inequity in access to anticancer treatments, establishing minimum standard of care for MPM in developing nations is of greater significance. Here, we review the evidence that form the basis of our minimum-standard recommendations for diagnosis, systemic treatment, management of recurrent pleural effusions, and symptom management. We also briefly review evidence-based treatment that may be considered for those with access.

Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of the malignant pleural mesothelioma, a narrative review of literature

The malignant pleural mesothelioma is a very aggressive tumor which is arising from mesothelial cells and is associated with asbestos exposure. It is a heterogeneous cancer that shows a complex pattern of molecular changes, including genetic, chromosomic, and epigenetic abnormalities. The malignant pleural mesothelioma is characterized by a silent and slow clinical progression with an average period of 20–40 years from the asbestos exposure phase to the start of the symptoms. Unfortunately, to date, the therapeutic options are very limited, especially if the tumor is detected late. This narrative review provides an extended overview of the present evidence in the literature regarding the epidemiology, diagnostic pathways and treatment approaches of the malignant pleural mesothelioma. The treatment of mesothelioma has evolved slowly over the last 20 years not only from a surgical point of view but also radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy play nowadays a key role. Several surgical strategies are available ranging from extrapleural pneumonectomy to cytoreductive surgery but a multidisciplinary approach seems to be mandatory because a single approach has not proved to date to be resolutive. New non-surgical treatment options appear to be promising but the results have to be taken in account with caution because clear evidence with high-quality studies is still lacking

Efficacy of second-line treatment and prognostic factors in patients with advanced malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: a retrospective study

Background

Standard treatment for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma has not been established, and systemic chemotherapy is administered according to malignant pleural mesothelioma. We previously reported the efficacy of cisplatin plus pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy; however, the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy remains unknown.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma who started first-line systemic chemotherapy with platinum plus pemetrexed between March 2007 and February 2019 at the National Cancer Center Hospital. Patients who received second-line chemotherapy after failure of platinum plus pemetrexed were identified. We evaluated the efficacy of first- and second-line chemotherapy, and explored the prognostic factors. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and between-group differences were compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

A total of 54 and 26 patients received platinum plus pemetrexed as first- and second-line chemotherapy, respectively (gemcitabine in 12 patients; taxane, six; nivolumab, three; and others, five). In all patients, the median overall survival and progression-free survival after first-line chemotherapy were 16.6 and 7.3 months, respectively. Among patients who received second-line chemotherapy, the median overall survival, progression-free survival, and second-line overall survival were 16.9, 3.2, and 9.9 months, respectively. Patients who received ≥6 cycles of platinum plus pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy had longer overall survival after second-line chemotherapy than those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.06–0.82; p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Second-line chemotherapy may be an option for refractory malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, especially in patients who have completed 6 cycles of platinum plus pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08025-x.

Randomized Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed Versus Observation for Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: CALGB 30901

BACKGROUND

The role of maintenance therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is unknown. We performed a randomized phase II trial to determine if continuation of pemetrexed after first-line pemetrexed and platinum would improve progression-free survival (PFS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with unresectable MPM, without disease progression following 4 to 6 cycles of pemetrexed and platinum were randomized 1:1 to observation or continuation of pemetrexed until progression, stratified by number of cycles (< 6 or 6), cis- or carboplatin containing regimen, and histology. Study size was calculated based on the assumption that observation would produce a median PFS of 3 months and pemetrexed would yield median PFS of 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were registered from December 2010 to June 2016. The study closed early after 53 patients were randomized; 49 eligible (22 on the observation arm and 27 on the pemetrexed arm) were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-11.9 months) on observation and 3.4 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.8 months) on pemetrexed (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.51-1.90; P = .9733). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.8 months (95% CI, 9.3-28.7 months) for observation, and 16.3 months (95% CI, 10.5-26.0 months) for pemetrexed (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.44-1.71; P = .6737). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities on the pemetrexed arm included anemia (8%), lymphopenia (8%), neutropenia (4%), and fatigue (4%). A higher baseline level of soluble mesothelin-related peptide was associated with worse PFS (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.00-3.46; P = .049).

CONCLUSION

Maintenance pemetrexed following initial pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy does not improve PFS in patients with MPM.

Management of recurrent pleural mesothelioma: Successful rechallenge with nintedanib in combination with chemotherapy

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare neoplasm, generally caused by asbestos exposure. This case details how a patient treated with nintedanib during the LUME-Meso study was rechallenged with nintedanib. The findings highlight the benefit of nintedanib rechallenge and the potential use of continuous anti-angiogenic therapy in MPM treatment.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of second-line therapies for treatment of mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

Advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is generally treated with platinum/pemetrexed-based first-line therapy. Once the disease progresses, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments is lacking, and platinum re-challenge or single-agent chemotherapy are commonly used. To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating MPM, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify published articles on second-line treatments for recurrent or advanced mesothelioma. Inclusion criteria were publication in the English language, describing clinical trials with 20 or more patients, and evaluability for efficacy and for receiving second-line systemic therapies. Data were pooled using number of events/number of evaluable patients, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to a fixed or random effect model. Pooled median OS was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 49 eligible studies (n = 3938 patients; range, 12-400) were identified. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months (95%CI 2.87-3.93). Median pooled OS was 7.86 (95%CI 7.01-8.72). The pooled overall response rate (ORR) was 8.63% (95%CI 6-11.26), and the pooled disease control rate (DCR) was 54.8% (95%CI 48.9-60.6). Median pooled OS with platinum- and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy were 7.93 and 7.78 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains uncertainty about the ideal second-line agent for MPM. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy or other experimental agents can be considered for patients with MPM who desire further treatment after their disease has progressed, during or after first-line therapy.

Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others on the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary, pathology, imaging, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 1990 through 2017. Outcomes of interest included survival, disease-free or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. Results The literature search identified 222 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Recommendations Evidence-based recommendations were developed for diagnosis, staging, chemotherapy, surgical cytoreduction, radiation therapy, and multimodality therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Medical treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma relapses

There are not established treatments for patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma that progressed after first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed. Retrospective analyses suggest a possible role for rechallenge with pemetrexed for selected patients. Phase II trials demonstrate a modest efficacy of vinorelbine monotherapy with a response rate ranging between 0% and 18% and a tolerable toxicity profile. Combination schedules, despite an increased toxicity, fail to demonstrate an improved efficacy. To date, genome wide analyses did not show molecular targets suitable for therapy and biological drugs did not exert a significant efficacy in clinical trials. Immunotherapy has given a hint of efficacy in early clinical trials but definitive evaluations are still ongoing.

Extended Tumor Control after Dendritic Cell Vaccination with Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide as Adjuvant Treatment in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

RATIONALE

We demonstrated previously that autologous tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma is feasible, well-tolerated, and capable of inducing immunologic responses against tumor cells. In our murine model, we found that reduction of regulatory T cells with metronomic cyclophosphamide increased the efficacy of immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the decrease in number of peripheral blood regulatory T cells during combination therapy of low-dose cyclophosphamide and dendritic cell immunotherapy and determine the induction of immunologic responses with this treatment in patients with mesothelioma.

METHODS

Ten patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma received metronomic cyclophosphamide and dendritic cell-based immunotherapy. During the treatment, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were analyzed for regulatory T cells and immunologic responses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Administration of dendritic cells pulsed with autologous tumor lysate combined with cyclophosphamide in patients with mesothelioma was safe, the only side effect being moderate fever. Dendritic cell vaccination combined with cyclophosphamide resulted in radiographic disease control in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall survival was promising, with 7 out of 10 patients having a survival of greater than or equal to 24 months and two patients still alive after 50 and 66 months. Low-dose cyclophosphamide reduced the percentage of regulatory T cells of total CD4 cells in peripheral blood from 9.43 (range, 4.34-26.10) to 4.51 (range, 0.27-10.30) after 7 days of cyclophosphamide treatment (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Consolidation therapy with autologous tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cell-based therapy and simultaneously reducing the tumor-induced immune suppression is well-tolerated and shows signs of clinical activity in patients with mesothelioma. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01241682).

The Third Italian Consensus Conference for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: State of the art and recommendations

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) remains a relevant public health issue, and asbestos exposure is the most relevant risk factor. The incidence has considerably and constantly increased over the past two decades in the industrialized countries and is expected to peak in 2020-2025. In Italy, a standardized-rate incidence in 2011 among men was 3.5 and 1.25 per 100,000 in men and women, respectively, and wide differences are noted among different geographic areas. The disease remains challenging in terms of diagnosis, staging and treatment and an optimal strategy has not yet been clearly defined. The Third Italian Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma was held in Bari (Italy) in January 30-31, 2015. This Consensus has provided updated recommendations on the MPM management for health institutions, clinicians and patients.

Peritoneal mesothelioma: the site of origin matters

The etiology, gender distribution, pathology, natural history, and treatment options for mesothelioma (MM) differ substantially depending on the site of origin. Peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is a rare disease, comprising only approximately 10% to 15% of the 2,500 cases of MM diagnosed in the United States each year. Patients with MPeM are younger than patients with pleural MM, and a higher proportion, mostly women, are long-term survivors. Most MPeM is caused by asbestos exposure. Germ-line mutations of BAP1 (BRCA associated protein 1) can predispose to MM, uveal melanoma, and potentially other cancers. MPeM can be challenging to diagnose, and cytology is rarely helpful. Review by an experienced pathologist using a panel of at least two positive and two negative immunohistochemical stains is essential. The three major pathologic subtypes are epithelial, sarcomatoid, and biphasic. Most cases are epithelial; the others have a dismal prognosis. Two indolent subtypes of borderline malignant potential-well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma and benign multicystic mesothelioma-are more common in the peritoneum and are treated surgically. In highly selected patients receiving treatment at experienced referral centers, an aggressive locoregional strategy that combines cytoreductive surgery to remove all gross disease and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy to treat residual microscopic tumors yields a 3-year survival of 60% and a median survival approaching 5 years, far better than expected from historic controls. This approach also provides durable palliation of malignant ascites in nearly all patients. Pemetrexed is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved systemic chemotherapy for pleural MM. Largely on the basis of data from pharmaceutical registry studies, the activity of pemetrexed-based chemotherapy appears to be similar in pleural MM and MPeM.

Rechallenge with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy improves the survival of patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

Rechallenge chemotherapy with pemetrexed was shown to be efficient in malignant pleural mesothelioma; however, its role in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been investigated. In this study, we retrospectively enrolled 31 patients with non-squamous NSCLC who had achieved disease control with initial pemetrexed treatment, followed by rechallenge with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy (PBC) upon disease progression. After the rechallenge, 5 patients (16.1%) achieved partial remission (PR), 17 (54.8%) achieved stable disease (SD) and 9 (29.1%) experienced progressive disease. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with a low rate of toxicity. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with the rechallenge. Patients with a PFS of ≥10 months with initial PBC exhibited longer PFS and overall survival (OS) with the rechallenge compared to those with a PFS of <10 months with initial PBC (PFS: 6.2±0.33 vs. 3.1±0.26 months, respectively; P=0.011; and OS, 19.8±3.2 vs. 9.2±1.1 months, respectively; P=0.005). The time from the termination of initial PBC to disease progression was also associated with survival after the rechallenge. However, the response to initial PBC (PR vs. SD) did not affect PFS after the rechallenge. No significant differences were observed in thymidylate synthase expression, echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene fusion, or epithelial growth factor receptor mutation status between pemetrexed-sensitive and pemetrexed-resistant patients. Our results demonstrated that rechallenge with PBC was well tolerated and survival after the rechallenge was associated with survival during initial PBC. Therefore, patients with a PFS of ≥10 months or time-to-disease progression ≥3 months may be considered as candidates for pemetrexed rechallenge.

Retreatment with pemetrexed chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patient

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of retreatment the pemetrexed after the failure prior pemetrexed-based chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from our institute.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced NSCLC who were admitted to Zhejiang Cancer Hospital from Dec 2009 to Dec 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. All of the patients were given pemetrexed chemotherapy after the prior pemetrexed-based treatment. Survival analysis was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included in current study. Initial pemetrexed-based therapy was given as first-line treatment in all patients. Nine patients retreated with pemetrexed as the fourth-line treatment, and sixteen as further-line. One patient (4%) achieved partial response (PR), 9 (36%) with stable disease (SD), and 15 (60%) had progressive disease (PD). The disease control rate (DCR) was 40% and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.5 months (95% CI: 0.8-2.4 months). Patients with an initial PFS >6 months had a median PFS after retreatment of 2.2 months, while patients with an initial pemetrexed PFS ≤6 months had a median PFS after retreatment of 1.1 months (P=0.036). The toxicities associated with the 2nd pemetrexed were generally acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Retreatment of pemetrexed seems to be a potential therapeutic option for treatment of selected advanced NSCLC patients after failure of initial pemetrexed therapy, especially for the patients with a PFS more than 6 months in the initial pemetrexed treatment.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: current and future perspectives

Mesothelioma still remains an occupational related cancer with severe outcome. It is usually diagnosed at advanced stage since it does not demonstrate early symptoms. Several efforts have been made towards removing all materials inducing mesothelioma in the work setting and new work protection measures have been applied. Although we have new targeted treatments and radical surgery as arrows in the quiver, the type of mesothelioma and early diagnosis still remain the best treatment approach. Novel treatment modalities have been explored and several others are already on the way. In the current review we will present current data for mesothelioma and future perspectives.

Second-line treatment in malignant pleural mesothelioma: translating the evidence into clinical practice

SUMMARY 

Nearly all patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) progress during or after standard first-line treatment with pemetrexed plus a platinum compound. Second-line therapies are being increasingly used in clinical practice, but their role is still unproven, and the optimal regimens remain to be defined. Published studies have frequently severe limitations, due to the small number and to the heterogeneity of patients included. New treatment options are eagerly awaited. In selected cases with a prolonged disease control after first-line chemotherapy, re-treatment with pemetrexed seems to be the best option. In the other cases, patients should be enrolled whenever possible in clinical trials. Single-agent chemotherapy remains a reasonable option for palliation.

Response to pemetrexed rechallenge after acquired resistance of EGFR-TKI in a patient with advanced NSCLC

Acquired resistance of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been developed as an important clinical problem though EGFR-TKI such as gefitinib, erlotinib and afatinib [1,2] has achieved 8-14 months of progression free survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient with EGFR mutation. We report a case here that an advanced lung adenocarcinoma with L858R mutation responded well to pemetrexed rechallenge after acquired resistance of erlotinib.

Vinorelbine in pemetrexed-pretreated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). At progression, patients are generally selected to experimental trials, when available, or, in every-day clinical practice, they are offered second-line chemotherapy. The optimal treatment has not yet been defined. The aim of this retrospective, single-center study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of vinorelbine administered to a consecutive series of pemetrexed-pretreated MPM patients.

METHODS

Vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) was administered intravenously as a single agent on days 1, 8 every three weeks, either as second-line (2L) or further-line (>2L) therapy. Treatment was repeated for a maximum of 6 cycles, until progression, or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included in this analysis. Vinorelbine was given to 34 patients as 2L, and to 25 as > 2L treatment. The median age was 69 years (range 45-80). Forty-two patients (71.2%) had a good EORTC prognostic score. Partial response was observed in 9 (15.2%) cases, stable disease in 20 (33.9%). The overall disease control rate (DCR) was 49.1%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.3 and 6.2 months, respectively. ECOG performance status (PS) (HR(0 vs. 1-2) 0.50; 95%CI: 0.3-0.8; p = 0.014) and PFS ≥ 6 months following first-line (FL) chemotherapy (HR(FL-PFS>6 ms vs. <6 ms) 0.50; 95%CI: 0.3-0.9; p = 0.031) were significantly associated to OS in multivariate analysis. No difference was observed in terms of DCR, PFS, and OS in relation to age, histology, sex, line of vinorelbine therapy, or response to FL treatment. Hematological toxicity was acceptable, with grade 3/4 neutropenia occurring in 5 (8.4%) patients, and there were no cases of febrile neutropenia. The main non-hematological toxicities were grade 2 fatigue in 17 (28.8%) and constipation in 7 (11.8%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Vinorelbine was moderately active in pemetrexed-pretreated MPM patients, with an acceptable toxicity profile, particularly in patients with ECOG-PS0 and FL-PFS ≥ 6 months.

Re-challenge chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Despite recent improvements to current therapies and the emergence of novel agents to manage advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the patients' overall survival remains poor. Re-challenging with first-line chemotherapy upon relapse is common in the management of small cell lung cancer but is not well reported for advanced NSCLC. NSCLC relapse has been attributed to acquired drug resistance, but the repopulation of sensitive clones may also play a role, in which case re-challenge may be appropriate. Here, we report the results of re-challenge with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in 22 patients from a single institution who had previously received gemcitabine plus platinum in the first-line setting and had either partial response or a progression-free interval of longer than 6 months. In this retrospective study, the charts of patients who underwent second-line chemotherapy for NSCLC in our cancer center between January 2005 and April 2010 were reviewed. All the patients who received a combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin for re-challenge were included in the study. These patients were offered second-line treatment on confirmation of clear radiological disease progression. The overall response rate was 15% and disease control rate was 75%. The median survival time was 10.4 months, with 46% of patients alive at 1 year. These results suggest that re-challenge chemotherapy should be considered in selected patients with radiological partial response or a progression-free survival of longer than 6 months to the initial therapy.