NGR-hTNF in combination with best investigator choice in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (NGR015): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with highly vascularised tumours. It has poor prognosis and few treatment options after failure of first-line chemotherapy. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting drug that increases penetration of intratumoral chemotherapy and T-cell infiltration by modifying the tumour microenvironment. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of NGR-hTNF in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had progressed during or after a first-line treatment. METHODS: NGR015 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done in 41 centres in 12 countries. Eligible participants had malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histological subtype (epithelial, sarcomatoid, or mixed), were aged 18 years or older, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and radiologically documented progressive disease after one pemetrexed-based chemotherapy regimen. Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly NGR-hTNF 0·8 µg/m2 intravenously plus best investigator choice (n=200), or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). Best investigator choice was decided before random assignment and could be single-agent gemcitabine (1000-1250 mg/m2 intravenously), vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 intravenously or 60 mg/m2 orally), doxorubicin (60-75 mg/m2 intravenously), or best supportive care only. Patients were randomised (1:1) with a block size of four after stratification for performance status and best investigator choice. The primary study endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01098266). FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2010 and Jan 21, 2013, we enrolled 400 eligible participants. 381 (95%) of 400 patients were selected to receive chemotherapy before all participants were randomly assigned to receive NGF-hTNF plus best investigator choice (n=200) or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). At the cutoff date (April 29, 2014), the median follow-up was 18·7 months (IQR 15·1-24·4), and overall survival did not differ between the two treatment groups (median 8·5 months [95% CI 7·2-9·9] in the NGR-hTNF group vs 8·0 months [6·6-8·9] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·75-1·18; p=0·58). Grade 3 or worse study-emergent adverse events occurred in 136 (70%) of patients receiving NGR-hTNF versus 118 (61%) of patients receiving placebo, with the most common being neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients vs 36 [19%] of 193 patients), pain (11 [6%] vs 16 [8%]), dyspnoea (nine [5%] vs seven [4%]), and chills (nine [5%] vs none). 50 (26%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group had a serious adverse event, compared with 47 (24%) in the placebo group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 17 (9%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group and 20 patients (10%) in the placebo group. There were 12 deaths in the NGR-hTNF group and 13 deaths in the placebo group, but none were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. The hypothesis-generating findings from the subgroup analyses deserve a confirmatory randomised trial because patients who rapidly progress after first-line treatment have a poor prognosis. FUNDING: MolMed.

Vorinostat in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma who have progressed on previous chemotherapy (VANTAGE-014): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that changes gene expression and protein activity. On the basis of the clinical benefit reported in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated in a phase 1 study of vorinostat, we designed this phase 3 trial to investigate whether vorinostat given as a second-line or third-line therapy improved patients' overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in 90 international centres. Patients with measurable advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma and disease progression after one or two previous systemic regimens were eligible. After stratification for Karnofsky performance status, histology, and number of previous chemotherapy regimens, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive voice response system with a block size of four to either treatment with vorinostat or placebo. Patients received oral vorinostat 300 mg (or matching placebo) twice daily on days 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoints were overall survival and safety and tolerability of vorinostat. The primary efficacy comparison was done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety and tolerability was assessed in the treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128102. FINDINGS: From July 12, 2005, to Feb 14, 2011, 661 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either vorinostat (n=329) or placebo (n=332) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival for vorinostat was 30·7 weeks (95% CI 26·7-36·1) versus 27·1 weeks (23·1-31·9) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·83-1·17, p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events for patients treated with vorinostat were fatigue or malaise (51 [16%] patients in the vorinostat group vs 25 [8%] in the placebo group]) and dyspnoea (35 [11%] vs 45 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: In this randomised trial, vorinostat given as a second-line or third-line therapy did not improve overall survival and cannot be recommended as a therapy for patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Aberrant expression of cell cycle regulatory genes predicts overall and disease free survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive disease with a generally poor prognosis. Since escape from cell cycle checkpoint control is common in several solid tumors, the present study was performed to evaluate the role of some cell cycle regulatory genes in the development and progression of MPM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Aberrant expression of p14(ARF), p16(INK4A), p21(waf), p27(KIP), p53, mdm2 and Rb was assessed in 55 MPM cases from Egypt using immunohistochemistry and PCR techniques. Results were correlated with clinico-pathological prognostic factors, overall and disease free survival (OS&DFS). RESULTS: Altered expression of p14(ARF), p16(INK4A), p21(waf), p27(KIP1), Rb, p53 and mdm2 proteins was detected in 50.9%, 54.5%, 53.3%, 61.8%, 53.3%, 58.2%, and 50.8% of cases, respectively. SV40 infection significantly correlated with p14(ARF), 16(INK4A), p27(kip1) and Rb aberrations (p=0.014, p=0.02, p=0.01, p=-0.01). Asbestos exposure significantly correlated with p53, p21(waf) and mdm2 aberrations (p=0.001, p=0.03, p=0.02). On multivariate analysis PS ≥ 2, p27(KIP1) and Rb aberrations were independent prognostic factors for OS (p=0.016, p=0.011, p=0.003) whereas on tumor recurrence, p27(KIP1) and Rb aberrations were independent prognostic factors for DFS (p=0.002, p=0.03, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MPM is a complex disease characterized by multiple genetic aberrations; some of them involve cell cycle regulatory genes. p14(ARF), p16(INK4A), Rb and p27(KIP1) seem to be involved in SV40-associated MPM whereas mdm2, p53 and p21(WAF) are related to asbestos exposure. In addition to recurrence and PS, only p27(KIP1)and Rb could be used as molecular prognostic markers in MPM.

Primary chemotherapy with low-dose prolonged infusion gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with bladder cancer: a Phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine is an active agent in the treatment of bladder cancer. The enzyme deoxycytidine kinase catalyzes the phosphorylation of gemcitabine into the active gemcitabine triphosphate. After an infusion during 30 minutes, this enzyme will be saturated, therefore, accumulation of higher intracellular concentrations of the active gemcitabine triphosphate could be achieved by prolonging the infusion time of gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on previously published Phase I trials, the efficacy and safety of a combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine given as prolonged infusion were tried in a Phase II study of 57 untreated patients with stage III/IV bladder cancer, which is the most common malignant tumor among Egyptian males. Patients received gemcitabine (250 mg/m(2) during 6-hour infusion) on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin (70 mg/m(2)) on day 2 every 21-day cycle. RESULTS: The 41 males and 16 females had a median age of 55 years (range 37-77). A total of 37 patients had transitional cell, 15 had squamous cell, 2 had adenocarcinoma, and 3 had undifferentiated cell carcinoma. The median number of cycles given to these 57 patients was 4 (range 1-6). Of 54 evaluable patients, 5 (9.4%) had complete remission, and 27 (50%) partial remission, for an overall response rate of 59.4%. These results are comparable to those of a previous Phase II study of the same combination but with gemcitabine given in the standard dose and schedule. Responses were observed at all disease sites. Both hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were treatable and not severe. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged infusion of gemcitabine and cisplatin is an effective treatment for advanced bilharzial-related bladder cancer. Toxicity, especially myelosuppression, is surprisingly mild. This combination deserves to be tried in other different disease categories.

Phase II study of first-line bortezomib and cisplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma and prospective validation of progression free survival rate as a primary end-point for mesothelioma clinical trials (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 08052).

BACKGROUND: This was a prospective phase II study of cisplatin and bortezomib (CB) in the first line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) with validation of progression free survival rate at 18 weeks (PFSR-18)(1) as primary end-point. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically proven MPM and performance status (PS) 0/1, were treated with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and bortezomib 1.3mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, 11 every 3 weeks. The primary end-point validation utilised the landmark method. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2010 82 patients were entered. PFSR-18 was 53% (80% confidence intervals, CIs, 42-64%). The overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months (95% CI 10.5-15) with 56% (95% CI 44-66%) alive at 1 year. The median PFS was 5.1months (95% CI 3.3-6.5) and the response rate was 28.4% (95% CI 18.9-39.5%). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were hyponatremia (46%), hypokalaemia (17%), fatigue (12.2%), thrombocytopenia (11%), neutropenia (9.7%) and neurotoxicity (motor, sensory, other: 1.2%, 8.5%, 2.4%). There were two toxic deaths (32 and 74days) due to acute pneumonitis and cardiac arrest. End-point validation showed that patients with no progression/progression at 18 weeks had median OS of 16.9/11.9 months, respectively. Hazard ratio was 0.46 (CI 0.32-0.67), logrank test and C-index were 0.007 and 0.60. CONCLUSION: The 50% PFSR-18 for CB was contained within the 80% CI for (42-64%). Therefore the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Accordingly this combination does not warrant further investigation. PFSR-18 was confirmed as a strong predictor of survival.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III intergroup study of gefitinib in patients with advanced NSCLC, non-progressing after first line platinum-based chemotherapy (EORTC 08021/ILCP 01/03).

BACKGROUND: EORTC study 08021/ILCP 01/03 evaluated the role of consolidation gefitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), administered in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), not progressing following standard 1st-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC, not-progressing after four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomised to receive either gefitinib 250mg/d or matched placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. The study was powered to detect a 28% increase in OS from a median of 11-14.1months (HR=0.78) and planned to randomise 598 patients to observe 514 deaths. RESULTS: After inclusion of 173 patients, the trial was prematurely closed due to low accrual. Baseline characteristics for gefitinib (n=86) and placebo (n=87) arms were well balanced. After a median follow up of 41months, the difference in median OS in the gefitinib and placebo arms was not statistically significant (10.9 and 9.4months, HR 0.83 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.60-1.15]; p=0.2). The difference in median PFS significantly favoured gefitinib (4.1 and 2.9months, HR=0.61, [95% CI 0.45, 0.83]), p=0.0015). Adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients were rash (47% with gefitinib versus 13% with placebo) and diarrhoea (34% with gefitinib versus13% with placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Despite its premature closure, this trial confirms previous evidence that consolidation gefitinib is safe and improves PFS. However, no difference in OS was observed in this study (NCT00091156).

Delayed bronchial stump dehiscence following trimodality treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Post pneumonectomy bronchopleural fistula represents the most serious complication in thoracic surgery. Delayed fistula following tri modality treatment for mesothelioma is a serious problem regarding diagnosis and treatment. Surgical repair of the bronchial stump through a lateral thoracotomy is a dangerous attempt due to mediastinal fibrothorax and the risk of pulmonary artery stump damage. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2007, 85 extra pleural pneumonectomies for mesothelioma were performed. Only 58 patients completed the assigned tri modality treatment, five of them developed delayed bronchial stump dehiscence. The interval between primary surgery and stump dehiscence ranged from 6 months to 2 years. RESULTS: There were 4 right and one left sided fistulae. We had 4 males and one female, the mean age was 41 years. Bronchial stump was stapled in 3 patients and hand sewn closure was used in the remaining 2. By bronchoscopy, no stump recurrence was observed, but all patients with stapled bronchus had longer remaining stump. Empyema was present in all patients. All complicated patients received 2 field post operative radiotherapy with mediastinal dose of 40-45 Grays. The initial treatment consisted of tube thoracostomy followed by exploration through the previous thoracotomy incision with thorough curettage and wash of the infected space and removal of any exposed infected mesh. Bronchial stump was identified and re sutured. Re enforcement of the bronchial stump was done. Three patients required mechanical ventilation and 2 of them died. Surgery was successful in the remaining 3 patients. CONCLUSION: Delayed bronchial stump dehiscence is liable to develop especially for right sided lesions. Prophylactic augmentation of right sided stumps with vascularised muscle flap, shielding of pathology proven negative stumps during radiotherapy and improvement of radiation techniques may improve the dose distribution. KEY WORDS: Delayed - Bronchial - Stump - Fistula - Tri modality - Mesothelioma.

Prevalence and pattern of lymph node metastasis in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and pattern of nodal metastases in mesothelioma are not well understood. This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence and pattern of nodal metastasis in mesothelioma patients. METHODS: The study included 53 patients with mesothelioma. The first 37 patients (group I) underwent combined modality treatment without preoperative mediastinoscopy. The second group included 16 patients (group II) with pretreatment mediastinoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients had positive lymph nodes, 12 in group I and 6 in group II; of the latter, 4 had positive mediastinoscopy and 2 had positive nodes on final pathology. Postoperatively, a mean of 14 nodes were dissected (range, 5 to 34). In the post-pleuropneumonectomy group, 6 of 14 patients had positive hilar node metastases in addition to positive mediastinal lymph nodes. One patient had positive hilar nodes only. Of the 49 patients operated on, only 7 had no lung invasion by pathologic evaluation, and none had positive hilar nodes. The mechanism of spread of the disease to hilar nodes may be through lung invasion and not due to direct spread from the pleura. This observation raises the possibility that mediastinal nodes should be considered the primary station in patients with mesothelioma, whereas hilar node metastasis necessitated lung invasion first. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of nodal metastases may be different from that of lung cancer, and multicenter studies are needed to evaluate this observation.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: National Cancer Institute Cairo experience.

AIM OF THE WORK: The aim of the present study is to document the antitumor activity of the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin for the treatment of advanced NSCLC, asses the nature and severity of the side effects and elicit the impact of the combination chemotherapy on progression free survival and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 1997 to August 2001, we conducted a phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in 60 chemonaive patients (21 stage IIIB and 39 stage IV). For the first 34 cases, gemcitabine was given at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8 and 15 with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 15, every 28 days. In the following 26 patients, the regimen was modified to gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days. RESULTS: Patients included 53 males and 7 females [median age, 52 years (range, 28-69)]. Twenty-nine had adenocarcinoma, 18 large-cell carcinoma and 13 squamous-cell carcinoma. Thirty-one patients had a performance status (PS) of 2 and 22 presented with weight loss. All patients were evaluable for response. Three patients achieved a complete response (CR) and 22 had partial response (PR), giving an overall response of 41.7%, with a median duration of 10 months (range, 4-46 months). The time to progression (TTP) was 8 months (range, 2-46 months), with a median overall survival of 9 months (range, 2-46 months). The one-year survival rate was 30.3% for the entire study population, 44% for responders, and statistically improved in patients with a PS of I and those with no weight loss. A total of 255 cycles were administered (median, four cycles/patient). Myelosuppression was significant (but manageable) with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 32.6% of cases, anemia in 18.6% and thrombocytopenia in 20.4%. Nonhematologic toxicity was limited to grade 3/4 nausea and vomiting in 28.8% of cases and impaired liver enzymes in 13.6%. CONCLUSION: Inspite of the relatively poor prognostic characteristics in the study population, gemcitabine and cisplatin, was an effective combination with tolerable, manageable toxicity in advanced NSCLC.