First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Approved systemic treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been limited to chemotherapy regimens that have moderate survival benefit with poor outcomes. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in other tumour types, including first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. We hypothesised that this regimen would improve overall survival in MPM. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (CheckMate 743) was run at 103 hospitals across 21 countries. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years and older, with previously untreated, histologically confirmed unresectable MPM, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously once every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenously] plus cisplatin [75 mg/m2 intravenously] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL per min intravenously]) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival among all participants randomly assigned to treatment, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02899299, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2016, and April 28, 2018, 713 patients were enrolled, of whom 605 were randomly assigned to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=303) or chemotherapy (n=302). 467 (77%) of 605 participants were male and median age was 69 years (IQR 64-75). At the prespecified interim analysis (database lock April 3, 2020; median follow-up of 29·7 months [IQR 26·7-32·9]), nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly extended overall survival versus chemotherapy (median overall survival 18·1 months [95% CI 16·8-21·4] vs 14·1 months [12·4-16·2]; hazard ratio 0·74 [96·6% CI 0·60-0·91]; p=0·0020). 2-year overall survival rates were 41% (95% CI 35·1-46·5) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 27% (21·9-32·4) in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 91 (30%) of 300 patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 91 (32%) of 284 treated with chemotherapy. Three (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (pneumonitis, encephalitis, and heart failure) and one (<1%) in the chemotherapy group (myelosuppression). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy, supporting the use of this first-in-class regimen that has been approved in the USA as of October, 2020, for previously untreated unresectable MPM. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: phase II PHAROS study design.

BRAFV600 oncogenic driver mutations occur in 1-2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and have been shown to be a clinically relevant target. Preclinical/clinical evidence support the efficacy and safety of BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations in patients with NSCLC with these mutations. We describe the design of PHAROS, an ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial evaluating the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib plus the MEK inhibitor binimetinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC, as first- or second-line treatment. The primary end point is objective response rate, based on independent radiologic review (per RECIST v1.1); secondary objectives evaluated additional efficacy end points and safety. Results from PHAROS will describe the antitumor activity/safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC.

Plain language summary Some people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changes in a gene called BRAF (known as 'gene mutations'). One common BRAF mutation is called 'V600'. Combinations of medicines that block proteins encoded by mutant BRAF and another gene called MEK can shrink tumors and slow their progression. We describe the design of PHAROS, a clinical trial investigating encorafenib (mutant BRAF inhibitor) combined with binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) in people with BRAF^V600-mutant NSCLC that had spread to other parts of the body ('metastatic disease'). People are monitored for side effects and to see if their tumor shrunk. PHAROS includes people treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib as their first treatment for metastatic disease, and people whose cancer progressed after previous anticancer therapy. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03915951) and EudraCT (2019-000417-37).

Outcomes of Critically Ill Lung Cancer Patients Initiating Targeted Therapy or Immunotherapy in the Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Report.

Introduction: Targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have drastically improved outcomes of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in outpatient settings. Because trials on critically ill patients are improbable, little is known about their efficacy among patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of critically-ill NSCLC patients receiving either ICI or targeted therapy during ICU admission at the MD Anderson Cancer Center from April 2016 to August 2020. We collected data on ICU admission diagnoses, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), previous cancer therapies, tumor gene mutations or translocations, and PD-L1 expression. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of drug initiation using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 9898 ICU admissions, 9 patients with metastatic NSCLC who received either targeted therapy (5) or PD-1 ICI (4) during ICU admission were included. The most common reasons for ICU admissions were tumor visceral crisis (3/9) and sepsis (3/9). The median (range) admission SOFA was 4 (2-11). Six patients were naïve to systemic therapy. Five patients required mechanical ventilation. The median OS was 77 days (95%CI, 36-NA), and 5 patients were discharged alive (all received targeted therapy). The median OS of patients who received ICI was 25.5 days (95%CI, 8-NA) and for those who received targeted therapy was 218 days (95%CI, 77-NA). At 6 and 12 months follow-up, 3 and 2 patients who received targeted therapy were still alive, respectively. Conclusions: Our exploratory findings indicate a possible benefit of targeted therapy but suggest a lack of clinical utility of PD-1 ICI for critically ill metastatic NSCLC patients. Because of the small sample size, further studies are needed to expand on this topic.

A Mindfulness-Based Intervention as a Supportive Care Strategy for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Their Spouses: Results of a Three-Arm Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although mindfulness-based interventions have been widely examined in patients with nonmetastatic cancer, the feasibility and efficacy of these types of programs are largely unknown for those with advanced disease. We pilot-tested a couple-based meditation (CBM) relative to a supportive-expressive (SE) and a usual care (UC) arm targeting psychospiritual distress in patients with metastatic lung cancer and their spousal caregivers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patient-caregiver dyads completed baseline self-report measures and were then randomized to one of the three arms. Couples in the CBM and SE groups attended four 60-minute sessions that were delivered via videoconference. All dyads were reassessed 1 and 3 months later. RESULTS: A priori feasibility benchmarks were met. Although attendance was high in both groups, dyads in the CBM group indicated greater benefit of the sessions than those in the SE group (patients, CBM mean = 2.63, SE mean = 2.20, p = .003; spouses, CBM mean = 2.71, SE mean = 2.00, p = .005). Compared with the UC group, patients in the CBM group reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p = .05; d = 0.53) and marginally reduced cancer-related stress (p = .07; d = 0.68). Medium effect sizes in favor of the CBM compared with the SE group for depressive symptoms (d = 0.59) and cancer-related stress (d = 0.54) were found. Spouses in the CBM group reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p < .01; d = 0.74) compared with those in the UC group. CONCLUSION: It seems feasible and possibly efficacious to deliver dyadic interventions via videoconference to couples coping with metastatic lung cancer. Mindfulness-based interventions may be of value to managing psychological symptoms in the palliative care setting. Clinical trial identification number. NCT02596490 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current randomized controlled trial has established that a mindfulness approach to the management of patients' and spouses' psychospiritual concerns is acceptable and subjectively deemed more beneficial than a supportive-expressive treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We also revealed that videoconference delivery, here FaceTime, is an acceptable approach even for geriatric patients with metastatic NSCLC and that patients and their spousal caregivers prefer a dyadic delivery of this type of supportive care strategy. Lastly, this trial has laid the foundation for the role of mindfulness-based interventions in the palliative care setting supporting patients with advanced NSCLC and their spousal caregivers.

A Phase II Trial of Alisertib (MLN8237) in Salvage Malignant Mesothelioma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Treatment with the Aurora kinase A inhibitor yields often durable disease control, but limited tumor regression, in heavily pretreated patients with unresectable malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma. In a limited sample size, MYC copy-number gain or gene amplification, a candidate predictive biomarker for alisertib, did not correlate with improved response numbers or patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive disease for which few effective therapies are available. The Aurora family kinases are critical for mitotic fidelity and highly expressed in mesothelioma, wherein their inhibition leads to growth arrest in vitro. We evaluated the efficacy of alisertib, an Aurora A kinase inhibitor, in relapsed malignant mesothelioma. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with previously treated, unresectable pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma were enrolled on a single-arm, single-institution phase II trial of alisertib at a dosage of 50 mg twice daily for 7 of every 21 days. The primary endpoint was 4-month disease control rate. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate, progression free survival, overall survival, safety/toxicity, and correlation of endpoints with MYC copy number. RESULTS: Of the 25 evaluable patients treated on study, 8 (32%) experienced 4-month disease control, surpassing the futility endpoint. There were no confirmed partial or complete responses. Median progression-free and overall survival were 2.8 months and 6.3 months, respectively. No associations between MYC copy number and outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: Alisertib has modest activity in this unselected malignant mesothelioma population. Several patients achieved durable disease control. Although the study did meet its prespecified futility endpoint, the sponsor elected to close the trial at the interim analysis.

Use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Mesothelioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Recent advances in immunology have extended into the mesothelioma field. To date, only Japan has given regulatory approval to salvage nivolumab in chemo-refractory mesothelioma patients. The USA has included in the NCCN guidelines that pembrolizumab (in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC)-positive patients) and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab (whatever the PD-L1 status is) are accepted salvage therapies. Based on the growing body of literature, it is anticipated that checkpoint inhibitors will receive regulatory approval in the USA and Europe soon for salvage therapy. Additional research efforts will determine whether earlier stage patients and frontline unresectable patients will benefit from the addition of immunotherapy to their treatment regimens. The realm of biomarker research has lagged behind in mesothelioma. In general, mesothelioma has less tumor mutation burden than other malignancies. Most of the single-agent salvage checkpoint inhibitor trials have shown a trend correlating higher PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) with responses. However, survival data remains immature and a larger number of patient outcomes are needed to ascertain the value of PD-L1 IHC as a predictive biomarker. Incorporation of translational studies in all immunotherapy trials and especially window-of-opportunity resectable studies should be supported and instituted in all future mesothelioma trials.

Single Arm, Phase II Study of Cisplatin, Docetaxel, and Erlotinib in Patients with Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinomas.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of cisplatin, docetaxel, and erlotinib as frontline treatment for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas led to a response rate of 62%.This result exceeded the prespecified target response rate of 50% and represented an improvement compared with historical controls.This regimen warrants further investigation. BACKGROUND: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays a key role in the carcinogenesis of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). We conducted this clinical study to test the hypothesis that the addition of erlotinib to first-line cisplatin and docetaxel for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC would yield a response rate of at least 50%, representing an improvement from historical controls. METHODS: Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC, with at least one measurable lesion, no prior chemotherapy for recurrent and/or metastatic disease, prior combined modality therapy completed >6 months before enrollment, and performance status ≤2 were treated with cisplatin, docetaxel, and erlotinib for up to six cycles, followed by maintenance erlotinib until disease progression. The primary endpoint was response rate. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled (42 male, 12 never smokers, 19 with oropharynx cancer). The median number of cycles was five; 31 patients initiated maintenance erlotinib; 14 patients required erlotinib dose reductions. The objective response rate was 62%, and the median progression-free and overall survival were 6.1 and 11.0 months, respectively. Toxicity profiles were consistent with the known side effects of the study drugs. CONCLUSION: The study met its primary endpoint and improved response rates compared with historical controls. The findings support further evaluation of the regimen for recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCCs.

Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): a multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma. METHODS: DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8-8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9-8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·76-1·12], p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 [9%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 [14%] patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (26 [7%] vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 [18%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs one [<1%] patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [8%] vs 24 [13%]), and colitis (24 [6%] vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three [1%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs two [1%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three [1%] vs two [1%]); respiratory failure (one [<1%] vs three [2%]), myocardial infarction (three [1%] vs none), lung infection (three [1%] patients vs none), cardiac failure (one [<1%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (two [<1%] vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient. INTERPRETATION: Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential effect of aggressive local consolidative therapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. We aimed to assess the effect of local consolidative therapy on progression-free survival. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study, eligible patients from three hospitals had histological confirmation of stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastatic disease lesions after first-line systemic therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, had received standard first-line systemic therapy, and had no disease progression before randomisation. First-line therapy was four or more cycles of platinum doublet therapy or 3 or more months of EGFR or ALK inhibitors for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either local consolidative therapy ([chemo]radiotherapy or resection of all lesions) with or without subsequent maintenance treatment or to maintenance treatment alone, which could be observation only. Maintenance treatment was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic treatment. Randomisation was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, CNS metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR and ALK status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients who were treated and had at least one post-baseline imaging assessment. The study is ongoing but not recruiting participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01725165. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2012, and Jan 19, 2016, 74 patients were enrolled either during or at the completion of first-line systemic therapy. The study was terminated early after randomisation of 49 patients (25 in the local consolidative therapy group and 24 in the maintenance treatment group) as part of the annual analyses done by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of all randomised trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and before a planned interim analysis of 44 events. At a median follow-up time for all randomised patients of 12·39 months (IQR 5·52-20·30), the median progression-free survival in the local consolidative therapy group was 11·9 months (90% CI 5·7-20·9) versus 3·9 months (2·3-6·6) in the maintenance treatment group (hazard ratio 0·35 [90% CI 0·18-0·66], log-rank p=0·0054). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no grade 4 adverse events or deaths due to treatment. Grade 3 adverse events in the maintenance therapy group were fatigue (n=1) and anaemia (n=1) and in the local consolidative therapy group were oesophagitis (n=2), anaemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1, unlikely related). INTERPRETATION: Local consolidative therapy with or without maintenance therapy for patients with three or fewer metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved progression-free survival compared with maintenance therapy alone. These findings suggest that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase 3 trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario. FUNDING: MD Anderson Lung Cancer Priority Fund, MD Anderson Cancer Center Moon Shot Initiative, and Cancer Center Support (Core), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

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.

Local and systemic therapies for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a challenging disease to treat with median overall survival times ranging between 9-17 months for all stages of disease. Recent clinical trials have improved our understanding of the biology of MPM. However, survival results are still not ideal. For early-stage MPM, patients should be evaluated for trimodality therapy in an experienced cancer center. If treating off-protocol, MPM patients should receive a surgical staging evaluation. The decision to proceed with surgical resection also should be considered after an extensive and thorough pulmonary and cardiac evaluation. If deemed a good surgical candidate, patients should receive surgical resection (pleurectomy/decortication or extrapleural pneumonectomy), adjuvant radiation therapy (hemithoracic external beam or intensity modulated radiation therapy), and either neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin-pemetrexed for 4 cycles). The optimal precise sequence of the trimodality is unclear and should be decided upon by a multidisciplinary consensus for each individual patient. In general, clinical trial participation should be encouraged. Several trials are currently underway to examine intraoperative therapies, vaccines, immunotherapy additions, and novel radiation therapy techniques. Advances in the field of MPM are reliant on participation in clinical trials and identifying biomarkers that are predictive for response to systemic therapies and prognostic for survival benefit.

Elevated PDGFRB gene copy number gain is prognostic for improved survival outcomes in resected malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PDGF/PDGFR pathway has been implicated in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) carcinogenesis, and evidence suggests autocrine mechanisms of proliferation. We sought to evaluate the incidence of PDGFRB gene copy number gain (CNG) by fluorescence in situ hybridization and PDGFR pathway protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and correlate it to patient clinical outcome. Eighty-eight archived tumor blocks from resected MPM with full clinical information were used to perform IHC biomarkers (PDGFRα, PDGFRß, p-PDGFRß) and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of PDGFRB gene CNG. Spearman rank correlation, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test, BLiP plots, and Kaplan-Meier method were used to analyze the biomarkers and correlation to clinical outcome. Several correlations between the IHC biomarkers were seen; however, none correlated to clinically relevant patient demographics or histology. In the CNG analysis, PDGFRB gene CNG in >10% of tumor cells had lower cytoplasmic p-PDGFRß (P=.029), while PDGFRB gene CNG in >40% of tumor cells had a higher cytoplasmic PDGFRß (P=.04). PDGFRB gene CNG status did not associate with patient demographics or tumor characteristics. PDGFR pathway IHC biomarkers did not associate with survival outcomes. However, patients with PDGFRB CNG >40% of tumor cells had improved relapse-free survival (HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.09-0.72], P=.0096) and improved overall survival (HR 0.32 [95% CI 0.11-0.89], P=.029). PDGFRB CNG >40% of MPM tumor cells is a potential prognostic biomarker for surgery and may identify a unique population of mesothelioma patients. Future validation of this biomarker in prospective trials is needed. From a retrospective review of archived tissue specimens from patients with resected malignant pleural mesothelioma tumors, we show that patients with PDGFRB CNG >40% of tumor cells had improved relapse-free survival (HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.09-0.72], P=.0096) and improved overall survival (HR 0.32 [95% CI 0.11-0.89], P=.029). PDGFRB CNG >40% of MPM tumor cells is a potential prognostic biomarker for surgery and may identify a unique population of mesothelioma patients.

Tumor thickness in mesothelioma predicts differential response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival.

OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma remains controversial and demonstrates variable responses. We sought to evaluate tumor thickness as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant therapy and as a prognostic marker for overall survival. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by cytoreductive surgery from 2002 to 2019 were reviewed. Baseline and postneoadjuvant therapy tumor thickness were measured on computed tomography. Radiological tumor response was categorized as progressive disease (≥20% increase), partial response (≥30% decrease), or stable disease (in between). Tumor response outcomes were modeled using logistic regression and multinomial regression models. Overall survival was evaluated based on tumor thickness and tumor response. RESULTS: Of the 143 patients reviewed, 36 (25%) had progressive disease, 54 (38%) had stable disease, and 56 (39%) had partial response. The baseline tumor thickness of the progressive disease group (36 mm) was lower than in both stable disease and partial response groups (both 63 mm; P < .001). Both logistic regression and multinomial regression analyses demonstrated that thicker baseline tumor thickness was associated with decreased probability of progressive disease and increased probability of partial response. In a multivariable Cox model, thicker postneoadjuvant therapy tumor thickness was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.01, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.01, P = .008). The same trend was observed for thicker baseline tumor thickness (hazard ratio, 1.02, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04, P = .008), and the risk was decreased in tumors with partial response (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.100, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first study demonstrating the relationship between baseline tumor thickness and differential radiographic response to neoadjuvant therapy and survival. Further studies are needed to validate tumor thickness as both a prognostic and predictive biomarker.

Vidutolimod in Combination With Atezolizumab With and Without Radiation Therapy in Patients With Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 or Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Blockade-Resistant Advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: Vidutolimod, a CpG-A TLR9 agonist, was investigated in a phase 1b study (CMP-001-003; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03438318) in combination with atezolizumab with and without radiation therapy (RT) in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods: Patients with progressive disease after anti-programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 therapy received either vidutolimod and atezolizumab (part A) or vidutolimod, atezolizumab, and RT (part B). The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of vidutolimod and atezolizumab with and without RT. Key secondary end point was best objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Results: Between March 28, 2018, and July 25, 2019, a total of 29 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of vidutolimod (part A, n = 13; part B, n = 16). Intratumoral injections of vidutolimod were administered successfully, including injection of visceral lesions. The most common treatment-related adverse events (≥30%) were flu-like symptoms and hypotension. No objective responses were observed; 23.1% and 50.0% of the patients in parts A and B, respectively, had stable disease as best response. In parts A and B, 15.4% and 25.0% of the patients, respectively, had tumor shrinkage (<30% decrease in tumor size, nonirradiated). Enrollment was stopped owing to lack of objective responses. In the two patients with initial tumor shrinkage in part A, a strong serum induction of C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 was observed. Conclusions: Vidutolimod and atezolizumab with and without RT had a manageable safety profile, with minimal clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 blockade-resistant NSCLC.

Radiographic response to neoadjuvant therapy in pleural mesothelioma should serve as a guide for patient selection for cytoreductive operations.

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is associated with poor prognosis despite advances in multimodal therapeutic strategies. While patients with resectable disease may benefit from added survival with oncologic resection, patient selection for mesothelioma operations often relies on both objective and subjective evaluation metrics. We sought to evaluate factors associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with mesothelioma who underwent macroscopic complete resection (MCR). Methods: Patients with MPM who received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent MCR were identified in a prospectively maintained departmental database. Clinicopathologic, blood-based, and radiographic variables were collected and included in a Cox regression analysis (CRA). Response to neoadjuvant therapy was characterized by a change in tumor thickness from pretherapy to preoperative scans using the modified RECIST criteria. Results: In this study, 99 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age of the included patients was 64.7 years, who were predominantly men, had smoking and asbestos exposure, and who received neoadjuvant therapy. The median change in tumor thickness following neoadjuvant therapy was -16.5% (interquartile range of -49.7% to +14.2%). CRA demonstrated reduced OS associated with non-epithelioid histology [hazard ratio (HR): 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-5.78, p < 0.001] and a response to neoadjuvant therapy inferior to the median (HR: 2.70, CI: 1.55-4.72, p < 0.001). Patients who responded poorly (below median) to neoadjuvant therapy had lower median survival (15.8 months compared to 38.2 months, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Poor response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with MPM is associated with poor outcomes even following maximum surgical cytoreduction and should warrant a patient-centered discussion regarding goals of care and may therefore help guide further therapeutic decisions.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in operable non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2 platform NEOSTAR trial.

Neoadjuvant ipilimumab + nivolumab (Ipi+Nivo) and nivolumab + chemotherapy (Nivo+CT) induce greater pathologic response rates than CT alone in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The impact of adding ipilimumab to neoadjuvant Nivo+CT is unknown. Here we report the results and correlates of two arms of the phase 2 platform NEOSTAR trial testing neoadjuvant Nivo+CT and Ipi+Nivo+CT with major pathologic response (MPR) as the primary endpoint. MPR rates were 32.1% (7/22, 80% confidence interval (CI) 18.7-43.1%) in the Nivo+CT arm and 50% (11/22, 80% CI 34.6-61.1%) in the Ipi+Nivo+CT arm; the primary endpoint was met in both arms. In patients without known tumor EGFR/ALK alterations, MPR rates were 41.2% (7/17) and 62.5% (10/16) in the Nivo+CT and Ipi+Nivo+CT groups, respectively. No new safety signals were observed in either arm. Single-cell sequencing and multi-platform immune profiling (exploratory endpoints) underscored immune cell populations and phenotypes, including effector memory CD8+ T, B and myeloid cells and markers of tertiary lymphoid structures, that were preferentially increased in the Ipi+Nivo+CT cohort. Baseline fecal microbiota in patients with MPR were enriched with beneficial taxa, such as Akkermansia, and displayed reduced abundance of pro-inflammatory and pathogenic microbes. Neoadjuvant Ipi+Nivo+CT enhances pathologic responses and warrants further study in operable NSCLC. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03158129 .).

New Era for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Updates on Therapeutic Options.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy with few treatment options. Recent advances have led to US Food and Drug Administration approvals and changes in the standard of care with a novel biomedical device approved for use with platinum-pemetrexed, and also for immunotherapy agents to be included as a frontline treatment option in unresectable disease. Although predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not currently in use in clinical practice, it is essential to correctly identify the MPM histology to determine an optimal treatment plan. Patients with nonepithelioid MPM may have a greater magnitude of benefit to dual immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and this regimen should be preferred in the frontline setting for these patients. However, all patients with MPM can derive benefit from immunotherapy treatments, and these agents should ultimately be used at some point during their treatment journey. There are ongoing studies in the frontline unresectable setting that may further define the frontline therapy space, but a critical area of research will need to focus on the immunotherapy refractory population. This review article will describe the new developments in the areas of biology with genomics and chromothripsis, and also focus on updates in treatment strategies in radiology, surgery, radiation, and medical oncology with cellular therapies. These recent innovations are generating momentum to find better therapies for this disease.

Poziotinib for Patients With HER2 Exon 20 Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From a Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Targeted therapies against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring HER2 mutations remain an unmet need. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of poziotinib in patients with HER2 exon 20 mutant advanced NSCLC in a single-arm, open-label, phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced HER2 exon 20 mutant NSCLC were enrolled to receive poziotinib at a dose of 16 mg/d for 28-day cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1. Confirmatory scans were performed at least 28 days from initial radiologic response. RESULTS: Thirty patients received poziotinib treatment. At baseline, 90% of patients received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 53% had two lines or more prior systemic therapies. As of data cutoff on March 1, 2021, the confirmed objective response rate was 27% (95% CI, 12 to 46). Responses were observed across HER2 exon 20 mutation subtypes. The median duration of response was 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.0 to not estimable). The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.0). The median overall survival was 15 months (95% CI, 9.0 to not estimable). The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were skin rash (47%) and diarrhea (20%). There was one possible treatment-related death because of pneumonitis. CONCLUSION: Poziotinib showed promising antitumor activity in patients with HER2 exon 20 mutant NSCLC including patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy for the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma: patient-reported outcomes in CheckMate 743.

OBJECTIVE: In CheckMate 743 (NCT02899299), nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 605) were randomized to nivolumab + ipilimumab or chemotherapy. Changes in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated descriptively using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS)-Mesothelioma (Meso) average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS-Meso 3-item global index (3-IGI), 3-level EuroQol 5-dimensional (EQ-5D-3L) visual analog score (VAS), and EQ-5D-3L utility index. PROs were assessed at baseline and every 2 (nivolumab + ipilimumab) or 3 weeks (chemotherapy) through 12 weeks, every 6 weeks through 12 months, every 12 weeks thereafter, and at specified follow-ups. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and time to deterioration analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Completion rates were generally >80%. LCSS-Meso ASBI mean changes from baseline trended to improve over time with nivolumab + ipilimumab and deteriorate with chemotherapy, but did not meet clinically important difference thresholds [±10 score change]. EQ-5D-3L VAS mean scores improved over time with nivolumab + ipilimumab; by week 60, patients had scores consistent with United Kingdom normal population values. MMRM analyses favored nivolumab + ipilimumab for all individual symptoms except cough. Nivolumab + ipilimumab delayed time to definitive deterioration in HRQoL (hazard ratio 0.52 [95% confidence interval 0.36-0.74]) and showed a trend in symptom delay versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab + ipilimumab decreased the risk of deterioration in disease-related symptoms and HRQoL versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with unresectable MPM.

Extrapleural Pneumonectomy Versus Pleurectomy/Decortication for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Whether extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or extended pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) is the optimal resection for malignant pleural mesothelioma remains controversial. We therefore compared perioperative outcomes and long-term survival of patients who underwent EPP versus P/D. METHODS: Patients with the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma who underwent either EPP or P/D from 2000 to 2019 were identified from our departmental database. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize potential confounders for EPP or P/D. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Of 282 patients, 187 (66%) underwent EPP and 95 (34%) P/D. Even with propensity score matching, perioperative mortality was significantly higher for EPP than for P/D (11% vs 0%; P = .031); when adjusted for perioperative mortality, median overall survival between EPP and P/D was 15 versus 22 months, respectively (P = .276). Cox multivariable analysis for the matched cohort identified epithelioid histology (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; P = .029), macroscopic complete resection (HR, 0.41; P = .004), adjuvant radiation therapy (HR, 0.57; P = .019), and more recent operative years (HR, 0.93; P = .011)-but not P/D-to be associated with better survival. Asbestos exposure (HR, 2.35; P = .003) and pathologic nodal disease (HR, 1.61; P = .048) were associated with worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: In a multimodality treatment setting, P/D and EPP had comparable long-term oncologic outcomes, although P/D had much lower perioperative mortality. The goal of surgical cytoreduction should be macroscopic complete resection achieved by the safest operation a patient can tolerate.