Mesothelioma: Scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy.

Mesothelioma affects mostly older individuals who have been occupationally exposed to asbestos. The global mesothelioma incidence and mortality rates are unknown, because data are not available from developing countries that continue to use large amounts of asbestos. The incidence rate of mesothelioma has decreased in Australia, the United States, and Western Europe, where the use of asbestos was banned or strictly regulated in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrating the value of these preventive measures. However, in these same countries, the overall number of deaths from mesothelioma has not decreased as the size of the population and the percentage of old people have increased. Moreover, hotspots of mesothelioma may occur when carcinogenic fibers that are present in the environment are disturbed as rural areas are being developed. Novel immunohistochemical and molecular markers have improved the accuracy of diagnosis; however, about 14% (high-resource countries) to 50% (developing countries) of mesothelioma diagnoses are incorrect, resulting in inadequate treatment and complicating epidemiological studies. The discovery that germline BRCA1-asssociated protein 1 (BAP1) mutations cause mesothelioma and other cancers (BAP1 cancer syndrome) elucidated some of the key pathogenic mechanisms, and treatments targeting these molecular mechanisms and/or modulating the immune response are being tested. The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma is controversial as it is difficult to predict who will benefit from aggressive management, even when local therapies are added to existing or novel systemic treatments. Treatment outcomes are improving, however, for peritoneal mesothelioma. Multidisciplinary international collaboration will be necessary to improve prevention, early detection, and treatment.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Methods for improving turnaround time of comprehensive biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer.

Comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer is critical for selecting appropriate targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Ensuring timely ordering, processing, and reporting is key to optimizing patient outcomes. However, various factors can prevent or delay patients from being offered the option of treatment selection based on comprehensive biomarker testing. These factors include problems with access to testing, tissue adequacy, turnaround time, and health insurance coverage and billing practices. Turnaround time depends on several logistical and tissue handling factors, which involve institutional policies, processes, resources, testing methodology, and testing algorithms that vary across different practices. In this article, the authors identify key factors that prolong biomarker testing turnaround time, propose strategies to reduce it, and present a process map to aid physicians and key organizational stakeholders in improving testing efficiency.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy for early-stage or isolated lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is the standard treatment for medically inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but regional or distant relapses, or both, are common. Immunotherapy reduces recurrence and improves survival in people with stage III NSCLC after chemoradiotherapy, but its utility in stage I and II cases is unclear. We therefore conducted a randomised phase 2 trial of SABR alone compared with SABR with immunotherapy (I-SABR) for people with early-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial comparing SABR to I-SABR, conducted at three different hospitals in TX, USA. People aged 18 years or older with histologically proven treatment-naive stage IA-IB (tumour size ≤4 cm, N0M0), stage IIA (tumour size ≤5 cm, N0M0), or stage IIB (tumour size >5 cm and ≤7 cm, N0M0) as per the American Joint Committee on Cancer version 8 staging system or isolated parenchymal recurrences (tumour size ≤7 cm) NSCLC (TanyNanyM0 before definitive surgery or chemoradiotherapy) were included in this trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1; using the Pocock & Simon method) to receive SABR with or without four cycles of nivolumab (480 mg, once every 4 weeks, with the first dose on the same day as, or within 36 h after, the first SABR fraction). This trial was unmasked. The primary endpoint was 4-year event-free survival (local, regional, or distant recurrence; second primary lung cancer; or death). Analyses were both intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110978) and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: From June 30, 2017, to March 22, 2022, 156 participants were randomly assigned, and 141 participants received assigned therapy. At a median 33 months' follow-up, I-SABR significantly improved 4-year event-free survival from 53% (95% CI 42-67%) with SABR to 77% (66-91%; per-protocol population, hazard ratio [HR] 0·38; 95% CI 0·19-0·75; p=0·0056; ITT population, HR 0·42; 95% CI 0·22-0·80; p=0·0080). There were no grade 3 or higher adverse events associated with SABR. In the I-SABR group, ten participants (15%) had grade 3 immunologial adverse events related to nivolumab; none had grade 3 pneumonitis or grade 4 or higher toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Compared with SABR alone, I-SABR significantly improved event-free survival at 4 years in people with early-stage treatment-naive or lung parenchymal recurrent node-negative NSCLC, with tolerable toxicity. I-SABR could be a treatment option in these participants, but further confirmation from a number of currently accruing phase 3 trials is required. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and MD Anderson Cancer Center Alliance, National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health through Cancer Center Core Support Grant and Clinical and Translational Science Award to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

Effect of dexamethasone on dyspnoea in patients with cancer (ABCD): a parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea. METHODS: The parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled ABCD (Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone) trial was done at the at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the general oncology clinic at Lyndon B Johnson General Hospital (both in Houston, TX, USA). Ambulatory patients with cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with an average dyspnoea intensity score on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0=none, 10=worst) over the past week of 4 or higher were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days, or matching placebo capsules for 14 days. Pharmacists did permuted block randomisation with a block size of six, and patients were stratified by baseline dyspnoea score (4-6 vs 7-10) and study site. Patients, research staff, and clinicians were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in dyspnoea NRS intensity over the past 24 h from baseline to day 7 (±2 days). Analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat (ie, including all patients who were randomly assigned and started the study treatment, regardless of whether they completed the study). Enrolment was stopped after the second preplanned interim analysis, when the futility criterion was met. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03367156) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

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.

Mutational Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes for Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Germline Mutations.

INTRODUCTION: Germline mutations driving lung cancer have been infrequently reported in the literature, with EGFR T790M being a known germline mutation identified in 1% of NSCLCs. Typically, a somatic EGFR mutation is acquired to develop lung adenocarcinoma. Osimertinib has become a standard-of-care treatment for EGFR T790M-positive lung cancer. METHODS: We perform a retrospective analysis through the Lung Cancer Moon Shot GEMINI database at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Of the patients that underwent cell-free DNA analysis, germline mutations were identified by those with high variant allelic fraction approximating 50%, followed by further confirmation on genetic testing. RESULTS: We identified 22 patients with germline EGFR mutations, with the majority harboring an EGFR T790M mutation (95.5%) and an EGFR L858R somatic mutation (50%). Notably, most patients were female (86.4%), non-smokers (81.8%), white (86.4%), had a family history of lung cancer (59.1%), and stage IV at diagnosis (72.7%). A distinct radiographic pattern of small multifocal ground-glass pulmonary nodules was observed in the majority of our cohort (72.7%). Among the 18 with advanced-stage NSCLC, 12 patients (66.7%) were treated with first-line osimertinib, demonstrating a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 16.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3-not reached [NR]). Others were treated with first-line afatinib (11.1%) or chemotherapy (22.2%). Among the 17 patients treated with osimertinib (in first or second-line), median PFS was 20.4 months (95% CI: 6.3-NR) and median overall survival was 82.0 months (95% CI: 28.4-NR). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our institutional cohort, NSCLC driven by EGFR germline mutations occurs more frequently in non-smoking, white females with multi-focal pulmonary nodules radiographically. Osimertinib for advanced germline EGFR-mutated NSCLC renders similar PFS compared to somatic T790M EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Amivantamab for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Amivantamab-vmjw (amivantamab) is a bispecific EGFR/MET antibody approved for patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, after prior therapy. Nevertheless, the benefits and safety of amivantamab in other EGFR-mutant lung cancer, with or without osimertinib, and with concurrent radiation therapy, are less known. METHODS: We queried the MD Anderson Lung Cancer GEMINI, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Stanford Cancer Center's database for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with amivantamab, not on a clinical trial. The data analyzed included initial response, duration of treatment, and concomitant radiation safety in overall population and prespecified subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients received amivantamab. Median age was 65 (31-81) years old; 72.1% were female; and 77% were patients with never smoking history. Median number of prior lines of therapies was four. On the basis of tumor's EGFR mutation, 39 patients were in the classical mutation cohort, 15 patients in the exon 20 cohort, and seven patients in the atypical cohort. There were 37 patients (58.7%) who received amivantamab concomitantly with osimertinib and 25 patients (39.1%) who received concomitant radiation. Furthermore, 54 patients were assessable for response in the overall population; 19 patients (45.2%) had clinical response and disease control rate (DCR) was 64.3%. In the classical mutation cohort of the 33 assessable patients, 12 (36.4%) had clinical response and DCR was 48.5%. In the atypical mutation cohort, six of the seven patients (85.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 100%. Of the 13 assessable patients in the exon 20 cohort, five patients (35.7%) had clinical response and DCR was 64.3%. Adverse events reported with amivantamab use were similar as previously described in product labeling. No additional toxicities were noted when amivantamab was given with radiation with or without osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world multicenter analysis revealed that amivantamab is a potentially effective treatment option for patients with EGFR mutations outside of exon 20 insertion mutations. The combination of osimertinib with amivantamab is safe and feasible. Radiation therapy also seems safe when administered sequentially or concurrently with amivantamab.

Pegargiminase Plus First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Nonepithelioid Pleural Mesothelioma: The ATOMIC-Meso Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Arginine deprivation using ADI-PEG20 (pegargiminase) combined with chemotherapy is untested in a randomized study among patients with cancer. ATOMIC-Meso (ADI-PEG20 Targeting of Malignancies Induces Cytotoxicity-Mesothelioma) is a pivotal trial comparing standard first-line chemotherapy plus pegargiminase or placebo in patients with nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma. Objective: To determine the effect of pegargiminase-based chemotherapy on survival in nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma, an arginine-auxotrophic tumor. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase 2-3, double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted at 43 centers in 5 countries that included patients with chemotherapy-naive nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma from August 1, 2017, to August 15, 2021, with at least 12 months' follow-up. Final follow-up was on August 15, 2022. Data analysis was performed from March 2018 to June 2023. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly intramuscular pegargiminase (36.8 mg/m2) or placebo. All patients received intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and platinum (75-mg/m2 cisplatin or carboplatin area under the curve 5) chemotherapy every 3 weeks up to 6 cycles. Pegargiminase or placebo was continued until progression, toxicity, or 24 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival, and secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety. Response rate by blinded independent central review was assessed in the phase 2 portion only. Results: Among 249 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.9] years; 43 female individuals [17.3%] and 206 male individuals [82.7%]), all were included in the analysis. The median overall survival was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.9-11.8 months) with pegargiminase-chemotherapy as compared with 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.1-9.5 months) with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = .02). The median progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.4 months) with pegargiminase-chemotherapy as compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-5.9 months) with placebo-chemotherapy (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90; P = .02). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events with pegargiminase occurred in 36 patients (28.8%) and with placebo in 21 patients (16.9%); drug hypersensitivity and skin reactions occurred in the experimental arm in 3 patients (2.4%) and 2 patients (1.6%), respectively, and none in the placebo arm. Rates of poststudy treatments were comparable in both arms (57 patients [45.6%] with pegargiminase vs 58 patients [46.8%] with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of arginine depletion with pegargiminase plus chemotherapy, survival was extended beyond standard chemotherapy with a favorable safety profile in patients with nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma. Pegargiminase-based chemotherapy as a novel antimetabolite strategy for mesothelioma validates wider clinical testing in oncology. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02709512.