Dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with pleural mesothelioma as maintenance therapy after chemotherapy (DENIM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study.

BACKGROUND: Dendritic cell immunotherapy has proven to be safe and induces an immune response in humans. We aimed to establish the efficacy of dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate (MesoPher, Amphera BV, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) as maintenance therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study, patients with histologically confirmed unresectable pleural mesothelioma, aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and non-progressing disease after four to six cycles of standard chemotherapy (with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5]) were recruited from four centres in Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomisation (block size of 4), stratified by centre and histology (epithelioid vs other), to MesoPher treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Patients received up to a maximum of five MesoPher infusions, with treatment administered on days 1, 15, and 29, and weeks 18 and 30. At each timepoint, participants received an injection of 25 × 106 dendritic cells (two-thirds of the dendritic cells were administered intravenously and a third were injected intradermally). Best supportive care was per local institutional standards. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment (full analysis set) and safety assessed in all randomly assigned participants, and who underwent leukapheresis if they were in the MesoPher group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03610360, and is closed for accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2018, and June 10, 2021, 176 patients were screened and randomly assigned to the MesoPher group (n=88) or best supportive care alone group (n=88). One participant in the MesoPher group did not undergo leukapheresis. Mean age was 68 years (SD 8), 149 (85%) of 176 were male, 27 (15%) were female, 173 (98%) were White, two were Asian (1%), and one (1%) was other race. As of data cutoff (June 24, 2023), after a median follow up of 15·1 months (IQR 9·5-22·4), median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 12·4-20·3; 61 [69%] of 88 died) in the MesoPher group and 18·3 months (14·3-21·9; 59 [67%] of 88 died) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·77-1·57]; log-rank p=0·62). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were chest pain (three [3%] of 87 in the MesoPher group vs two [2%] of 88 in the best supportive care group), dyspnoea (none vs two [2%]), anaemia (two [2%] vs none), nausea (none vs two [2%]), and pneumonia (none vs two [2%]). No deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded. Treatment-related adverse events consisted of infusion-related reactions (fever, chills, and fatigue), which occurred in 64 (74%) of 87 patients in the MesoPher group, and injection-site reactions (itch, erythema, and induration), which occurred in 73 (84%) patients, and all were grade 1-2 in severity. No deaths were determined to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: MesoPher did not show improvement in overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma. Immune checkpoint therapy is now standard of care in pleural mesothelioma. Further randomised studies are needed of combinations of MesoPher and immune checkpoint therapy, which might increase efficacy without adding major toxicities. FUNDING: Amphera BV and EU HORIZON.

A randomised phase II study of extended pleurectomy/decortication preceded or followed by chemotherapy in patients with early-stage pleural mesothelioma: EORTC 1205.

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma remains controversial. It may be appropriate in highly selected patients as part of a multimodality treatment including chemotherapy. Recent years have seen a shift from extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy toward extended pleurectomy/decortication. The most optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy remains unknown. METHODS: EORTC-1205-LCG was a multicentric, noncomparative phase 2 trial, 1:1 randomising between immediate (arm A) and deferred surgery (arm B), followed or preceded by chemotherapy. Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) had treatment-naïve, borderline resectable T1-3 N0-1 M0 mesothelioma of any histology. Primary outcome was rate of success at 20 weeks, a composite end-point including 1) successfully completing both treatments within 20 weeks; 2) being alive with no signs of progressive disease; and 3) no residual grade 3-4 toxicity. Secondary end-points were toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival and process indicators of surgical quality. FINDINGS: 69 patients were included in this trial. 56 (81%) patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy and 58 (84%) patients underwent surgery. Of the 64 patients in the primary analysis, 21 out of 30 patients in arm A (70.0%; 80% CI 56.8-81.0%) and 17 out of 34 patients (50.0%; 80% CI 37.8-62.2%) in arm B reached the statistical end-point for rate of success. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.8 (95% CI 8.5-17.2) months and 27.1 (95% CI 22.6-64.3) months in arm A, and 8.0 (95% CI 7.2-21.9) months and 33.8 (95% CI 23.8-44.6) months in arm B. Macroscopic complete resection was obtained in 82.8% of patients. 30- and 90-day mortality were both 1.7%. No new safety signals were found, but treatment-related morbidity was high. INTERPRETATION: EORTC 1205 did not succeed in selecting a preferred sequence of pre- or post-operative chemotherapy. Either procedure is feasible with a low mortality, albeit consistent morbidity. A shared informed decision between surgeon and patient remains essential.

Tepotinib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations.

BACKGROUND: A splice-site mutation that results in a loss of transcription of exon 14 in the oncogenic driver MET occurs in 3 to 4% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 study, we administered tepotinib (at a dose of 500 mg) once daily in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutation. The primary end point was the objective response by independent review among patients who had undergone at least 9 months of follow-up. The response was also analyzed according to whether the presence of a MET exon 14 skipping mutation was detected on liquid biopsy or tissue biopsy. RESULTS: As of January 1, 2020, a total of 152 patients had received tepotinib, and 99 patients had been followed for at least 9 months. The response rate by independent review was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36 to 57), with a median duration of response of 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.2 to could not be estimated) in the combined-biopsy group. The response rate was 48% (95% CI, 36 to 61) among 66 patients in the liquid-biopsy group and 50% (95% CI, 37 to 63) among 60 patients in the tissue-biopsy group; 27 patients had positive results according to both methods. The investigator-assessed response rate was 56% (95% CI, 45 to 66) and was similar regardless of the previous therapy received for advanced or metastatic disease. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher that were considered by investigators to be related to tepotinib therapy were reported in 28% of the patients, including peripheral edema in 7%. Adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of tepotinib in 11% of the patients. A molecular response, as measured in circulating free DNA, was observed in 67% of the patients with matched liquid-biopsy samples at baseline and during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced NSCLC with a confirmed MET exon 14 skipping mutation, the use of tepotinib was associated with a partial response in approximately half the patients. Peripheral edema was the main toxic effect of grade 3 or higher. (Funded by Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02864992.).

Developing a Pan-European Technical Standard for a Comprehensive High-quality Lung Cancer CT Screening Program. An ERS Technical Standard.

Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography (LDCT) has a strong evidence base. The European Council adopted a recommendation in November 2022 that lung cancer screening be implemented using a stepwise approach. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that delivers clinical and cost effectiveness. This ERS Taskforce was formed to provide a technical standard for a high-quality lung cancer screening program. METHOD: A collaborative group was convened to include members of multiple European societies (see below). Topics were identified during a scoping review and a systematic review of the literature was conducted. Full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. The final document was approved by all members and the ERS Scientific Advisory Committee. RESULTS: Ten topics were identified representing key components of a screening program. The action on findings from the LDCT were not included as they are addressed by separate international guidelines (nodule management and clinical management of lung cancer) and by a linked taskforce (incidental findings). Other than smoking cessation, other interventions that are not part of the core screening process were not included (e.g. pulmonary function measurement). Fifty-three statements were produced and areas for further research identified. CONCLUSION: This European collaborative group has produced a technical standard that is a timely contribution to implementation of LCS. It will serve as a standard that can be used, as recommended by the European Council, to ensure a high quality and effective program.

ERS/ESTS/ESTRO/ESR/ESTI/EFOMP statement on management of incidental findings from low dose CT screening for lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening for lung cancer with low radiation dose computed tomography has a strong evidence base, is being introduced in several European countries and is recommended as a new targeted cancer screening programme. The imperative now is to ensure that implementation follows an evidence-based process that will ensure clinical and cost effectiveness. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force was formed to provide an expert consensus for the management of incidental findings which can be adapted and followed during implementation. METHODS: A multi-European society collaborative group was convened. 23 topics were identified, primarily from an ERS statement on lung cancer screening, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted according to ERS standards. Initial review of abstracts was completed and full text was provided to members of the group for each topic. Sections were edited and the final document approved by all members and the ERS Science Council. RESULTS: Nine topics considered most important and frequent were reviewed as standalone topics (interstitial lung abnormalities, emphysema, bronchiectasis, consolidation, coronary calcification, aortic valve disease, mediastinal mass, mediastinal lymph nodes and thyroid abnormalities). Other topics considered of lower importance or infrequent were grouped into generic categories, suitable for general statements. CONCLUSIONS: This European collaborative group has produced an incidental findings statement that can be followed during lung cancer screening. It will ensure that an evidence-based approach is used for reporting and managing incidental findings, which will mean that harms are minimised and any programme is as cost-effective as possible.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies (TERAVOLT): first results of an international, registry-based, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early reports on patients with cancer and COVID-19 have suggested a high mortality rate compared with the general population. Patients with thoracic malignancies are thought to be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 given their older age, smoking habits, and pre-existing cardiopulmonary comorbidities, in addition to cancer treatments. We aimed to study the effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on patients with thoracic malignancies. METHODS: The Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration (TERAVOLT) registry is a multicentre observational study composed of a cross-sectional component and a longitudinal cohort component. Eligibility criteria were the presence of any thoracic cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC], small-cell lung cancer, mesothelioma, thymic epithelial tumours, and other pulmonary neuroendocrine neoplasms) and a COVID-19 diagnosis, either laboratory confirmed with RT-PCR, suspected with symptoms and contacts, or radiologically suspected cases with lung imaging features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia and symptoms. Patients of any age, sex, histology, or stage were considered eligible, including those in active treatment and clinical follow-up. Clinical data were extracted from medical records of consecutive patients from Jan 1, 2020, and will be collected until the end of pandemic declared by WHO. Data on demographics, oncological history and comorbidities, COVID-19 diagnosis, and course of illness and clinical outcomes were collected. Associations between demographic or clinical characteristics and outcomes were measured with odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs using univariable and multivariable logistic regression, with sex, age, smoking status, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease included in multivariable analysis. This is a preliminary analysis of the first 200 patients. The registry continues to accept new sites and patient data. FINDINGS: Between March 26 and April 12, 2020, 200 patients with COVID-19 and thoracic cancers from eight countries were identified and included in the TERAVOLT registry; median age was 68·0 years (61·8-75·0) and the majority had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (142 [72%] of 196 patients), were current or former smokers (159 [81%] of 196), had non-small-cell lung cancer (151 [76%] of 200), and were on therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (147 [74%] of 199), with 112 (57%) of 197 on first-line treatment. 152 (76%) patients were hospitalised and 66 (33%) died. 13 (10%) of 134 patients who met criteria for ICU admission were admitted to ICU; the remaining 121 were hospitalised, but were not admitted to ICU. Univariable analyses revealed that being older than 65 years (OR 1·88, 95% 1·00-3·62), being a current or former smoker (4·24, 1·70-12·95), receiving treatment with chemotherapy alone (2·54, 1·09-6·11), and the presence of any comorbidities (2·65, 1·09-7·46) were associated with increased risk of death. However, in multivariable analysis, only smoking history (OR 3·18, 95% CI 1·11-9·06) was associated with increased risk of death. INTERPRETATION: With an ongoing global pandemic of COVID-19, our data suggest high mortality and low admission to intensive care in patients with thoracic cancer. Whether mortality could be reduced with treatment in intensive care remains to be determined. With improved cancer therapeutic options, access to intensive care should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting based on cancer specific mortality and patients' preference. FUNDING: None.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.

ERS/ESTS/EACTS/ESTRO guidelines for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

The European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) task force brought together experts to update previous 2009 ERS/ESTS guidelines on management of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a rare cancer with globally poor outcome, after a systematic review of the 2009-2018 literature. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by this multidisciplinary group of experts. Diagnosis: pleural biopsies remain the gold standard to confirm the diagnosis, usually obtained by thoracoscopy but occasionally via image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy in cases of pleural symphysis or poor performance status. Pathology: standard staining procedures are insufficient in ∼10% of cases, justifying the use of specific markers, including BAP-1 and CDKN2A (p16) for the separation of atypical mesothelial proliferation from MPM. Staging: in the absence of a uniform, robust and validated staging system, we advise using the most recent 2016 8th TNM (tumour, node, metastasis) classification, with an algorithm for pre-therapeutic assessment. Monitoring: patient's performance status, histological subtype and tumour volume are the main prognostic factors of clinical importance in routine MPM management. Other potential parameters should be recorded at baseline and reported in clinical trials. Treatment: (chemo)therapy has limited efficacy in MPM patients and only selected patients are candidates for radical surgery. New promising targeted therapies, immunotherapies and strategies have been reviewed. Because of limited data on the best combination treatment, we emphasise that patients who are considered candidates for a multimodal approach, including radical surgery, should be treated as part of clinical trials in MPM-dedicated centres.

Local treatment of stage IIIA-N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer: surgery and/or radiotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of patients with stage IIIA-N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer because of its heterogeneity. Patients are at risk for both local and distant disease relapse after primary local treatment. However, there may be a window of opportunity for surgery, if mediastinal downstaging has been obtained after induction therapy. This manuscript reviews the outcome of patients treated by neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NA-C) followed by surgery, compared with patients treated with either definitive sequential or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), illustrated by a single-centre retrospective case series. RECENT FINDINGS: Of 53 eligible patients, 19 received NA-C and underwent surgical resection, whilst 20 and 14 received concurrent or sequential definitive CRT, respectively. A significant difference in progression-free survival favouring NA-C followed by surgery over both CRT modalities was found. However, this translated only in an overall survival benefit in comparison with sequential definitive CRT. A trend for better outcome was observed in selected surgical patients with single-level mediastinal involvement and complete resection. SUMMARY: Our case series results are consistent with the present standard of care of CRT, which restricts surgical resection to carefully selected patients. Immunotherapy will likely change the treatment paradigm.

ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening.

In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.

Tumour Treating Fields in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (STELLAR): a multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) are a regional, antimitotic treatment for solid tumours, which is based on the delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields. The aim of the STELLAR study was to test the activity of TTFields delivered to the thorax in combination with systemic chemotherapy for the front-line treatment of patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: STELLAR was a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 12 European academic and non-academic sites (five in Italy, three in Poland, one in France, one in Belgium, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands) for treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for mesothelioma. Patients received continuous TTFields at a frequency of 150 kHz to the thorax and concomitant chemotherapy with intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1) plus intravenous platinum (either cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients not progressing after completion of chemotherapy received TTFields as maintenance treatment until progression, patient or physician decision, or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Survival analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least 1 day of TTFields treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397928. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2015 and March 21, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled in the study. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·4-16·6). Median overall survival was 18·2 months (95% CI 12·1-25·8). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (nine [11%] patients), neutropenia (seven [9%]), and thrombocytopenia (four [5%]). Skin reaction was the only adverse event associated with TTFields and was reported as grade 1-2 in 53 (66%) patients, and as grade 3 in four (5%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed encouraging overall survival results, with no increase in systemic toxicity. TTFields (150 kHz) delivered to the thorax concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum was an active and safe combination for front-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Further investigation in a randomised trial is warranted. FUNDING: Novocure.

Quality of care and variability in lung cancer management across Belgian hospitals: a population-based study using routinely available data.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of care for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Belgium based on a set of evidence-based quality indicators and to study the variability of care between hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study based on linked data from the cancer registry, insurance claims and vital status for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2010 and 2011. Evidence-based quality indicators were identified from a systematic literature search. A specific algorithm to attribute patients to a centre was developed, and funnel plots were used to assess variability of care between centres. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of patients who received appropriate care as defined by the indicator. Secondary outcome included the variability of care between centres. RESULTS: Twenty indicators were measured for a total of 12 839 patients. Good results were achieved for 60-day post-surgical mortality (3.9%), histopathological confirmation of diagnosis (93%) and for the use of PET-CT before treatment with curative intent (94%). Areas to be improved include the reporting of staging information to the Belgian Cancer Registry (80%), the use of brain imaging for clinical stage III patients eligible for curative treatment (79%), and the time between diagnosis and start of first active treatment (median 20 days). High variability between centres was observed for several indicators. Twenty-three indicators were found relevant but could not be measured. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the feasibility to develop a multidisciplinary set of quality indicators using population-based data. The main advantage of this approach is that not additional registration is required, but the non-measurability of many relevant indicators is a hamper. It allows however to easily point to areas of large variability in care.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Exhaled breath to screen for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a validation study.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is predominantly caused by asbestos exposure and has a poor prognosis. Breath contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and can be explored as an early detection tool. Previously, we used multicapillary column/ion mobility spectrometry (MCC/IMS) to discriminate between patients with MPM and asymptomatic high-risk persons with a high rate of accuracy. Here, we aim to validate these findings in different control groups.Breath and background samples were obtained from 52 patients with MPM, 52 healthy controls without asbestos exposure (HC), 59 asymptomatic former asbestos workers (AEx), 41 patients with benign asbestos-related diseases (ARD), 70 patients with benign non-asbestos-related lung diseases (BLD) and 56 patients with lung cancer (LC).After background correction, logistic lasso regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the MPM group was discriminated from the HC, AEx, ARD, BLD and LC groups with 65%, 88%, 82%, 80% and 72% accuracy, respectively. Combining AEx and ARD patients resulted in 94% sensitivity and 96% negative predictive value (NPV). The most important VOCs selected were P1, P3, P7, P9, P21 and P26.We discriminated MPM patients from at-risk subjects with great accuracy. The high sensitivity and NPV allow breath analysis to be used as a screening tool for ruling out MPM.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: single-institution experience of 101 patients over a 15-year period.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive neoplasm that typically originates from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleural cavity. Exposure to asbestos is the principal etiological agent of MPM. The disease is characterized by difficult stage classification and limited consensus on therapeutic approach. We have evaluated the experience with MPM in the Antwerp University Hospital over the past 15 years. METHODS: A database was created with all patients diagnosed with or treated for a MPM between 2001 and 2015. A total of 101 patients were included on which different survival analyses were performed combined with a reproduction of demographic, clinical, histologic and therapeutic data, and these were compared to literature data. RESULTS: Vast majority of our 101 patients were male (80%) with a median age of 66 years at diagnosis with predominantly epitheloid histology (81%). Overall median survival was 18.3 months and overall 1-, 2- and 5-year survival rates were 68%, 37% and 7%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a non-significant difference in survival between the several best (b) TNM-stages (p = .356). A significant difference in survival was observed in patients undergoing surgery versus no surgery (p = .008), between the different histological types (p < .0001) and treatment with chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy with surgery (p < .0001). Smoking at diagnosis and epitheloid histology have been identified as significant prognostic factors in the multivariate Cox regression model (HR 3.13 and 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: Descriptive and survival analysis of our patient database confirmed the limitations of the current staging system and were concordant with literature regarding MPM.

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer.

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation ("the set") on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development.

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) covers 13 typical symptoms of lung cancer patients and was the first module developed in conjunction with the EORTC core quality-of-life (QL) questionnaire. This review investigates how the module has been used and reported in cancer clinical trials in the 20 years since its publication. Thirty-six databases were searched with a prespecified algorithm. This search plus an additional hand search generated 770 hits, 240 of which were clinical studies. Two raters extracted data using a coding scheme. Analyses focused on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 240 clinical studies that were identified using the LC13, 109 (45%) were RCTs. More than half of the RCTs were phase 3 trials (n = 58). Twenty RCTs considered QL as the primary endpoint, and 68 considered it as a secondary endpoint. QL results were addressed in the results section of the article (n = 89) or in the abstract (n = 92); and, in half of the articles, QL results were presented in the form of tables (n = 53) or figures (n = 43). Furthermore, QL results had an impact on the evaluation of the therapy that could be clearly demonstrated in the 47 RCTs that yielded QL differences between treatment and control groups. The EORTC QLQ-LC13 fulfilled its mission to be used as a standard instrument in lung cancer clinical trials. An update of the LC13 is underway to keep up with new therapeutic trends and to ensure optimized and relevant QL assessment in future trials.