Epithelioid Pleural Mesothelioma Is Characterized by Tertiary Lymphoid Structures in Long Survivors: Results from the MATCH Study.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is an aggressive tumor with few therapeutic options. Although patients with epithelioid PM (ePM) survive longer than non-epithelioid PM (non-ePM), heterogeneity of tumor response in ePM is observed. The role of the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) in the development and progression of PM is currently considered a promising biomarker. A few studies have used high-throughput technologies correlated with TIME evaluation and morphologic and clinical data. This study aimed to identify different morphological, immunohistochemical, and transcriptional profiles that could potentially predict the outcome. A retrospective multicenter cohort of 129 chemonaive PM patients was recruited. Tissue slides were reviewed by dedicated pathologists for histotype classification and immunophenotype of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and lymphoid aggregates or tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS). ePM (n = 99) survivors were further classified into long (>36 months) or short (<12 months) survivors. RNAseq was performed on a subset of 69 samples. Distinct transcriptional profiling in long and short ePM survivors was found. An inflammatory background with a higher number of B lymphocytes and a prevalence of TLS formations were detected in long compared to short ePM survivors. These results suggest that B cell infiltration could be important in modulating disease aggressiveness, opening a pathway for novel immunotherapeutic approaches.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: Germline variants in DNA repair genes may steer tailored treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a tumour associated with asbestos exposure. Approximately, 10% of patients with MPM carry a germline pathogenic variant (PV), mostly in DNA repair genes, suggesting the occurrence of inherited predispositions. AIM: This article aimed to 1) search for new predisposing genes and assess the prevalence of PVs in DNA repair genes, by next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of germline DNA from 113 unselected patients with MPM and 2) evaluate whether these patients could be sensitive to tailored treatments. METHODS: NGS was performed using a custom panel of 107 cancer-predisposing genes. To investigate the response to selected drugs in conditions of DNA repair insufficiency, we created a three-dimensional-MPM cell model that had a defect in ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), the master regulator of DNA repair. RESULTS: We identified PVs in approximately 7% of patients with MPM (8/113) and a new PV in BAP1 in a further patient with familial MPM. Most of these PVs were in genes involved or supposedly involved in DNA repair (BRCA1, BRIP1, CHEK2, SLX4, FLCN and BAP1). In vitro studies showed apoptosis induction in ATM-silenced/inhibited MPM spheroids treated with an enhancer of zeste homologue 2 inhibitor (tazemetostat). CONCLUSIONS: Overall these data suggest that patients with MPM and DNA repair insufficiency may benefit from this treatment, which induces synthetic lethality.

Analysis of survival of patients with metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma.

AIM: To report the outcomes and prognosis of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) who present with or develop metastases during treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of patients diagnosed with MPM over 7 years. Metastases at presentation or during follow-up were recorded. Multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate the relationship of clinicopathologic variables and overall survival (OS). Logistic regression was used for propensity score matching of patients to assess chemotherapy treatment effect. RESULTS: There were 367 patients included with a median age of 71 years (range, 29-91). A total of 69 patients (18%) had metastases: 14 at presentation and 55 during follow-up. Patients presenting with metastases had significantly worse median and 2-year OS compared to those developing metastases during follow-up: 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2-24.6 months) and 0% versus 20.2 months (95% CI, 16.7-23.3 months) and 33%, respectively (p = 0.029). Female sex, age >70 years, nonepithelioid histology, and not receiving chemotherapy were independent poor prognostic factors. There was no difference in OS of patients with locally advanced (T4) disease compared to metastatic disease (M1): median OS 10.7 months (95% CI, 5.9-15.6) versus 13.3 months (95% CI, 2-24.6) (p = 0.18), respectively. Following propensity matching, sarcomatoid histology (hazard ratio, 7.86 [95% CI, 3.64-16.95]; p < 0.001) and multiple lines of chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.19-0.84]; p = 0.015) were significant independent prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSIONS: T4 disease carries a similar OS as metastatic MPM. Female sex, advanced age, nonepithelioid histology, and not receiving chemotherapy were independent poor prognostic factors.

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

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

Clinical Features and Treatment Outcome of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a problematic condition due to poor prognosis and difficulties in management. We evaluated the treatment and outcome of 378 mesothelioma patients referred to 6 Italian Oncology Departments. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were collected. Treatment was assessed in terms of chemotherapy (line of treatment, pemetrexed-based regimen, other therapies), surgery, and radiotherapy. Response to therapy, progression-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: 36 and 342 patients received best supportive care and active treatment, respectively; 86 patients underwent surgery, and 26 received trimodal therapy. Disease control after first-line chemotherapy was achieved in 74.2% of patients (75.7% in patients treated with pemetrexed combined with other drugs and 69% with pemetrexed as monotherapy). The disease control rate was 82.6% in pemetrexed re-challenged individuals. Median survival time was 11.6 months with supportive care, 16.2 months with chemotherapy only, 32.4 months with surgery plus chemotherapy, and 47.2 months with trimodal therapy. A more favorable prognosis was observed in responders to first-line therapy who were then actively treated with second-line (24.8 vs. 11.8 months in non-responders, p < 0.001) and third-line chemotherapy (28.9 vs. 17.8 months in non-responders, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Mesothelioma patients benefited from chemotherapy alone only when retreated in the second line after response to first-line therapy.

Cisplatin and gemcitabine in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a phase II study.

Aims of this study were to evaluate the activity and toxicity of gemcitabine and cisplatin combination in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Patients with histologically proven MPM, < 75 years of age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) < or = 2, and measurable MPM were eligible. Patients received gemcitabine 1250 mg/m intravenously on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 75 mg/m on day 2, every 21 days, for a maximum of 6 cycles. From May 1999 to May 2001, 35 chemonaive patients (median age, 61 years) were enrolled. A total of 177 cycles were administered (median 5 cycles; range 1 to 6). One patient was not evaluable for response and toxicity. Nine (26%) patients had partial responses, 11 (32%) patients had progressive disease, and 14 (41%) stable disease. Median survival for all patients was 13 months. Median progression-free survival was 8 months. Grade 3 (World Health Organization) nausea and vomiting occurred in 35% of patients. Grade 3/4 anemia, grade 3/4 thrombocythemia, and grade 3/4 neutropenia were assessed in 24%, 52%, and 61% of patients, respectively. All other side effects were mild. In conclusion, gemcitabine-cisplatin combination seems to be moderately active in MPM. Furthermore, at this dose and schedule, the toxicity profile could be acceptable.