Artificial Intelligence-based Quantification of Pleural Plaque Volume and Association With Lung Function in Asbestos-exposed Patients.

PURPOSE: Pleural plaques (PPs) are morphologic manifestations of long-term asbestos exposure. The relationship between PP and lung function is not well understood, whereas the time-consuming nature of PP delineation to obtain volume impedes research. To automate the laborious task of delineation, we aimed to develop automatic artificial intelligence (AI)-driven segmentation of PP. Moreover, we aimed to explore the relationship between pleural plaque volume (PPV) and pulmonary function tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists manually delineated PPs retrospectively in computed tomography (CT) images of patients with occupational exposure to asbestos (May 2014 to November 2019). We trained an AI model with a no-new-UNet architecture. The Dice Similarity Coefficient quantified the overlap between AI and radiologists. The Spearman correlation coefficient ( r ) was used for the correlation between PPV and pulmonary function test metrics. When recorded, these were vital capacity (VC), forced vital capacity (FVC), and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO). RESULTS: We trained the AI system on 422 CT scans in 5 folds, each time with a different fold (n = 84 to 85) as a test set. On these independent test sets combined, the correlation between the predicted volumes and the ground truth was r = 0.90, and the median overlap was 0.71 Dice Similarity Coefficient. We found weak to moderate correlations with PPV for VC (n = 80, r = -0.40) and FVC (n = 82, r = -0.38), but no correlation for DLCO (n = 84, r = -0.09). When the cohort was split on the median PPV, we observed statistically significantly lower VC ( P = 0.001) and FVC ( P = 0.04) values for the higher PPV patients, but not for DLCO ( P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: We successfully developed an AI algorithm to automatically segment PP in CT images to enable fast volume extraction. Moreover, we have observed that PPV is associated with loss in VC and FVC.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib in second-line and third-line patients with pleural mesothelioma (PEMMELA): a single-arm phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, and lenvatinib, an antiangiogenic multikinase inhibitor, shows synergistic activity in preclinical and clinical studies in solid tumours. We assessed the clinical activity of this combination therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma who progressed after platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy. METHODS: In this single-arm, single-centre, phase 2 study, done at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with pleural mesothelioma with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, progression after chemotherapy (no previous immunotherapy), and measurable disease according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (mRECIST) for mesothelioma version 1.1. Patients received 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab once every 3 weeks plus 20 mg oral lenvatinib once per day for up to 2 years or until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was objective response rate identified by a local investigator according to mRECIST version 1.1. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04287829, and is recruiting for the second cohort. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022, 42 patients were screened, of whom 38 were included in the primary endpoint and safety analyses (median age 71 years [IQR 65-75], 33 [87%] male and five [13%] female) . At data cutoff (Jan 31, 2023), with a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 13·8-19·4), 22 (58%; 95% CI 41-74) of 38 patients had an objective response. The independent review showed an objective response in 17 (45%; 95% CI 29-62) of 38 patients. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in ten (26%) patients, including one treatment-related death due to myocardial infarction. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (eight patients [21%]) and anorexia and lymphopenia (both four patients [11%]). In 29 (76%) of 38 patients, at least one dose reduction or discontinuation of lenvatinib was required. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib showed promising anti-tumour activity in patients with pleural mesothelioma with considerable toxicity, similar to that in previous studies. Available evidence from the literature suggests a high starting dose of lenvatinib for optimal anti-tumour activity. This, however, demands a high standard of supportive care. The combination therapy of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib warrants further investigation in pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC and Baseline Brain Metastases From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Here, we report post hoc exploratory systemic and intracranial efficacy outcomes and safety by baseline brain metastasis status at 5 years' minimum follow-up. METHODS: Treatment-naive adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations, including asymptomatic patients with treated brain metastases, were enrolled. Patients with tumor PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy; patients with tumor PD-L1 less than 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy groups. Assessments included OS, systemic and intracranial progression-free survival per blinded independent central review, new brain lesion development, and safety. Brain imaging was performed at baseline (all randomized patients) and approximately every 12 weeks thereafter (patients with baseline brain metastases only). RESULTS: Overall, 202 of 1739 randomized patients had baseline brain metastases (nivolumab plus ipilimumab: 68; chemotherapy: 66). At 61.3 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in patients with baseline brain metastases (hazard ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.92) and in those without (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.87). In patients with baseline brain metastases, 5-year systemic and intracranial progression-free survival rates were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (12% and 16%, respectively) than chemotherapy (0% and 6%). Fewer patients with baseline brain metastases developed new brain lesions with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (4%) versus chemotherapy (20%). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: With all patients off immunotherapy for more than or equal to 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to provide a long-term, durable survival benefit in patients with or without brain metastases. Intracranial efficacy outcomes favored nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an efficacious first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of baseline brain metastasis status.

Targeted combination therapies in oncology: Challenging regulatory frameworks designed for monotherapies in Europe.

The pharmaceutical value chain, including clinical trials, pricing, access, and reimbursement, is designed for classical monotherapies. Although there has been a paradigm shift that increases the relevance of targeted combination therapies (TCTs), regulation and common practice have been slow to adapt. We explored access to 23 TCTs for advanced melanoma and lung cancer as reported by 19 specialists from 17 leading cancer institutions in nine European countries. We find heterogeneous patient access to TCTs between countries, differences in country-specific regulations, and differences in the clinical practice of melanoma and lung cancer. Regulation that is better tailored to the context of combinational therapies can increase equity in access across Europe and promote an evidence-based and authorized use of combinations.

Impact of centralization of care for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: A historical cohort study from the Dutch mesothelioma expert centers.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive cancer that has a poor prognosis. An earlier population-based study found that the majority of Dutch patients do not receive anti-cancer treatment. In 2015, Dutch Malignant Mesothelioma care was centralized in two expert centers. We reviewed treatment patterns at these centers, to assess the impact of centralization of MPM care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data from all patients referred to the Dutch MPM expert centers from 2014 to 2020, were retrospectively collected. Descriptive statistics regarding referrals, patient and tumor characteristics, and treatment patterns were provided. Population-based incidence rates were provided by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2020, 78 patients were referred to the Dutch Mesothelioma expert centers, of whom 32 were female (41%). From 2014 to 2017, 27 patients were referred, whereas 51 patients were referred from 2018 to 2020. This represents about 24% and 61% of the estimated population incidence, respectively. Treatment patterns were comparable between both periods. Between 2014 and 2018, 33% of patients underwent surgery, 44% systemic therapy, and 22% received best supportive care (BSC), while this was 29%, 37%, and 33% respectively from 2018 to 2020. CONCLUSION: Centralization of care for patients with MPM resulted in an increase of annual referrals to the Dutch mesothelioma expert centers. While population-based incidence did not change during the study period, the absolute number of patients receiving treatment at our centers did increase. This might be considered a first important step towards better treatment for patients with this fatal disease.

Artificial intelligence-based diagnosis of asbestosis: analysis of a database with applicants for asbestosis state aid.

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, workers who developed asbestosis due to their occupation are eligible for government support. Based on the results of clinical examination, a team of pulmonologists determine the eligibility of patients to these programs. In this Dutch cohort study, we aim to demonstrate the potential role of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automated, standardized, and cost-effective evaluation of applications for asbestosis patients. METHODS: A dataset of n = 523 suspected asbestosis cases/applications from across the Netherlands was retrospectively collected. Each case/application was reviewed, and based on the criteria, a panel of three pulmonologists would determine eligibility for government support. An AI system is proposed, which uses thoracic CT images as input, and predicts the assessment of the clinical panel. Alongside imaging, we evaluated the added value of lung function parameters. RESULTS: The proposed AI algorithm reached an AUC of 0.87 (p < 0.001) in the prediction of accepted versus rejected applications. Diffusion capacity (DLCO) also showed comparable predictive value (AUC = 0.85, p < 0.001), with little correlation between the two parameters (r-squared = 0.22, p < 0.001). The combination of the imaging AI score and DLCO achieved superior performance (AUC = 0.95, p < 0.001). Interobserver variability between pulmonologists on the panel was estimated at alpha = 0.65 (Krippendorff's alpha). CONCLUSION: We developed an AI system to support the clinical decision-making process for the application to the government support for asbestosis. A multicenter prospective validation study is currently ongoing to examine the added value and reliability of this system alongside the clinic panel. KEY POINTS: • Artificial intelligence can detect imaging patterns of asbestosis in CT scans in a cohort of patients applying for state aid. • Combining the AI prediction with the diffusing lung function parameter reaches the highest diagnostic performance. • Specific cases with fibrosis but no asbestosis were correctly classified, suggesting robustness of the AI system, which is currently under prospective validation.

Renal function-based versus standard dosing of pemetrexed: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed is a chemotherapeutic drug in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Optimized dosing of pemetrexed based on renal function instead of body surface area (BSA) is hypothesized to reduce pharmacokinetic variability in systemic exposure and could therefore improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare optimized dosing to standard BSA-based dosing. METHODS: A multicenter randomized (1:1) controlled trial was performed to assess superiority of optimized dosing versus BSA-based dosing in patients who were eligible for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The individual exposure to pemetrexed in terms of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was determined. The fraction of patients attaining to a predefined typical target AUC (164 mg × h/L ± 25%) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were included. Target attainment was not statistically significant different between both arms (89% vs. 84% (p = 0.505)). The AUC of pemetrexed was similar between the optimized dosing arm (n = 37) and the standard of care arm (n = 44) (155 mg × h/L vs 160 mg × h/L (p = 0.436). CONCLUSION: We could not show superiority of optimized dosing of pemetrexed in patients with an adequate renal function does not show added value on the attainment of a pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, nor QoL compared to standard of care dosing. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03655821.

Prediction of the pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed with a low test dose: A proof-of-concept study.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug used for the treatment of lung cancer and mesothelioma. The use of a low test dosing of cytotoxic drugs may aid in dose individualization without causing harm. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to assess if the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of a test dose could predict the PKs of a therapeutic pemetrexed dose. METHODS: Ten patients received both a low test dose (100 µg) and a therapeutic dose of pemetrexed after which plasma concentrations pemetrexed were measured. PK analysis was performed by means of nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. The predictive performances of test dose clearance and renal function towards a therapeutic dose were assessed. RESULTS: The PKs of a pemetrexed test dose were best described by a one-compartment model with linear elimination. A high variability in the administered dose was observed for the test dose, but not for the therapeutic dose. A statistically significant correlation between test dose clearance and therapeutic dose clearance was observed (Spearman's rho: 0.758, P = 0.02). The predictive performance of test dose clearance was worse than renal function: mean predictive error (+95% confidence interval [CI]) 53.9% (50.1-57.6%) vs 19.4% (12.4-26.4%) and normalized root-mean square error (+95% CI) 57.8% (30.5-85.1%) vs 25.7% (20.3-31.0%). CONCLUSION: We show that test dosing of pemetrexed is feasible, but there seems no added value for a low test dosing in the dose individualization of pemetrexed.

Ritonavir-Boosted Exposure of Kinase Inhibitors: an Open Label, Cross-over Pharmacokinetic Proof-of-Concept Trial with Erlotinib.

BACKGROUND: Although kinase inhibitors (KIs) are generally effective, their use has a large impact on the current health care budget. Dosing strategies to reduce treatment costs are warranted. Boosting pharmacokinetic exposure of KIs metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 with ritonavir might result in lower doses needed and subsequently reduces treatment costs. This study is a proof-of-concept study to evaluate if the dose of erlotinib can be reduced by co-administration with ritonavir. METHODS: In this open-label, cross-over study, we compared the pharmacokinetics of monotherapy erlotinib 150 mg once daily (QD) (control arm) with erlotinib 75 mg QD plus ritonavir 200 mg QD (intervention arm). Complete pharmacokinetic profiles at steady-state were taken up to 24 h after erlotinib intake for both dosing strategies. RESULTS: Nine patients were evaluable in this study. For the control arm, the systemic exposure over 24 h, maximum plasma concentration and minimal plasma concentration of erlotinib were 29.3 µg*h/mL (coefficient of variation (CV):58%), 1.84 µg/mL (CV:60%) and 1.00 µg/mL (CV:62%), respectively, compared with 28.9 µg*h/mL (CV:116%, p = 0.545), 1.68 µg/mL (CV:68%, p = 0.500) and 1.06 µg/mL (CV:165%, p = 0.150) for the intervention arm. Exposure to the metabolites of erlotinib (OSI-413 and OSI-420) was statistically significant lower following erlotinib plus ritonavir dosing. Similar results regarding safety in both dosing strategies were observed, no grade 3 or higher adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic exposure at a dose of 75 mg erlotinib when combined with the strong CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir is similar to 150 mg erlotinib. Ritonavir-boosting is a promising strategy to reduce erlotinib treatment costs and provides a rationale for other expensive therapies metabolized by CYP3A4.

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.

Incidence, treatment and survival of malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive cancer that primarily arises from the pleura (MPM) or peritoneum (MPeM), mostly due to asbestos exposure. This study reviewed the Dutch population-based incidence, treatment and survival since the national ban on asbestos in 1993. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MPM or MPeM diagnosed from 1993 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch cancer registry. Annual percentage change (APC) was calculated for (age-specific and sex-specific) revised European standardised incidence rates (RESR). Treatment pattern and Kaplan-Meier overall survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 12 168 patients were included in the study. For male patients younger than 80 years, the MM incidence significantly decreased in the last decade (APC ranging between -9.4% and -1.8%, p<0.01). Among both male and female patients aged over 80 years, the incidence significantly increased during the entire study period (APC 3.3% and 4.6%, respectively, p<0.01). From 2003 onwards, the use of systemic chemotherapy increased especially for MPM (from 9.3% to 39.4%). Overall, 62.2% of patients received no antitumour treatment. The most common reasons for not undergoing antitumour treatment were patient preference (42%) and performance status (25.6%). The median overall survival improved from 7.3 (1993-2003) to 8.9 (2004-2011) and 9.3 months from 2012 to 2018 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The peak of MM incidence was reached around 2010 in the Netherlands, and currently the incidence is declining in most age groups. The use of systemic chemotherapy increased from 2003, which likely resulted in improved overall survival over time. The majority of patients do not receive treatment though and prognosis is still poor.

Highly sensitive quantification of pemetrexed in human plasma using UPLC-MS/MS to support microdosing studies.

Pemetrexed is an antifolate drug approved for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Assessing pemetrexed pharmacokinetics after administration of a microdose (100 µg) may facilitate drug-drug interaction and dose individualization studies with cytotoxic drugs, without causing harm to patients. Therefore, a highly sensitive bioanalytical assay is required. A reversed-phase ultra-high performance liquid chromatography method was developed to determine pemetrexed concentrations in human ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-plasma after microdosing. [13 C5 ]-Pemetrexed was used as the internal standard. The sample preparation involved solid-phase extraction from plasma. Detection was performed using MS/MS in a total run time of 9.5 min. The assay was validated over the concentration range of 0.0250-25.0 µg/L pemetrexed. The average accuracies for the assay in plasma were 96.5 and 96.5%, and the within-day and between-day precision in coefficients of variations was <8.8%. Extraction recovery was 59 ± 1 and 55 ± 5% for pemetrexed and its internal standard. Processed plasma samples were stable for 2 days in a cooled autosampler at 10°C. The assay was successfully applied in a pharmacokinetic curve, which was obtained as a part of an ongoing clinical microdosing study.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up. METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). RESULTS: After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population. CONCLUSIONS: At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.

Hyperhydration with cisplatin does not influence pemetrexed exposure.

Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug for first-line treatment of lung cancer. It is often combined with other anticancer drugs such as cisplatin or carboplatin. In clinical practice, hyperhydration regimens are applied to overcome cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity. As pemetrexed is almost completely eliminated from the body by the kidneys, hyperhydration can result in augmented clearance. Furthermore, administration of large quantities of fluid may increase the volume of distribution of pemetrexed. Pharmacokinetics and, thus, efficacy and toxicity may be influenced by hyperhydration. This has not yet been properly studied. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis to assess hyperhydration as a covariate for pemetrexed clearance and for volume of distribution A relevant change was defined as >25% increase in clearance or volume of distribution. In our extensive dataset of 133 individuals, we found that hyperhydration did not significantly or relevantly explain variability in pemetrexed clearance (unchanged, P = .196) or volume of distribution (+7% change, P = .002), despite a power of >99% to detect a relevant change. Therefore, dose adjustments of pemetrexed are not required during hyperhydration with cisplatin.

Optimized Dosing: The Next Step in Precision Medicine in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

In oncology, and especially in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dose optimization is often a neglected part of precision medicine. Many drugs are still being administered in "one dose fits all" regimens or based on parameters that are often only minor determinants for systemic exposure. These dosing approaches often introduce additional pharmacokinetic variability and do not add to treatment outcomes. Fortunately, pharmacological knowledge is increasing, providing valuable information regarding the potential of, for example, therapeutic drug monitoring. This article focuses on the evidence for the most promising and easily implemented optimized dosing approaches for the small-molecule inhibitors, chemotherapeutic agents, and monoclonal antibodies as treatment options currently approved for NSCLC. Despite limitations such as investigations having been conducted in oncological diseases other than NSCLC or the retrospective origin of many analyses, an alternative dosing regimen could be beneficial for treatment outcomes, prescriber convenience, or financial burden on healthcare systems. This review of the literature provides recommendations on the implementation of dose optimization and advice regarding promising strategies that deserve further research in NSCLC.

Toxicity of pemetrexed during renal impairment explained-Implications for safe treatment.

Pemetrexed is an important component of first line treatment in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, a limitation is the contraindication in patients with renal impairment due to hematological toxicity. Currently, it is unknown how to safely dose pemetrexed in these patients. The aim of our study was to elucidate the relationship between pemetrexed exposure and toxicity to support the development of a safe dosing regimen in patients with renal impairment. A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis was performed based on phase II study results in three patients with renal dysfunction, supplemented with data from 106 patients in early clinical studies. Findings were externally validated with data of different pemetrexed dosing regimens. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using the developed model. We found that pemetrexed toxicity was driven by the time above a toxicity threshold concentration. The threshold for vitamin-supplemented patients was 0.110 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.092-0.146 mg/mL). It was observed that in patients with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]: <45 mL/min) the approved dose of 500 mg/m2 would yield a high probability of severe neutropenia in the range of 51.0% to 92.6%. A pemetrexed dose of 20 mg for patients (eGFR: 20 mL/min) is shown to be neutropenic-equivalent to the approved dose in patients with adequate renal function (eGFR: 90 mL/min), but would result in an approximately 13-fold lower area under the concentration-time curve. The pemetrexed exposure-toxicity relationship is explained by a toxicity threshold and substantially different from previously thought. Without prophylaxis for toxicity, it is unlikely that a therapeutic dose can be safely administered to patients with renal impairment.

Transtympanic Sodium Thiosulfate for Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Ototoxicity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine safety, feasibility, and preliminary activity of transtympanic injection of sodium thiosulfate (STS) against cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL).DESIGN Randomized controlled trial.SETTING Tertiary cancer hospital.PATIENTS Adults to be treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥ 75 mg/m2).INTERVENTION Selected by randomization, 0.1 M STS gel on one side and placebo gel on the other side was transtympanically applied to the middle ear 3 hours before cisplatin administration. After amendment, the placebo ear was left untreated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was safety and feasibility. Secondary outcomes included pharmacokinetic analysis of systemic cisplatin and preliminary activity of STS. Clinically relevant CIHL was defined as a ≥ 10 dB threshold shift at pure-tone average 8-10-12.5 kHz (PTA8-12.5). Response to STS was defined as a threshold shift at PTA8-12.5 in the STS-treated ear of ≥ 10 dB smaller than the untreated ear. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated. Average CIHL at PTA8-12.5 was 12.7 dB in untreated ears and 8.8 dB SPL in STS-treated ears (p = 0.403). Four patients did not develop CIHL. Four out of eight patients with CIHL responded to STS: CIHL at PTA8-12.5 in STS-treated ears was 18.4 dB less compared to untreated ears (p = 0.068). Grade 1 adverse events were reported. Pharmacokinetic results were available for 11 patients. CONCLUSION: Transtympanic application of STS was safe and feasible. Based on our pharmacokinetic analysis, we postulate that transtympanic STS does not interfere with the systemically available cisplatin. Our results provide a preliminary proof of concept for transtympanic application of STS in preventing CIHL and warrants further evaluation on a larger scale.

Immune monitoring in mesothelioma patients identifies novel immune-modulatory functions of gemcitabine associating with clinical response.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine is a frequently used chemotherapeutic agent but its effects on the immune system are incompletely understood. Recently, the randomized NVALT19-trial revealed that maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to best supportive care (BSC) in malignant mesothelioma. Whether these effects are paralleled by changes in circulating immune cell subsets is currently unknown. These analyses could offer improved mechanistic insights into the effects of gemcitabine on the host and guide development of effective combination therapies in mesothelioma. METHODS: We stained peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) at baseline and 3 weeks following start of gemcitabine or BSC treatment in a subgroup of mesothelioma patients included in the NVALT19-trial. In total, 24 paired samples including both MDSCs and PBMCs were included. We performed multicolour flow-cytometry to assess co-inhibitory and-stimulatory receptor- and cytokine expression and matched these parameters with PFS and OS. FINDINGS: Gemcitabine treatment was significantly associated with an increased NK-cell- and decreased T-regulatory cell proliferation whereas the opposite occurred in control patients. Furthermore, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) frequencies were lower in gemcitabine-treated patients and this correlated with increased T-cell proliferation following treatment. Whereas gemcitabine variably altered co-inhibitory receptor expression, co-stimulatory molecules including ICOS, CD28 and HLA-DR were uniformly increased across CD4+ T-helper, CD8+ T- and NK-cells. Although preliminary in nature, the increase in NK-cell proliferation and PD-1 expression in T cells following gemcitabine treatment was associated with improved PFS and OS. INTERPRETATION: Gemcitabine treatment was associated with widespread effects on circulating immune cells of mesothelioma patients with responding patients displaying increased NK-cell and PD-1 + T-cell proliferation. These exploratory data provide a platform for future on treatment-biomarker development and novel combination treatment strategies.

Switch-maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma (NVALT19): an investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Almost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36·5 months (95% CI 34·2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6·2 months [95% CI 4·6-8·7]) than in the supportive care group (3·2 months [2·8-4·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·48 [95% CI 0·33-0·71]; p=0·0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0·49 [0·33-0·72]; p=0·0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 (52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection. INTERPRETATION: Switch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds voor de Nederlandse Kankerbestrijding) and Stichting NVALT studies.