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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Older Patients' Recall of Online Cancer Information: Do Ability and Motivation Matter More than Chronological Age?

This study proposes and tests a model to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the contribution of chronological age versus age-related ability and motivation factors in explaining recall of online cancer information among older patients (n = 197). Results revealed that recall is not a matter of chronological age per se, but rather a matter of ability and motivation. Age-related ability and motivation factors explained 37.9% of the variance in recall. Health literacy, involvement with the webpage, and satisfaction with the emotional support were positively associated with recall. Furthermore, recall was negatively related to frailty, anger, future time perspective, and perceived cognitive load. The findings pose relevant opportunities for tailoring interventions to improve online information provision for older cancer patients.

Thalidomide versus active supportive care for maintenance in patients with malignant mesothelioma after first-line chemotherapy (NVALT 5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Standard chemotherapy does not lead to long-term survival in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Malignant pleural mesothelioma is strongly dependent on vasculature with high vessel counts and high concentrations of serum vascular growth factors. Thalidomide has shown antiangiogenic activity, and we hypothesised that its use in the maintenance setting could improve outcomes. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study, eligible patients had proven malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma and had received a minimum of four cycles of first-line treatment containing at least pemetrexed, with or without cisplatin or carboplatin, and had not progressed on this treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by previous first-line chemotherapy, histological subtype, and recruiting hospital) to receive thalidomide 200 mg per day (including a 2 week run in of 100 mg per day) plus active supportive care or active supportive care alone until disease progression. Patients were required to be registered and to start treatment with thalidomide within 10 weeks after the end of the first-line chemotherapy. Thalidomide was given for a maximum of 1 year or until unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression. The primary analyses were by intention to treat. The study is registered, ISRCTN13632914. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2004, and Dec 23, 2009, we randomly assigned 222 patients, 111 in each group (one patient on active supportive care later withdrew consent and was excluded from analyses). At the time of this final analysis, median follow-up was 33.1 months (IQR 22.3-66.8), and physician-reported disease progression had occurred in 104 patients in the thalidomide group and 107 in the active supportive care group; 92 patients in the thalidomide group and 93 in the active supportive care group had died. Median time to progression in the thalidomide group was 3·6 months (95% CI 3.2-4.1) compared with 3.5 months (2.3-4.8) in the active supportive care group (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.73-1.20, p=0.72). 43 (39%) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in the thalidomide group and 31 (28%) in the active supportive care group; neurosensory events were reported by two (2%) patients on thalidomide and none on active supportive care, cardiac events by two (2%) patients on thalidomide and three (3%) on active supportive care, and thromboembolic events by three (3%) patients on thalidomide and none on active supportive care. INTERPRETATION: No benefit was noted in time to progression with the addition of thalidomide maintenance to first-line chemotherapy. Different treatment strategies are needed to improve outcomes in patients with malignant mesothelioma. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF), Eli Lilly, NSW Dust Disease Compensation Board, University of Sydney, and Cancer Australia.

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.

The effect of Echinacea purpurea on the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel.

AIMS: The herbal medicine Echinacea purpurea (E. purpurea) has been shown to induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) both in vitro and in humans. This study explored whether E. purpurea affects the pharmacokinetics of the CYP3A4 substrate docetaxel in cancer patients. METHODS: Ten evaluable cancer patients received docetaxel (135 mg, 60 min IV infusion) before intake of a commercially available E. purpurea extract (20 oral drops three times daily) and 3 weeks later after a 14 day supplementation period with E. purpurea. In both cycles, pharmacokinetic parameters of docetaxel were determined. RESULTS: Before and after supplementation with E. purpurea, the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve of docetaxel was 3278 ± 1086 and 3480 ± 1285 ng ml(-1) h, respectively. This result was statistically not significant. Nonsignificant alterations were also observed for the elimination half-life (from 30.8 ± 19.7 to 25.6 ± 5.9 h, P = 0.56) and maximum plasma concentration of docetaxel (from 2224 ± 609 to 2097 ± 925 ng ml(-1) , P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: The multiple treatment of E. purpurea did not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel in this study. The applied E. purpurea product at the recommended dose may be combined safely with docetaxel in cancer patients.

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.

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.

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.