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

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

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.

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.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Approved systemic treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been limited to chemotherapy regimens that have moderate survival benefit with poor outcomes. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in other tumour types, including first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. We hypothesised that this regimen would improve overall survival in MPM. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (CheckMate 743) was run at 103 hospitals across 21 countries. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years and older, with previously untreated, histologically confirmed unresectable MPM, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously once every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenously] plus cisplatin [75 mg/m2 intravenously] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL per min intravenously]) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival among all participants randomly assigned to treatment, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02899299, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2016, and April 28, 2018, 713 patients were enrolled, of whom 605 were randomly assigned to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=303) or chemotherapy (n=302). 467 (77%) of 605 participants were male and median age was 69 years (IQR 64-75). At the prespecified interim analysis (database lock April 3, 2020; median follow-up of 29·7 months [IQR 26·7-32·9]), nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly extended overall survival versus chemotherapy (median overall survival 18·1 months [95% CI 16·8-21·4] vs 14·1 months [12·4-16·2]; hazard ratio 0·74 [96·6% CI 0·60-0·91]; p=0·0020). 2-year overall survival rates were 41% (95% CI 35·1-46·5) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 27% (21·9-32·4) in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 91 (30%) of 300 patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 91 (32%) of 284 treated with chemotherapy. Three (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (pneumonitis, encephalitis, and heart failure) and one (<1%) in the chemotherapy group (myelosuppression). INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy, supporting the use of this first-in-class regimen that has been approved in the USA as of October, 2020, for previously untreated unresectable MPM. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

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.

Expression of phosphorylated ribosomal protein S6 in mesothelioma patients - correlation with clinico-pathological characteristics and outcome: results from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) Mesoscape project.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Although histology and pathologic stage are important prognostic factors, better prognostic biomarkers are needed. The ribosomal protein S6 is a downstream target of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway involved in protein synthesis and cell proliferation. In previous studies, low phosphorylated S6 (pS6) immunoreactivity was significantly correlated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in PM patients. We aimed to correlate pS6 expression to clinical data in a large multi-centre PM cohort as part of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) Mesoscape project. Tissue Micro Arrays (TMAs) of PM were constructed and expression of pS6 was evaluated by a semi-quantitatively aggregate H-score. Expression results were correlated to patient characteristics as well as OS/PFS. pS6 IHC results of 364 patients from 9 centres, diagnosed between 1999 and 2017 were available. The primary histology of included tumours was epithelioid (70.3%), followed by biphasic (24.2%) and sarcomatoid (5.5%). TMAs included both treatment-naïve and tumour tissue taken after induction chemotherapy. High pS6 expression (181 patients with H-score>1.41) was significantly associated with less complete resection. In the overall cohort, OS/PFS were not significantly different between pS6-low and pS6-high patients. In a subgroup analysis non-epithelioid (biphasic and sarcomatoid) patients with high pS6 expression showed a significantly shorter OS (p < 0.001, 10.7 versus 16.9 months) and PFS (p < 0.001, 6.2 versus 10.8 months). In subgroup analysis, in non-epithelioid PM patients high pS6 expression was associated with significantly shorter OS and PFS. These exploratory findings suggest a clinically relevant PI3K pathway activation in non-epithelioid PM which might lay the foundation for future targeted treatment strategies.

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.

Validation of a clinical blood-based decision aid to guide immunotherapy treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The widespread introduction of immunotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to durable responses but still many patients fail and are treated beyond progression. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether readily available blood-based tumor biomarkers allow accurate detection of early non-responsiveness, allowing a timely switch of therapy and cost reduction. METHODS: In a prospective, observational study in patients with NSCLC treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab, five serum tumor markers were measured at baseline and every other week. Six months disease control as determined by RECIST was used as a measure of clinical response. Patients with a disease control <  6 months were deemed non-responsive. For every separate tumor marker a criterion for predicting of non-response was developed. Each marker test was defined as positive (predictive of non-response) if the value of that tumor marker increased at least 50% from the value at baseline and above a marker dependent minimum value to be determined. Also, tests based on combination of multiple markers were designed. Specificity and sensitivity for predicting non-response was calculated and results were validated in an independent cohort. The target specificity of the test for detecting non-response was set at >  95%, in order to allow its safe use for treatment decisions. RESULTS: A total of 376 patients (training cohort: 180, validation cohort: 196) were included in our analysis. Results for the specificity of the single marker tests in the validation set were CEA: 98·3% (95% CI: 90·9-100%), NSE: 96·5% (95% CI: 87·9-99·6%), SCC: 96·5% (95% CI: 88·1-99·6%), Cyfra21·1 : 91.8% (95% CI: 81·9-97·3%), and CA125 : 86·0% (95% CI: 74·2-93·7%). A test based on the combination of Cyfra21.1, CEA and NSE accurately predicted non-response in 32.3% (95% CI 22.6-43.1%) of patients 6 weeks after start of immunotherapy. Survival analysis showed a significant difference between predicted responders (Median PFS: 237 days (95% CI 184-289 days)) and non-responders (Median PFS: 58 days (95% CI 46-70 days)) (p <  0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Serum tumor marker based tests can be used for accurate detection of non-response in NSCLC, thereby allowing early and safe discontinuation of immunotherapy in a significant subset of patients.

Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for real-time diagnosing and staging of lung cancer.

Diagnosing lung cancer in the absence of endobronchial abnormalities is challenging. Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) enables real-time microscopic imaging of cells. We assessed the feasibility and safety of using nCLE for real-time identification of lung cancer.In patients with suspected or proven lung cancer scheduled for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), lung tumours and mediastinal lymph nodes were imaged with nCLE before fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was performed. nCLE lung cancer characteristics were identified by comparison with pathology. Multiple blinded raters validated CLE videos of lung tumours and mediastinal nodes twice.EUS-nCLE-FNA was performed in 22 patients with suspected or proven lung cancer in whom 27 lesions (six tumours, 21 mediastinal nodes) were evaluated without complications. Three nCLE lung cancer criteria (dark enlarged pleomorphic cells, dark clumps and directional streaming) were identified. The accuracy of nCLE imaging for detecting malignancy was 90% in tumours and 89% in metastatic lymph nodes. Both inter-observer agreement (mean κ=0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.70) and intra-observer agreement (mean±sd κ=0.70±0.15) were substantial.Real-time lung cancer detection by endosonography-guided nCLE was feasible and safe. Lung cancer characteristics were accurately recognised.

I-O Optimise: a novel multinational real-world research platform in thoracic malignancies.

Aim: To describe I-O Optimise, a multinational program providing real-world insights into lung cancer management. Materials & methods: Real-world data source selection for I-O Optimise followed a structured approach focused on population coverage, key variable capture, continuous/consistent data availability, record duration and data latency, and database expertise. Results: As of 31 October 2018, seven real-world data sources were included in I-O Optimise, providing data on characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes from more than 45,000 patients/year with non-small-cell lung cancer, small-cell lung cancer and mesothelioma across Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Conclusion: The ongoing I-O Optimise initiative has the potential to provide a broad, robust and dynamic research platform to continually address numerous research objectives in the lung cancer arena.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, there remains a need for effective treatments for progressive disease. We assessed the efficacy of pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 study at 202 academic medical centres in 24 countries. Patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumour cells were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six per stratum with an interactive voice-response system to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival both in the total population and in patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumour cells. We used a threshold for significance of p<0.00825 (one-sided) for the analysis of overall survival and a threshold of p<0.001 for progression-free survival. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01905657. FINDINGS: Between Aug 28, 2013, and Feb 27, 2015, we enrolled 1034 patients: 345 allocated to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 346 allocated to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 343 allocated to docetaxel. By Sept 30, 2015, 521 patients had died. In the total population, median overall survival was 10.4 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 12.7 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 8.5 months with docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.0008) and for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0.61, 0.49-0.75; p<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 4.0 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 4.0 months with docetaxel, with no significant difference for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0.88, 0.74-1.05; p=0.07) or for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94; p=0.004). Among patients with at least 50% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1, overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 14.9 months vs 8.2 months; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77; p=0.0002) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (17.3 months vs 8.2 months; 0.50, 0.36-0.70; p<0.0001). Likewise, for this patient population, progression-free survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 5.0 months vs 4.1 months; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.78; p=0.0001) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (5.2 months vs 4.1 months; 0.59, 0.45-0.78; p<0.0001). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less common with pembrolizumab than with docetaxel (43 [13%] of 339 patients given 2 mg/kg, 55 [16%] of 343 given 10 mg/kg, and 109 [35%] of 309 given docetaxel). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab prolongs overall survival and has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. These data establish pembrolizumab as a new treatment option for this population and validate the use of PD-L1 selection. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Optimal Therapy of Advanced Stage Mesothelioma.

OPINION STATEMENT: The optimal treatment of patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has not yet been discovered. With the aid of an increased insight in the molecular pathways and the development of combinations of Immuno-Oncology (IO), drugs new therapies are available. The personalization of treatment by cell cultures and pathway analysis attracts more attention nowadays. It is conceivable that in the near future the treatment of patients with MPM will consist of a combination of IO drugs or specific pathway inhibitors.

Optimal surgical management of pulmonary metastases: VATS versus thoracotomy.

Survival benefit after pulmonary metastasectomy is under question and knowledge of functional recovery after pulmonary metastasectomy by thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is of great importance. We analysed prospective data of 100 patients operated for pulmonary metastasis by either VATS or thoracotomy. VATS yielded a better physical performance 1 month postoperative, shorter hospital stay, a shorter duration of chest tube drainage and epidural analgesia. We concluded that VATS is the preferable approach due to superior functional outcome.

Vorinostat in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma who have progressed on previous chemotherapy (VANTAGE-014): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that changes gene expression and protein activity. On the basis of the clinical benefit reported in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated in a phase 1 study of vorinostat, we designed this phase 3 trial to investigate whether vorinostat given as a second-line or third-line therapy improved patients' overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in 90 international centres. Patients with measurable advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma and disease progression after one or two previous systemic regimens were eligible. After stratification for Karnofsky performance status, histology, and number of previous chemotherapy regimens, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive voice response system with a block size of four to either treatment with vorinostat or placebo. Patients received oral vorinostat 300 mg (or matching placebo) twice daily on days 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoints were overall survival and safety and tolerability of vorinostat. The primary efficacy comparison was done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety and tolerability was assessed in the treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128102. FINDINGS: From July 12, 2005, to Feb 14, 2011, 661 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either vorinostat (n=329) or placebo (n=332) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival for vorinostat was 30·7 weeks (95% CI 26·7-36·1) versus 27·1 weeks (23·1-31·9) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·83-1·17, p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events for patients treated with vorinostat were fatigue or malaise (51 [16%] patients in the vorinostat group vs 25 [8%] in the placebo group]) and dyspnoea (35 [11%] vs 45 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: In this randomised trial, vorinostat given as a second-line or third-line therapy did not improve overall survival and cannot be recommended as a therapy for patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Phase I/II study with ruthenium compound NAMI-A and gemcitabine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer after first line therapy.

BACKGROUND: This phase I/II study determined the maximal tolerable dose, dose limiting toxicities, antitumor activity, the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ruthenium compound NAMI-A in combination with gemcitabine in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients after first line treatment. METHODS: Initial dose escalation of NAMI-A was performed in a 28 day cycle: NAMI-A as a 3 h infusion through a port-a-cath at a starting dose of 300 mg/m(2) at day 1, 8 and 15, in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) at days 2, 9 and 16. Subsequently, dose escalation of NAMI-A in a 21 day schedule was explored. At the maximal tolerable dose level of this schedule an expansion group was enrolled of which 15 patients were evaluable for response. RESULTS: Due to frequent neutropenic dose interruptions in the third week, the 28 day schedule was amended into a 21 day schedule. The maximal tolerable dose was 300 and 450 mg/m(2) of NAMI-A (21 day schedule). Main adverse events consisted of neutropenia, anemia, elevated liver enzymes, transient creatinine elevation, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, and renal toxicity. CONCLUSION: NAMI-A administered in combination with gemcitabine is only moderately tolerated and less active in NSCLC patients after first line treatment than gemcitabine alone.