Gene Therapy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Phase I Study of Intrapleural Gene-Mediated Cytotoxic Immunotherapy in Patients with Malignant Pleural Effusion

Gene-mediated cytotoxic immunotherapy (GMCI) is an immune strategy implemented through local delivery of an adenovirus-based vector expressing the thymidine kinase gene (aglatimagene besadenovec, AdV-tk) followed by anti-herpetic prodrug valacyclovir. A phase I dose escalation trial of GMCI followed by chemotherapy was conducted in patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE). AdV-tk was administered intrapleurally (IP) in three cohorts at a dose of 1 × 10¹² to 10¹³ vector particles. Primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Nineteen patients were enrolled: median age 67 years; 14 with malignant mesothelioma, 4 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and 1 breast cancer. There were no dose limiting toxicities. All 3 patients in cohort 2 experienced transient cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Addition of celecoxib in cohort 3 reduced the incidence and severity of CRS (none > grade 2). Three patients are alive (23-33 months after GMCI), and 3 of 4 NSCLC patients had prolonged disease stabilization; one is alive 29 months after GMCI, 3.6 years after initial diagnosis. GMCI was safe and well tolerated in combination with chemotherapy in patients with MPE and showed encouraging response. Further studies are warranted to determine efficacy.

Oncolytic Viral Therapy for Mesothelioma

The limited effectiveness of conventional therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma demands innovative approaches to this difficult disease. Even with aggressive multimodality treatment of surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy, the median survival is only 1–2 years depending on stage and histology. Oncolytic viral therapy has emerged in the last several decades as a rapidly advancing field of immunotherapy studied in a wide spectrum of malignancies. Mesothelioma makes an ideal candidate for studying oncolysis given the frequently localized pattern of growth and pleural location providing access to direct intratumoral injection of virus. Therefore, despite being a relatively uncommon disease, the multitude of viral studies for mesothelioma can provide insight for applying such therapy to other malignancies. This article will begin with a review of the general principles of oncolytic therapy focusing on antitumor efficacy, tumor selectivity, and immune system activation. The second half of this review will detail results of preclinical models and human studies for oncolytic virotherapy in mesothelioma.

Local and systemic therapies for malignant pleural mesothelioma

OPINION STATEMENT

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a challenging disease to treat with median overall survival times ranging between 9-17 months for all stages of disease. Recent clinical trials have improved our understanding of the biology of MPM. However, survival results are still not ideal. For early-stage MPM, patients should be evaluated for trimodality therapy in an experienced cancer center. If treating off-protocol, MPM patients should receive a surgical staging evaluation. The decision to proceed with surgical resection also should be considered after an extensive and thorough pulmonary and cardiac evaluation. If deemed a good surgical candidate, patients should receive surgical resection (pleurectomy/decortication or extrapleural pneumonectomy), adjuvant radiation therapy (hemithoracic external beam or intensity modulated radiation therapy), and either neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin-pemetrexed for 4 cycles). The optimal precise sequence of the trimodality is unclear and should be decided upon by a multidisciplinary consensus for each individual patient. In general, clinical trial participation should be encouraged. Several trials are currently underway to examine intraoperative therapies, vaccines, immunotherapy additions, and novel radiation therapy techniques. Advances in the field of MPM are reliant on participation in clinical trials and identifying biomarkers that are predictive for response to systemic therapies and prognostic for survival benefit.

Asbestos-related pleuropulmonary diseases: benign and malignant

Asbestos is known for its desirable properties of thermal and heat resistance along with excellent strength and durability. It was widely used in many industries since the late 19th century, until its adverse effects on health were recognized. The occurrence of pleuropulmonary changes from exposure to asbestos often has a latency period of 20 to 30 years. The use of asbestos has been banned, regulated, and minimized in many countries, but in several developing countries, the use of asbestos in industries is still a common practice. In this article, the benign and malignant clinical manifestations of asbestos exposure are discussed.

Management options for malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical and cost considerations

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a resistant form of lung cancer that is often related to prior asbestos exposure. While surgical resection and radiotherapy techniques have been refined in recent years, neither has been proven to significantly extend patient survival compared with untreated controls. Until the release of pemetrexed in 2004, even combination chemotherapy regimens often resulted in a response rate of <20%. A recent phase III trial documented a 41.3% response rate for cisplatin plus pemetrexed. In the future, new multimodality regimens featuring novel targeted therapies directed against molecular targets, such as the vascular endothelial growth factor, hold the greatest promise for improved outcomes in MPM. The standard radiographic assessment of response to MPM therapy remains a poor surrogate for clinically relevant endpoints such as median survival. Furthermore, it is not currently known whether aggressive multimodality treatment for MPM will improve survival or quality of life above and beyond symptomatic care. Ongoing clinical trials are comparing chemotherapy and surgery with supportive care in an effort to define the role of different therapies in MPM. MPM treatment is a costly public health issue; after efficacy is proven, additional studies are needed to measure the cost effectiveness of MPM treatment regimens.

Preclinical studies of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly lethal neoplasm that is resistant to chemotherapy. Bortezomib is an FDA-approved proteasome inhibitor that is currently under clinical investigation in multiple neoplasms but has not been studied extensively in MPM. In this report, we determine the biological and molecular response of cultured MPM cells to bortezomib alone and in combination with cisplatin or pemetrexed. We used four MPM cell lines (MS589, H28, H2052, JMN), a normal mesothelial cell line (HM3), and a lung cancer cell line (H23) in survival studies utilizing bortezomib, cisplatin, and pemetrexed alone and in combination by administering concurrently or by varying the order of administration. We determined the effect of bortezomib on the cell cycle, apoptosis, and on the expression of cell cycle proteins p21/WAF1 and p27/KIP1 and on apoptosis-related proteins IAP-1, IAP-2, survivin, and XIAP. Bortezomib was highly cytotoxic to MPM cells and induced both G(2)/M and G(1)/S cell cycle arrest. Apoptosis increased in a concentration- and time-dependent manner in 3 of 4 MPM cell lines. Bortezomib stabilized or increased protein levels of p21/WAF1 and IAP-1 and to a lesser degree p27/KIP1, IAP-2, XIAP, and survivin. In combination studies with cisplatin, bortezomib was generally synergistic at high concentrations and antagonistic at low concentrations. Bortezomib increased the cytotoxicity of cisplatin and pemetrexed in a concentration-dependent manner when administered prior to either. Bortezomib may improve outcome in MPM patients alone or in combination with standard chemotherapy but the order of administration is likely to be important. This study justifies further evaluation of bortezomib in MPM.