Retreatment with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): A second line treatment option

Systemic treatment in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma - real life experience

Background

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of the pleural cavity linked to asbestos exposure. The combination of pemetrexed and platinum is a standard first-line therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Despite some progress, almost all MPM patients experience progression after first-line therapy. The second-line treatment is still being under discussion and there are very limited data available on the second-line and subsequent treatments.

Methods

The retrospective analysis included 57 patients (16 females and 41 males) from two Polish oncological institutions treated for advanced mesothelioma between 2013 and 2019. We analysed the efficacy of first-line and second-line therapy: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR).

Results

In the first-line treatment, 55 patients received pemetrexed-based chemotherapy (PBC) and two cisplatin in monotherapy. Patients’ characteristics at baseline: median age was 64.2 years, ECOG PS ≤ 1 (86.2%), epithelial histology (85.7%). Median PFS and OS were 7.6 months and 14 months, respectively. Patients with ECOG PS ≤ 1 vs > 1 had a longer median OS (14.8 months vs 9.7 months, p = 0.057). One-year OS and PFS were 60.9% and 32.0%, respectively. Disease control rate (DCR) was 82.5%. Response to first-line therapy: PFS ≥ 6 months and PFS ≥ 12 months had a significant impact on median OS. Twelve patients received second-line therapy (seven PBC and five other cytotoxic single agents: navelbine, gemcitabine, or adriamycin/vincristine/methotrexate triplet). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 months and 7.2 months, respectively. DCR was 83%. One-year OS and PFS were 37% and 16.7%, respectively.

In the group receiving PBC, OS was prolonged by 4.5 months compared to the non-PBC group (6.0 months vs 10.5 months, p = 0.47).

Conclusion

Patients who benefited from first-line therapy and had prolonged PFS at first-line and achieve PFS longer than 6 months at first-line should be offered second-line treatment. Consideration of retreatment with the same cytotoxic agent could to be a viable option when no other treatment are available.

A phase II trial of single oral FGF inhibitor, AZD4547, as second or third line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma

OBJECTIVES

Currently, there is no optimal salvage therapy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) who relapse after treatment with first-line chemotherapy. In line with the strong preclinical rationale for targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) signalling in malignant mesothelioma, we conducted a phase II study assessing the efficacy of AZD4547, an oral tyrosine multi-kinase FGFR 1-3 inhibitor, as a second or third-line treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center, open-label, single-arm phase II study of AZD4547 in eligible patients with confirmed, measurable MPM and radiological progression after first or second-line systemic chemotherapy. Patients received continuous, twice-daily oral AZD4547 on a 3-weekly cycle. The primary end point was 6-month progression free survival (PFS6). Response was assessed with CT scan every 6 weeks according to the modified RECIST criteria for mesothelioma (mRECIST) and toxicities were also assessed. The study used a Simon's two-stage design: 26 patients would be recruited to the first stage and more than 7 (27 %) of 26 patients were required to achieve PFS6 to continue to stage two, for a potential total cohort of 55 patients.

RESULTS

3 of 24 patients (12 %) were progression-free at 6 months. Hence, the study fulfilled stopping criteria regardless of further recruitment and warranted discontinuation. The most common toxicities (across all grades) were hyperphosphatemia, xerostomia, mucositis, retinopathy, dysgeusia, and fatigue. Maximum toxicities were grade 2 or below for all patients across all cycles. There was no association between tumour BAP1 protein loss and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The FGFR 1-3 inhibitor AZD4547 did not demonstrate efficacy in patients with MPM who had progressed after first line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Sarcomatoid mesothelioma: future advances in diagnosis, biomolecular assessment, and therapeutic options in a poor-outcome disease

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is the most frequent pleural neoplasm, with asbestos exposure as one of the recognized carcinogen agents, causative in 80% of cases. The prognosis is poor; median survival of untreated cases is 6-9 months, with fewer than 5% of patients surviving 5 years. Sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM) represents the subtype with the worst outcome and median survival ranging from 3.5 to 8 months. In the last few years, an accurate differentiation between the subtypes of MPM has become a crucial issue, due to differences in chemosensitivity and clinical outcome, and several studies have evaluated different immunohistochemical markers to better define the diagnosis. The different and worse outcome of patients with SM and, in general, nonepithelioid subtypes makes it intriguing to select these cases to better study the biomolecular profile in order to find factors linked to prognosis and/or predictive of therapeutic response. Considering recent studies on miRNA and genetic mapping, further investigation of this rare subtype might represent a field for basic and clinical-translational research providing for more tailored therapies.

[Malignant pleural mesothelioma: diagnosis and treatment]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive tumor issued from the mesothelial surface of the pleural space. A previous exposure to asbestos is the main risk factor of mesothelioma. Clinical signs are most of the time late and unspecific. Chest CT-scan, a key imaging procedure, usually shows a (unilateral) pleurisy associated with pleural nodular thickening. PET-scan associated with CT-scan may help to differenciate MPM from pleural benign tumors but it is not recommended for the diagnosis of MPM, as well as chest resonance magnetic imaging and blood or pleural fluid biomarkers, including soluble mesothelin still under investigation. The diagnosis of MPM is based on histology using essentially immunohistochemistry on pleural biopsies best obtained by thoracoscopy. The treatment of MPM relies mostly on chemotherapy. Surgery, pleurectomy/decortication or extrapleural pneumonectomy, is not recommended outside a clinical trial, as well as adjuvant chest radiotherapy. Prophylactic irradiation of chest scars and drains, validated by the French guidelines in 2005, is however highly discussed at the international level. Finally, numerous research studies presently assess the value of targeted therapies and biomarkers in MPM, opening new perspectives in the management of this cancer.

Systemic treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare malignancy with a dismal prognosis. The clinical management of most of the patients with this disease is quite challenging, and, overall, the therapeutic strategy has not yet benefited from the recent advances in molecular biology. Randomized evidence supports the use of cisplatin in combination with pemetrexed or raltitrexed as first-line treatments. In elderly patients with comorbidities cisplatin may be replaced by carboplatin because of a lesser burden of toxicities. The role of second-line chemotherapy is unproven, although pemetrexed can be regarded as the standard option in pemetrexed-naive patients and therapeutic rechallenge with pemetrexed may be considered in selected patients with prolonged disease control after first-line therapy. Targeted therapies failed to demonstrate any substantial activity; however, immunotherapies may complement other treatment strategies. In summary, there is an unmet clinical need and innovative approaches to select new potentially active drugs are highly warranted.

Second-line chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of a retrospective multicenter survey

The pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy is standard of care in first-line (FL) treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The second-line (SL) chemotherapy is considered, but the optimal treatment has not been defined yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of SL-therapy in a series of MPM-patients included in a retrospective multicenter database. Clinical records of MPM-patients who received SL-treatment from 1996 to 2008 were reviewed. Study endpoints were response, overall-survival (OS), and progression-free-survival (PFS) for SL, stratified for patient characteristics, FL-outcomes, and type of SL. Out of 423 patients, 181 with full clinical data were identified. Patients' characteristics: median-age 64 years (range: 36-85); male gender 115 (63.5%); good EORTC-score 109 (60.2%); epithelial histology 135 (74.6%). After FL, 147 (81.2%) patients achieved disease-control (DC) and 45 had a time-to-progression≥12 months (TTP≥12). After SL, 95 patients (52.6%) achieved DC (21 response; 74 stable-disease); median PFS and OS were 4.3 and 8.7 months, respectively. According to multivariate analysis, DC after SL-therapy was significantly related to pemetrexed-based treatment (OR: 2.46; p=0.017) and FL-TTP≥12 (OR: 3.50; p=0.006). PFS was related to younger age (<65 years) (HR: 0.70; p=0.045), ECOG-PS0 (HR: 0.67; p=0.022), and FL-TTP≥12 (HR: 0.45; p<0.001). OS was significantly related to ECOG-PS0 (HR: 0.43; p<0.001) and to FL-TTP≥12 (HR: 0.54; p=0.005). In pemetrexed pre-treated patients, re-treatment with a pemetrexed/platinum combination significantly reduced the risk-of-death than pemetrexed alone (HR: 0.11; p<0.001). In conclusion, SL-chemotherapy seems to be active in MPM-patients, particularly in younger patients with ECOG-PS0 and prolonged TTP after FL-pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. In selected patients, re-challenge with pemetrexed-based regimens, preferentially associated with platinum-compound, appears to be an option for SL-setting. Considering the important limitations of this study, due to retrospective nature and the possible selection bias, prospective clinical trials are warranted to clarify these issues.

Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients: a mono-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

The major clinical problems of MPM management are the short duration of response and the early relapse. Currently, after the first-line standard pemetrexed/platinum combination there is not a defined regimen for the second line treatment of MPM, and the clinical benefits in fit patients are uncertain. We analyzed the feasibility of gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy in pretreated MPM patients.

METHODS

Eligible patients should have relapsed after first-line chemotherapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin (24%) or carboplatin (76%); 53% of the patients had previously received trimodality treatment, 18% neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by pleurectomy/decortication, 29% were inoperable. Patients had to have PS=0-2, adequate organ function, measurable disease. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1, 8 associated to the alternative platinum compound respect to 1st line, i.e. cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin AUC 5 day 1 every 3 weeks, for 3-6 cycles. Baseline staging and reassessment after cycles 3 and 6 were performed with CT-scan.

RESULTS

Since 2006 17 relapsed MPM patients were referred to our centre. Patients were 12 males and 5 females; median age: 61 years (range 47-74); histology: 12 epithelial, 4 sarcomatoid and 1 biphasic. PS 1-2 (15:2). The combination of gemcitabine with carboplatin/cisplatin was administered as second line treatment in 13 (76%) patients, as third line in 4 (24%) patients. Two patients were lost to follow-up without re-evaluation, therefore radiologic and clinical response was assessable in 15 (88%) patients. Among evaluable patients 10 (67%) showed stable disease and 5 (33%) progressive disease. Symptoms improved in 8 (53%) cases. In the intent-to-treat population median survival was 28 weeks (range 13-168) and median time-to-treatment failure 15 weeks (range 3-75). Toxicity profile showed 2 (13%) grade 4 and 6 (40%) grade 3 thrombocytopenia, 4 (27%) grade 3 leucopenia, 3 (20%) grade 3 anaemia and 6 (40%) of grade 3 neutropenia. Grade 3 non haematological toxicities were nausea (14%) and asthenia (21%).

CONCLUSION

Gemcitabine-platinum regimens are able to control symptoms and disease progression with a modest toxicity profile. The present results from a small series of patients should be confirmed by a prospective trial in a larger cohort of patients.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for mesothelioma

Previously considered to be rare, malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive tumor with an increasing incidence linked to asbestos exposure, its main etiological factor. MPM is also a very important issue because patients have usually a short survival (median <12 months) despite current treatments. Moreover an optimal treatment for MPM is not defined yet, even if ERS/ESTS experts recently provided clear and up-to-date guidelines on MPM management. These guidelines on chemotherapy and radiotherapy for mesothelioma, as well as new therapeutic developments, are presented in this chapter.

[First-line treatment with pemetrexed in association with cisplatin in patients with non-operable malignant pleural mesothelioma]

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. The optimal treatment of MPM was not clearly defined, until the publication of the multicentre, controlled and randomized phase III trial by Vogelzang et al. in 2003, which made the pemetrexed-cisplatin association the gold standard for the non-operable stages. Eleven patients with histologically proven pleural mesothelioma, not candidates for curative surgery, were assessed for eligibility and treated in our hospital. The response rate was similar to the reference study and the toxicity was acceptable. The median survival time was 12.7 months with an objective response rate of 45.5%. The median time to progression was 7.7 months. Neutropenia (all grades included) was the most common haematological toxicity (42.1%) although only one grade 3/4 was noted. Grade 3/4 anaemia and thrombocytopenia were not reported. Nausea and vomiting were the most commonly reported clinical toxicities with 81.8% reported (all grades included). One cutaneous allergic reaction was reported. The combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin chemotherapy provided the best objectives responses, but new therapeutic regimens are still warranted for these patients with a poor prognosis. The results were similar to those obtained in the Vogelzang et al.'s trial despite a selection bias because they correspond to 36.7% of the total recruitment in the unit.