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

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy in Unresectable Pleural Mesothelioma: Overview of Efficacy, Safety, and Future Outlook

OPINION STATEMENT

Pleural mesothelioma is an incurable cancer with unmet diagnostic and therapeutic needs. Due to its pattern of local spread, few patients are candidates for multimodality treatment and thus most patients only receive systemic therapy. Chemotherapy (pemetrexed plus platinum) was standard of care until the recent addition of immunotherapy (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy) as further first-line option. Physicians treating pleural mesothelioma should be aware of another option with Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, a locoregionally-applied therapy utilizing electric fields generated by a portable medical device, and delivered to the tumor by skin-placed arrays. TTFields therapy delivered to the thorax using the NovoTTF- 100L device concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum agent is approved for unresectable pleural mesothelioma in the US, and received Conformité Européenne certification in Europe, based on results from the phase 2 STELLAR study (EF- 23; NCT02397928), where TTFields-related toxicity was limited to mild-to-moderate reversible skin reactions. Overall survival in the STELLAR study with TTFields therapy was 18.2 months, with further post-hoc analysis showing extended survival in patients with epithelioid histology. Within the evolving landscape of systemic treatments, TTFields therapy represents a novel and clinically versatile therapeutic option in the battle against pleural mesothelioma without introducing additional toxicities other than mild-to-moderate skin irritation. While promising, additional research is needed to optimize clinical application of TTFields therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma, such as identifying the molecular determinants of therapy efficacy, and further investigation into the safe and effective delivery of TTFields therapy together with systemic agents, including immunotherapies.

Treatment of Pleural Mesothelioma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others on the management of pleural mesothelioma (PM).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pathology, cancer genetics, and advocacy experts to conduct an updated literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 2016 through 2024. Outcomes of interest included survival, disease-free or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 110 additional relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed for surgical cytoreduction, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, pathology, and germline testing in patients with PM.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Current drug therapy for pleural mesothelioma

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is a rare and highly aggressive malignancy originating from the pleural lining, with a median overall survival of merely 1 year. This cancer primarily arises from mesothelial cells following exposure to carcinogenic, biopersistent mineral fibers, particularly asbestos. The histological subtypes of mesothelioma are epithelioid (approximately 60%), sarcomatoid (20%), and biphasic (20%), exhibiting epithelioid and sarcomatoid characteristics. Classification is important for prognosis and guides the therapeutic strategy. Due to the typical late presentation, most patients with PM are ineligible for localized treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy. Systemic therapy, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapies, and immunotherapy, is thus critical for managing advanced PM. For unresectable PM, decisions regarding systemic treatment are guided by patient suitability and histological characteristics. First-line therapies for advanced PM currently include the cisplatin-pemetrexed combination and the nivolumab-ipilimumab regimen. Historically, cisplatin-pemetrexed has been administered as first-line treatment, though recent advancements have introduced new therapies that significantly prolong patient survival. Innovative approaches combining immunotherapy and chemotherapy offer promising avenues for further improvement. Future treatment strategies should incorporate novel paradigms, such as combination chemo-immunotherapy, targeted agents, and potential cellular therapies, alongside companion biomarkers tailored to the histologic and molecular diversity of mesothelioma. This review explores the latest advancements in drug therapy for PM and provides an overview of current systemic treatment options.

Follow-up after first-Line nivOlumab plus ipilimumab in patients with diffuse pleuRal mesotheliomA: a real-world Dutch cohort study-FLORA

BACKGROUND

Diffuse pleural mesothelioma (dPM) is an aggressive malignancy, primarily treated with palliative systemic therapy. Since 2022, nivolumab-ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) has replaced chemotherapy as the standard first-line treatment for dPM in the Netherlands. Chemotherapy remains a rational second-line treatment. The real-world effectiveness of second-line treatment after doublet immunotherapy remains unknown. The FLORA study aimed to provide an overview of treatment patterns in patients with dPM after first-line nivo/ipi and evaluate the effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy based on real-world data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

FLORA was a Dutch multicenter retrospective cohort study. Clinical data were collected from the medical records. The primary endpoints were treatment patterns after nivo/ipi and median overall survival (mOS) of patients receiving second-line chemotherapy. The secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS) of second-line chemotherapy, and subgroup analyses (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and histological subtype). The study also updated the mOS for first-line nivo/ipi patients.

RESULTS

Between May 2021 and July 2023, 277 patients with dPM receiving first-line nivo/ipi therapy were included. Sixty-eight percent of the patients were male, with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range 67-77 years). The histological subtypes were epithelioid (62%), sarcomatoid (22%), biphasic (13%), and unknown (3%). One hundred and two (47%) of the 218 patients with disease progression received second-line treatment, of whom 83 received second-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy. The mOS and mPFS for second-line chemotherapy were 8.2 months ([95% confidence interval (CI) 7.4-9.1 months] and 5.6 months (95% CI 4.9-6.3 months), respectively, with an ORR of 37%. Poor performance score was the main reason for not receiving second-line treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first real-world data on subsequent treatment of patients with dPM with disease progression on nivo/ipi, resulting in an mOS of 8.2 months after second-line chemotherapy.

Newest therapeutic strategies impacting on rarest thoracic malignancies: The clinical case report of biphasic pleural mesothelioma

A caucasian 62-year-old woman, diagnosed with biphasic pleural mesothelioma (PM) of II stage and BAP1 loss, was treated with therapies included in clinical trial and Early Access Programmes (EAP). During her clinical history, radiological images presented an unusual representation of the disease, with a pseudo progression discussed many times by several specialists. The patient's overall survival improved as a result of the multidisciplinary team and the availability of medicines outside of clinical practice.

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.

Targeted Therapy in Mesotheliomas: Uphill All the Way

Mesothelioma (MM) is an aggressive and lethal disease with few therapeutic opportunities. Platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy is the backbone of first-line treatment for MM. The introduction of immunotherapy (IO) has been the only novelty of the last decades, allowing an increase in survival compared to standard chemotherapy (CT). However, IO is not approved for epithelioid histology in many countries. Therefore, therapy for relapsed MM remains an unmet clinical need, and the prognosis of MM remains poor, with an average survival of only 18 months. Increasing evidence reveals MM complexity and heterogeneity, of which histological classification fails to explain. Thus, scientific focus on possibly new molecular markers or cellular targets is increasing, together with the search for target therapies directed towards them. The molecular landscape of MM is characterized by inactivating tumor suppressor alterations, the most common of which is found in CDKN2A, BAP1, MTAP, and NF2. In addition, cellular targets such as mesothelin or metabolic enzymes such as ASS1 could be potentially amenable to specific therapies. This review examines the major targets and relative attempts of therapeutic approaches to provide an overview of the potential prospects for treating this rare neoplasm.

Updates in Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

OPINION STATEMENT

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive asbestos-associated thoracic malignancy that is usually incurable. As demonstrated in the landmark MARS2 trial, surgical resection does not improve survival outcomes and its role in managing MPM is limited. Whilst platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab was the standard first-line approach for unresectable disease, landmark phase 3 trials have now established the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in the upfront management of unresectable disease: either nivolumab-ipilimumab or carboplatin-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab. Patient selection for optimal strategy remains an ongoing question. For relapsed disease novel genomic-based therapies targeting a range of aberrations including losses of the tumour suppressor genes BAP1, CDKN2A and NF2, are being evaluated. Nonetheless, the future of MPM therapeutics holds promise. Here we overview current treatment strategies in the management of MPM.

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.

Improvements in Systemic Therapies for Advanced Malignant Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive malignancy associated with poor prognosis and a 5-year survival rate of 12%. Many drugs have been tested over the years with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of current therapies in MPM and how to best interpret the data available on these drugs. Furthermore, we focused on promising treatments under investigation, such as immunotherapy with targets different from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, vaccines, target therapies, and metabolism-based strategies.

Rare thoracic cancers: a comprehensive overview of diagnosis and management of small cell lung cancer, malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymic epithelial tumours

Despite the progress in outcomes seen with immunotherapy in various malignancies, including nonsmall cell lung cancer, the benefits are less in small cell lung cancer, malignant pleural mesothelioma and thymic epithelial tumours. New effective treatment options are needed, guided via more in-depth insights into the pathophysiology of these rare malignancies. This review comprehensively presents an overview of the clinical presentation, diagnostic tools, staging systems, pathophysiology and treatment options for these rare thoracic cancers. In addition, opportunities for further improvement of therapies are discussed.

What's Current and What's New in Mesothelioma?

Malignant mesothelioma is a rare disease with limited treatment options. In malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), radical trimodality approaches, including surgery, radiotherapy and systemic chemo- and immunotherapy, have been delivered in some countries but remain controversial due to a lack of randomised evidence. Even in the unresectable scenario, surgery and radiotherapy play an important role in managing pleural effusions and pain, which may optimise wellbeing and maintain performance status. From the systemic treatment point of view, the recent incorporation of anti-angiogenics and, more importantly, immunotherapy has changed the standard of care in a space where chemotherapy with platinum and pemetrexed was the only therapeutic intervention with demonstrated benefits in overall survival. Histology is essential in determining an initial treatment plan as non-epithelioid MPMs may have a higher substantial survival improvement with dual immunotherapy compared with chemotherapy, whereas chemotherapy remains an option for epithelioid MPM; however, predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not entirely validated to guide the selection, as a subgroup of MPM patients might not benefit from immunotherapy. This overview approaches how the overall management of mesothelioma is evolving to incorporate the recent changes in the standards of care.

Immunotherapy approaches for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Over the past decade, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. In mesothelioma, a rare cancer with a dismal prognosis generally caused by exposure to asbestos, treatment with single or dual ICIs results in robust improvements in overall survival over previous standard-of-care therapies, both in the first-line and relapsed disease settings. Predictive biological features that underpin response to ICIs remain poorly understood; however, insights into the immune microenvironment and genomic landscape of mesothelioma as well as into their association with response or acquired resistance to ICIs are emerging. Several studies of rational combinations involving ICIs with either another ICI or a different agent are ongoing, with emerging evidence of synergistic antitumour activity. Non-ICI-based immunotherapies, such as peptide-based vaccines and mesothelin-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cells, have demonstrated promising efficacy. Moreover, results from pivotal trials of dendritic cell vaccines and viral cytokine delivery, among others, are eagerly awaited. In this Review, we comprehensively summarize the key steps in the development of immunotherapies for mesothelioma, focusing on strategies that have led to randomized clinical evaluation and emerging predictors of response. We then forecast the future treatment opportunities that could arise from ongoing research.

Evolving Landscape of Initial Treatments for Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesotheliomas: Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is the most common form of mesothelioma and the type most often studied in prospective clinical trials.This review reports the trials that have shaped first-line treatment for patients with advanced/unresectable MPM and the real-world integration of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors into clinical practice.

Active symptom control with or without oral vinorelbine in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (VIM): A randomised, phase 2 trial

Background

Currently, there is no US Food and Drug Administration approved therapy for patients with pleural mesothelioma who have relapsed following platinum-doublet based chemotherapy. Vinorelbine has demonstrated useful clinical activity in mesothelioma, however its efficacy has not been formally evaluated in a randomised setting. BRCA1 expression is required for vinorelbine induced apoptosis in preclinical models. Loss of expression may therefore correlate with vinorelbine resistance.

Methods

In this randomised, phase 2 trial, patients were eligible if they met the following criteria: age ≥ 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, histologically confirmed pleural mesothelioma, post platinum-based chemotherapy, and radiological evidence of disease progression. Consented patients were randomised 2:1 to either active symptom control with oral vinorelbine versus active symptom control (ASC) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal at an initial dose of 60 mg/m2 increasing to 80 mg/m2 post-cycle 1. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype, white cell count, gender, ECOG performance status and best response during first-line therapy. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from randomisation to time of event (or censoring). Analyses were carried out according to intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. Recruitment and trial follow-up are complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02139904.

Findings

Between June 1, 2016 and Oct 31, 2018, we performed a randomised phase 2 trial in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. 225 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 154 were randomly assigned to receive either ASC + vinorelbine (n = 98) or ASC (n = 56). PFS was significantly longer for ASC+vinorelbine compared with ASC alone; 4.2 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2.2-8.0) versus 2.8 months (IQR 1.4-4.1) for ASC, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·60 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided unadjusted log rank test p = 0.002); adjusted HR 0.6 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided adjusted log rank test p < 0.001). BRCA1 did not predict resistance to ASC+vinorelbine. Neutropenia was the most common grades 3, 4 adverse events in the ASC +vinorelbine arm.

Interpretation

Vinorelbine plus ASC confers clinical benefit to patients with relapsed pleural mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.

Funding

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant CRUK A15569).

An Update on Emerging Therapeutic Options for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

The treatment paradigm for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has changed little in the last 18 years. Radical intent treatment, consisting of surgical resection, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, has been offered to a highly select few; however, there is little randomised evidence to validate this approach. Prior to 2020 chemotherapy with platinum and an anti-folate was the only intervention with randomised evidence to demonstrate improved overall survival (OS) in MPM. No systemic therapy had been demonstrated to improve OS in the second line setting until 2020. The publication of the Checkmate 743 trial in 2021 demonstrated a survival benefit of combination immunotherapy over standard chemotherapy in newly diagnosed patients with MPM. This finding was shortly followed by the CONFIRM trial which demonstrates a modest but significant survival benefit of second line nivolumab versus placebo in patients having previously received standard chemotherapy. The results of these trials, recent biomarker directed therapy and chemotherapy adjuncts are discussed within this review. The integration of immunotherapy for the few patients in whom radical surgical therapy is intended is currently the subject of clinical trials and offers the prospect of improving outcomes in this rare but devastating disease.

[Analysis of the Efficacy of Pemetrexed Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma]

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive disease arising from pleural mesothelial cells. Advanced pleural mesothelioma has a poor prognosis, with a median survival of no more than 15 months. First line standard chemotherapy regimen recommended is Pemetrexed based chemotherapy regimen, with or without bevacizumab. There is no consensus on whether patients who have received first-line standard chemotherapy can benefit from pemetrexed maintenance chemotherapy. The study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed maintenance therapy (PMT) after treatment with a pemetrexed and platinum regimen for patients with MPM.

METHODS

A total of 40 MPM patients were collected from Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2013 to January 2018, eligible patients were unresectable MPM, without disease progression following 4 to 6 cycles of pemetrexed and platinum, including pemetrexed maintenance therapy group (22 cases) and observation group (18 cases). The last follow-up was conducted in January 2020. The primary endpoint were progression free survival (PFS), and the secondary end points were overall survival (OS), the efficacy, adverse reactions of PMT.

RESULTS

The median PFS in the PMT arm was longer than that in the observation arm (8.5 mon vs 3 mon, P=0.008), but there was no significant difference in median OS (26.4 mon vs 15.7 mon, P=0.177). Objective response rate (ORR) of two group were 22.7% and 0%, respectively. The grade 3-4 toxicity in PMT group included grade 4 neutropenia in 1 patient (4.5%), grade 3 neutropenia in 1 patient (4.5%), grade 4 anemia in 1 patient (4.5%) and grade 3 nausea and anorexia in 1 patient (4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pemetrexed maintenance therapy following initial pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy improve PFS in patients with MPM, and is well tolerated.

Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

No phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.

FINDINGS

Between May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.

FUNDING

Stand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) - The status of systemic therapy

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) remains a malignancy with poor prognosis. Despite initial disappointing response rates to single-agent chemotherapy, upfront platinum and anti-folate-based combination chemotherapy has remained the backbone of treatment for PM for the last three decades. The role of maintenance chemotherapy remains unclear; switch-maintenance gemcitabine has shown improvements in progression-free but not overall survival. The addition of antiangiogenic agents to chemotherapy yielded modest improvements in survival, both upfront in combination with platinum-pemetrexed, and in the relapsed setting. Immunotherapy, particularly PD-(L)1 inhibitors, has shown important but variable effectiveness in relapsed PM when used as monotherapy, and is an important salvage treatment after first-line chemotherapy. Furthermore, the randomized phase 3 trial of ipilimumab-nivolumab versus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy demonstrated improved overall survival favouring ipilimumab-nivolumab (HR 0.74, 96.6% CI 0.60-0.91; p = 0.0020), establishing this regimen as the new standard first-line treatment for PM, particularly in those with non-epithelioid histology. Increased interest in PM genomics has led to development of novel personalized therapeutics, such as those targeting DNA repair and EZH2 pathways, however with variable outcomes in trials. Targeting the membrane glycoprotein mesothelin and arginine deprivation are other important strategies under ongoing investigation. The field of PM is changing and new treatments bring hope to a largely lethal and poor prognostic malignancy. Despite these developments, current challenges include understanding the role of combination and multimodality treatments, drivers of resistance to treatment, and establishing predictive biomarkers to improve patient selection and treatment sequencing.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors a new player in the therapeutic game of mesothelioma: New reality with new challenges

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and orphan thoracic malignancy, with a poor prognosis as the majority of patients are diagnosed with unresectable MPM, with no significant improvements in the therapeutic strategy for over a decade. However, the recent approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in treatment-naïve patients with unresectable MPM marks a significant step forward and hope for the treatment of this disease. In this narrative review, we discuss the biological rationale to use ICI in the treatment of MPM. We summarize the current evidence for the efficacy of ICI in MPM and discuss several unresolved challenges regarding the use of ICI in this disease, such as the best upfront immune approach in MPM (ICI versus ICI plus chemotherapy), the optimal sequential treatment strategy according to the first-line treatment, and the potential role of predictive biomarkers.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Mesothelioma Patients Treated with Dendritic Cell Therapy in Three Phase I/II Trials

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a fatal neoplasm with, if untreated, poor survival of approximately nine months from diagnosis. Until recently, phase II–III immunotherapy trials did not show any significant benefit. The lack of immunotherapy efficacy can be explained by the fact that mesothelioma is a tumor with an “immune desert” phenotype, meaning a non-inflamed tumor characterized by low T-cell infiltration. By administration of DCs, which were ex-vivo cultured, exposed to (tumor-associated) antigens, and subsequently activated, this “immune desert” phenotype might be turned into an “inflamed” phenotype. Three phase I/II studies have been performed and published using activated DCs, which support this concept. We here report on the long-term survival of patients treated with DCs in three phase I/II studies. Methods: Survival data of the phase I/II trials using DC therapy in MPM patients were obtained and subsequently analyzed. In the first two trials, DCs were loaded with autologous tumor lysate. In the third trial, DCs were loaded with allogeneic mesothelioma tumor cell line lysate. Results: In the three studies combined, 29 patients with MPM were treated with DC vaccination between 2006 and 2015. At data cut-off, the median OS was 27 months (95% CI: 21–47 months). OS at 2 years was 55.2% (95% CI: 39.7–76.6%), and OS at 5 years was 20.7% (95% CI: 10.1–42.2%). Conclusions: The long-term survival of DC therapy in MPM in these three trials is promising, which is the basis for the randomized phase II/III DENIM study. This DENIM study is currently enrolling, and the results of which have to be awaited for definite conclusions.

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.