BAP1, Wilms' tumor 1, and calretinin in predicting survival and response to first-line chemotherapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma

PURPOSE

There are currently no methods to predict response to chemotherapy in pleural mesothelioma (PM). The aim of this study is to investigate the predictive and prognostic role of BAP1, WT1 and calretinin expression and their combinations in pre-treatment tumor samples by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining.

METHODS

The study included consecutive PM patients treated with chemotherapy alone at a University hospital between 2009 and 2020. BAP1 analyses were performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue samples of the patients, while WT1 and calretinin information were obtained from the histopathological diagnosis records.

RESULTS

Of the total 107 patients included, 64% had loss of BAP1 expression, whereas 77% had WT1 and 86% had calretinin expression. Patients with the presence of BAP1 expression, one or both of the other two markers, or loss of expression of all three markers (unfavorable status) were more likely to not respond to chemotherapy than those with the presence of all three markers or loss of BAP1 expression and expression of one or two other markers (favorable status) (p = 0.001). Median survival time of patients with favorable and unfavorable status was 15 ± 1.7 and 8.0 ± 2.4 months, respectively (p = 0.027). After adjustment for histopathology and stage, loss of BAP1 (HR = 0.54, 95%CI 0.35-0.83), WT1 (1.75, 1.06-2.90), calretinin (2.09, 1.14-3.84) expression and favourable panel (0.50, 0.27-0.92) was associated with prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The IHC biomarkers BAP1, WT1, and calretinin, used in the routine diagnosis of PM and their combinations, are the first biomarkers associated with response to chemotherapy and may be a useful tool to select patients for first-line platinum pemetrexed treatment in PM patients. Validation in a large cohort is ongoing.

The Evolving Therapeutic Landscape for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, prognosis is poor with extremely low 5-year survival rates and limited therapeutic options. Here, we review the current treatment landscape for mesothelioma and highlight promising future therapeutic directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evolving frontline therapeutic options for mesothelioma include VEGF inhibition in combination with chemotherapy and dual immune checkpoint inhibition, with synergisms between the therapies and response prediction via biomarkers also being explored. Evolving experimental treatments for mesothelioma include PARP and ALK inhibitors, dendritic and CAR T-cell therapies, anti-mesothelin vaccines, and oncolytic viral therapies, representing timely advances in the field. The therapeutic landscape for malignant pleural mesothelioma is evolving and preferred treatment in the frontline and later settings will likely evolve with it. However, this does not preclude the evidence for including multi-modal therapies spanning angiogenesis and immune checkpoint inhibitors, and biomarker utilization, in current clinical trials and management.

Current issues in malignant pleural mesothelioma evaluation and management

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an uncommon disease most often associated with occupational asbestos exposure and is steadily increasing in worldwide incidence. Patients typically present at an older age, with advanced clinical stage and other medical comorbidities, making management quite challenging. Despite great efforts, the prognosis of MPM remains poor, especially at progression after initial treatment. Macroscopic complete resection of MPM can be achieved through extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or extended (ie, radical) pleurectomy (e-P/D) in selected patients and can result in prolonged survival when incorporated into a multimodality approach. Given the morbidity associated with surgical resection of MPM, optimizing identification of appropriate patients is essential. Unfortunately, most patients are not candidates for EPP or e-P/D due to advanced stage, age, and/or medical comorbidity. Pemetrexed and platinum combination chemotherapy has become the cornerstone of therapy for patients with unresectable disease because the combination is associated with improved survival and quality of life in treated patients. However, MPM eventually becomes resistant to initial therapy, and benefit to further lines of therapy has not been substantiated in randomized clinical trials. Translational research has provided exciting insights into tumorigenesis, biomarkers, and immune response in MPM, leading to the development of multiple novel therapeutic agents that are currently in clinical trials. These advances hold the promise of a new era in the treatment of MPM and suggest that this disease will not be left behind in the war on cancer.

Expression of Wilms' tumor gene (WT1) is associated with survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

Calretinin and Wilms' tumor gene (WT1) are mesothelial markers routinely used to confirm the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We investigated the prognostic value of calretinin and WT1 expression in predicting survival in a series of patients diagnosed with MPM in our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-two patients diagnosed of MPM were retrospectively reviewed. Calretinin and WT1 were stained for IHC analysis in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections and positivity was considered for tumors with >1 % of tumor cells stained. Survival data were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression was used to evaluate the prognostic value of the variables.

RESULTS

Calretinin IHC expression was positive in 83.7 % of patients and WT1 in 78.1 %. A significant association of calretinin and WT1 expression with epithelial histology was detected (p = 0.030 and p = 0.010). We found a significant increase in OS in patients with epithelial subtype, PS1 and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≤5 (p < 0.05). In the IHC markers analysis, we found a significant increase in OS for patients with WT1 positive expression (16.4 vs. 2.3 m, p = 0.013), but not differences for calretinin expression (16.6 vs. 5.0 months, p = 0.37). In the multivariate analysis, epithelial histology and WT1 remained as significant prognostic factors for survival (p = 0.004 and p = 0.010, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In our series of 52 MPM patients, epithelial histology, PS, NLR and WT1 expression are significant prognostic factors for survival. We concluded that WT1, but not calretinin, is a useful prognostic factor in MPM. The role of WT1 assessment is worth of prospective validation in future studies on MPM.