The efficacy of pemetrexed and bevacizumab intrapleural injection for malignant pleural mesothelioma-mediated malignant pleural effusion

First-line treatment of driver gene-negative metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with malignant pleural effusion: Should chemotherapy be combined with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or bevacizumab?

Patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma (MLA) and malignant pleural effusion (MPE) without driver gene mutations have a poor prognosis. None of the standard treatment strategies is recommended for such patients. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of the first-line treatment for this specific population: standard platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (CT), CT plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor (CT plus ICI), and CT plus bevacizumab (CT plus Bev). A total of 323 eligible patients were enrolled: CT alone (n = 166), CT plus Bev (n = 72), and CT plus ICI (n = 85). Treatment efficacy assessments were performed every two cycles according to the RECIST guidelines. The endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Kaplan-Meier (K‒M) curves and the log-rank test were used to compare OS and PFS. p < 0.05 was the threshold of significance (statistical software: SPSS). The median follow-up was 11.4 months (range, 2.1-49.6 months). PFS and OS in the CT plus ICI/CT plus Bev cohort were significantly longer than those in the CT group (PFS: 7.8/6.4/3.9 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 16.4/15.6/9.6 months, p < 0.0001, respectively). CT plus Bev had better PFS and OS than CT plus ICI/CT in PD-L1 < 1% patients (PFS: 8.4/5.0/3.8 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 15.6/12.9/9.3 months, p < 0.0001). Among patients with PD-L1 1-49%, CT plus ICI led to a longer PFS and OS (PFS: 8.9/5.8/4.2 months, p = 0.009; OS: 24.2/18.8/11.5 months, p = 0.03). In the cohort with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, CT plus ICI was still the best first-line treatment (PFS: 19.7/13.8/9.6 months, p = 0.033; OS: 27.2/19.6/14.9 months, p = 0.047). In driver gene-negative MLA with MPE, CT plus Bev or ICI better controlled MPE and significantly prolonged survival compared to CT alone. PD-L1 expression (negative/positive) may be a key factor influencing the choice of CT plus Bev or ICI.

Management of Pleural Effusion Secondary to Malignant Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly aggressive pleural tumour which has been epidemiologically linked to occupational exposure to asbestos. MPM is often associated with pleural effusion, which is a common cause of morbidity and whose management remains a clinical challenge. In this review, we analysed the literature regarding the diagnosis and therapeutic options of pleural effusion secondary to mesothelioma. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive view on this subject, and a new algorithm was proposed as a practical aid to clinicians dealing with patients suffering from pleural effusion.

Better efficacy of intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab with pemetrexed for malignant pleural effusion mediated from nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

Background and objective

Several clinical trials have reported that intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab with or without cisplatin exhibits encouraging efficacy in nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) patients with malignant serous cavity effusion. However, most of the studies included a number of different types of cancers or different hydrops types rather than focusing on one. In addition, no study reported the efficacy and toxicity of intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab and pemetrexed for advanced NS-NSCLC patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE).

Patients and methods

We retrospectively collected patients with MPE mediated from NS-NSCLC who underwent intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab between August 2012 and February 2017. According to the different combined agents with bevacizumab, we divide patients into two groups: Group 1 (BP Group) intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab combined with pemetrexed and Group 2 (BD group) intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab combined with cisplatin.

Results

A total of 45 patients were enrolled in this study. Twenty-two of them received intrapleuralinfusion of bevacizumab and pemetrexed every 2 weeks, 23 received bevacizumab and cisplatin after draining effusion as much as possible. The progression-free survival for patients in BP group was significantly higher than BD group (P < 0.05) while the overall survival between the two groups was not significantly different (P > 0.05). In addition, there was no statistical difference in adverse effects between two groups.

Conclusion

Intrapleural infusion of bevacizumab and pemetrexed is effective and tolerable for patients with MPE mediated from NSCLC.

Greater efficacy of intracavitary infusion of bevacizumab compared to traditional local treatments for patients with malignant cavity serous effusion

Intracavitary infusion of bevacizumab is one effective treatment for malignant serous cavity effusion (MSCE). In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of local treatments in 996 advanced cancer patients with MSCE who received paracentesis and intracavitary bevacizumab, or chemotherapy, biological response modifiers, or simple puncture to drain the effusion. The median progression-free survival (PFS) time in patients treated with bevacizumab was 189 days (range, 13-522 days), which was longer than in patients who received one of the other three treatments (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that intracavitary infusion of bevacizumab was advantageous for patients with malignant pleural, pericardial, or peritoneal effusions. The median PFS in patients receiving intracavitary bevacizumab did not significantly differ from that of patients receiving a combination of intracavitary and intravenous bevacizumab. Thus the efficacy did not depend on whether patients received intravenous bevacizumab. Only mild related adverse events were observed in all cases, and they did not differ between groups. Proteinuria (severity grade < 3) was most likely to occur in patients who received a combination of intracavitary and intravenous bevacizumab, but no obvious symptoms were observed. Thus, intracavitary infusion of bevacizumab was effective for controlling MSCE without apparent toxicity.

Intrapericardial bevacizumab safely and effectively treats malignant pericardial effusion in advanced cancer patients

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of intrapericardial bevacizumab (BEV) for treating symptomatic malignant pericardiac effusion (MPCE) in seven advanced cancer patients. All patients had previously undergone multiple lines of systemic therapy. Each patient received paracentesis and intrapericardial infusions of 100 or 200 mg of BEV every two weeks. Systemic treatments for primary tumors continued for all patients during BEV treatment. Of the seven patients, three achieved a complete response, two achieved a partial response, and two showed no response with regard to MPCE after BEV infusion. The median overall survival time was 168 days (range, 22-224 days). In six of the seven patients, effusion did not recur before death. Toxicity associated with BEV treatment was mild and manageable in all patients. This study provides preliminary evidence that intrapericardial BEV may be an effective and safe treatment for MPCE in patients with advanced cancers.

Closing faucets: the role of anti-angiogenic therapies in malignant pleural diseases

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) represents 15-35 % of pleural effusions and markedly worsens the prognosis and quality of life of patients with cancer. Malignant mesothelioma (MM) and lung adenocarcinoma are the most frequent primary and secondary causes, respectively, of MPE. Effective treatments for cancer-related MPE are warranted in order to improve symptoms, reduce the number of invasive pleural procedures, and prolong patient life. Since angiogenesis plays a key role in MPE development, the potential role of bevacizumab and other anti-angiogenic therapies have been explored in this review. No relevant phase III trials have specifically analysed the benefit from adding bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy in lung cancer-related MPE. However, small retrospective series reported 71.4-93.3 % MPE control rate, a reduction in invasive procedures, and a safe profile with this combination. Being approved for the first-line treatment of non-squamous advanced NSCLC, the addition of bevacizumab should be considered for patients presenting with MPE. In addition, further studies in this are recommended. In MM, the addition of bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy did not meet primary endpoints in two phase II trials. However, the beneficial results on OS reported in comparison with historical cohorts and the statistically significant benefit on PFS and OS observed in the phase III MAPS trial foretell an eventual role for the combination of platinum/pemetrexed/bevacizumab as front-line systemic therapy for pleural MM. To date, no other anti-angiogenic drug has showed significant benefit in the treatment of patients with either MPE or MM. However, new promising drugs such as ramucirumab or recombinant human endostar warrant further investigation.