Multicentre phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a notoriously chemoresistant tumour. However, a recent single institution study showed an impressive activity of gemcitabine and cisplatin. Our aim is to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of a gemcitabine and cisplatin combination in selected and chemo-naive patients with histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma. Method: Gemcitabine 1250 mg m−2 was administered on day 1 and day 8 and cisplatin 80 mg m−2 was administered on day 1 in a 3-week cycle with a maximum of six cycles. Response and toxicity evaluations were performed according to WHO and NCIC-CTC criteria. Pathology and radiology were centrally reviewed. Results show that in 25 evaluable patients, four PR were observed (ORR 16%, 95% CI 1–31%). Responses of seven patients were unevaluable. No unexpected toxicity occurred. Time to progression was 6 months (5–7 months) with a median survival from registration of 9.6 months (95% CI 8–12 months). In conclusion this trial excludes with 90% power a response rate of greater than 30% in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma using a combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin at the proposed dose and schedule

Cisplatin and vinorelbine first-line chemotherapy in non-resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma

The aim was to evaluate the activity of cisplatin and vinorelbine in previously untreated, inoperable patients having histologically verified malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), normal organ function, and performance status 0–2. Treatment was vinorelbine 25 mg m−2 i.v. weekly and cisplatin 100 mg m−2 i.v. every 4 weeks with hydration and standard prophylactic antiemetic treatment. Patients gave written informed consent. Characteristics of 54 consecutive patients were: males 85%, epithelial subtype 74%, IMIG stages III and IV 35 and 46%, performance status 0, 1, and 2, 26, 69, and 6%, and median age 63 years (31–78 years). CTC grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred with respect to leukocytopenia (48% of patients, grade 4 in 13%), nausea (13%), neurotoxicity (11%), nephrotoxicity (4%), and other toxicities (9%). There were no toxic deaths. The median number of cycles was four. The fraction of patients alive at 1-, 2-, and 3-years were 61, 31, and 4%, respectively, and median survival and median time to progression were 16.8 months (0.5 to 46.4 +months) and 7.2 months (1.6 to 40.6 + months). There were two CRs and 14 PRs (response rate 29.6%). Cisplatin and intravenous vinorelbine is a highly active regimen in MPM with a response rate and survival comparable to the most active regimens so far reported

Systemic Treatments for Mesothelioma: Standard and Novel

Systemic therapy is the only treatment option for the majority of mesothelioma patients, for whom age, co-morbid medical illnesses, non-epithelial histology, and locally advanced disease often preclude surgery. For many years, chemotherapy had a minimal impact on the natural history of this cancer, engendering considerable nihilism. Countless drugs were evaluated, most of which achieved response rates below 20% and median survival of <1 year. Several factors have hampered the evaluation of systemic regimens in patients with mesothelioma. The disease is uncommon, affecting only about 2500 Americans annually. Thus, most clinical trials are small, and randomized studies are challenging to accrue. There is significant heterogeneity within the patient populations of these small trials, for several reasons. Since all of the staging systems for mesothelioma are surgically based, it is almost impossible to accurately determine the stage of a patient who has not been resected. Patients with very early stage disease may be lumped together with far more advanced patients in the same study. The disease itself is heterogenous, with many different prognostic factors, most notably three pathologic subtypes—epithelial, sarcomatoid, and biphasic—that have different natural histories, and varying responses to treatment. Finally, response assessment is problematic, since pleural-based lesions are difficult to measure accurately and reproducibly. Assessment criteria often vary between trials, making some cross-trial comparisons difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, in recent years, there has been a surge of optimism regarding systemic treatment of this disease. Several cytotoxic agents have been shown to generate reproducible responses, improve quality of life, or prolong survival in mesothelioma. Drugs with single-agent activity include pemetrexed, raltitrexed, vinorelbine, and vinflunine. The addition of pemetrexed or raltitrexed to cisplatin prolongs survival. The addition of cisplatin to pemetrexed, raltitrexed, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or vinorelbine improves response rate. The combination of pemetrexed plus cisplatin is considered the benchmark front-line regimen for this disease, based on a phase III trial in 456 patients that yielded a response rate of 41% and a median survival of 12.1 months. Vitamin supplementation with folic acid is essential to decrease toxicity, though recent data suggests that there may be an optimum dose of folic acid that should be administered; higher doses may diminish the effectiveness of pemetrexed. There are also several unresolved questions about the duration and timing of treatment with pemetrexed that are the subject of planned clinical trials. It is essential to recognize that the improvements observed with the pemetrexed/cisplatin combination, though real, are still modest. Other active drugs or drug combinations may be more appropriate for specific individuals, and further research is still needed to improve upon these results. Since the majority of mesotheliomas in the United States occur in the elderly, non-cisplatin-containing pemetrexed combinations may be more appropriate for some patients. Now that effective agents have been developed for initial treatment, several classical cytotoxic drugs and many novel agents are being evaluated in the second-line setting. These include drugs targeted against the epidermal growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, src kinase, histone deacetylase, the proteasome, and mesothelin. Given the progress made in recent years, there is reason to believe that more effective treatments will continue to be developed

A multicentre phase II study of cisplatin and gemcitabine for malignant mesothelioma

Our previous phase II study of cisplatin and gemcitabine in malignant mesothelioma showed a 47.6% (95% CI 26.2–69.0%) response rate with symptom improvement in responding patients. Here we confirm these findings in a multicentre setting, and assess the effect of this treatment on quality of life and pulmonary function. Fifty-three patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma received cisplatin 100 mg m−2 i.v. day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 i.v. days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28 day cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Quality of life and pulmonary function were assessed at each cycle. The best response achieved in 52 assessable patients was: partial response, 17 (33%, 95% CI 20–46%); stable disease, 31 (60%); and progressive disease, four (8%). The median time to disease progression was 6.4 months, median survival from start of treatment 11.2 months, and median survival from diagnosis 17.3 months. Vital capacity and global quality of life remained stable in all patients and improved significantly in responding patients. Major toxicities were haematological, limiting the mean relative dose intensity of gemcitabine to 75%. This schedule of cisplatin and gemcitabine is active in malignant mesothelioma in a multicentre setting. Investigation of alternative scheduling is needed to decrease haematological toxicity and increase the relative dose intensity of gemcitabine whilst maintaining response rate and quality of life

Chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: past results and recent developments

PubMedWo

INSPIRE: A phase III study of the BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25) in Asian patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous research suggests the therapeutic cancer vaccine L-BLP25 potentially provides a survival benefit in patients with locally advanced unresectable stage III non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). These promising findings prompted the phase III study, INSPIRE, in patients of East-Asian ethnicity. East-Asian ethnicity is an independent favourable prognostic factor for survival in NSCLC. The favourable prognosis is most likely due to a higher incidence of EGFR mutations among this patient population.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The primary objective of the INSPIRE study is to assess the treatment effect of L-BLP25 plus best supportive care (BSC), as compared to placebo plus BSC, on overall survival time in East-Asian patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and either documented stable disease or an objective response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria following primary chemoradiotherapy. Those in the L-BLP25 arm will receive a single intravenous infusion of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m²) 3 days before the first L-BLP25 vaccination, with a corresponding intravenous infusion of saline to be given in the control arm. A primary treatment phase of 8 subcutaneous vaccinations of L-BLP25 930 μg or placebo at weekly intervals will be followed by a maintenance treatment phase of 6-weekly vaccinations continued until disease progression or discontinuation from the study.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The ongoing INSPIRE study is the first large study of a therapeutic cancer vaccine specifically in an East-Asian population. It evaluates the potential of maintenance therapy with L-BLP25 to prolong survival in East-Asian patients with stage III NSCLC where there are limited treatment options currently available.</p> <p>Study number</p> <p>EMR 63325-012</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov reference: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01015443">NCT01015443</a></p

A randomised controlled trial of intravenous zoledronic acid in malignant pleural disease: A proof of principle pilot study

© 2015 Clive et al. Introduction: Animal studies have shown Zoledronic Acid (ZA) may diminish pleural fluid accumulation and tumour bulk in malignant pleural disease (MPD). We performed a pilot study to evaluate its effects in humans. Methods: We undertook a single centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with MPD. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive 2 doses of intravenous ZA or placebo, 3 weeks apart and were followed-up for 6 weeks. The co-primary outcomes were change in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score measured breathlessness during trial follow-up and change in the initial area under the curve (iAUC) on thoracic Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) from randomisation to week 5. Multiple secondary endpoints were also evaluated. Results: Between January 2010 and May 2013, 30 patients were enrolled, 24 randomised and 4 withdrew after randomisation (1 withdrew consent; 3 had a clinical decline). At baseline, the ZA group were more breathless, had more advanced disease on radiology and worse quality of life than the placebo group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regards change in breathlessness (Adjusted mean difference (AMD) 4.16 (95%CI -4.7 to 13.0)) or change in DCE-MRI iAUC (AMD -15.4 (95%CI -58.1 to 27.3). Two of nine (22%) in the ZA arm had a >10% improvement by modified RECIST (vs 0/11 who received placebo). There was no significant difference in quality of life measured by the QLQ-C30 score (global QOL: AMD -4.1 (-13.0 to 4.9)), side effects or serious adverse event rates. Conclusions: This is the first human study to evaluate ZA in MPD. The study is limited by small numbers and imbalanced baseline characteristics. Although no convincing treatment effect was identified, potential benefits for specific subgroups of patients cannot be excluded. This study provides important information regarding the feasibility of future trials to evaluate the effects of ZA further. Trial Registration: UK Clinical Research Network ID 8877 ISRCTN17030426 www.isrctn.com

Genetic Variations in the Regulator of G-Protein Signaling Genes Are Associated with Survival in Late-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) pathway plays an important role in signaling transduction, cellular activities, and carcinogenesis. We hypothesized that genetic variations in RGS gene family may be associated with the response of late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients to chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. We selected 95 tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 17 RGS genes and genotyped them in 598 late-stage NSCLC patients. Thirteen SNPs were significantly associated with overall survival. Among them, rs2749786 of RGS12 was most significant. Stratified analysis by chemotherapy or chemoradiation further identified SNPs that were associated with overall survival in subgroups. Rs2816312 of RGS1 and rs6689169 of RGS7 were most significant in chemotherapy group and chemoradiotherapy group, respectively. A significant cumulative effect was observed when these SNPs were combined. Survival tree analyses identified potential interactions between rs944343, rs2816312, and rs1122794 in affecting survival time in patients treated with chemotherapy, while the genotype of rs6429264 affected survival in chemoradiation-treated patients. To our knowledge, this is the first study to reveal the importance of RGS gene family in the survival of late-stage NSCLC patients

Malignant mesothelioma

Malignant mesothelioma is a fatal asbestos-associated malignancy originating from the lining cells (mesothelium) of the pleural and peritoneal cavities, as well as the pericardium and the tunica vaginalis. The exact prevalence is unknown but it is estimated that mesotheliomas represent less than 1% of all cancers. Its incidence is increasing, with an expected peak in the next 10–20 years. Pleural malignant mesothelioma is the most common form of mesothelioma. Typical presenting features are those of chest pain and dyspnoea. Breathlessness due to a pleural effusion without chest pain is reported in about 30% of patients. A chest wall mass, weight loss, sweating, abdominal pain and ascites (due to peritoneal involvement) are less common presentations. Mesothelioma is directly attributable to occupational asbestos exposure with a history of exposure in over 90% of cases. There is also evidence that mesothelioma may result from both para-occupational exposure and non-occupational "environmental" exposure. Idiopathic or spontaneous mesothelioma can also occur in the absence of any exposure to asbestos, with a spontaneous rate in humans of around one per million. A combination of accurate exposure history, along with examination radiology and pathology are essential to make the diagnosis. Distinguishing malignant from benign pleural disease can be challenging. The most helpful CT findings suggesting malignant pleural disease are 1) a circumferential pleural rind, 2) nodular pleural thickening, 3) pleural thickening of > 1 cm and 4) mediastinal pleural involvement. Involvement of a multidisciplinary team is recommended to ensure prompt and appropriate management, using a framework of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery and symptom palliation with end of life care. Compensation issues must also be considered. Life expectancy in malignant mesothelioma is poor, with a median survival of about one year following diagnosis

Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond

In oncology, prognostic markers are clinical measures used to help elicit an individual patient's risk of a future outcome, such as recurrence of disease after primary treatment. They thus facilitate individual treatment choice and aid in patient counselling. Evidence-based results regarding prognostic markers are therefore very important to both clinicians and their patients. However, there is increasing awareness that prognostic marker studies have been neglected in the drive to improve medical research. Large protocol-driven, prospective studies are the ideal, with appropriate statistical analysis and clear, unbiased reporting of the methods used and the results obtained. Unfortunately, published prognostic studies rarely meet such standards, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often only able to draw attention to the paucity of good-quality evidence. We discuss how better-quality prognostic marker evidence can evolve over time from initial exploratory studies, to large protocol-driven primary studies, and then to meta-analysis or even beyond, to large prospectively planned pooled analyses and to the initiation of tumour banks. We highlight articles that facilitate each stage of this process, and that promote current guidelines aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of prognostic marker research. We also outline why collaborative, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary teams should be an essential part of future studies