Investigational Approaches for Mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare, aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis. In view of the poor survival benefit from first-line chemotherapy and the lack of subsequent effective treatment options, there is a strong need for the development of more effective treatment approaches for patients with MPM. This review will provide a comprehensive state of the art of new investigational approaches for mesothelioma. In an introductory section, the etiology, epidemiology, natural history, and standard of care treatment for MPM will be discussed. This review provide an update of the major clinical trials that impact mesothelioma treatment, discuss the impact of novel therapeutics, and provide perspective on where the clinical research in mesothelioma is moving. The evidence was collected by a systematic analysis of the literature (2000–2011) using the databases Medline (National Library of Medicine, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Netherlands), Cochrane Library (Great Britain), National Guideline Clearinghouse (USA), HTA Database (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment – INAHTA), NIH database (USA), International Pleural Mesothelioma Program – WHOLIS (WHO Database), with the following keywords and filters: mesothelioma, guidelines, treatment, surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, review, investigational, drugs. Currently different targeted therapies and biologicals are under investigation for MPM. It is important that the molecular biologic research should first focus on mesothelioma-specific pathways and biomarkers in order to have more effective treatment options for this disease. The use of array technology will be certainly an implicit gain in the identification of new potential prognostic or biomarkers or important pathways in the MPM pathogenesis. Probably a central mesothelioma virtual tissue bank may contribute to the ultimate goal to identify druggable targets and to develop personalized treatment for the MPM patients

Endurance and Resistance Training in Radically Treated Respiratory Cancer patients: A Pilot Study

Introduction. Respiratory cancer and its treatment are known to contribute to muscle weakness and functional impairment. Aim. To assess the effects of rehabilitation in patients with respiratory cancer. Methods. Radically treated respiratory cancer patients were included in a 12-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Results. 16 patients (age: 61 ± 7 years; FEV1: 57 ± 16% pred.) showed a reduced exercise tolerance (VO2max: 56 ± 15% pred.; 6 MWD: 67 ± 11% pred.), muscle force (PImax: 54 ± 22% pred.; QF: 67 ± 16% pred.), and quality of life (CRDQd: 17 ± 5 points; CRDQf: 16 ± 5 points). Exercise tolerance, muscle force, and quality of life improved significantly after rehabilitation. Conclusion. Radically treated patients with respiratory cancer have a decreased exercise capacity, muscle force, and quality of life. 12 weeks of rehabilitation leads to a significant improvement in exercise capacity, respiratory muscle force, and quality of life

Use of archival versus newly collected tumor samples for assessing PD-L1 expression and overall survival : an updated analysis of KEYNOTE-010 trial

Background: In KEYNOTE-010, pembrolizumab versus docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death-1 protein (PD)-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A prespecified exploratory analysis compared outcomes in patients based on PD-L1 expression in archival versus newly collected tumor samples using recently updated survival data. Patients and methods: PD-L1 was assessed centrally by immunohistochemistry (22C3 antibody) in archival or newly collected tumor samples. Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W for 24 months or until progression/intolerable toxicity/other reason. Response was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks, survival every 2 months. Primary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in tumor proportion score (TPS) 50% and 1%; pembrolizumab doses were pooled in this analysis. Results: At date cut-off of 24 March 2017, median follow-up was 31 months (range 23-41) representing 18 additional months of follow-up from the primary analysis. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel continued to improve OS in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-expressing advanced NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) was 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57, 0.77]. Of 1033 patients analyzed, 455(44%) were enrolled based on archival samples and 578 (56%) on newly collected tumor samples. Approximately 40% of archival samples and 45% of newly collected tumor samples were PD-L1 TPS 50%. For TPS 50%, the OS HRs were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.91) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.56) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In patients with TPS 1%, OS HRs were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.93) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.73) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In TPS 50%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.63 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.89)] and newly collected samples [0.53 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.72)]. In patients with TPS 1%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.82 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.02)] and newly collected samples [0.83 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.02)]. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab continued to improve OS over docetaxel in intention to treat population and in subsets of patients with newly collected and archival samples

Rehabilitation in patients with radically treated respiratory cancer: A randomised controlled trial comparing two training modalities.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation in lung cancer patients is limited. Whole body vibration (WBV) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional resistance training (CRT). METHODS: We investigated the effect of radical treatment (RT) and of two rehabilitation programmes in lung cancer patients. The primary endpoint was a change in 6-min walking distance (6MWD) after rehabilitation. Patients were randomised after RT to either CRT, WBVT or standard follow-up (CON). Patients were evaluated before, after RT and after 12 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Of 121 included patients, 70 were randomised to either CON (24), CRT (24) or WBVT (22). After RT, 6MWD decreased with a mean of 38m (95% CI 22-54) and increased with a mean of 95m (95% CI 58-132) in CRT (p<0.0001), 37m (95% CI -1-76) in WBVT (p=0.06) and 1m (95% CI -34-36) in CON (p=0.95), respectively. Surgical treatment, magnitude of decrease in 6MWD by RT and allocation to either CRT or WBVT were prognostic for reaching the minimally clinically important difference of 54m increase in 6MWD after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: RT of lung cancer significantly impairs patients' exercise capacity. CRT significantly improves and restores functional exercise capacity, whereas WBVT does not fully substitute for CRT

Design and rationale of DISCOVER global registry in type 2 diabetes:Real-world insights of treatment patterns and its relationship with cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic multimorbidities

10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2021.108077Journal of Diabetes and its Complications351210807

A randomised phase II study of extended pleurectomy/decortication preceded or followed by chemotherapy in patients with early-stage pleural mesothelioma:EORTC 1205

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma remains controversial. It may be appropriate in highly selected patients as part of a multimodality treatment including chemotherapy. Recent years have seen a shift from extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy toward extended pleurectomy/decortication. The most optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy remains unknown. METHODS: EORTC-1205-LCG was a multicentric, noncomparative phase 2 trial, 1:1 randomising between immediate (arm A) and deferred surgery (arm B), followed or preceded by chemotherapy. Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1) had treatment-naïve, borderline resectable T1-3 N0-1 M0 mesothelioma of any histology. Primary outcome was rate of success at 20 weeks, a composite end-point including 1) successfully completing both treatments within 20 weeks; 2) being alive with no signs of progressive disease; and 3) no residual grade 3-4 toxicity. Secondary end-points were toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival and process indicators of surgical quality. FINDINGS: 69 patients were included in this trial. 56 (81%) patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy and 58 (84%) patients underwent surgery. Of the 64 patients in the primary analysis, 21 out of 30 patients in arm A (70.0%; 80% CI 56.8-81.0%) and 17 out of 34 patients (50.0%; 80% CI 37.8-62.2%) in arm B reached the statistical end-point for rate of success. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.8 (95% CI 8.5-17.2) months and 27.1 (95% CI 22.6-64.3) months in arm A, and 8.0 (95% CI 7.2-21.9) months and 33.8 (95% CI 23.8-44.6) months in arm B. Macroscopic complete resection was obtained in 82.8% of patients. 30- and 90-day mortality were both 1.7%. No new safety signals were found, but treatment-related morbidity was high. INTERPRETATION: EORTC 1205 did not succeed in selecting a preferred sequence of pre- or post-operative chemotherapy. Either procedure is feasible with a low mortality, albeit consistent morbidity. A shared informed decision between surgeon and patient remains essential.</p

Risk of cardiovascular events and death associated with initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors compared with DPP-4 inhibitors:an analysis from the CVD-REAL 2 multinational cohort study

Background Cardiovascular outcome trials have shown cardiovascular benefit with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes, whereas dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have not shown an effect. We aimed to address knowledge gaps regarding the comparative effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitor use in clinical practice (with DPP-4 inhibitor use as an active comparator) across a range of cardiovascular risks and in diverse geographical settings. Methods In this comparative cohort study, we used data from clinical practice from 13 countries in the Asia-Pacific, Middle East, European, and North American regions to assess the risk of cardiovascular events and death in adult patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiated on SGLT2 inhibitors compared with those newly initiated on DPP-4 inhibitors. De-identified health records were used to select patients who were initiated on these drug classes between Dec 1, 2012, and May 1, 2016, with follow-up until Dec 31, 2014, to Nov 30, 2017 (full range; dates varied by country). Non-parsimonious propensity scores for SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were developed for each country and patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor were matched with those who were initiated on a DPP-4 inhibitor in a 1:1 ratio. Outcomes assessed were hospitalisation for heart failure, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by country and then pooled in a weighted meta-analysis. Findings Following propensity score matching, 193 124 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors and 193 124 new users of DPP-4 inhibitors were included in the study population. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 12.2), 170 335 (44.1%) of 386 248 were women, and 111933 (30.1%) of 372 262 had established cardiovascular disease. Initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a DPP-4 inhibitor was associated with substantially lower risks of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0. 61-0. 77; p Interpretation In this large, international, observational study, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with lower risks of heart failure, death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, providing further support for the cardiovascular benefits associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

OC6 Phase I: Investigating the underprediction of low-frequency hydrodynamic loads and responses of a floating wind turbine

Phase I of the OC6 project is focused on examining why offshore wind design tools underpredict the response (loads/motion) of the OC5-DeepCwind semisubmersible at its surge and pitch natural frequencies. Previous investigations showed that the underprediction was primarily related to nonlinear hydrodynamic loading, so two new validation campaigns were performed to separately examine the different hydrodynamic load components. In this paper, we validate a variety of tools against this new test data, focusing on the ability to accurately model the low-frequency loads on a semisubmersible floater when held fixed under wave excitation and when forced to oscillate in the surge direction. However, it is observed that models providing better load predictions in these two scenarios do not necessarily produce a more accurate motion response in a moored configuration.The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the MARINET2 project (European Union’s Horizon 2020 grant agreement 731084), which supplied the tank test time and travel support to accomplish the testing campaign. The support of MARIN in the preparation, execution of the modeltests, and the evaluation of the uncertainties was essential for this study. MARIN’s contribution was partly funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs through TKI-ARD funding programs. This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36- 08GO28308. Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind Energy Technologies Office. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes

Use of archival versus newly collected tumor samples for assessing PD-L1 expression and overall survival: an updated analysis of KEYNOTE-010 trial

Background: In KEYNOTE-010, pembrolizumab versus docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death-1 protein (PD)-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A prespecified exploratory analysis compared outcomes in patients based on PD-L1 expression in archival versus newly collected tumor samples using recently updated survival data. Patients and methods: PD-L1 was assessed centrally by immunohistochemistry (22C3 antibody) in archival or newly collected tumor samples. Patients received pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg Q3W or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Q3W for 24 months or until progression/intolerable toxicity/other reason. Response was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks, survival every 2 months. Primary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and ≥1%; pembrolizumab doses were pooled in this analysis. Results: At date cut-off of 24 March 2017, median follow-up was 31 months (range 23-41) representing 18 additional months of follow-up from the primary analysis. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel continued to improve OS in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-expressing advanced NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) was 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57, 0.77]. Of 1033 patients analyzed, 455(44%) were enrolled based on archival samples and 578 (56%) on newly collected tumor samples. Approximately 40% of archival samples and 45% of newly collected tumor samples were PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. For TPS ≥50%, the OS HRs were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.91) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.56) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In patients with TPS ≥1%, OS HRs were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.93) and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.73) for archival and newly collected samples, respectively. In TPS ≥50%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.63 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.89)] and newly collected samples [0.53 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.72)]. In patients with TPS ≥1%, PFS HRs were similar across archival [0.82 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.02)] and newly collected samples [0.83 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.02)]. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab continued to improve OS over docetaxel in intention to treat population and in subsets of patients with newly collected and archival samples

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups)