Approved systemic treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been limited to chemotherapy regimens that have moderate survival benefit with poor outcomes. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has ...shown clinical benefit in other tumour types, including first-line non-small-cell lung cancer. We hypothesised that this regimen would improve overall survival in MPM.
This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study (CheckMate 743) was run at 103 hospitals across 21 countries. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years and older, with previously untreated, histologically confirmed unresectable MPM, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously once every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously once every 6 weeks) for up to 2 years, or platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 intravenously or carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL per min intravenously) once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival among all participants randomly assigned to treatment, and safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02899299, and is closed to accrual.
Between Nov 29, 2016, and April 28, 2018, 713 patients were enrolled, of whom 605 were randomly assigned to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=303) or chemotherapy (n=302). 467 (77%) of 605 participants were male and median age was 69 years (IQR 64–75). At the prespecified interim analysis (database lock April 3, 2020; median follow-up of 29·7 months IQR 26·7–32·9), nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly extended overall survival versus chemotherapy (median overall survival 18·1 months 95% CI 16·8–21·4 vs 14·1 months 12·4–16·2; hazard ratio 0·74 96·6% CI 0·60–0·91; p=0·0020). 2-year overall survival rates were 41% (95% CI 35·1–46·5) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 27% (21·9–32·4) in the chemotherapy group. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 91 (30%) of 300 patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 91 (32%) of 284 treated with chemotherapy. Three (1%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (pneumonitis, encephalitis, and heart failure) and one (<1%) in the chemotherapy group (myelosuppression).
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in overall survival versus standard-of-care chemotherapy, supporting the use of this first-in-class regimen that has been approved in the USA as of October, 2020, for previously untreated unresectable MPM.
Bristol Myers Squibb.
Summary Background Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of ...disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential effect of aggressive local consolidative therapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. We aimed to assess the effect of local consolidative therapy on progression-free survival. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study, eligible patients from three hospitals had histological confirmation of stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastatic disease lesions after first-line systemic therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, had received standard first-line systemic therapy, and had no disease progression before randomisation. First-line therapy was four or more cycles of platinum doublet therapy or 3 or more months of EGFR or ALK inhibitors for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either local consolidative therapy (chemoradiotherapy or resection of all lesions) with or without subsequent maintenance treatment or to maintenance treatment alone, which could be observation only. Maintenance treatment was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic treatment. Randomisation was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, CNS metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR and ALK status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in all patients who were treated and had at least one post-baseline imaging assessment. The study is ongoing but not recruiting participants. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01725165. Findings Between Nov 28, 2012, and Jan 19, 2016, 74 patients were enrolled either during or at the completion of first-line systemic therapy. The study was terminated early after randomisation of 49 patients (25 in the local consolidative therapy group and 24 in the maintenance treatment group) as part of the annual analyses done by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee of all randomised trials at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and before a planned interim analysis of 44 events. At a median follow-up time for all randomised patients of 12·39 months (IQR 5·52–20·30), the median progression-free survival in the local consolidative therapy group was 11·9 months (90% CI 5·7–20·9) versus 3·9 months (2·3–6·6) in the maintenance treatment group (hazard ratio 0·35 90% CI 0·18–0·66, log-rank p=0·0054). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no grade 4 adverse events or deaths due to treatment. Grade 3 adverse events in the maintenance therapy group were fatigue (n=1) and anaemia (n=1) and in the local consolidative therapy group were oesophagitis (n=2), anaemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1, unlikely related). Interpretation Local consolidative therapy with or without maintenance therapy for patients with three or fewer metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved progression-free survival compared with maintenance therapy alone. These findings suggest that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase 3 trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario. Funding MD Anderson Lung Cancer Priority Fund, MD Anderson Cancer Center Moon Shot Initiative, and Cancer Center Support (Core), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma TSAO, Anne S; WISTUBA, Ignacio; ROTH, Jack A ...
Journal of clinical oncology,
04/2009, Volume:
27, Issue:
12
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a deadly disease that occurs in 2,000 to 3,000 people each year in the United States. Although MPM is an extremely difficult disease to treat, with the median ...overall survival ranging between 9 and 17 months regardless of stage, there has been significant progress over the last few years that has reshaped the clinical landscape. This article will provide a comprehensive discussion of the latest developments in the treatment of MPM. We will provide an update of the major clinical trials that impact mesothelioma treatment in the resectable and unresectable settings, discuss the impact of novel therapeutics, and provide perspective on where the clinical research in mesothelioma is moving. In addition, there are controversial issues, such as the role of extrapleural pneumonectomy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus hemithoracic therapy that will also be addressed in this manuscript.
Our previously published findings reported that local consolidative therapy (LCT) with radiotherapy or surgery improved progression-free survival (PFS) and delayed new disease in patients with ...oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that did not progress after front-line systemic therapy. Herein, we present the longer-term overall survival (OS) results accompanied by additional secondary end points.
This multicenter, randomized, phase II trial enrolled patients with stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastases, and no progression at 3 or more months after front-line systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O) or to LCT to all active disease sites. The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points were OS, toxicity, and the appearance of new lesions. All analyses were two sided, and
values less than .10 were deemed significant.
The Data Safety and Monitoring Board recommended early trial closure after 49 patients were randomly assigned because of a significant PFS benefit in the LCT arm. With an updated median follow-up time of 38.8 months (range, 28.3 to 61.4 months), the PFS benefit was durable (median, 14.2 months 95% CI, 7.4 to 23.1 months with LCT
4.4 months 95% CI, 2.2 to 8.3 months with MT/O;
= .022). We also found an OS benefit in the LCT arm (median, 41.2 months 95% CI, 18.9 months to not reached with LCT
17.0 months 95% CI, 10.1 to 39.8 months with MT/O;
= .017). No additional grade 3 or greater toxicities were observed. Survival after progression was longer in the LCT group (37.6 months with LCT
9.4 months with MT/O;
= .034). Of the 20 patients who experienced progression in the MT/O arm, nine received LCT to all lesions after progression, and the median OS was 17 months (95% CI, 7.8 months to not reached).
In patients with oligometastatic NSCLC that did not progress after front-line systemic therapy, LCT prolonged PFS and OS relative to MT/O.
On March 28– 29, 2017, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thoracic Malignacy Steering Committee, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation ...convened the NCI–International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer– Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Mesothelioma Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in Bethesda, Maryland. The goal of the meeting was to bring together lead academicians, clinicians, scientists, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to focus on the development of clinical trials for patients in whom malignant pleural mesothelioma has been diagnosed. In light of the discovery of new cancer targets affecting the clinical development of novel agents and immunotherapies in malignant mesothelioma, the objective of this meeting was to assemble a consensus on at least two or three practice-changing multimodality clinical trials to be conducted through NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network.
Background
Although mindfulness‐based interventions have been widely examined in patients with nonmetastatic cancer, the feasibility and efficacy of these types of programs are largely unknown for ...those with advanced disease. We pilot‐tested a couple‐based meditation (CBM) relative to a supportive‐expressive (SE) and a usual care (UC) arm targeting psychospiritual distress in patients with metastatic lung cancer and their spousal caregivers.
Patients and Methods
Seventy‐five patient‐caregiver dyads completed baseline self‐report measures and were then randomized to one of the three arms. Couples in the CBM and SE groups attended four 60‐minute sessions that were delivered via videoconference. All dyads were reassessed 1 and 3 months later.
Results
A priori feasibility benchmarks were met. Although attendance was high in both groups, dyads in the CBM group indicated greater benefit of the sessions than those in the SE group (patients, CBM mean = 2.63, SE mean = 2.20, p = .003; spouses, CBM mean = 2.71, SE mean = 2.00, p = .005). Compared with the UC group, patients in the CBM group reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p = .05; d = 0.53) and marginally reduced cancer‐related stress (p = .07; d = 0.68). Medium effect sizes in favor of the CBM compared with the SE group for depressive symptoms (d = 0.59) and cancer‐related stress (d = 0.54) were found. Spouses in the CBM group reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p < .01; d = 0.74) compared with those in the UC group.
Conclusion
It seems feasible and possibly efficacious to deliver dyadic interventions via videoconference to couples coping with metastatic lung cancer. Mindfulness‐based interventions may be of value to managing psychological symptoms in the palliative care setting. Clinical trial identification number. NCT02596490
Implications for Practice
The current randomized controlled trial has established that a mindfulness approach to the management of patients’ and spouses’ psychospiritual concerns is acceptable and subjectively deemed more beneficial than a supportive‐expressive treatment for patients with metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We also revealed that videoconference delivery, here FaceTime, is an acceptable approach even for geriatric patients with metastatic NSCLC and that patients and their spousal caregivers prefer a dyadic delivery of this type of supportive care strategy. Lastly, this trial has laid the foundation for the role of mindfulness‐based interventions in the palliative care setting supporting patients with advanced NSCLC and their spousal caregivers.
The feasibility and efficacy of mindfulness‐based interventions for patients with advanced cancer have not been widely examined. This article describes a couple‐based Meditation intervention compared with a supportive expressive intervention and a usual care control group, targeting psychospiritual distress in patients with metastatic lung cancer and their spousal caregivers.
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy with few treatment options. Recent advances have led to US Food and Drug Administration approvals and changes in the standard of care with a ...novel biomedical device approved for use with platinum-pemetrexed, and also for immunotherapy agents to be included as a frontline treatment option in unresectable disease. Although predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not currently in use in clinical practice, it is essential to correctly identify the MPM histology to determine an optimal treatment plan. Patients with nonepithelioid MPM may have a greater magnitude of benefit to dual immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and this regimen should be preferred in the frontline setting for these patients. However, all patients with MPM can derive benefit from immunotherapy treatments, and these agents should ultimately be used at some point during their treatment journey. There are ongoing studies in the frontline unresectable setting that may further define the frontline therapy space, but a critical area of research will need to focus on the immunotherapy refractory population. This review article will describe the new developments in the areas of biology with genomics and chromothripsis, and also focus on updates in treatment strategies in radiology, surgery, radiation, and medical oncology with cellular therapies. These recent innovations are generating momentum to find better therapies for this disease.
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive cancer that arises from the mesothelial surface of the pleural and peritoneal cavities, the pericardium, and rarely, the tunica ...vaginalis. The incidence of MPM is expected to increase worldwide in the next two decades. However, even with the use of multimodality treatment, MPM remains challenging to treat, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 5%. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has gathered experts in different areas of mesothelioma research and management to summarize the most significant scientific advances and new frontiers related to mesothelioma therapeutics.
New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal ...antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma.
DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374.
Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8–8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9–8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 95% CI 0·76–1·12, p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 9% patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 14% patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 15% vs one <1%), and colitis (26 7% vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 18% patients in the tremelimumab group vs one <1% patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 8% vs 24 13%), and colitis (24 6% vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three 1% patients in the tremelimumab group vs two 1% in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three 1% vs two 1%); respiratory failure (one <1% vs three 2%), myocardial infarction (three 1% vs none), lung infection (three 1% patients vs none), cardiac failure (one <1% vs one <1%), and colitis (two <1% vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient.
Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing.
AstraZeneca.
We report a phase II study of 50 advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with point mutations or insertions in EGFR exon 20 treated with poziotinib (NCT03066206). The study achieved its ...primary endpoint, with confirmed objective response rates (ORRs) of 32% and 31% by investigator and blinded independent review, respectively, with a median progression-free survival of 5.5 months. Using preclinical studies, in silico modeling, and molecular dynamics simulations, we found that poziotinib sensitivity was highly dependent on the insertion location, with near-loop insertions (amino acids A767 to P772) being more sensitive than far-loop insertions, an observation confirmed clinically with ORRs of 46% and 0% observed in near versus far-loop, respectively (p = 0.0015). Putative mechanisms of acquired resistance included EGFR T790M, MET amplifications, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Our data demonstrate that poziotinib is active in EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC, although this activity is influenced by insertion location.
Display omitted
•Poziotinib yields a 32% response rate in EGFR exon 20-mutant NSCLC•Poziotinib sensitivity is highly dependent on insertion location•Near-loop exon 20 insertions are more sensitive to poziotinib than far-loop insertions•Mechanisms of acquired poziotinib resistance include EGFR T790M and MET amplifications
Elamin et al. show that poziotinib is active in EGFR exon 20-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. The activity of poziotinib is influenced by insertion location in exon 20, with near-loop insertion being more sensitive than far-loop insertion. Poziotinib acquired resistance is mediated via EGFR-dependent and -independent mechanisms.
PDF
