Search

Includes peptide sequences for WT1 vaccine

PDF file - 39K

Purpose: This first-in-human phase I trial assessed the safety, tolerability, and preliminary antitumor activity of apitolisib (GDC-0980), a dual inhibitor of class I PI3K, and mTOR kinases.Experimental Design: Once-daily oral apitolisib was administered to patients with solid tumors for days 1 to 21 or 1 to 28 of 28-day cycles. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were assessed.Results: Overall, 120 patients were treated at doses between 2 and 70 mg. The commonest ≥G3 toxicities related to apitolisib at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) at 40 mg once daily included hyperglycemia (18%), rash (14%), liver dysfunction (12%), diarrhea (10%), pneumonitis (8%), mucosal inflammation (6%), and fatigue (4%). Dose-limiting toxicities (1 patient each) were G4 fasting hyperglycemia at 40 mg (21/28 schedule) and G3 maculopapular rash and G3 fasting hyperglycemia at 70 mg (21/28 schedule). The pharmacokinetic profile was dose-proportional. Phosphorylated serine-473 AKT levels were suppressed by ≥90% in platelet-rich plasma within 4 hours at the MTD (50 mg). Pharmacodynamic decreases in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography uptake of >25% occurred in 66% (21/32) of patients dosed at 40 mg once daily. Evidence of single-agent activity included 10 RECIST partial responses (PR; confirmed for peritoneal mesothelioma, PIK3CA mutant head-and-neck cancer, and three pleural mesotheliomas).Conclusions: Apitolisib exhibited dose-proportional pharmacokinetics with target modulation at doses ≥16 mg. The RP2D was 40 mg once-daily 28/28 schedule; severe on-target toxicities were apparent at ≥40 mg, particularly pneumonitis. Apitolisib was reasonably tolerated at 30 mg, the selected dose for pleural mesothelioma patients given limited respiratory reserve. Modest but durable antitumor activity was demonstrated. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2874–84. ©2016 AACR.

PDF file - 55K

Displays historical survival from multimodality cohorts that were used to set expected outcomes.

Data from an individual patient showing CD8 immune response to both native and heteroclitic peptides.

Supplementary Table 1. Dose reductions and discontinuations in stage 2 Supplementary Table 2. Pharmacokinetic parameters of apitolisib Supplementary Table 3. Summary of radiological responses at the recommended phase 2 doses of 40mg and 30mg 28/28 day schedule for solid tumors and malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients, respectively. Supplementary Table 4. Characteristics of pleural mesothelioma patients treated with apitolisib Supplementary Figure 1: Apitolisib study schematic Supplementary Figure 2 (A) Waterfall of FDG-PET responses to apitolisib for subjects with higher (black bars) or lower (grey bars) steady-state AUC0-24h than the median exposure for the RP2D of 40 mg QD. (B) The corresponding change in pre-scan fasting blood glucose (FBG) for each patient relative to baseline values during PET procedure. Supplementary Figure 3 CT thorax and MRI pelvis images demonstrate confirmed partial response in E545K PIK3CA mutant clear cell ovarian carcinoma with lung and right common iliac lymphadenopathy on third line apitolisib.

Purpose: Determine the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate among patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) receiving the WT1 peptide vaccine galinpepimut-S after multimodality therapy versus those receiving control adjuvants.Experimental Design: This double-blind, controlled, two center phase II trial randomized MPM patients after surgery and another treatment modality to galinpepimut-S with GM-CSF and Montanide or GM-CSF and Montanide alone. An improvement in 1-year PFS from 50% to 70% was the predefined efficacy threshold, and 78 patients total were planned. The study was not powered for comparison between the two arms.Results: Forty-one patients were randomized. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, self-limited, and not clinically significant. On the basis of a stringent prespecified futility analysis (futility = ≥10 of 20 patients on one arm experiencing progression < 1 year), the control arm closed early. The treatment arm was subsequently closed because of the resultant unblinding. The PFS rate at 1 year from beginning study treatment was 33% and 45% in the control and vaccine arms, respectively. Median PFS was 7.4 months versus 10.1 months and median OS was 18.3 months versus 22.8 months in the control and vaccine arms, respectively.Conclusions: The favorable safety profile was confirmed. PFS and OS were greater in those who received vaccine, but the trial was neither designed nor powered for comparison between the arms. On the basis of these promising results, the investigators are planning a larger randomized trial with greater statistical power to define the optimal use and benefit of galinpepimut-S in the treatment of MPM. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7483–9. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose: This phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy of temozolomide in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC).Experimental Design: Patients with disease progression after one or two prior chemotherapy regimens received temozolomide at 75 mg/m2/d for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate [ORR; complete response (CR) plus partial response (PR)], which was evaluated separately in sensitive and refractory cohorts. In the available tissue, we assessed O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status by PCR and MGMT expression by immunohistochemistry.Results: Sixty-four patients were accrued: 48 patients in the sensitive cohort and 16 in the refractory group. One CR and 10 PRs were noted in sensitive patients [ORR, 23%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12%–37%]. Two PRs were seen in the refractory cohort (ORR, 13%; 95% CI, 2%–38%). As second- and third-line treatment, the ORR was 22% (95% CI, 9%–40%) and 19% (95% CI, 7%–36%), respectively. Among patients with target brain lesions, 38% had a CR or PR (95% CI, 14%–68%). Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were observed in nine patients (14%). A greater number of cases with methylated MGMT had a response compared to those with unmethylated MGMT (38% vs. 7%; P = 0.08).Conclusion: Temozolomide has activity in relapsed SCLC, particularly for brain metastases. Response to temozolomide may correlate with MGMT methylation in SCLC. Clin Cancer Res; 18(4); 1138–45. ©2012 AACR.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may vary substantially in their clinical presentation, including natural history, outcomes to treatment, and patterns. The application of clinical guidelines for irAE management can be challenging for practitioners due to a lack of common or consistently applied terminology. Furthermore, given the growing body of clinical experience and published data on irAEs, there is a greater appreciation for the heterogeneous natural histories, responses to treatment, and patterns of these toxicities, which is not currently reflected in irAE guidelines. Furthermore, there are no prospective trial data to inform the management of the distinct presentations of irAEs. Recognizing a need for uniform terminology for the natural history, response to treatment, and patterns of irAEs, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a consensus panel composed of leading international experts from academic medicine, industry, and regulatory agencies. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, the expert panel developed clinical definitions for irAE terminology used in the literature, encompassing terms related to irAE natural history (ie, re-emergent, chronic active, chronic inactive, delayed/late onset), response to treatment (ie, steroid unresponsive, steroid dependent), and patterns (ie, multisystem irAEs). SITC developed these definitions to support the adoption of a standardized vocabulary for irAEs, which will have implications for the uniform application of irAE clinical practice guidelines and to enable future irAE clinical trials.

Pre-clinical studies indicated that arginine-deprivation therapy using pegylated arginine deiminase (pegargiminase, ADI-PEG 20) may be effective in patients with argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1)-deficient small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).Patients were enrolled into either a 'sensitive' disease cohort (≥ 90 days response to first-line chemotherapy) or a 'refractory' disease cohort (progression while on chemotherapy or 90 days afterwards or ≥ third-line treatment). Patients received weekly intramuscular pegargiminase, 320 IU/mBetween January 2011 and January 2014, 22 patients were enrolled: 9 in the sensitive disease cohort and 13 in the refractory disease cohort. At a pre-planned interim analysis, the best overall response observed was stable disease in 2 patients in each cohort (18.2%). Owing to the lack of response and slow accrual in the sensitive disease cohort, the study was terminated early. Pegargiminase treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected adverse events or discontinuations.Although pegargiminase monotherapy in SCLC failed to meet its primary endpoint of RECIST-confirmed responses, more recent molecular stratification, including MYC status, may provide new opportunities moving forward.

Purpose Both temozolomide (TMZ) and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are active in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This phase II, randomized, double-blind study evaluated whether addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib to TMZ improves 4-month progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods A total of 104 patients with recurrent SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral veliparib or placebo 40 mg twice daily, days 1 to 7, and oral TMZ 150 to 200 mg/m2/day, days 1 to 5, of a 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Response was determined by imaging at weeks 4 and 8, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Improvement in PFS at 4 months was the primary end point. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability of veliparib with TMZ. Exploratory objectives included PARP-1 and SLFN11 immunohistochemical expression, MGMT promoter methylation, and circulating tumor cell quantification. Results No significant difference in 4-month PFS was noted between TMZ/veliparib (36%) and TMZ/placebo (27%; P = .19); median OS was also not improved significantly with TMZ/veliparib (8.2 months; 95% CI, 6.4 to 12.2 months; v 7.0 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 9.5 months; P = .50). However, ORR was significantly higher in patients receiving TMZ/veliparib compared with TMZ/placebo (39% v 14%; P = .016). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia more commonly occurred with TMZ/veliparib: 50% versus 9% and 31% versus 7%, respectively. Significantly prolonged PFS (5.7 v 3.6 months; P = .009) and OS (12.2 v 7.5 months; P = .014) were observed in patients with SLFN11-positive tumors treated with TMZ/veliparib. Conclusion Four-month PFS and median OS did not differ between the two arms, whereas a significant improvement in ORR was observed with TMZ/veliparib. SLFN11 expression was associated with improved PFS and OS in patients receiving TMZ/veliparib, suggesting a promising biomarker of PARP-inhibitor sensitivity in SCLC.

Purpose: Determine the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate among patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) receiving the WT1 peptide vaccine galinpepimut-S after multimodality therapy versus those receiving control adjuvants. Experimental Design: This double-blind, controlled, two center phase II trial randomized MPM patients after surgery and another treatment modality to galinpepimut-S with GM-CSF and Montanide or GM-CSF and Montanide alone. An improvement in 1-year PFS from 50% to 70% was the predefined efficacy threshold, and 78 patients total were planned. The study was not powered for comparison between the two arms. Results: Forty-one patients were randomized. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, self-limited, and not clinically significant. On the basis of a stringent prespecified futility analysis (futility = ≥10 of 20 patients on one arm experiencing progression < 1 year), the control arm closed early. The treatment arm was subsequently closed because of the resultant unblinding. The PFS rate at 1 year from beginning study treatment was 33% and 45% in the control and vaccine arms, respectively. Median PFS was 7.4 months versus 10.1 months and median OS was 18.3 months versus 22.8 months in the control and vaccine arms, respectively. Conclusions: The favorable safety profile was confirmed. PFS and OS were greater in those who received vaccine, but the trial was neither designed nor powered for comparison between the arms. On the basis of these promising results, the investigators are planning a larger randomized trial with greater statistical power to define the optimal use and benefit of galinpepimut-S in the treatment of MPM. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7483–9. ©2017 AACR.

Introduction Higher target conformity and better sparing of organs at risk with modern radiotherapy (RT) may result in higher tumor control and less toxicity. In this study, we compare our institutional multimodality therapy experience of adjuvant chemotherapy and hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural RT (IMPRINT) with previously used adjuvant conventional RT (CONV) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) treated with lung-sparing pleurectomy/decortication (P/D). Methods We analyzed 209 patients who underwent P/D and adjuvant RT (131 who received CONV and 78 who received IMPRINT) for MPM between 1974 and 2015. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used to calculate OS; competing risks analysis was performed for local failure-free survival and progression-free survival. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were performed with relevant clinical and treatment factors. Results The median age was 64 years, and 80% of the patients were male. Patients receiving IMPRINT had significantly higher rates of the epithelial histological type, advanced pathological stage, and chemotherapy treatment. OS was significantly higher after IMPRINT (median 20.2 versus 12.3 months, p = 0.001). Higher Karnofsky performance score, epithelioid histological type, macroscopically complete resection, and use of chemotherapy/IMPRINT were found to be significant factors for longer OS in multivariate analysis. No significant predictive factors were identified for local failure or progression. Grade 2 or higher esophagitis developed in fewer patients after IMPRINT than after CONV (23% versus 47%). Conclusions Trimodality therapy including adjuvant hemithoracic IMPRINT, chemotherapy, and P/D is associated with promising OS rates and decreased toxicity in patients with MPM. Dose constraints should be applied vigilantly to minimize serious adverse events.

Background The real-world effect of anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapies is unclear. We compared US patients who received second-line therapy for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and shortly after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of PD-L1 inhibitors. Patients and Methods Patients in the Flatiron Health database (≥18 years; received first-line platinum therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC; ≥6 months of follow-up) were assessed before (“historical”: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013) and after (“current”: January 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017) FDA approval of anti–PD-L1 therapies for NSCLC. Index was start of second-line therapy. Baseline variables, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) were reported. Results A greater proportion of patients in the current cohort received second-line treatment than in the historical cohort (n = 4240 [57.0%] vs. n = 2357 [37.4%]); 48.8% [n = 2071] of the current second-line patients received anti–PD-L1 therapy. Current patients were more likely to receive second-line anti–PD-L1 therapy if they had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (≥2), had squamous histology, or had no epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), or ROS proto-oncogene 1 mutations. Median OS from index was higher in the current cohort (9.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.9-9.9] months) than the historical cohort (7.3 [95% CI, 6.9-7.8] months). Adjusted for sex, race, ECOG performance status, disease stage, and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog, EGFR, and ALK status, OS was improved by 15% in the current cohort. Conclusion Contemporary patients are more likely to receive second-line therapy and have longer OS than patients who received care before approval of anti–PD-L1 therapies.

Background Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) accounts for approximately 3% of lung cancers. Pathologic classification and optimal therapies are debated. We report the clinicopathologic features, treatment and survival of a series of patients with stage IV LCNEC. Materials and Methods Cases of pathologically-confirmed stage IV LCNEC evaluated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2006 to 2013 were identified. We collected demographic, treatment, and survival data. Available radiology was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Results Forty-nine patients with stage IV LCNEC were identified. The median age was 64 years, 63% of patients were male, and 88% were smokers. Twenty-three patients (n = 23/49; 47%) had brain metastases, 17 at diagnosis and 6 during the disease course. Seventeen LCNEC patients (35%) had molecular testing, of which 24% had KRAS mutations (n = 4/17). Treatment data for first-line metastatic disease was available on 37 patients: 70% (n = 26) received platinum/etoposide and 30% (n = 11) received other regimens. RECIST was completed on 23 patients with available imaging; objective response rate was 37% (95% confidence interval, 16%-62%) with platinum/etoposide, while those treated with other first-line regimens did not achieve a response. Median overall survival was 10.2 months (95% confidence interval, 8.6-16.4 months) for the entire cohort. Conclusion Patients with stage IV LCNEC have a high incidence of brain metastases. KRAS mutations are common. Patients with stage IV LCNEC do not respond as well to platinum/etoposide compared with historic data for extensive stage small-cell lung cancer; however, the prognosis is similar. Prospective studies are needed to define optimum therapy for stage IV LCNEC.

Despite the paucity of therapeutic advances in SCLC, considerable progress in understanding the biology, molecular biology, model systems and potential therapeutic targets has been made. Studies of early lung and neuroendrocrine cell development models have provided insights into the cell of origin for SCLC. New GEMMs have illustrated the universal importance of TP53 and RB1 gene mutations in the pathogenesis and the potential role of additional genetic changes as well as changes in transcription factor expression. PDXs and CDXs provide new means for preclinical testing of new therapies. Molecular studies have identified the high mutation burden found in SCLC and have identified differences between SCLC, carcinoids and large cell neuroendocrine tumors. Potential therapeutic targets including EZH2, PARP, CDK1, MCL1, BCL2, BIM, SHH (Sonic Hedgehog), WNT, NOTCH1, Aurora Kinase, FGFR, PIK3CA, RET, THZ1, JAK-STAT, FAK, CXCR4, PD-L1, Fuc-GM1, CD56 and CD47. Ongoing and future clinical trials have to show which of these candidates can be translated into an effective targeted therapy. Thus, the future of improving outcomes for SCLC patients appears promising but there are still a number of unanswered questions which need to be addressed in the future and these are outlined below. Small Cell Lung Cancer Major Questions of Translational Relevance What are the mechanisms underlying the universal development of chemoresistance? SCLC is in nearly every case very sensitive to platinum-etoposide chemotherapy with dramatic clinically beneficial responses. However, in nearly every case the tumors become resistant to this chemotherapy. What is the mechanism of this resistance, are there ways to avoid it, and what are additional therapies that could kill such resistant tumor cells? What are the mechanisms of highly metastatic behavior in SCLC? SCLC is in nearly every case highly metastatic from the time of clinical diagnosis. What are the most important mechanisms responsible for the metastatic behavior and can these be therapeutically targeted? A subset of this question, is that SCLC appear to be much enriched in cancer stem cells (“tumor initiating cells”, TICs) and does targeting stem cell signaling pathways provide effective therapy for primary and metastatic sites of SCLC? Are there therapeutic targets of “acquired vulnerability” associated with RB1 or TP53 mutations in SCLC? Tumor suppressor genes RB1 and TP53 abnormalities are essentially universal in SCLCs. Are there acquired vulnerabilities associated with changes in these two genes that can be therapeutically targeted? Do the many other mutations occurring in human SCLC (but not in GEMMs) provide therapeutic targets – “acquired vulnerabilities for human SCLC?” Current evidence indicates that human SCLCs have many other genetic (mutations) and epigenetic changes besides those involving the key oncogenic drivers (such as TP53, RB1, LMYC, NFIB). By contrast, mouse GEMM SCLC have very few additional changes. Presumable the differences in mutation rates result from exposure to cigarette carcinogens in humans but not in mice. Do the other mutations in human SCLC provide acquired vulnerabilities of therapeutic vulnerabilities, do any these represent “synthetic lethalities” with the main driver oncogene changes, and are there several vulnerabilities common across multiple SCLCs or are these vulnerabilities “private” and found in only individual tumors? Can we develop therapeutic strategies targeting important SCLC driver transcription factors? Several transcription factors appear to be very important in the growth and survival of SCLC including ASCL1, NeuroD1, myc family members, and SOX2). Are there therapeutic strategies that can be directed against these key transcription factors and do they provide quantitatively multiple logs of tumor cell kill to allow development of curative strategies? What are the important differences in human preclinical models of SCLC that influence discovery and validation of new therapies? Currently there are several types of human preclinical models of SCLC including SCLC lines, SCLC cell line xenografts (CDXs), patient derived SCLC xenografts (PDXs), and circulating SCLC tumor cells isolated from peripheral blood of SCLC patients. While these all share common genetic abnormalities found in SCLC (such as TP53, RB1, myc family members), we need to know what are the molecular differences between these different models and SCLC tumor samples and whether preclinical therapeutic responses are similar or different between these models. Can we continue to use all of the models for development of new therapies or do we need to only use one type of preclinical model? Are the differences between human SCLC and GEMM of SCLC that influence the discovery and validation of new therapies? Genetically engineered mouse models of lung cancer (GEMMs) appear to be very similar to human SCLC. However, it appears that mouse GEMM SCLC do not appear to be sensitive to platin-etoposide chemotherapy. What are the differences between human and the GEMM models of SCLC that explain this discrepancy? Are there important differences between human and GEMM preclinical models that could influence the discovery and validation of new SCLC therapies? What are the biologic reasons for SCLCs expressing ASCL1 vs NeuroD1 as a lineage oncogene? The majority of human SCLCs have ASCL1 as the major neuroendocrine lineage driver gene. However, a subset of human SCLCs express high levels of NeuroD1 and not ASCL1. Currently, there is no evidence that mouse lung neuroendocrine cells can express Neuro D1. This raises the question of whether small cell cancers predominantly expressing NeuroD1 arise in the human lung or in some other primary site. Do genetic abnormalities in histologically normal epithelium of SCLC patients provide diagnostic and chemopreventative targets? There appear to be a much greater frequency of genetic abnormalities in the histologically normal epithelium of patients with SCLC compared to those with NSCLC. Does this information provide ways for early diagnosis or implementation of chemoprevention strategies for SCLC using these genetic alterations as molecular biomarkers? Most recently the US National Cancer Institute released a Request for Application (RFA) (PAR-16-049, PAR-16-050, PAR-16-051) for grants specifically focusing on SCLC, and hopefully through these grants many of the above questions will be addressed.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on the principles of radiation therapy (RT), which include the following: (1) general principles for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic NSCLC; (2) target volumes, prescription doses, and normal tissue dose constraints for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/palliative RT; and (3) RT simulation, planning, and delivery. Treatment recommendations should be made by a multidisciplinary team, including board-certified radiation oncologists who perform lung cancer RT as a prominent part of their practice.

Introduction Patients with early-stage lung cancer have a high risk of recurrence despite multimodality therapy. KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinomas are the largest genetically defined subgroup, representing 25% of patients. GI-4000 is a heat-killed recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast–derived vaccine expressing mutant KRAS proteins. The present phase II study assessed the feasibility, immunogenicity, and safety of the GI-4000 vaccine in patients with early-stage, KRAS-mutant lung cancer. Materials and Methods Patients with stage I-III KRAS-mutant lung cancer who completed curative therapy were enrolled. The patients received the genotype matched GI-4000 vaccine for ≤ 3 years or until intolerance, disease recurrence, or death. The KRAS antigen T-cell response was assessed using the interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot assay in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The study was powered to detect an immune response in ≥ 25% of patients. Results A total of 24 patients were enrolled over 28 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. One patient withdrew consent because of pain at the injection site. The study met its primary endpoint, with 50% of patients developing an immune response to mutant KRAS. The median number of vaccinations received was 15 (range, 1-19). Ten patients experienced disease recurrence, and 6 died. Compared with the genotypically matched historical controls, the recurrence rates were equivalent but overall survival showed a favorable trend. Conclusion GI-4000 was well tolerated and immunogenic when used as consolidation therapy in patients with stage I-III KRAS-mutant lung cancer. The patterns of recurrence and death observed in the present study can be used to design a randomized study of GI-4000 with overall survival as the primary endpoint.

We previously reported our technique for delivering intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the entire pleura while attempting to spare the lung in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Herein, we report a detailed pattern-of-failure analysis in patients with MPM who were unresectable or underwent pleurectomy/decortication (P/D), uniformly treated with hemithoracic pleural IMRT.Sixty-seven patients with MPM were treated with definitive or adjuvant hemithoracic pleural IMRT between November 2004 and May 2013. Pretreatment imaging, treatment plans, and posttreatment imaging were retrospectively reviewed to determine failure location(s). Failures were categorized as in-field (within the 90% isodose line), marginal (90% and ≥50% isodose lines), out-of-field (outside the 50% isodose line), or distant.The median follow-up was 24 months from diagnosis and the median time to in-field local failure from the end of RT was 10 months. Forty-three in-field local failures (64%) were found with a 1- and 2-year actuarial failure rate of 56% and 74%, respectively. For patients who underwent P/D versus those who received a partial pleurectomy or were deemed unresectable, the median time to in-field local failure was 14 months versus 6 months, respectively, with 1- and 2-year actuarial in-field local failure rates of 43% and 60% versus 66% and 83%, respectively (P=.03). There were 13 marginal failures (19%). Five of the marginal failures (38%) were located within the costomediastinal recess. Marginal failures decreased with increasing institutional experience (P=.04). Twenty-five patients (37%) had out-of-field failures. Distant failures occurred in 32 patients (48%).After hemithoracic pleural IMRT, local failure remains the dominant form of failure pattern. Patients treated with adjuvant hemithoracic pleural IMRT after P/D experience a significantly longer time to local and distant failure than patients treated with definitive pleural IMRT. Increasing experience and improvement in target delineation minimize the incidence of avoidable marginal failures.

Pemetrexed-cisplatin is the only FDA-approved regimen for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), and the impact on survival is modest. No drugs have been shown to improve survival as second-line therapy, yet vinorelbine and gemcitabine are prescribed based on the results of small phase II trials. To augment the existing limited data, we examined our institutional experience with vinorelbine and gemcitabine in patients with previously treated MPM.We reviewed charts of patients with MPM treated with vinorelbine and/or gemcitabine as second- or third-line therapy between 2003 and 2010. Toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0. CT scans were reviewed with a reference radiologist according to modified RECIST criteria.Sixty patients were identified: 33 treated with vinorelbine, 15 gemcitabine, and 12 both agents. Eighty-three percent initially received pemetrexed-platinum. Toxicity was substantial: 46% experienced at least one episode of grade 3-4 toxicity. Of 56 patients evaluable radiologically, there was 1 partial response (gemcitabine) giving a response rate of 2% (95% CI: 0-10%). Forty-six percent had stable disease. Median progression free survival was 1.7 months for vinorelbine and 1.6 months for gemcitabine. Median overall survival was 5.4 and 4.9 months, respectively.Response to second- or third-line vinorelbine or gemcitabine is rare. The high rate of stable disease warrants the continued use of these agents in this setting, though the impact on survival is questionable. These data justify the choice of placebo control arms in randomized trials of novel agents in previously treated patients.

Introduction Genomic studies of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have recently identified frequent mutations in the BRCA-associated protein 1(BAP1) gene. In uveal melanoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma, BAP1 mutations are associated with poor outcomes but their clinical significance in MPM is unknown. We therefore undertook this study to define the characteristics of patients whose MPM tumors harbor somatic BAP1 mutation and to examine the relationship between BAP1 mutation and survival. Methods We reviewed the charts of 121 patients with MPM tumors diagnosed between 1991 and 2009 tested for BAP1 mutation, and extracted the following information: age at diagnosis, sex, histology, stage, smoking status, asbestos exposure, family or personal history of malignancy, and treatment including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation as well as survival status. Results Twenty-four of the 121 tumors (20%) harbored somatic BAP1 mutations. The percentage of current or former smokers among cases with BAP1 mutations was significantly higher than in BAP1 wild-type cases, (75% versus 42%; p = 0.006). However, the types of nucleotide substitutions in BAP1 did not suggest that this association was because of a causative role of smoking in BAP1 mutations. No other clinical feature was significantly different among those with and without BAP1 mutations in their MPM. There was also no difference in survival according to somatic BAP1 mutation status. Conclusion There is no apparent distinct clinical phenotype for MPM with somatic BAP1 mutation. The significance of the more frequent history of smoking among patients with BAP1-mutated MPM warrants further study.

Introduction: Bevacizumab improves survival in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase II clinical trial assessed the effects of the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods: Patients with resectable stage IB–IIIA nonsquamous NSCLC were treated with bevacizumab followed by imaging 2 weeks later to assess single-agent effect. After this they received two cycles of bevacizumab with four cycles of cisplatin and docetaxel followed by surgical resection. Resected patients were eligible for adjuvant bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathological downstaging (decrease from pretreatment clinical stage to post-treatment pathological stage). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, safety, and radiologic response. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Thirty-four (68%) were clinical stage IIIA. All three doses of neoadjuvant bevacizumab were delivered to 40 of 50 patients. Six patients (12%) discontinued because of bevacizumab-related adverse events. The rate of downstaging (38%), response to chemotherapy (45%), and perioperative complications (12%) were comparable with historical data. No partial responses were observed to single-agent bevacizumab, but 18% of the patients developed new intratumoral cavitation, with a trend toward improved pathologic response (57% versus 21%; p = 0.07). A major pathologic response (≥90% treatment effect) was associated with survival at 3 years (100% versus 49%; p = 0.01). No patients with KRAS -mutant NSCLC (0 of 10) had a pathologic response as compared with 11 of 31 with wild-type KRAS . Conclusion: Although preoperative bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was feasible, it did not improve downstaging in unselected patients. New cavitation after single-agent bevacizumab is a potential biomarker. Alternative strategies are needed for KRAS -mutant tumors.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the diagnostic evaluation of suspected lung cancer. This topic was the subject of a major update in the 2013 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. The NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the major updates in the NCCN Guidelines and discuss the new updates in greater detail.

Background Development of acquired resistance limits the utility of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) for the treatment of EGFR -mutant lung cancers. There are no accepted targeted therapies for use after acquired resistance develops. Metastasectomy is used in other cancers to manage oligometastatic disease. We hypothesized that local therapy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with EGFR -mutant lung cancers with acquired resistance to EGFR TKI. Methods Patients who received non–central nervous system local therapy were identified by a review of data from a prospective biopsy protocol for patients with EGFR -mutant lung cancers with acquired resistance to EGFR TKI therapy and other institutional biospecimen registry protocols. Results Eighteen patients were identified, who received elective local therapy (surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, or radiation). Local therapy was well tolerated, with 85% of patients restarting TKI therapy within 1 month of local therapy. The median time to progression after local therapy was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2–27 months). The median time until a subsequent change in systemic therapy was 22 months (95% CI: 6–30 months). The median overall survival from local therapy was 41 months (95% CI: 26–not reached). Conclusions EGFR- mutant lung cancers with acquired resistance to EGFR TKI therapy are amenable to local therapy to treat oligometastatic disease when used in conjunction with continued EGFR inhibition. Local therapy followed by continued treatment with an EGFR TKI is well tolerated and associated with long PFS and OS. Further study in selected individuals in the context of other systemic options is required.

Objectives The Hedgehog pathway has been implicated in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) tumor initiation and progression. Pharmacologic blockade of the key Hedgehog regulator, Smoothened, may inhibit these processes. We performed a phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sonidegib (LDE225), a selective, oral Smoothened antagonist, in combination with etoposide/cisplatin in newly diagnosed patients with extensive stage SCLC. Materials and methods Patients received 4–6 21-day cycles of etoposide/cisplatin with daily sonidegib. Patients with response or stable disease were continued on sonidegib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Two dose levels of sonidegib were planned: 400mg and 800mg daily, with 200mg daily de-escalation if necessary. Next generation sequencing was performed on available specimens. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were quantified at baseline and with disease evaluation. Results Fifteen patients were enrolled. 800mg was established as the recommended phase II dose of sonidegib in combination with etoposide/cisplatin. Grade 3 or greater toxicities included: anemia (n=5), neutropenia (n=8), CPK elevation (n=2), fatigue (n=2), and nausea (n=2). Toxicity led to removal of one patient from study. Partial responses were confirmed in 79% (11/14; 95% CI: 49–95%). One patient with SOX2 amplification remains progression-free on maintenance sonidegib after 27 months. CTC count, at baseline, was associated with the presence of liver metastases and after 1 cycle of therapy, with overall survival. Conclusions Sonidegib 800mg daily was the MTD when administered with EP. Further genomic characterization of exceptional responders may reveal clinically relevant predictive biomarkers that could tailor use in patients most likely to benefit.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a highly lethal cancer with limited therapeutic options. Recent work has focused on the frequent somatic inactivation of two tumor suppressor genes in MPM—NF2 (Neurofibromatosis type 2) and the recently identified BAP1 (BRCA associated protein 1). In addition, germline mutations in BAP1 have been identified that define a new familial cancer syndrome, which includes MPM, ocular melanoma, and other cancers. These recent advances may allow screening of high-risk individuals and the development of new therapies that target key pathways in MPM. Clin Cancer Res; 18(17); 4485–90. ©2012 AACR.

Purpose Gemcitabine plus cisplatin is active in malignant mesothelioma (MM), although single-arm phase II trials have reported variable outcomes. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors have activity against MM in preclinical models. We added the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab to gemcitabine/cisplatin in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized phase II trial in patients with previously untreated, unresectable MM. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 1 and no thrombosis, bleeding, or major blood vessel invasion. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients were stratified by ECOG performance status (0 v 1) and histologic subtype (epithelial v other). Patients received gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 21 days, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg or placebo every 21 days for six cycles, and then bevacizumab or placebo every 21 days until progression. Results One hundred fifteen patients were enrolled at 11 sites; 108 patients were evaluable. Median PFS time was 6.9 months for the bevacizumab arm and 6.0 months for the placebo arm (P = .88). Median overall survival (OS) times were 15.6 and 14.7 months in the bevacizumab and placebo arms, respectively (P = .91). Partial response rates were similar (24.5% for bevacizumab v 21.8% for placebo; P = .74). A higher pretreatment plasma VEGF concentration (n = 56) was associated with shorter PFS (P = .02) and OS (P = .0066), independent of treatment arm. There were no statistically significant differences in toxicity of grade 3 or greater. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine/cisplatin in this trial did not significantly improve PFS or OS in patients with advanced MM.

Purpose: This phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy of temozolomide in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Experimental Design: Patients with disease progression after one or two prior chemotherapy regimens received temozolomide at 75 mg/m2/d for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate [ORR; complete response (CR) plus partial response (PR)], which was evaluated separately in sensitive and refractory cohorts. In the available tissue, we assessed O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status by PCR and MGMT expression by immunohistochemistry. Results: Sixty-four patients were accrued: 48 patients in the sensitive cohort and 16 in the refractory group. One CR and 10 PRs were noted in sensitive patients [ORR, 23%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12%–37%]. Two PRs were seen in the refractory cohort (ORR, 13%; 95% CI, 2%–38%). As second- and third-line treatment, the ORR was 22% (95% CI, 9%–40%) and 19% (95% CI, 7%–36%), respectively. Among patients with target brain lesions, 38% had a CR or PR (95% CI, 14%–68%). Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were observed in nine patients (14%). A greater number of cases with methylated MGMT had a response compared to those with unmethylated MGMT (38% vs. 7%; P = 0.08). Conclusion: Temozolomide has activity in relapsed SCLC, particularly for brain metastases. Response to temozolomide may correlate with MGMT methylation in SCLC. Clin Cancer Res; 18(4); 1138–45. ©2012 AACR.

We previously reported data on the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II dose of obatoclax mesylate in conjunction with topotecan in patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies. Preliminary efficacy data suggested activity in patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Based on these data, we performed a phase II study of obatoclax mesylate plus topotecan in patients with relapsed SCLC to assess efficacy.This was an open-label, single-arm, phase II extension of obatoclax mesylate plus topotecan in patients with relapsed SCLC. Obatoclax mesylate was given intravenously (IV) at a dose of 14mg/m(2) on days 1 and 3 with IV topotecan at 1.25mg/m(2) on days 1-5 of an every 3-week cycle. The primary end-point of this study was overall response rate.Nine patients with recurrent SCLC were enrolled into the first stage of the study. Patients received a median of 2 cycles of treatment. All patients were evaluable for the primary end-point of overall response. There were no partial or complete responses. Five patients (56%) had stable disease. The remaining four patients (44%) developed progressive disease. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (22%), anemia (11%), neutropenia (11%), and ataxia (11%).Obatoclax mesylate added to topotecan does not exceed the historic response rate seen with topotecan alone in patients with relapsed SCLC following the first-line platinum-based therapy.

Polysialic acid (polySA) is a polymer side chain bound to the neural cell adhesion molecule that is extensively expressed on the surface of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) cells. In our previous study, a robust antibody response was noted in patients with SCLC after vaccination with 30 μg of keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH)-conjugated N-propionylated (NP-) polySA, but peripheral neuropathy and ataxia were detected in several vaccinated patients. The objectives of the current trial were to establish the lowest optimal dose and to confirm the safety of the induction of antibodies against polySA with the NP-polySA vaccine.Patients with SCLC who completed initial treatment and had no evidence of disease progression were injected with either 10 or 3 μg of NP-polySA conjugated to KLH and mixed with 100 μg of immunologic adjuvant (QS-21) at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 16.Nine patients were enrolled at each of the two dose levels. Prior to vaccination, one patient in each group had low-titer antibodies against polysialic acid. All patients at the 10 μg vaccine dose level responded to vaccination with IgM antibody titers against polysialic acid (median titer 1/1,280 by ELISA), and all but one patient made IgM and IgG antibodies against the artificial vaccine immunogen, NP-polysialic acid (median titer 1/10,240). The antibody responses at the 3 μg vaccine dose level were lower; six of nine patients developed antibodies against polysialic acid (median titer 1/160). Post-vaccination sera from 6/9 and 3/9 patients in the 10 and 3 μg groups reacted strongly with human SCLC cells by fluorescent-activated cell sorting (FACS). Sera from all patients in the 10 μg dose group also had bactericidal activity against group B meningococci with rabbit complement. Self-limited grade 3 ataxia of unclear etiology was seen in 1 of 18 patients.Vaccination with NP-polySA-KLH resulted in consistent high-titer antibody responses, with the 10 μg dose significantly more immunogenic than the 3 μg dose. This study establishes the lowest optimally immunogenic dose of NP-polysialic acid in this NP-polysialic acid-KLH conjugate vaccine to be at least 10 μg, and it establishes the vaccine's safety. We plan to incorporate NP-polySA into a polyvalent vaccine against SCLC with four glycolipid antigens also widely expressed in SCLC-GD2, GD3, fucosylated GM1, and globo H.

Purpose: To determine if tumor regression following treatment with gefitinib correlates with the presence of sensitizing mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Patients and Methods: Patients with resectable stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) enriched for the likelihood of EGFR mutation (≤15 pack-year cigarette smoking history and/or a component of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma) received preoperative gefitinib for 21 days. Tumor specimens were analyzed for EGFR and KRAS mutations and EGFR protein expression and amplification. Patients with 25% or more reduction in tumor size measured bidimensionally at 3 weeks and/or patients with an EGFR mutation received adjuvant gefitinib for 2 years postoperatively. Results: Fifty patients with stage I/II NSCLC were treated. After 21 days of preoperative gefitinib a response of 25% or more was observed in 21 of 50 (42%) patients. Seventeen of 21 patients with a response had an EGFR mutation and 4 of 21 patients with a response did not (P = 0.0001). Twenty-five of 50 patients were eligible to receive adjuvant gefitinib. With a median follow-up of 44.1 months, 2-year disease free survival for EGFR mutant patients and for those who received adjuvant gefitinib was not statistically different than those who were EGFR wild-type and those who did not receive adjuvant gefitinib. The median disease free and overall survivals have not been reached. Conclusions: The presence of sensitizing EGFR mutations correlates with radiographic response. A short course of preoperative treatment serves a platform for evaluating activity of new agents and assures sufficient tumor availability for correlative analyses. Clin Cancer Res; 17(10); 3500–6. ©2011 AACR.

Purpose: In patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant lung adenocarcinoma, treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib is associated with a 75% radiographic response rate and progression-free survival of approximately 12 months. The most common mechanism of acquired resistance to erlotinib is development of a secondary mutation in EGFR, suggesting that these tumors continue to depend on EGFR signaling. We hypothesized that combined EGFR blockade would overcome acquired resistance to erlotinib in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. To evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of cetuximab and erlotinib in patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib, we conducted this phase I/II clinical trial. Experimental Design: Patients with lung adenocarcinoma and clinically defined acquired resistance to erlotinib were treated with erlotinib 100 mg daily, along with cetuximab every 2 weeks in three escalating dose cohorts (250 mg/m2, 375 mg/m2, and 500 mg/m2). The recommended phase II dose was then evaluated in a two-stage trial, with a primary end point of objective response rate. Results: A total of 19 patients were enrolled. The most common toxicities for the combination of cetuximab and erlotinib were rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia. The recommended phase II dose identified was cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks and erlotinib 100 mg daily. At this dose and schedule, no radiographic responses were seen (0 of 13, 0%, 95% CI, 0–25). Conclusions: Combined EGFR inhibition, with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks and erlotinib 100 mg daily, had no significant activity in patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res; 17(8); 2521–7. ©2011 AACR.

Background GD2/GM2 synthase is a key enzyme in the synthesis of GD2 and GM2 gangliosides found on the surface of neuroblastoma and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) cells. In neuroblastoma, persistent levels of GD2/GM2 synthase RNA in bone marrow (BM) following therapy portend poorer progression-free and overall survival. We conducted this study to determine if GD2/GM2 synthase RNA could be detected in SCLC cell lines and human tissues, and whether mRNA transcript levels corresponded with disease status. Experimental design Initially, a pilot study enrolled patients with SCLC to determine the rate of GD2 expression at various points in the patients’ disease course. Peripheral blood (PB), bone marrow and tumor tissues were used to measure GD2/GM2 synthase levels. In addition, SCLC cell lines were analyzed for GD2/GM2 synthase expression. Based on data from that initial analysis, a prospective trial was developed enrolling patients with newly diagnosed SCLC and following them serially. GD2/GM2 synthase transcript was determined by a sensitive quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) assay and normalized to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). Results Six SCLC cell lines were assayed for expression of GD2/GM2 synthase, and high expression was detected in all. GD2/GM2 synthase transcript levels were obtained from tumor tissue, BM, or PB of 29 patients in the pilot study. 6/10 (60%) tumor tissues or BM samples were positive (median 332.7 units; range 13–2323 units); 8/19 (42%) untreated patients were GD2/GM2 synthase positive in their PB prior to beginning therapy (median 10.2; range 5.1–32.2); 3/4 (75%) patients who were first tested when they developed recurrent disease were positive in their PB (median 16.1; range 8.5–19.9). The fourth patient had an initial value of 2.0 (negative), which increased to 8.4 (positive) within 1 month without treatment. Seven of 12 patients with baseline positive GD2/GM2 synthase values had post-treatment levels measured, all of which were ≤5 or showed a >50% decrease following successful treatment. Patients in the prospective trial demonstrated lower rates of positivity, with only 3/26 (12%) patients exhibiting detectable transcript levels in the peripheral blood prior to treatment. All 3 of these patients had their transcript levels fall below 5 after treatment. 11/26 patients had baseline levels of zero. Bone marrow was drawn at baseline on 7 patients in the prospective trial and 3 (43%) had transcript levels above 5 (range 0.65–27.43 units). There was no correlation between elevated levels in the BM and elevated levels in the PB. Conclusions Although initial studies demonstrated that GD2/GM2 synthase transcripts were measurable in the peripheral blood of SCLC patients at diagnosis and declined with successful treatment, in a separate prospective study, these results could not be confirmed. Thus, GD2/GM2 is not a reliable biomarker in SCLC.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive cancer of the mesothelium with only a limited range of treatment options that are largely ineffective in improving survival. Recent efforts have turned toward the analysis of specific, dysregulated biologic pathways for insight into new treatment targets. Epigenetic regulation of tumor suppressor genes through chromatin condensation and decondensation has emerged as an important mechanism that leads to tumorogenesis. A family of histone acetyltransferases and deacetylases regulates this balance, with the latter facilitating chromatin condensation, thus preventing gene transcription, resulting in the loss of heterozygosity of tumor suppressors. Inhibition of this process, coupled with a similar inhibition of nonhistone protein deacetylation, ultimately leads to the promotion of apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, and inhibition of angiogenesis. An increasing amount of preclinical data highlighting the effectiveness of histone deacetylase inhibition in MPM cell lines and mouse xenograft models has led to a number of early phase clinical trials in patients with MPM. The results of these efforts have led to a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat in patients with advanced MPM, offering hope for a new and effective therapy in patients with this disease.

Introduction Multimodality therapy including extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), chemotherapy, and radiotherapy (RT) is often recommended for fit patients with early stage malignant pleural mesothelioma. Planning RT after an EPP is difficult due to the large target area, the high doses required to prevent recurrence, and the proximity of critical structures. We studied patterns of local and nodal recurrence in patients treated at our institution with EPP and RT, and whether advanced treatment planning techniques, such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), could have been of potential benefit. Methods From 1993 to 2008, 86 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma underwent EPP followed by hemithoracic RT (median dose: 54 Gy). The RT technique included a combination of photons and electrons to maximize dose to the target, whereas minimizing dose to normal tissues. After treatment, patients were followed with serial imaging and patterns of local and nodal failure were studied. Results Median follow-up time for 78 analyzed patients was 17 months. Eight percent were in stage I, 35% stage II, 55% stage III, and 2% stage IV. Ten percent of all patients developed late grade 3 pulmonary toxicity and no patient died of RT. Fifteen patients failed in local and/or nodal sites and did not have a distant component to their failure pattern. Of these 15 patients, 10 failed in regions of dose inhomogeneity and could have possibly benefited from IMRT. Conclusions The photon-electron technique was tolerable, but IMRT may provide better target coverage in some patients. IMRT's advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of fatal pulmonary toxicity.

IntroductionMost studies describing the natural history and prognostic factors for malignant pleural mesothelioma antedate accurate pathologic diagnosis, staging by computed tomography, and a universal staging system. We conducted a large single-institution analysis to identify prognostic factors and assess the association of resection with outcome in a contemporary patient population.MethodsPatients with biopsy-proven malignant pleural mesothelioma at our institution were identified and clinical data were obtained from an institutional database. Survival and prognostic factors were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards analysis. A p value

Introduction We undertook this phase II study to measure postoperative drug delivery and toxicity of cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with resected stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer. Methods The primary endpoint was amount of cisplatin delivered over a planned four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Statistical design required a cohort to close if the regimen proved unlikely to improve cisplatin delivery compared with published phase III data. The first cohort was treated with docetaxel 35 mg/m 2 intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, and 15, and cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 IV on day 15, every 4 weeks for four planned cycles. A second cohort was treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 IV plus cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 IV on day 1 every 3 weeks for four planned cycles. Results Sixteen patients were treated with weekly docetaxel and cisplatin every 4 weeks, with five of 16 (31%) unable to complete three cycles. Subsequently, 11 patients were treated with docetaxel and cisplatin every 3 weeks, with six of 11 (55%) unable to complete three cycles. Among the 11 patients who failed to complete three cycles, the reasons for stopping included one or more of the following: fatigue ( n = 8), nausea ( n = 4), febrile neutropenia ( n = 1), hypotension ( n = 1), and nephrotoxicity ( n = 1). Conclusions The combination of cisplatin at 80 mg/m 2 with docetaxel 35 mg/m 2 weekly or 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks is no better tolerated than older chemotherapy regimens. The most common reason to stop chemotherapy was intolerable fatigue. These results suggest that the most common dose-limiting toxicities are attributable to the cisplatin, given similar problems were encountered whether the docetaxel was delivered as a single dose every 3 weeks or as a lower weekly dose.

Background: Several previous clinical trials have shown that malignant pleural mesothelioma is responsive to antifolates. The dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor, pralatrexate, has a favorable toxicity profile, primarily limited to stomatitis, and has demonstrated activity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. In mesothelioma cell lines and xenografts, pralatrexate demonstrated significant antitumor activity. Methods: We conducted this phase II study to determine the response rate of malignant pleural mesothelioma to pralatrexate at a dose of 135 mg/m 2 IV every 2 weeks. After a protocol amendment, patients were supplemented with vitamin B 12 and folic acid at the time of starting therapy. Results: A total of 16 assessable patients were enrolled. No complete or partial responses were observed. Two patients with epithelioid histology had minor responses. Three other patients remained on study with stable disease for 9, 9, and 48 months. The median time to progression was 3 months. The overall median survival time was 7 months (95% confidence interval: 3.2–16.2 months) and the one-year survival was 31% (95% confidence interval: 15%–65%). Three patients (19%) had grade 2 stomatitis, eight (50%) had grade 3, and one (6%) had grade 4. Conclusions: With this particular dose and schedule, pralatrexate as a single agent had no activity in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Purpose: This first-in-human phase I trial assessed the safety, tolerability, and preliminary antitumor activity of apitolisib (GDC-0980), a dual inhibitor of class I PI3K, and mTOR kinases. Experimental Design: Once-daily oral apitolisib was administered to patients with solid tumors for days 1 to 21 or 1 to 28 of 28-day cycles. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were assessed. Results: Overall, 120 patients were treated at doses between 2 and 70 mg. The commonest ≥G3 toxicities related to apitolisib at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) at 40 mg once daily included hyperglycemia (18%), rash (14%), liver dysfunction (12%), diarrhea (10%), pneumonitis (8%), mucosal inflammation (6%), and fatigue (4%). Dose-limiting toxicities (1 patient each) were G4 fasting hyperglycemia at 40 mg (21/28 schedule) and G3 maculopapular rash and G3 fasting hyperglycemia at 70 mg (21/28 schedule). The pharmacokinetic profile was dose-proportional. Phosphorylated serine-473 AKT levels were suppressed by ≥90% in platelet-rich plasma within 4 hours at the MTD (50 mg). Pharmacodynamic decreases in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography uptake of >25% occurred in 66% (21/32) of patients dosed at 40 mg once daily. Evidence of single-agent activity included 10 RECIST partial responses (PR; confirmed for peritoneal mesothelioma, PIK3CA mutant head-and-neck cancer, and three pleural mesotheliomas). Conclusions: Apitolisib exhibited dose-proportional pharmacokinetics with target modulation at doses ≥16 mg. The RP2D was 40 mg once-daily 28/28 schedule; severe on-target toxicities were apparent at ≥40 mg, particularly pneumonitis. Apitolisib was reasonably tolerated at 30 mg, the selected dose for pleural mesothelioma patients given limited respiratory reserve. Modest but durable antitumor activity was demonstrated. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2874–84. ©2016 AACR.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Appropriate targeted therapy is very effective in patients with advanced NSCLC who have specific genetic alterations. Therefore, it is important to test tumor tissue from patients with advanced NSCLC to determine whether they have genetic alterations that make them candidates for specific targeted therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe the different testing methods currently available for determining whether patients have genetic alterations in the 2 most commonly actionable genetic alterations, notably anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements and sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

Antitumor immune responses against solid malignancies correlate with improved patient survival. We conducted a comprehensive investigation of immune responses in tumor and tumor-associated stroma in epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma with the goal of characterizing the tumor immune microenvironment and identifying prognostic immune markers. We investigated 8 types of tumor-infiltrating immune cells within the tumor nest and tumor-associated stroma, as well as tumor expression of 5 cytokine/chemokine receptors in 230 patients. According to univariate analyses, high densities of tumoral CD4- and CD20-expressing lymphocytes were associated with better outcomes. High expression of tumor interleukin-7 (IL-7) receptor was associated with worse outcomes. According to multivariate analyses, stage and tumoral CD20 detection were independently associated with survival. Analysis of single immune cell infiltration for CD163+ tumor-associated macrophages did not correlate with survival. However, analysis of immunologically relevant cell combinations identified that: (1) high CD163+ tumor-associated macrophages and low CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration had worse prognosis than other groups and (2) low CD163+ tumor associated macrophages and high CD20+ lymphocyte infiltration had better prognosis than other groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that CD163/CD8 and CD163/CD20 were independent prognostic factors of survival. With a recent increase in immunotherapy investigations and clinical trials for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients, our observations that CD20+ B lymphocytes and tumor-associated macrophages are prognostic markers provide important information about the tumor microenvironment of malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Most gene expression profiling studies of mesothelioma have been based on relatively small sample numbers, limiting their statistical power. We did Affymetrix U133A microarray analysis on 99 pleural mesotheliomas, in which multivariate analysis showed advanced-stage, sarcomatous histology and P16/CDKN2A homozygous deletion to be significant independent adverse prognostic factors. Comparison of the expression profiles of epithelioid versus sarcomatous mesotheliomas identified many genes significantly overexpressed among the former, including previously unrecognized ones, such as uroplakins and kallikrein 11, both confirmed by immunohistochemistry. Examination of the gene expression correlates of survival showed that more aggressive mesotheliomas expressed higher levels of Aurora kinases A and B and functionally related genes involved in mitosis and cell cycle control. Independent confirmation of the negative effect of Aurora kinase B was obtained by immunohistochemistry in a separate patient cohort. A role for Aurora kinases in the aggressive behavior of mesotheliomas is of potential clinical interest because of the recent development of small-molecule inhibitors. We then used our data to develop microarray-based predictors of 1 year survival; these achieved a maximal accuracy of 68% in cross-validation. However, this was inferior to prognostic prediction based on standard clinicopathologic variables and P16/CDNK2A status (accuracy, 73%), and adding the microarray model to the latter did not improve overall accuracy. Finally, we evaluated three recently published microarray-based outcome prediction models, but their accuracies ranged from 63% to 67%, consistently lower than reported. Gene expression profiling of mesotheliomas is an important discovery tool, but its power in clinical prognostication has been overestimated. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(6): 2970-9)

Background Histone deacetylase inhibitors are a novel class of therapeutic agents that inhibit deacetylate histones and other proteins involved in the regulation of gene expression and cell cycle progression. Phase I trials of intravenous and oral formulations of one such agent, vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid [SAHA]), have shown that it is safe and tolerable, that it inhibits histone deacetylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and that it has a broad range of antitumor activity. Patients and Methods Thirteen patients with mesothelioma were included in a phase I trial of oral SAHA. All but one had previously been treated with chemotherapy. Results Four patients completed ≥ 6 cycles of therapy; 2 patients demonstrated a partial response. The toxicities in this cohort of patients were similar to those observed in the entire phase I trial: primarily fatigue, dehydration, nausea, and vomiting. Conclusion Given the dearth of treatment options for patients with advanced mesothelioma who have progressed after first-line chemotherapy, these results are encouraging. A placebo-controlled, randomized phase III study of oral SAHA is now open for patients with mesothelioma in whom treatment with pemetrexed has failed.

Mesothelioma is an extraordinarily challenging disease to treat. While numerous clinical trials testing various chemotherapeutic agents have been conducted over the last several decades, only recently have larger studies proven the efficacy of newer chemotherapy regimens. This article reviews the data regarding specific classes of chemotherapeutic agents. The role of treatment in various disease settings and the difficulty in assessing the benefit of that therapy is discussed. Finally, an update is provided on novel therapeutics being testing in mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2). Nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) overexpresses HER-2 protein in approximately 20% of cases. In the current study, the authors combined trastuzumab with weekly taxanes in an attempt to improve outcomes over standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS The primary objective was to determine whether docetaxel plus trastuzumab or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab was the superior regimen based on response and toxicity, and to determine whether either regimen was appropriate for further testing in a randomized Phase III trial. After stratification based on the results of HER-2 immunohistochemistry, chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab plus docetaxel or trastuzumab plus paclitaxel. The study was designed so patients with or without HER-2 overexpression would be distributed equally between the study arms. RESULTS Immunohistochemistry for HER-2 protein expression was attempted for 182 pathologic samples from 169 patients. Twenty-eight of the 179 evaluable samples (16%) revealed 2+ or 3+ staining. The objective response rate was 23% (7 of 30 patients) in the patients treated with docetaxel plus trastuzumab and 32% (11 of 34 patients) in the patients treated with paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (P=0.76, Wilcoxon test). No difference was noted in the median survival (16 mos vs. 14 mos) or 1-year survival (57% vs. 55%) (P=0.998). Toxicities were mild in both treatment arms. No difference with regard to response rates or survival was noted between HER-2–positive (2+ or 3+) and HER-2–negative (0–1+) patients. CONCLUSIONS The expression of HER-2 protein in patients with advanced NSCLC in this study was found to be similar to that reported in previous series. The response rates and toxicities for patients treated with docetaxel and trasuzumab or paclitaxel and trasuzumab were not significantly different, though survival in both arms was better than expected. HER-2 expression status did not appear to affect outcomes for this uniform group of patients who were treated in a comparable fashion. Because of the infrequency of HER-2 overexpression, and the absence of improved outcomes in patients with NSCLC who were treated with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in other studies, neither regimen tested will be advanced to a Phase III trial. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.