Search

Background: Tumor immune microenvironment (TME) plays a key role in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) pathogenesis and treatment outcome, supporting a role of immune checkpoint inhibitors as anticancer approach. This study retrospectively investigated TME and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in naïve MPM cases and their change under chemotherapy. Patients and methods: Diagnostic biopsies of MPM patients were collected from four Italian and one Slovenian cancer centers. Pathological assessment of necrosis, inflammation, grading, and mitosis was carried out. Ki-67, PD-L1 expression, and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes were detected by immunohistochemistry. When available, the same paired sample after chemotherapy was analyzed. Pathological features and clinical characteristics were correlated to overall survival. Results: TME and PD-L1 expression were assessed in 93 and 65 chemonaive MPM samples, respectively. Twenty-eight samples have not sufficient tumor tissue for PD-L1 expression. Sarcomatoid/biphasic samples were characterized by higher CD8+ T lymphocytes and PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, while epithelioid showed higher peritumoral CD4+ T and CD20+ B lymphocytes. Higher CD8+ T lymphocytes, CD68+ macrophages, and PD-L1 expression were associated with pathological features of aggressiveness (necrosis, grading, Ki-67). MPM cases characterized by higher CD8+ T-infiltrate showed lower response to chemotherapy and worse survival at univariate analysis. Patients stratification according to a combined score including CD8+ T lymphocytes, necrosis, mitosis, and proliferation index showed median overall survival of 11.3 months compared with 16.4 months in cases with high versus low combined score (P<0.003). Subgroup exploratory analysis of 15 paired samples before and after chemotherapy showed a significant increase in cytotoxic T lymphocytes in MPM samples and PD-L1 expression in immune cells. Conclusions: TME enriched with cytotoxic T lymphocytes is associated with higher levels of macrophages and PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and with aggressive histopathological features, lower response to chemotherapy and shorter survival. The role of chemotherapy as a tumor immunogenicity inducer should be confirmed in a larger validation set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumour with poor prognosis and increasing incidence in industrialized countries because of the previous widespread exposure to asbestos fibres and to the long lag period from time of exposure and the diagnosis of the disease. MPM shows high refractoriety to systemic treatment, single-modality treatment was generally ineffective and did not achieve higher results than supportive care. The incidence of local and distant recurrences after surgery remains high and that was the reason for many centres to perform combined treatments. In the attempt of reducing the incidence of local recurrences, a multimodality approach with surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy was explored. Extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) allows higher doses of radiotherapy to the whole hemithorax by avoiding pulmonary toxicity and the results of this approach is a significant reduction of loco-regional relapses; although, extrathoracic metastasis represent a major problem in the management of the disease because of the impact on overall survival. The success with surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage IIIA lung cancer has been the impetus for several groups to apply this strategy in MPM aiming at reducing the incidence of distant relapse after surgery. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus gemcitabine or pemetrexed for 3–4 cycles followed by surgery and postoperative high-dose radiotherapy showed the best results in terms of overall and progression free survival. This review will focus on the main clinical studies and overview the results of different chemotherapy regimens in the neoadjuvant treatment of MPM. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction The prognosis of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is dismal and new effective therapies are needed. Immunotherapy looks promising, but no molecular predictive markers are currently available, and data on immune microenvironment are very limited. Methods We retrospectively analysed 104 SCLC cases. Immunohistochemistry evaluation of PD-L1 was performed both on tumour cells (TCs) and on tumour-infiltrating immune cells (TIICs) by using anti-PD-L1 22C3 antibody (DAKO) and categorised by using 1% as cut-off point. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were characterised by using anti-CD8 and anti-FOXP3 antibodies. Semi-quantitative score was used and categorised as positive versus negative/low. The relation of molecular markers with prognosis and with clinical variables was evaluated. Results The analysis included 66 stage I–III patients (48 surgically resected, 18 treated with radical-intent chemoradiotherapy) and 38 metastatic cases. In the overall study population, PD-L1 was expressed on TCs and TIICs in 25% and 40% of cases, respectively. The proportion of PD-L1-positive cases was significantly higher in stage I–III versus metastatic patients (32% versus 13%, p: 0.034 for TCs; 51.5% versus 21% for TIICs, p: 0.002). CD8- and FOXP3-positive TILs were present in 59% and 72% of samples, respectively. The presence of FOXP3-TILs was associated with improved prognosis among non-metastatic patients, with a hazard ratio for survival of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16–0.7, p: 0.006) for univariate analysis, and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.17–0.81, p: 0.013) for multivariate analysis. Conclusions Immune contexture of SCLC may differ according to stage. The presence of FOXP3-positive TILs is a potential prognostic marker for stage I–III SCLCs and warrants further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sorafenib is a small-molecule multitargeted kinase inhibitor that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor β. The aim of this multicenter, randomized phase II study was to evaluate clinical activity and safety of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine in unselected untreated elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: The trial was designed to select the most promising sorafenib-containing combination in previously untreated elderly (≥70 years) stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients, with performance status of zero to two. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the following combinations: gemcitabine, 1200 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 1); or erlotinib, 150 mg/day, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 2). A selection design was applied with 1-year survival rate as the primary end point of the study, requiring 58 patients.Results: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to the study (31 patients in arm 1 and 29 patients in arm 2). After a median follow-up of 15 months, 10 patients [32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 49%] in arm 1 and 13 patients (45%, 95% CI 27% to 63%) in arm 2 were alive at 1 year. Median overall survival was 6.6 and 12.6 months in arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Observed toxic effects were consistent with the expected drug profiles.Conclusions: The combination of erlotinib and sorafenib was feasible in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate than the other arm. According to the selection design, this combination warrants further investigation in phase III trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Tempo-Lung trial randomly assessed the role of metronomic oral vinorelbine (OV) vs standard weekly oral vinorelbine in advanced NSCLC patients (pts) unfit to platinum doublets. Little data are available on treatment options after first-line in platinum-unfit pts. Methods Advanced NSCLC pts unfit to receive platinum doublets (Creatinine clearance <60 ml/min; heart failure NYHA class II-III; hearing loss >G2; any medical condition impairing platinum treatment according to physician's opinion) were randomized to arm A (metronomic): OV 50mg x3/week (wk) or arm B (standard): OV 60 mg/m²/wk cycle 1, then 80 mg/m²/wk. Primary endpoint was progression free-survival without grade 4 toxicity (PFSG4) and secondary efficacy and safety end-point, quality of life (QoL). Data on treatment after failure of first-line vinorelbine were collected. Results Intention-to-treat population included 165 (arm A 83 - arm B 82) pts. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms. Mean dose intensity by cycle: 73.56 mg/m²/week (arm A), 55.85 mgm²/week (arm B). Median PFSG4 significantly differ in favor of metronomic arm [95%CI]: 4.0 [2.6-4.3] vs 2.2 [1.5-2.9] months (p = 0.0068), HR [95%CI] = 0.63 [0.45-0.88]. Overall treatment related adverse events (61.4% vs 84%): haematological toxicities (27.7% vs 55.6%), G3/4 neutropenia (11% vs 42%), febrile neutropenia (3.6% vs 6.2%) and G3/4 asthenia (4.8% vs 8.6%) were reduced with metronomic OV. It was observed that 40% of patients (subset) had second line treatment: immunotherapy, chemotherapy, protein kinase inhibitor, radiotherapy. No difference was found for changes in EORTC QoL scores. Secondary endpoints will be presented. Conclusions Metronomic OV could be a suitable option for advanced NSCLC pts unfit to receive platinum doublets. Less toxicity was observed in metronomic arm. QoL scores were similar in both arms. A subset of platinum unfit patients could receive second-line treatment mainly consisting on immunotherapy, chemotherapy. Clinical trial identification 2014-003859-61. Legal entity responsible for the study IRPF, Pierre Fabre Medicament. Funding Pierre Fabre Medicament. Disclosure A. Camerini: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, expert testimony: Pierre Fabre; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pierre Fabre. A. Morabito: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: BMS; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: MSD; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: Roche; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: AstraZeneca; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, speaker bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim. F. Grossi: Advisory / Consultancy: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Boehringer Ingelheim; Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self): BMS; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): BMS; Research grant / Funding (self): MSD. R. Ramlau: Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. T-E. Ciuleanu: Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck Serono; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Servier; Advisory / Consultancy: A et D Pharma; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Servier; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ipsen. G.L. Ceresoli: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. J. Bosch-Barrera: Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. P. Landreau: Full / Part-time employment: Pierre Fabre. S. Gautier: Full / Part-time employment: Pierre Fabre. C. Ta Thanh Minh: Full / Part-time employment: Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the treatment of pts with aNSCLC and mMel. No predictive markers of development of irAEs are available. Aim of the study is to evaluate the role of circulating markers in predicting irAE onset. We reviewed clinical data of aNSCLC and mMel pts treated with ICIs at Istituto Oncologico Veneto (Padova, Italy) and San Bortolo Hospital (Vicenza, Italy) between January 2012 and January 2019. We collected data on type and grading (G) of irAEs and calculated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) before first ICI administration and at irAE onset. Values were dichotomized in: high (H) and low (L) NLR and H- and L-PLR, using pre-identified cut-offs of 3 and 180 for aNSCLC, 3 and 120 for mMel. Analysis included 377 pts (252 aNSCLC and 125 mMel). In aNSCLC cohort, median PFS and OS were 4.9 months (m) (95% CI: 3.6-6.1) and 8.6m (95% CI: 6.3-10.8). Ninety-seven pts (38%) developed irAEs, mainly G1-2 (72%), with permanent ICI discontinuation in 29 (29.9%) cases; 26 pts (26.8%) experienced more than one irAE. Pts with baseline L-NLR or L-PLR had a higher risk of irAE (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.3-3.9, p = 0.002 | OR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.3-4.1, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis confirmed NLR and PLR as independent predictive markers (OR = 1.8, 95%CI: 1.0-3.2, p = 0.04 | OR = 1.9, 95%CI: 1.0-3.4, p = 0.03). L-PLR at irAE onset was associated with risk of irAE recurrence or second irAE development (OR = 4.2, 95% CI: 1.4-12.9, p = 0.01). In mMel pts, median PFS and OS were 5.1m (95% CI: 3.6-6.5) and 18.1m (95% CI: 11-25.2). Fifty-four pts (43%) developed irAEs, mainly G1-2 (76%), with permanent ICI discontinuation in 10 (18.5%) cases; 14 pts (25.9%) had multiple irAEs. Pts with baseline L-NLR had higher risk of irAE (OR = 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.6, p = 0.04). NLR and PLR at time of irAE onset were not associated with the risk of irAE recurrence or second irAE development. Baseline NLR and PLR may be reliable and inexpensive predictive tools of irAE risk. For aNSCLC pts L-PLR at irAE onset correlates with risk of further toxicity. If validated, these biomarkers may help pts' management during ICIs and treatment handling after a first irAE. IRCCS Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IOV - Padua – Italy. Has not received any funding. All authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]