Search

Abstract Malignant mesothelioma is a rare tumour caused by asbestos exposure that originates mainly from the pleural lining or the peritoneum. Treatment options are limited, and the prognosis is dismal. Although immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) can improve survival outcomes, the determinants of responsiveness remain elusive. Here, we report the outcomes of a multi-centre phase II clinical trial (MiST4, NCT03654833) evaluating atezolizumab and bevacizumab (AtzBev) in patients with relapsed mesothelioma. We also use tumour tissue and gut microbiome sequencing, as well as tumour spatial immunophenotyping to identify factors associated with treatment response. MIST4 met its primary endpoint with 50% 12-week disease control, and the treatment was tolerable. Aneuploidy, notably uniparental disomy (UPD), homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), epithelial-mesenchymal transition and inflammation with CD68+ monocytes were identified as tumour-intrinsic resistance factors. The log-ratio of gut-resident microbial genera positively correlated with radiological response to AtzBev and CD8+ T cell infiltration, but was inversely correlated with UPD, HRD and tumour infiltration by CD68+ monocytes. In summary, a model is proposed in which both intrinsic and extrinsic determinants in mesothelioma cooperate to modify the tumour microenvironment and confer clinical sensitivity to AtzBev. Gut microbiota represent a potentially modifiable factor with potential to improve immunotherapy outcomes for individuals with this cancer of unmet need.

Summary: Background: Currently, there is no US Food and Drug Administration approved therapy for patients with pleural mesothelioma who have relapsed following platinum-doublet based chemotherapy. Vinorelbine has demonstrated useful clinical activity in mesothelioma, however its efficacy has not been formally evaluated in a randomised setting. BRCA1 expression is required for vinorelbine induced apoptosis in preclinical models. Loss of expression may therefore correlate with vinorelbine resistance. Methods: In this randomised, phase 2 trial, patients were eligible if they met the following criteria: age ≥ 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, histologically confirmed pleural mesothelioma, post platinum-based chemotherapy, and radiological evidence of disease progression. Consented patients were randomised 2:1 to either active symptom control with oral vinorelbine versus active symptom control (ASC) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal at an initial dose of 60 mg/m2 increasing to 80 mg/m2 post-cycle 1. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype, white cell count, gender, ECOG performance status and best response during first-line therapy. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from randomisation to time of event (or censoring). Analyses were carried out according to intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. Recruitment and trial follow-up are complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02139904. Findings: Between June 1, 2016 and Oct 31, 2018, we performed a randomised phase 2 trial in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. 225 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 154 were randomly assigned to receive either ASC + vinorelbine (n = 98) or ASC (n = 56). PFS was significantly longer for ASC+vinorelbine compared with ASC alone; 4.2 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2.2–8.0) versus 2.8 months (IQR 1.4–4.1) for ASC, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·60 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided unadjusted log rank test p = 0.002); adjusted HR 0.6 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided adjusted log rank test p

The impact of intratumour heterogeneity on immune surveillance and clinical outcomes has not been adequately explored in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Here the authors analyse the influence of evolution on the survival and immune landscape of MPM patients using multi-region sequencing data.

Malignant mesothelioma remains an incurable cancer, with no effective treatments in the setting of relapsed disease. Homologous recombination deficiency predicts sensitivity to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. In mesothelioma, BRCA1 -associated protein 1 carboxy-terminal hydrolase (BAP1), which regulates DNA repair, is frequently mutated. We aimed to test the hypothesis that BAP1-deficient or BRCA1 -deficient mesotheliomas would be sensitive to PARP inhibition by rucaparib. We did a single-centre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2a trial in Leicester, UK, with prospective molecular stratification (Mesothelioma-Stratified Therapy 1 [MiST1]). Patients aged 18 years or older who had radiologically progressing, histologically confirmed, malignant mesothelioma after at least one course of systemic treatment; with cytoplasmic-BAP1-deficient or BRCA1 -deficient mesothelioma (pleural or peritoneal or other primary localisation), and who met the other inclusion criteria, were deemed eligible. All eligible patients who consented to take part were given rucaparib 600 mg twice a day orally, for six cycles of 28 days, or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Response was measured by CT scan every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was disease control (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) at 12 weeks in all patients who received study drug; secondary outcomes were the safety and toxicity profile, objective response rate (proportion of complete or partial responses), and disease control rate at 24 weeks. Recruitment is now closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03654833. Between Feb 9 and June 10, 2019, we enrolled 26 molecularly and clinically eligible patients. Ten (38%) of 26 patients were BAP1 negative and BRCA1 negative, 23 patients (89%) were BAP1 negative, and 13 patients (50%) were BRCA1 negative. Disease control rate at 12 weeks was 58% (95% CI 37–77; 15 of 26 patients), and at 24 weeks was 23% (9–44; six of 26 patients). Rucaparib was well tolerated, with 15 (9%) of 166 adverse events being grade 3 or 4, which were seen in nine (35%) of 26 patients, and there were no deaths. The most common grade 1–2 adverse events were nausea (18 [69%] of 26 patients), fatigue (14 patients [54%]), and decreased appetite (ten patients [38%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (three patients [12%]) and anaemia (three patients [12%]). All six cycles of rucaparib were received by eight (31%) of 26 patients. One or more dose reductions occurred in nine patients (35%). Rucaparib in patients with BAP1-negative or BRCA1 -negative mesothelioma met the prespecified criteria for success, showing promising activity with manageable toxicity. Further investigation of homologous recombination deficiency mutations is planned to refine the identification of predictive biomarkers for PARP inhibition in mesothelioma. University of Leicester (Leicester, UK), Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership, and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation (Toronto, ON, Canada). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genetically stratified therapy for malignant mesothelioma is unavailable. Mesotheliomas frequently harbour loss of the chromosome 9p21.3 locus (CDKN2A-MTAP), which is associated with shorter overall survival due to loss of the tumour suppressor p16ink4A, an endogenous suppressor of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4 and CDK6. Genetic restoration of p16ink4A suppresses mesothelioma in preclinical models, underpinning the rationale for targeting CDK4 and CDK6 in p16ink4A-negative mesothelioma. We developed a multicentre, stratified, phase 2 trial to test this hypothesis., Methods: The MiST2 study was a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial done two UK centres. Patients older than 18 years with any histologically confirmed subtype of mesothelioma (pleural or peritoneal) with radiological progression after at least one course of platinum-based chemotherapy were molecularly screened by immunohistochemistry for p16ink4A. Patients with p16ink4A-negative mesothelioma were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were required to have measurable disease by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 for malignant mesothelioma, a predicted life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1. Patients received oral abemaciclib 200 mg twice daily, administered in 28-day cycles for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate (patients with complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease) at 12 weeks. The null hypothesis could be rejected if at least 11 patients had disease control. The efficacy and safety populations were defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03654833, and is ongoing (but MiST2 is now closed)., Findings: Between Sept 31, 2019, and March 2, 2020, 27 eligible patients consented to molecular screening. The median follow-up was 18·4 weeks (IQR 6·7-23·9). One patient was excluded before treatment because of a serious adverse event before study drug allocation. 26 (100%) of 26 treated patients were p16ink4A deficient and received at least one dose of abemaciclib. Disease control at 12 weeks was reported in 14 (54%) of 26 patients (95% CI 36-71). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events (of any cause) occurred in eight (27%) of 26 patients (diarrhoea, dyspnoea, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, urinary tract infection, increased alanine aminotransferase, ascites, chest infection or suspected chest infection, neutropenic sepsis, alopecia, blood clot left calf, fall [broken neck and collar bone], haemoptysis, lower respiratory tract infection, and pulmonary embolism). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in three (12%) of 26 patients (diarrhoea, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, increased alanine aminotransferase, and pulmonary embolism). Serious adverse events occurred in six (23%) of 26 patients, leading to treatment discontinuation in one (4%) patient (diarrhoea, urinary tract infection, chest infection, neutropenic sepsis, fall [broken neck and collar bone], haemoptysis, lower respiratory tract infection, and pulmonary embolism). One patient had a serious adverse event related to abemaciclib (diarrhoea). One (4%) of 26 patients died from an adverse event (neutropenic sepsis)., Interpretation: This study met its primary endpoint, showing promising clinical activity of abemaciclib in patients with p16ink4A-negative mesothelioma who were previously treated with chemotherapy, and warrants its further investigation in a randomised study as a targeted stratified therapy., Funding: University of Leicester, Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership, and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DAF reports grants from Astex Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Bayer; personal fees from Aldeyra, Inventiva, and Paredox; non-financial support from Clovis, Eli Lilly, and BMS; and personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, during the conduct of the study. AT reports personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: No phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients., Methods: This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450., Findings: Between May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group., Interpretation: Nivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy., Funding: Stand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DAF reports grants from Astex Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bayer; personal fees from Aldeyra, Inventiva, and Paredox; non-financial support from Clovis, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, during the study. GG reports grants from Jannsen-Cilag, Novartis, Astex, Roche, Heartflow, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioNtech; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Celldex, outside the submitted work. JL reports grants from Cancer Research UK and non-financial support from Bristol Myers Squibb, during the study. CO reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. RC reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and AstraZeneca, during the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Melanoma is an aggressive cancer. Outcomes can vary significantly for lesions within the same pathological stage - a problem of increasing relevance with the promise of adjuvant treatments on the basis of immune checkpoint modulators and targeted therapies. The use of a panel of prognostic molecular biomarkers as an adjunct to stage represents a possible solution. Immunohistochemistry-based biomarkers offer greater potential for translation into clinical practice than biomarkers utilizing more complex methods. Many immunohistochemistry-based biomarkers have been identified through discovery studies, but rigorous validation of these is scarce. We take the first steps towards validating a combination of three such biomarkers in a prognostic panel - 5hmC, ki-67 and p16. Immunohistochemistry was performed on a cohort of 50 melanomas to determine the expression of 5hmC, ki-67 and p16. 5hmC and p16 showed statistically significant differences in metastasis-free survival between low-score and high-score groups, whereas the use of all three biomarkers together with stage could predict the 5-year metastasis risk more accurately than stage alone. Our results suggest that the use of multimarker panels to improve the accuracy of prognostic predictions is feasible and worthy of further study. We have shown that a small immunohistochemistry-based panel utilizing simple, inexpensive, reproducible methods can be an effective adjunct to stage in prognostic prediction. A follow-up study consisting of a large cohort of melanomas is now indicated to continue the development of the prognostic panel.