bims-mesote Biomed News
on Mesothelioma
Issue of 2022–04–03
nine papers selected by
Laura Mannarino, Humanitas Research



  1. Front Surg. 2022 ;9 819596
      Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare yet aggressive neoplasm that was linked only to asbestos exposure for decades, although familial clusters were diagnosed with MPM without a known history of asbestos exposure most likely due to genetic susceptibility. Here, we describe a case of familial malignant mesothelioma in a 39 years old patient with a confirmed BAP1 mutation in addition to a known family history with the same mutation. The patient presented with progressive shortness of breath and recurrent pleural effusions and diagnosis was made through biopsies taken during uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery. After the inconclusive result of 18F-FDG PET/CT scan, subxiphoid uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery left pleural and laparoscopic peritoneal biopsies were obtained for staging and evaluating contralateral lung and peritoneal cavity. Finally, two important educational values should be acquired from this case: genetic predisposition and BAP1 tumor suppressor gene mutation might affect the age of presentation and overall prognosis of the disease. Also, 18F-FDG PET/CT scan may not be the best modality for staging and confirming the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma.
    Keywords:  BAP1 mutation; PET scan; familial; pleural mesothelioma; uniportal VATS
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.819596
  2. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 Mar 29. pii: ezac153. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  Malignant pleural mesothelioma; Patient selection; Surgery; Treatment allocation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac153
  3. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Apr;pii: S1470-2045(22)00061-4. [Epub ahead of print]23(4): 540-552
       BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.
    METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed.
    FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia).
    INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma.
    FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00061-4
  4. Inhal Toxicol. 2022 Mar 26. 1-10
       OBJECTIVES: To assess potential mesothelioma risk following inhalation of cosmetic talc, we updated previous iterations of a pooled cohort analysis, post-study statistical power analysis, and confidence interval function analysis for a pooled cohort of international cosmetic talc miners/millers given new Italian cohort data.
    METHODS: Five cohorts of cosmetic talc miners/millers were pooled. Expected numbers of mesotheliomas for each cohort were reported by the original authors. We based our post-study statistical power analysis on an a priori one-sided significance level of 0.05, and exact Poisson and approximate distribution probabilities. To evaluate the confidence interval function for the observed pooled mesothelioma standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), we calculated the probability for the upper 100(1-2α)% confidence limit that equals various SMRs of interest.
    RESULTS: The pooled cohorts generated a total observation time of 135,524.38 person-years. Overall, 4.14 mesotheliomas were expected (mid-value estimate), though only one case of mesothelioma has been confirmed in the pooled cohort to date. We calculated 71% and 87% post-study power to detect a 2.5-fold or greater and a 3.0-fold or greater increase in mesothelioma, respectively. Our complimentary confidence interval function analysis demonstrated that the probability that the true mesothelioma SMR for the pooled cohort was at or above 2.0 or at or above 3.0 was 0.00235 and 0.00005, respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: Based on the updated results of our various analyses, the current epidemiological evidence from cosmetic talc miner/miller cohort studies continues to not support the hypothesis that the inhalation of cosmetic talc is associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma.
    Keywords:  Mesothelioma; asbestos; confidence interval function analysis; cosmetic talc; latency analysis; pleural cancer; pooled cohort analysis; statistical power analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08958378.2022.2053251
  5. Front Oncol. 2022 ;12 871544
      
    Keywords:  genetic alteration; lung cancer; mesothelioma; thymic epithelial tumor (TET); tumor immune microenvironment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.871544
  6. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2022 Mar 23. pii: S1462-3889(22)00030-8. [Epub ahead of print]58 102122
       PURPOSE: Mesothelioma is a rare and incurable cancer linked to asbestos exposure. It primarily affects the pleura. This systematic rapid review aimed to identify what is known about the experience of living with mesothelioma, from the perspective of patients and their informal carers.
    METHODS: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched for empirical studies published between December 2008 and October 2020. Google Scholar was searched. The inclusion criteria stated that studies were peer-reviewed, reported the experience of living with mesothelioma from the perspective of patients and carers and written in English. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess quality. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO: CRD42020204726.
    RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Following data extraction, a narrative synthesis identified three themes: the impact on the individual; the impact on informal carers and relationships; and interactions with professionals and systems. The physical and psychological symptom burden of mesothelioma on patients' lives was reported as high. Both the qualitative and quantitative literature highlighted that patients and carers may have different needs throughout the mesothelioma journey. Differences included psychological experiences and preferences regarding the timing of information and support provision. Patients and carers expected their health care professionals to be knowledgeable about mesothelioma or refer to those who were. Health care professionals that were compassionate, honest and supportive also positively influenced the experience of patients and carers living with mesothelioma. A lack of communication or misinformation was damaging to the patient-healthcare professional relationship. Continuity of care, coordinated care and good communication between treatment centres were widely reported as important in the literature. Fragmented care was identified as detrimental to the patient experience, increasing anxiety in patients. However, relationships with professionals were not only important in terms of co-ordinating care. There was also evidence that good relationships with healthcare professionals were beneficial to coping with the mesothelioma diagnosis.
    CONCLUSION: The volume of mesothelioma experience research has grown over the past decade. This has led to our growing understanding of the complex needs and experiences of mesothelioma patients and carers. However, this review identified several evidence gaps.
    Keywords:  Informal carer experience; Mesothelioma; Patient experience; Systematic rapid review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2022.102122
  7. Cancer Gene Ther. 2022 Mar 29.
      Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) is a rare and rapidly lethal tumor, poorly responsive to conventional treatments. In this regards, the identification of molecular alterations underlying DMPM onset and progression might be exploited to develop novel therapeutic strategies. Here, we focused on miR-550a-3p, which we found downregulated in 45 DMPM clinical samples compared to normal tissues and whose expression levels were associated with patient outcome. Through a gain-of-function approach using miRNA mimics in 3 DMPM cell lines, we demonstrated the tumor-suppressive role of miR-550a-3p. Specifically, miRNA ectopic expression impaired cell proliferation and invasiveness, enhanced the apoptotic response, and reduced the growth of DMPM xenografts in mice. Antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects were also observed in prostate and ovarian cancer cell lines following miR-550a-3p ectopic expression. miR-550a-3p effects were mediated, at least in part, by the direct inhibition of HSP90AA1 and the consequent downregulation of its target proteins, the levels of which were rescued upon disruption of miRNA-HSP90AA1 mRNA pairing, partially abrogating miR-550a-3p-induced cellular effects. Our results show that miR-550a-3p reconstitution affects several tumor traits, thus suggesting this approach as a potential novel therapeutic strategy for DMPM.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41417-022-00460-7
  8. Eur J Cancer. 2022 Mar 28. pii: S0959-8049(22)00129-0. [Epub ahead of print]166 287-299
       BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with systemic therapies for patients with pre-treated mesothelioma have reported equivocal efficacy results and generated a degree of clinical uncertainty about the choice of active treatment in this poor prognosis malignancy.
    METHODS: To compare the effectiveness and safety and weigh the benefit of different systemic treatments in patients with pre-treated mesothelioma by systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of RCTs. Full-text articles and abstracts were searched on PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and oncology conferences proceedings from 2005 through November 2021 for phase 2 and 3 RCTs. The protocol was submitted to the PROSPERO registry. Reporting followed the PRISMA guideline. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free (PFS), grade ≥3 treatment-related (Tr) adverse events (AEs), Tr-deaths and Tr-AEs leading to treatment discontinuation.
    FINDINGS: Nine trials at low risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration's methodology were included, encompassing 2789 patients. Five studies showed PFS benefit in the experimental treatment. In two studies, OS was prolonged by immunotherapy (versus placebo) or by adding an antiangiogenic agent to chemotherapy. Reported Tr-AE were lower with single-agent anti-PD1 compared with chemotherapy or placebo. The meta-analysis revealed a beneficial global effect on OS and PFS from experimental treatments (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96, p = 0.0083 and HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.86, p < 0.001), that for the PFS significantly favoured the comparison with non-active treatments (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.81, p < 0.001). Younger patients (i.e. <65-70 years) appeared to benefit the most in OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92, p = 0.04). The risk of serious Tr-AEs and Tr-deaths was not significantly increased by experimental treatments (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81-2.35, p = 0.24 and RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.69-6.24, p = 0.19, respectively) that instead increased TrAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.44-6.08, p = 0.003). The network meta-analysis did not identify any superior treatment in PFS.
    INTERPRETATION: For patients with pre-treated MPM, single-agent anti-PD1 or chemotherapy ± the antiangiogenic agent can be considered active and safe systemic therapeutic options, particularly for younger patients.
    Keywords:  CTLA4; Chemotherapy; Immunotherapy; Mesothelioma; Meta-analysis; Network meta-analysis; PD1; Pre-treated; Randomised controlled trials; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2022.02.030