bims-mesote Biomed News
on Mesothelioma
Issue of 2022–05–22
six papers selected by
Laura Mannarino, Humanitas Research



  1. Front Oncol. 2022 ;12 886430
      Multimodality therapy including surgical resection is the current paradigm in treating malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a thoracic surface cancer without cure. The main limitation of all surgical approaches is the lack of long-term durability because macroscopic complete resection (R1 resection) commonly predisposes to locoregional relapse. Over the years, there have been many studies that describe various intrapleural strategies that aim to extend the effect of surgical resection. The majority of these approaches are intraoperative adjuvants. Broadly, there are three therapeutic classes that employ diverse agents. The most common, widely used group of adjuvants are comprised of direct therapeutics such as intracavitary chemotherapy (± hyperthermia). By comparison, the least commonly employed intrathoracic adjuvant is the class comprised of drug-device combinations like photodynamic therapy (PDT). But the most rapidly evolving (new) class with much potential for improved efficacy are therapeutics delivered by specialized drug vehicles such as a fibrin gel containing cisplatin. This review provides an updated perspective on pleural-directed adjuncts in the management of MPM as well as highlighting the most promising near-term technology breakthroughs.
    Keywords:  hydrogel; intraoperative adjuncts; intrathoracic; malignant pleural mesothelioma; microRNA; multimodality treatment; nanoparticle; polymer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.886430
  2. Lancet Oncol. 2022 May 16. pii: S1470-2045(22)00277-7. [Epub ahead of print]
       BACKGROUND: Treatment options for malignant pleural mesothelioma are scarce. Tazemetostat, a selective oral enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in several haematological cancers and solid tumours. We aimed to evaluate the anti-tumour activity and safety of tazemetostat in patients with measurable relapsed or refractory malignant pleural mesothelioma.
    METHODS: We conducted an open-label, single-arm phase 2 study at 16 hospitals in France, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histology that was relapsed or refractory after treatment with at least one pemetrexed-containing regimen, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a life expectancy of greater than 3 months. In part 1 of the study, participants received oral tazemetostat 800 mg once on day 1 and then twice daily from day 2 onwards. In part 2, participants received oral tazemetostat 800 mg twice daily starting on day 1 of cycle 1, using a two-stage Green-Dahlberg design. Tazemetostat was administered in 21-day cycles for approximately 17 cycles. The primary endpoint of part 1 was the pharmacokinetics of tazemetostat and its metabolite at day 15 after administration of 800 mg tazemetostat, as measured by maximum serum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) to day 15 (AUC0-t), area under the curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞), and the half-life (t1/2) of tazemetostat, assessed in all patients enrolled in part 1. The primary endpoint of part 2 was the disease control rate (the proportion of patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease) at week 12 in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma per protocol with BAP1 inactivation determined by immunohistochemistry. The safety population included all the patients who had at least one post-dose safety assessment. This trial is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02860286.
    FINDINGS: Between July 29, 2016, and June 2, 2017, 74 patients were enrolled (13 in part 1 and 61 in part 2) and received tazemetostat, 73 (99%) of whom had BAP1-inactivated tumours. In part 1, following repeat dosing of tazemetostat at steady state, on day 15 of cycle 1, the mean Cmax was 829 ng/mL (coefficient of variation 56·3%), median Tmax was 2 h (range 1-4), mean AUC0-twas 3310 h·ng/mL (coefficient of variation 50·4%), mean AUC0-∞ was 3180 h·ng/mL (46·6%), and the geometric mean t1/2 was 3·1 h (13·9%). After a median follow-up of 35·9 weeks (IQR 20·6-85·9), the disease control rate in part 2 in patients with BAP1-inactivated malignant pleural mesothelioma was 54% (95% CI 42-67; 33 of 61 patients) at week 12. No patients had a confirmed complete response. Two patients had a confirmed partial response: one had an ongoing partial response with a duration of 18 weeks and the other had a duration of 42 weeks. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [7%] patients), hyponatraemia (five [7%]), and anaemia (four [5%]); serious adverse events were reported in 25 (34%) of 74 patients. Five (7%) of 74 patients died while on study; no treatment-related deaths occurred.
    INTERPRETATION: Further refinement of biomarkers for tazemetostat activity in malignant pleural mesothelioma beyond BAP1 inactivation could help identify a subset of tumours that are most likely to derive prolonged benefit or shrinkage from this therapy.
    FUNDING: Epizyme.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00277-7
  3. Front Oncol. 2022 ;12 836751
      
    Keywords:  PD-L1 (22C3); checkpoint inhibition therapy; chemo-immunotherapy combinations; complete pathologic response (pCR); mesothelioma malignant; pleural mesothelioma
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.836751
  4. World J Clin Oncol. 2022 Apr 24. 13(4): 267-275
      Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is the most common type of malignant mesothelioma. It is a rare tumor linked to asbestos exposure and is associated with a poor prognosis. Until very recently, patients with advanced or unresectable disease had limited treatment options, primarily based on doublet chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed. In 2020 and 2021, after more than a decade with no major advances or new drugs, two phase III clinical trials published results positioning immunotherapy as a promising option for the first- and second-line treatment of MPM. Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of many cancers and is also showing encouraging results in malignant mesothelioma. Both immune checkpoint inhibition and dual cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and programmed death-ligand 1 pathway blockade resulted in significantly improved overall survival in randomized phase III trials. In the CheckMate 743 trial, first-line therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab outperformed standard chemotherapy, while in the CONFIRM trial, nivolumab outperformed placebo in patients previously treated with chemotherapy. These two trials represent a major milestone in the treatment of MPM and are set to position immunotherapy as a viable alternative for treatment-naïve patients and patients with progressive disease after chemotherapy.
    Keywords:  CONFIRM; CheckMate 743; Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Immunotherapy combo; Ipilimumab; Malignant pleural mesothelioma; Mesothelioma; Nivolumab; Programmed cell death protein 1
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v13.i4.267
  5. Pathol Int. 2022 May 21.
      As more than 80% of pleural mesothelioma (PM) cases start with pleural effusions, diagnosis with effusion smear cytology or pleural biopsy is important. For diagnosing PM, a three-step approach is used: (1) detecting atypical cells; (2) verifying their mesothelial origin using immunohistochemistry (IHC); and (3) discriminating PM from benign mesothelial proliferations (BMP). The third step is critical for diagnosing early lesions. In small biopsy or cytologic specimens in which tumor cell fat invasion cannot be assessed, genomic-based assays, including IHC-detected BAP1 loss and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-detected homozygous deletion (HD) of CDKN2A/p16, are effective for differentiation. Both BAP1 IHC and CDKN2A FISH can equally be applied to histologic and cytologic specimens, with 100% specificity in discriminating PM from BMP. We found that methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) loss as detected by IHC could serve as a feasible alternative in tissue and cytologic preparations for CDKN2A FISH. However, a combination including FISH was still most effective: the addition of NF2 FISH to CDKN2A FISH and BAP1 IHC yielded a greater sensitivity of close to 100% in diagnosing PM tissues. Although IHC is more feasible than FISH, owing to remaining challenges in data interpretation, caution and familiarity are warranted when diagnosing PM.
    Keywords:  BAP1; CDKN2A; FISH; MTAP; NF2; cytology; histology; pleural mesothelioma
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/pin.13235
  6. Virchows Arch. 2022 May 16.
      The differentiation between reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH) and diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) is challenging especially when applied on peritoneal small samples. The use of BRCA-associated protein 1 (BAP1) and methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) immunostains is familiar to identify malignant mesothelial proliferation. Recently, nuclear 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5-hmC) was reported to be a new recognition tool of pleural mesothelial malignancy on surgical specimens. However, application of 5-hmC immunostaining has not yet studied in peritoneal specimens from small biopsies or cytology cell-blocks. The aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of this new marker combination to distinguish DMPM from RMH in biopsies and cell-blocks. Seventy-five cases were analyzed; among which, 38 were of cytological specimens including 6 RMH and 32 DMPM, and 37 tissue biopsies with 7 RMH and 30 DMPM. BAP1, MTAP, and 5-hmC immunostains were performed on all cases. RMH cases exhibited a retained staining with all immunostains. Among DMPM, BAP1 was lost in 71.8% of cytology cell-blocks and 66.7% of biopsies. MTAP was lost in 40.6% of cytology cell-blocks and 33.3% of biopsies. 5-hmC was lost in 40.6% of cytology cell-blocks and 30% of biopsies. The combination of BAP1, MTAP, and 5-hmC showed the best accuracy in differential diagnosis between RMH and DMPM (sensitivity = 0.84, specificity = 1 in cytology cell-blocks; sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 1 in biopsy). The best diagnostic combination in peritoneal cytology effusion fluids and biopsies samples provided by BAP1, MTAP, and 5-hmC should be applied on a diagnostic step-wise algorithm by pathologists involved into the management of DMPM, because of their therapeutic implications.
    Keywords:  5-hmC; Biomarker; Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma; Mesothelioma; Reactive mesothelial hyperplasia
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03336-1