The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine

Our medical research library holds 25 studies published in The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine (2013–2024). Each entry links to the study's record on PubMed and, where there is one, to the publisher's page and a free full text. 11 have an abstract, the authors' own summary as PubMed records it: open "Abstract" to read it. For 1 study PubMed has no abstract for, we give the abstract printed in the article or, where there is none, a summary we wrote from it, each labeled as such.

About the journal

• Publisher: Elsevier
• Published: 2013 to the present, England
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2213-2600 (print), 2213-2619 (electronic)
• Its record in the NLM Catalog

2020s

• Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. E. Lim, D. Waller, K. Lau, et al. 2024;12(6):457-466. Randomized trial PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone.

  Methods: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants.

  Findings: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group.

  Interpretation: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone.

  Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895).

  Copyright © 2024 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.

• Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mesothelioma in the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. T.A. Yap, K. Nakagawa, N. Fujimoto, et al. 2021;9(6):613-621. PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has few treatment options. Pembrolizumab showed preliminary clinical benefit in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive MPM. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated MPM irrespective of PD-L1 status in the KEYNOTE-158 study.

  Methods: The ongoing open-label, multicohort, single-arm, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study enrolled eligible adults (≥18 years) with MPM who had progression on or intolerance to standard therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and biomarker-evaluable tumour samples. Individuals were enrolled from 35 academic facilities and community-based institutions across 14 countries in Australia, North America, Europe, and Asia. Participants received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, based on radiological imaging every 9 weeks for the first year of the study and every 12 weeks thereafter and assessed by independent central review. Efficacy and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02628067.

  Findings: Patients were enrolled in the MPM cohort between Feb 9, 2016, and Aug 16, 2016. As of June 27, 2019, 118 patients had been enrolled and received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. Ten (8% [95% CI 4-15]) patients had an objective response. Median duration of objective response was 14·3 months (range 4·0 to 33·9+), and 60% of objective responses were ongoing at 12 months. Objective responses were observed in six (8%) of 77 patients with PD-L1-positive MPM (median response duration 17·7 months [range 5·8 to 33·9+]) and four (13%) of 31 patients with PD-L1-negative MPM (10·2 months [4·0-16·6]). Median overall survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 7·6-13·4) and median progression-free survival was 2·1 months (2·1-3·9). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 82 (69%) of 118 patients and serious adverse events that were considered to be treatment-related occurred in 14 (12%) of 118 patients. 19 (16%) patients had grade 3-4 treatment-related events, and most common of these were colitis (three patients), hyponatraemia (three), and pneumonitis (two). One patient died from treatment-related apnoea. By the end of the trial, 113 (96%) patients had discontinued pembrolizumab and progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation.

  Interpretation: Pembrolizumab showed durable antitumour activity and manageable toxicity in patients with advanced MPM, regardless of PD-L1 status. Our data support the programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 pathway as a potential therapeutic target in some patients with previously treated mesothelioma but biomarkers that can effectively identify such patients are yet to be elucidated.

  Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

  Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• New and old treatments for malignant mesothelioma: not just immunotherapy. A.K. Nowak. 2021;9(6):547-549. Comment PubMed · Publisher

• Pirfenidone in patients with progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (RELIEF): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial. J. Behr, A. Prasse, M. Kreuter, et al. 2021;9(5):476-486. Randomized trial PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Pirfenidone has been shown to slow disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, there are few treatment options for progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs)) other than IPF. In view of the pathomechanistic and clinical similarities between IPF and other progressive fibrotic ILDs, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with four non-IPF progressive fibrotic ILDs.

  Methods: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel phase 2b trial (RELIEF) in 17 centres with expertise in ILD in Germany. Eligible participants were patients aged 18-80 years with progressive fibrotic ILD due to four diagnoses: collagen or vascular diseases (ie, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs), fibrotic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or asbestos-induced lung fibrosis. Other eligibility criteria included a forced vital capacity (FVC) of 40-90% predicted, a diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide of 10-90% predicted, and an annual decline of FVC of at least 5% predicted despite conventional therapy, based on at least three measurements within 6-24 months before enrolment. Patients who had received any previous antifibrotic therapy were excluded. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either oral pirfenidone (267 mg three times per day in week 1, 534 mg three times per day in week 2, and 801 mg three times per day thereafter) or matched placebo, added to their ongoing medication. Randomisation was done centrally using permuted block randomisation with varying block sizes stratified by the four diagnostic groups. Patients, investigators, statisticians, monitors, and the study coordinator were masked to treatment assignment until database closure. The placebo-controlled study period was 48 weeks (including up-titration). The primary endpoint was absolute change in percentage of predicted FVC (FVC % predicted) from baseline to week 48 in the intention-to-treat population, with imputation of missing data by the smallest sum of squared differences and attribution of deceased patients to the lowest rank in a rank ANCOVA model. Additionally, we did linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analyses of FVC % predicted longitudinal data over the course of the study as a prespecified sensitivity analysis and post-hoc sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population using imputation methods of last observation carried forward [LOCF] and a regression-based multiple imputation procedure. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with EudraCT 2014-000861-32; DRKS00009822 and is no longer recruiting.

  Findings: Between April 5, 2016, and Oct 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 127 patients to treatment: 64 to pirfenidone, 63 to placebo. After 127 patients had been randomised, the study was prematurely terminated on the basis of an interim analysis for futility triggered by slow recruitment. After 48 weeks and in the overall population of 127 patients, rank ANCOVA with diagnostic group included as a factor showed a significantly lower decline in FVC % predicted in the pirfenidone group compared with placebo (p=0·043); the result was similar when the model was stratified by diagnostic group (p=0·042). A significant treatment effect was also observed when applying the LOCF and multiple imputation methods to analyses of the primary endpoint. The median difference (Hodges-Lehmann estimate) between pirfenidone and placebo groups for the primary endpoint was 1·69 FVC % predicted (95% CI -0·65 to 4·03). In the linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analysis of FVC % predicted, the estimated difference between treatment and placebo groups from baseline to week 48 was 3·53 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·21 to 6·86) with imputation of deaths as prespecified, or 2·79 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·03 to 5·54) without imputation. One death (non-respiratory) occurred in the pirfenidone group (2%) and five deaths (three of which were respiratory) occurred in the placebo group (8%). The most frequent serious adverse events in both groups were infections and infestations (five [8%] in the pirfenidone group, ten [16%] in the placebo group); general disorders including disease worsening (two [3%] in the pirfenidone group, seven [11%] in the placebo group); and cardiac disorders (one ([2%] in the pirfenidone group, 5 [8%] in the placebo group). Adverse events (grade 3-4) of nausea (two patients on pirfenidone, two on placebo), dyspnoea (one patient on pirfenidone, one on placebo), and diarrhoea (one patient on pirfenidone) were also observed.

  Interpretation: In view of the premature study termination, results should be interpreted with care. Nevertheless, our data suggest that in patients with fibrotic ILDs other than IPF who deteriorate despite conventional therapy, adding pirfenidone to existing treatment might attenuate disease progression as measured by decline in FVC.

  Funding: German Center for Lung Research, Roche Pharma.

  Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Rucaparib in patients with BAP1-deficient or BRCA1-deficient mesothelioma (MiST1): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2a clinical trial. D.A. Fennell, A. King, S. Mohammed, et al. 2021;9(6):593-600. Randomized trial PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: 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.

  Methods: 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.

  Findings: 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%).

  Interpretation: 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.

  Funding: University of Leicester (Leicester, UK), Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership, and the Victor Dahdaleh Foundation (Toronto, ON, Canada).

  Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Switch-maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma (NVALT19): an investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. C.J. de Gooijer, V. van der Noort, J.A. Stigt, et al. 2021;9(6):585-592. Randomized trial PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Almost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy.

  Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847.

  Findings: Between March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36·5 months (95% CI 34·2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6·2 months [95% CI 4·6-8·7]) than in the supportive care group (3·2 months [2·8-4·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·48 [95% CI 0·33-0·71]; p=0·0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0·49 [0·33-0·72]; p=0·0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 (52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection.

  Interpretation: Switch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma.

  Funding: Dutch Cancer Society (Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds voor de Nederlandse Kankerbestrijding) and Stichting NVALT studies.

  Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Tremelimumab plus durvalumab retreatment and 4-year outcomes in patients with mesothelioma: a follow-up of the open label, non-randomised, phase 2 NIBIT-MESO-1 study. L. Calabrò, G. Rossi, A. Morra, et al. 2021;9(9):969-976. PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  Abstract

  Background: The NIBIT-MESO-1 study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab in patient with unresectable mesothelioma followed up for a median of 52 months [IQR 49-53]. Here, we report 4-year survival and outcomes after retreatment, and the role of tumour mutational burden (TMB) in identifying patients who might have a better outcome in response to combined therapy.

  Methods: NIBIT-MESO-1 was an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial of patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who received intravenous tremelimumab (1 mg/kg bodyweight) and durvalumab (20 mg/kg bodyweight) every 4 weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance intravenous durvalumab at the same dose and schedule for nine doses. In this follow-up study, patients with disease progression following initial clinical benefit-ie, a partial repsonse or stable disease-were eligible for retreatment and with the same doses and schedules for tremelimumab and durvalumab as used in the NIBIT-MESO-1 trial. The primary endpoint, immune-related objective response rate, was evaluated per immune-related modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or immune-related RECIST 1.1 criteria for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma, respectively. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival and safety, and TMB was also evaluated post hoc in patients who had tumour tissue available before treatment. The intention-to-treat population was used for analysis of all efficacy endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02588131.

  Findings: 40 patients were enrolled in the NIBIT-MESO-1 study between Oct 30, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016. At data cut-off, April 30, 2020, five (13%) of 40 patients were alive, and 35 (88%) patients had died of progressive disease. At a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 49-53), median overall survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·7-19·2). Survival was 20% (eight of 40 patients) at 36 months and 15% (six of 40 patients) and 48 months. 17 (43%) of 40 patients met the criteria for enrolment in the retreatment study and were retreated with at least one dose of tremelimumab and durvalumab. No immune-related objective responses were observed in the 17 retreated patients. Seven (41%) of 17 patients achieved immune-related stable disease. From the start of retreatment to a median follow-up of 24 months (22·0-25·0), median overall survival was 12·5 months (95% CI 0·0-25·8), and survival at 12 months was 52·9%, at 18 months was 35·3%, and at 24 months was 23·5%. There were no grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events in the retreatment cohort. In a post-hoc analysis of 28 patients for whom tumour tissue before treatment was available, patients with a TMB higher than the median value of 8·3 mutations per Mb had a higher median overall survival compared with patients with TMB below the median value, but this difference was non-significant. Moreover, when patients were additionally stratified for ICI retreatment (n=13), there was a significant difference in survival between those with a TMB higher than the median of 8·3 mutations per Mb and those with TMB lower than the median in the retreated cohort (41·3 months vs 17·4 months; p=0·02).

  Interpretation: Tremelimumab combined with durvalumab was associated with long-term survival in patients with mesothelioma. Retreatment was safe and resulted in clinically meaningful outcomes, thus suggesting its potential application in the clinical practice of mesothalioma patients.

  Funding: NIBIT Foundation, Fondazione AIRC, AstraZeneca.

  Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• IASLC 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer. P. Venkatesan. 2020;8(10):e76. News PubMed · Publisher

2010s

• Is there an acceptable level of asbestos use?. A. van Dorn. 2019;7(2):112-113. PubMed · Publisher

• Nintedanib in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (LUME-Meso): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. G.V. Scagliotti, R. Gaafar, A.K. Nowak, et al. 2019;7(7):569-580. Randomized trial PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Nintedanib targets VEGF receptors 1-3, PDGF receptors α and β, FGF receptors 1-3, and Src and Abl kinases, which are all implicated in malignant pleural mesothelioma pathogenesis. Here, we report the final results of the phase 3 part of the LUME-Meso trial, which aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed plus cisplatin combined with nintedanib or placebo in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.

  Methods: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was done at 120 academic medical centres and community clinics in 27 countries across the world. Chemotherapy-naive adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma and ECOG performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned 1:1 via an independently verified random number-generating system to receive up to six 21-day cycles of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1, then nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or matched placebo on days 2-21. Patients without disease progression after six cycles received nintedanib or placebo maintenance on days 1-21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (investigator-assessed according to mRECIST) in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01907100.

  Findings: Between April 14, 2016, and Jan 5, 2018, 541 patients were screened and 458 were randomly assigned to either the nintedanib group (n=229) or the placebo group (n=229). Median treatment duration was 5·3 months (IQR 2·8-7·3) in the nintedanib group and 5·1 months (2·7-7·8) in the placebo group. After 250 events, progression-free survival was not different between the nintedanib group (median 6·8 months [95% CI 6·1-7·0]) and the placebo group (7·0 months [6·7-7·2]; HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·79-1·30], p=0·91). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse event in both treatment groups was neutropenia (73 [32%] in the nintedanib group vs 54 [24%] in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were reported in 99 (44%) patients in the nintedanib group and 89 (39%) patients in the placebo group. The only serious adverse event occurring in at least 5% of patients in either group was pulmonary embolism (13 [6%] vs seven [3%]).

  Interpretation: The primary progression-free survival endpoint of the phase 3 part of LUME-Meso was not met and phase 2 findings were not confirmed. No unexpected safety findings were reported.

  Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim.

  Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Pleural mesothelioma: tackling a deadly cancer. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2019;7(2):99. Editorial PubMed · Publisher

  Summary

  This unsigned editorial in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine reviewed recent research on malignant pleural mesothelioma. It stated that mesothelioma is usually caused by exposure to asbestos, that patients with pleural mesothelioma have a median survival from diagnosis of around 1 year, and that GLOBOCAN 2018 statistics recorded 30 443 cases and 25 576 deaths worldwide. The editorial described a University of Pittsburgh study that used the National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank to assess 888 patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2017. That study identified six factors associated with improved survival: age under 45 years, female sex, epithelioid histological subtype, peritoneal mesothelioma, stage 1 cancer, and treatment with both surgery and chemotherapy. The editorial noted that there was only one FDA-approved first-line treatment. It also noted that early promising results with immunotherapy, such as tremelimumab, had not been confirmed in the later DETERMINE phase 2b trial. It summarised reports published in January 2019 from the INITIATE, MAPS2 and JAVELIN trials, which showed promising disease control. It pointed out that patients in those trials had a performance status of 0 or 1 and that the treatments had toxicities. The editorial also mentioned retrospective data on the timing of surgery relative to chemotherapy, and on shortening cisplatin delivery from 3 h to 1 h without increasing nephrotoxicity. It referred to the ongoing Checkmate 743 and EORTC-funded trials. It concluded that the findings provided hope for patients if they were confirmed.

  PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

• The future of mesothelioma treatment: time to shift gear. M. Maio, L. Calabrò. 2019;7(7):554-555. Comment PubMed · Publisher

• Aggressive versus symptom-guided drainage of malignant pleural effusion via indwelling pleural catheters (AMPLE-2): an open-label randomised trial. S. Muruganandan, M. Azzopardi, D.B. Fitzgerald, et al. 2018;6(9):671-680. Randomized trial PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Indwelling pleural catheters are an established management option for malignant pleural effusion and have advantages over talc slurry pleurodesis. The optimal regimen of drainage after indwelling pleural catheter insertion is debated and ranges from aggressive (daily) drainage to drainage only when symptomatic.

  Methods: AMPLE-2 was an open-label randomised trial involving 11 centres in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. Patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusions were randomly assigned (1:1) to the aggressive (daily) or symptom-guided drainage groups for 60 days and minimised by cancer type (mesothelioma vs others), performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score 0-1 vs ≥2), presence of trapped lung, and prior pleurodesis. Patients were followed up for 6 months. The primary outcome was mean daily breathlessness score, measured by use of a 100 mm visual analogue scale during the first 60 days. Secondary outcomes included rates of spontaneous pleurodesis and self-reported quality-of-life measures. Results were analysed by an intention-to-treat approach. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615000963527.

  Findings: Between July 20, 2015, and Jan 26, 2017, 87 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to the aggressive (n=43) or symptom-guided (n=44) drainage groups. The mean daily breathlessness scores did not differ significantly between the aggressive and symptom-guided drainage groups (geometric means 13·1 mm [95% CI 9·8-17·4] vs 17·3 mm [13·0-22·0]; ratio of geometric means 1·32 [95% CI 0·88-1·97]; p=0·18). More patients in the aggressive group developed spontaneous pleurodesis than in the symptom-guided group in the first 60 days (16 [37·2%] of 43 vs five [11·4%] of 44, p=0·0049) and at 6 months (19 [44·2%] vs seven [15·9%], p=0·004; hazard ratio 3·287 [95% CI 1·396-7·740]; p=0·0065). Patient-reported quality-of-life measures, assessed with EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L), were better in the aggressive group than in the symptom-guided group (estimated means 0·713 [95% CI 0·647-0·779] vs 0·601 [0·536-0·667]). The estimated difference in means was 0·112 (95% CI 0·0198-0·204; p=0·0174). Pain scores, total days spent in hospital, and mortality did not differ significantly between groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (25·6%) of 43 patients in the aggressive drainage group and in 12 (27·3%) of 44 patients in the symptom-guided drainage group, including 11 episodes of pleural infection in nine patients (five in the aggressive group and six in the symptom-guided drainage group).

  Interpretation: We found no differences between the aggressive (daily) and the symptom-guided drainage regimens for indwelling pleural catheters in providing breathlessness control. These data indicate that daily indwelling pleural catheter drainage is more effective in promoting spontaneous pleurodesis and might improve quality of life.

  Funding: Cancer Council of Western Australia and the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Group.

  Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Immuno-oncology in malignant pleural mesothelioma. P. Baas, M. Disselhorst. 2018;6(6):408-410. Comment PubMed · Publisher

• Tremelimumab combined with durvalumab in patients with mesothelioma (NIBIT-MESO-1): an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study. L. Calabrò, A. Morra, D. Giannarelli, et al. 2018;6(6):451-460. PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: Tremelimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, initially showed good activity when used alone in patients with mesothelioma, but did not improve the overall survival of patients who failed on first-line or second-line chemotherapy compared with placebo in the DETERMINE study. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line or second-line tremelimumab combined with durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with malignant mesothelioma.

  Methods: In this open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial, patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma received intravenous tremelimumab (1 mg/kg bodyweight) and durvalumab (20 mg/kg bodyweight) every 4 weeks for four doses, followed by maintenance intravenous durvalumab at the same dose and schedule for nine doses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an immune-related objective response according to the immune-related modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; for pleural mesothelioma) or immune-related RECIST version 1.1 (for peritoneal mesothelioma). The primary analysis was done by intention to treat, whereas the safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2015-001995-23, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02588131, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients.

  Findings: From Oct 30, 2015, to Oct 12, 2016, 40 patients with mesothelioma were enrolled and received at least one dose each of tremelimumab and durvalumab. Patients were followed-up for a median of 19·2 months (IQR 13·8-20·5). 11 (28%) of 40 patients had an immune-related objective response (all partial responses; confirmed in ten patients), with a median response duration of 16·1 months (IQR 11·5-20·5). 26 (65%) patients had immune-related disease control and 25 (63%) had disease control. Median immune-related progression-free survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7-9·3), median progression-free survival was 5·7 months (1·7-9·7), and median overall survival was 16·6 months (13·1-20·1). Baseline tumour PD-L1 expression did not correlate with the proportion of patients who had an immune-related objective response or immune-related disease control, with immune-related progression-free survival, or with overall survival. 30 (75%) patients experienced treatment-related adverse events of any grade, of whom seven (18%) had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. Treatment-related toxicity was generally manageable and reversible with protocol guidelines.

  Interpretation: The combination of tremelimumab and durvalumab appeared active, with a good safety profile in patients with mesothelioma, warranting further exploration.

  Funding: Network Italiano per la Bioterapia dei Tumori Foundation, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, AstraZeneca, and Istituto Toscano Tumori.

  Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Asbestos: insights from women. D.H. Yates. 2017;5(10):782-784. Historical article PubMed · Publisher

• Libby: the long legacy of a public health disaster. A. van Dorn. 2017;5(3):174-175. Review PubMed · Publisher

• Occupational lung diseases: from old and novel exposures to effective preventive strategies. P. Cullinan, X. Muñoz, H. Suojalehto, et al. 2017;5(5):445-455. Review PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Occupational exposure is an important, global cause of respiratory disease. Unlike many other non-communicable lung diseases, the proximal causes of many occupational lung diseases are well understood and they should be amenable to control with use of established and effective approaches. Therefore, the risks arising from exposure to silica and asbestos are well known, as are the means of their prevention. Although the incidence of occupational lung disease has decreased in many countries, in parts of the world undergoing rapid economic transition and population growth-often with large informal and unregulated workforces-occupational exposures continue to impose a heavy burden of disease. The incidence of interstitial and malignant lung diseases remains unacceptably high because control measures are not implemented or exposures arise in novel ways. With the advent of innovative technologies, new threats are continually introduced to the workplace (eg, indium compounds and vicinal diketones). In developed countries, work-related asthma is the commonest occupational lung disease of short latency. Although generic control measures to reduce the risk of developing or exacerbating asthma are well recognised, there is still uncertainty, for example, with regards to the management of workers who develop asthma but remain in the same job. In this Review, we provide recommendations for research, surveillance, and other action for reducing the burden of occupational lung diseases.

  Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Hope persists for mesothelioma advances despite setbacks. B. Furlow. 2016;4(7):545-546. PubMed · Publisher

• 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. S. Cleghorn. 2015;3(7):516-7. News PubMed · Publisher

• CTLA4 blockade in patients with malignant mesothelioma. B.M. Burt. 2015;3(4):261-3. Comment PubMed · Publisher

• Efficacy and safety of an intensified schedule of tremelimumab for chemotherapy-resistant malignant mesothelioma: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. L. Calabrò, A. Morra, E. Fonsatti, et al. 2015;3(4):301-9. PubMed · Publisher

  Abstract

  Background: CTLA4 blockade by tremelimumab 15 mg/kg every 90 days provided preliminary evidence of activity in patients with pretreated malignant mesothelioma; however, retrospective exposure-response analysis of data from patients with melanoma suggested that this schedule could result in underexposure to tremelimumab. We therefore investigated the efficacy and safety of an intensified schedule of tremelimumab in patients with advanced malignant mesothelioma.

  Methods: In this open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, advanced malignant mesothelioma (measurable in accordance with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]), a life expectancy of 3 months or more, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, and who had failed a first-line platinum-based regimen were enrolled at the University Hospital of Siena, Siena, Italy. Participants received tremelimumab 10 mg/kg once every 4 weeks for six doses, then every 12 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or refusal to continue treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an immune-related objective response (complete or partial), assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with the European Union Clinical Trials Register, number 2012-002762-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655888.

  Findings: Between July 30, 2012, and July 15, 2013, we enrolled 29 patients with a median age of 65 years (range 42-78), stage III (n=11) or IV (n=18) disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (n=23) or 2 (n=6). Malignant mesothelioma histology was epithelioid (n=21, including one peritoneal), biphasic (n=6), sarcomatoid (n=1), or undefined (n=1). Patients received a median of six doses of tremelimumab (range 1-13). After a median follow-up of 21·3 months (IQR 18·7-25·9), four immune-related-partial responses were recorded, one at the first tumour assessment (after about 12 weeks) and three at the second tumour assessment (about 24 weeks), with two responses occurring after initial progressive disease and one response after initial stable disease. 15 (52%) of patients achieved disease control, with a median duration of 10·9 months (95% CI 8·2-13·6). According to modified RECIST, one patient (3%) achieved a partial response and 11 (38%) patients achieved disease control rate. Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 26 (90%) patients and grade 3-4 adverse events in two (7%) patients. The most common treatment-related adverse events were gastrointestinal, dermatological, and fever.

  Interpretation: Our results suggest that the intensified schedule of tremelimumab investigated seems to have clinical and immunological activity in patients with advanced malignant mesothelioma, and a good safety profile. The same intensified schedule is now being investigated in an ongoing randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study.

  Funding: Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Istituto Toscano Tumori, and MedImmune.

  Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

• Canberra Government to demolish asbestos-contaminated homes. T. Kirby. 2014;2(12):975. News PubMed · Publisher

• Fears of a new wave of mesothelioma in home renovators?. T. Kirby. 2013;1(1):18. PubMed · Publisher

• The use of surgery in mesothelioma. J.Y. Lim, A.S. Wolf, R.M. Flores. 2013;1(3):184-6. PubMed · Publisher

Browse every journal in the library or the library by type of article, or return to medical research.