Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is a strong unmet need to improve systemic therapy in mesothelioma. Chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed improves survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma, and immune checkpoint inhibitors are an emerging treatment in this disease. We aimed to evaluate the activity of durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, given during and after first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. DREAM was a multicentre, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial done in nine hospitals in Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma considered unsuitable for cancer-directed surgery, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and measurable disease as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0 (mRECIST) for mesothelioma that was previously untreated with systemic therapy. All histological subtypes were eligible. The first six participants were treated for two cycles in a safety run-in. All participants received cisplatin 75 mg/m2, pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, and durvalumab 1125 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 3-weekly schedule for a maximum of six cycles. Change from cisplatin to carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 was permitted. Durvalumab was continued for a maximum of 12 months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months, measured according to mRECIST for malignant pleural mesothelioma and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all participants who receive at least one dose of any study drug. This study is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001170415. Between Dec 28, 2016, and Sept 27, 2017, 55 participants were enrolled. 54 patients were eligible and were followed up for a median of 28·2 months (IQR 26·5–30·2). 31 (57%; 95% CI 44–70) of 54 patients were alive and progression-free at 6 months. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (seven [13%] patients), nausea (six [11%]), and anaemia (four [7%]). A total of 60 serious adverse events occurred in 29 participants, five of which were considered possibly related to durvalumab. Five patients died during the study treatment; none of these five deaths were attributed to study treatment. The combination of durvalumab, cisplatin, and pemetrexed has promising activity and an acceptable safety profile that warrants further investigation in a randomised phase 3 trial. AstraZeneca.

Background The Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS/NCT00651456) phase 3 trial demonstrated the superiority of bevacizumab plus pemetrexed–cisplatin triplet over chemotherapy alone in 448 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients. Here, we evaluated the prognostic role of Hippo pathway gene promoter methylation. Methods Promoter methylations were assayed using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction in samples from 223 MAPS patients, evaluating their prognostic value for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival in univariate and multivariate analyses. MST1 inactivation effects on invasion, soft agar growth, apoptosis, proliferation, and YAP/TAZ activation were investigated in human mesothelial cell lines. Results STK4 (MST1) gene promoter methylation was detected in 19/223 patients tested (8.5%), predicting poorer OS in univariate and multivariate analyses (adjusted HR: 1.78, 95% CI (1.09–2.93), p  = 0.022). Internal validation by bootstrap resampling supported this prognostic impact. MST1 inactivation reduced cellular basal apoptotic activity while increasing proliferation, invasion, and soft agar or in suspension growth, resulting in nuclear YAP accumulation, yet TAZ cytoplasmic retention in mesothelial cell lines. YAP silencing decreased invasion of MST1-depleted mesothelial cell lines. Conclusions MST1/hippo kinase expression loss is predictive of poor prognosis in MPM patients, leading to nuclear YAP accumulation and electing YAP as a putative target for therapeutic intervention in human MPM.

- Although many mesotheliomas are related to asbestos exposure, not all are, and there is increasing information on other causes of mesothelioma. - To provide a review of non-asbestos causes for malignant mesothelioma. - Review of relevant published literature via PubMed and other search engines. - Currently, most pleural mesotheliomas (70% to 90%) in men in Europe and North America are attributable to asbestos exposure; for peritoneal mesothelioma the proportion is lower. In North America few mesotheliomas in women at any site are attributable to asbestos exposure, but in Europe the proportion is higher and varies considerably by locale. In certain geographic locations other types of mineral fibers (erionite, fluoro-edenite, and probably balangeroite) can induce mesothelioma. Therapeutic radiation for other malignancies is a well-established cause of mesothelioma, with relative risks as high as 30. Carbon nanotubes can also induce mesotheliomas in animals but there are no human epidemiologic data that shed light on this issue. Chronic pleural inflammation may be a cause of mesothelioma but the data are scanty. Although SV40 can induce mesotheliomas in animals, in humans the epidemiologic data are against a causative role. A small number of mesotheliomas (probably in the order of 1%) are caused by germline mutations/deletions of BRCA1-associated protein-1 ( BAP1) in kindreds that also develop a variety of other cancers. All of these alternative etiologies account for a small proportion of tumors, and most mesotheliomas not clearly attributable to asbestos exposure are spontaneous (idiopathic).

Raphael Bueno, Eric Stawiski, Somasekar Seshagiri and colleagues present a comprehensive genomic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma. They identify four distinct molecular subtypes using RNA-seq data and highlight recurrent somatic mutations, gene fusions and splicing alterations. We analyzed transcriptomes ( n = 211), whole exomes ( n = 99) and targeted exomes ( n = 103) from 216 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) tumors. Using RNA-seq data, we identified four distinct molecular subtypes: sarcomatoid, epithelioid, biphasic-epithelioid (biphasic-E) and biphasic-sarcomatoid (biphasic-S). Through exome analysis, we found BAP1 , NF2 , TP53 , SETD2 , DDX3X , ULK2 , RYR2 , CFAP45 , SETDB1 and DDX51 to be significantly mutated ( q -score ≥ 0.8) in MPMs. We identified recurrent mutations in several genes, including SF3B1 (∼2%; 4/216) and TRAF7 (∼2%; 5/216). SF3B1-mutant samples showed a splicing profile distinct from that of wild-type tumors. TRAF7 alterations occurred primarily in the WD40 domain and were, except in one case, mutually exclusive with NF2 alterations. We found recurrent gene fusions and splice alterations to be frequent mechanisms for inactivation of NF2 , BAP1 and SETD2 . Through integrated analyses, we identified alterations in Hippo, mTOR, histone methylation, RNA helicase and p53 signaling pathways in MPMs.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is recognized as heterogeneous based both on histology and molecular profiling. Histology addresses inter-tumor and intra-tumor heterogeneity in MPM and describes three major types: epithelioid, sarcomatoid and biphasic, a combination of the former two types. Molecular profiling studies have not addressed intra-tumor heterogeneity in MPM to date. Here, we use a deconvolution approach and show that molecular gradients shed new light on the intra-tumor heterogeneity of MPM, leading to a reconsideration of MPM molecular classifications. We show that each tumor can be decomposed as a combination of epithelioid-like and sarcomatoid-like components whose proportions are highly associated with the prognosis. Moreover, we show that this more subtle way of characterizing MPM heterogeneity provides a better understanding of the underlying oncogenic pathways and the related epigenetic regulation and immune and stromal contexts. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding therapeutic strategies, particularly immunotherapies and targeted therapies. Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive form of cancer. Here, the authors show MPM is heterogeneously composed of epithelioid and sarcomatoid components and their proportions associate with prognosis and could inform therapeutic strategies.

The existence of an in situ phase of malignant mesothelioma has long been postulated but until recently has been impossible to prove. Here we describe ten patients with mesothelioma in situ, defined by a single layer of surface mesothelial cells showing loss of BAP1 nuclear immunostaining, no evidence of tumor by imaging and/or by direct examination of the pleura/peritoneum, and no invasive mesothelioma developing for at least 1 year. Nine cases were pleural and one peritoneal. Most patients were biopsied for repeated effusions of unknown etiology; in two patients mesothelioma in situ was found incidentally in lung cancer resections. In addition to surface mesothelium with BAP1 loss, one case had a surface papillary proliferation with BAP1 loss, and two cases had a small (few millimeter) nodule with BAP1 loss. CDKN2A was deleted by FISH in one of eight cases. Methylthioadenosine phosphorylase showed partial loss in the surface mesothelium by immunohistochemistry in three cases. Invasive malignant mesothelioma developed in seven patients with time between biopsy and invasive disease from 12 to 92 (median 60) months. Invasive mesothelioma has not developed in the other three patients at 12, 57, and 120 months, but the latter patient, who has pleural plaques, still has repeated pleural effusions, probably representing a so-called “benign asbestos effusion.” We conclude that mesothelioma in situ, as diagnosed using the criteria outlined above, is associated with a high risk of developing invasive mesothelioma, but typically over a relatively protracted time, so that curable interventions maybe possible.

BackgroundMalignant pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas are rare malignancies with unacceptable poor prognoses and limited treatment options. The genomic landscape is mainly characterised by the loss of tumour suppressor genes and mutations in DNA repair genes. Currently, data from next-generation sequencing (NGS) of mesothelioma tumours is restricted to a limited number of cases; moreover, data comparing molecular features of mesothelioma from the pleural and peritoneal origin with NGS are lacking.MethodsWe analysed 1113 pleural mesothelioma and 355 peritoneal mesothelioma samples. All tumours were sequenced with the FoundationOne® or FoundationOne®CDx assay for detection of substitutions, insertion–deletions, copy-number alterations and selected rearrangements in at least 324 cancer genes.ResultsThis analysis revealed alterations in 19 genes with an overall prevalence of at least 2%. Alterations in BAP1, CDKN2A, CDKN2B, NF2, MTAP, TP53 and SETD2 occurred with a prevalence of at least 10%. Peritoneal, compared to pleural mesothelioma, was characterised by a lower prevalence of alterations in CDKN2A, CDKN2B and MTAP. Moreover, we could define four distinct subgroups according to alterations in BAP1 and CDKN2A/B. Alterations in Hedgehog pathway-related genes (PTCH1/2 and SUFU) and Hippo pathway-related gene (NF2) as well as KRAS, EGFR, PDGFRA/B, ERBB2 and FGFR3 were detected in both cohorts.ConclusionHere, we report the molecular aberrations from the largest cohort of patients with mesothelioma. This analysis identified a proportion of patients with targetable alterations and suggests that molecular profiling can identify new treatment options for patients with mesothelioma.

The increasing incidence and poor outcome associated with MPM requires finding effective treatment for this disease. PD1/PD-L1 pathway plays a central role in tumor immune evasion and appears to be predictive and prognostic marker. PD-L1 is expressed in many different human cancers but its role in MPM has yet to be established. The aim of this study is to evaluate the expression of PD-L1 in MPM. 119 MPM patients (p) from two institutions between November 2002 and February 2014 were reviewed. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was stained with anti-PD-L1 (clone E1L3N). Cases showing more than 1% of tumor cells expression of PD-L1 were considered positive. PD-L1 was analyzed in 77 p with tumor tissue available and was positive in 20.7% p (14 samples in membrane, 16 in cytoplasm and 4 in immune infiltrate). PD-L1 intensity was weak in 56.2%, moderate in 25% and strong in 18.7% p. There was a significant relationship between PD-L1 expression and histology (PD-L1 expression 37.5% in no-epithelioid tumor and 13.2% in epithelioid; p=0.033). The median survival in p PD-L1 positive was 4.79 vs 16.3 months in p PD-L1 negative (p=0.012). We have shown PD-L1 is expressed in 20% of patients, associated with no epithelioid histology and poor prognostic in MPM. Our results suggest PD-L1 warrants further exploration in selecting p for immunotherapy.

Survival from malignant mesothelioma, particularly pleural mesothelioma, is very poor. For patients with breast, ovarian, or prostate cancers, overall survival is associated with increased sensitivity to platinum chemotherapy due to loss-of-function mutations in DNA repair genes. The goal of this project was to evaluate, in patients with malignant mesothelioma, the relationship between inherited loss-of-function mutations in DNA repair and other tumor suppressor genes and overall survival following platinum chemotherapy. Patients with histologically confirmed malignant mesothelioma were evaluated for inherited mutations in tumor suppressor genes. Survival was evaluated with respect to genotype and site of mesothelioma. Among 385 patients treated with platinum chemotherapy, median overall survival was significantly longer for patients with loss-of-function mutations in any of the targeted genes compared with patients with no such mutation (P = 0.0006). The effect of genotype was highly significant for patients with pleural mesothelioma (median survival 7.9 y versus 2.4 y, P = 0.0012), but not for patients with peritoneal mesothelioma (median survival 8.2 y versus 5.4 y, P = 0.47). Effect of patient genotype on overall survival, measured at 3 y, remained independently significant after adjusting for gender and age at diagnosis, two other known prognostic factors. Patients with pleural mesothelioma with inherited mutations in DNA repair and other tumor suppressor genes appear to particularly benefit from platinum chemotherapy compared with patients without inherited mutations. These patients may also benefit from other DNA repair targeted therapies such as poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

Ancillary studies facilitate accurate diagnosis of morphologically challenging mesothelial proliferations. The current diagnostic algorithm proceeds from BAP1 immunohistochemistry to CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization. While MTAP immunohistochemistry has recently shown promise as a surrogate for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization, it has been examined in only a few single-institution studies. Furthermore, there are no published reports on interobserver agreement or interlaboratory reproducibility for MTAP immunohistochemistry. We performed MTAP immunohistochemistry on 20 benign mesothelial lesions and 99 malignant mesotheliomas from five mesothelioma centers in four countries, and each MTAP stain was independently interpreted by four pathologists. CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization data were available for a subset of cases, and a subset of cases was subjected in MTAP immunohistochemistry in multiple laboratories to assess interlaboratory reproducibility. Interobserver agreement in MTAP immunostain interpretation was excellent for all mesothelial lesions (kappa: 0.85) and for malignant mesothelioma cases only (kappa: 0.82). Interlaboratory reproducibility was also excellent (kappa values for paired protocols: 0.77–0.89). MTAP loss by immunohistochemistry was 78% sensitive and 96% specific for CDKN2A homozygous deletion. MTAP immunohistochemistry is a reliable surrogate for CDKN2A fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. Interobserver agreement is excellent for interpretation of MTAP staining, and protocols performed in different laboratories yield concordant MTAP staining results. Rare cases with immunohistochemical MTAP loss may retain normal CDKN2A copy number, and the MTAP staining results should be correlated with clinicopathologic findings and other ancillary studies.