Next Article in Journal
Conversion of a Non-Cancer-Selective Promoter into a Cancer-Selective Promoter
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Correlates of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Ovarian Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/cancers14061498
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A French, Multicenter, Retrospective Real-World Study

by
Jean-Baptiste Assié
1,2,*,
Florian Crépin
3,
Emmanuel Grolleau
4,
Anthony Canellas
5,
Margaux Geier
6,
Aude Grébert-Manuardi
7,
Nabila Akkache
8,
Aldo Renault
9,
Pierre-Alexandre Hauss
10,
Marielle Sabatini
11,
Valentine Bonnefoy
1,
Alexis Cortot
3,
Marie Wislez
12,13,
Clément Gauvain
3,
Christos Chouaïd
1,
Arnaud Scherpereel
3 and
Isabelle Monnet
1
1
GRC OncoThoParisEst, Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier IntercommunaI, UPEC, 94000 Créteil, France
2
Functional Genomics of Solid Tumors Laboratory, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers—INSERM-Sorbonne Université—Université Paris Cité, 75006 Paris, France
3
Department of Pulmonary and Thoracic Oncology, University of Lille, University Hospital Center (CHU) of Lille, 59000 Lille, France
4
Service de Pneumologie Aiguë Spécialisée et Cancérologie Thoracique, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 69495 Pierre-Bénite, France
5
Department of Pneumology and Thoracic Oncology, Tenon Hospital, APHP, GRC Theranoscan and Curamus Sorbonne Université, 75020 Paris, France
6
Institut de Cancerologie, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest, Hôpital Morvan, 29200 Brest, France
7
Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Contentin, 50100 Cherbourg, France
8
Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Aix, 13100 Aix-en-Provence, France
9
Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Pau, 64000 Pau, France
10
Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier IntercommunaI, 76503 Louviers, France
11
Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Général, Côte-Basque, 64100 Bayonne, France
12
Team Inflammation Complement and Cancer, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers—INSERM-Sorbonne Université—Université Paris Cité, 75006 Paris, France
13
Thoracic Oncology Unit, Pulmonology Department, APHP, Hôpital Cochin, 75014 Paris, France
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(6), 1498; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061498
Submission received: 22 February 2022 / Revised: 11 March 2022 / Accepted: 12 March 2022 / Published: 15 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Anti-Tumor Immune Responses)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors have only been studied in clinical trials for second-line and now first-line malignant pleural mesothelioma. Sometimes, results found in clinical trials do not translate to real-life settings. We aim to study second-line and onward nivolumab in malignant pleural mesothelioma to verify its effectiveness in France. We enrolled 109 patients from 11 centers in France. Our study proves in multivariate analysis that nivolumab has an efficacy against MPM. An intermediate LIPI score seems predictive of good response, but less in those < 70 years and for the first time in biphasic subtype. Ancillary studies are needed to more deeply explore these findings.

Abstract

Backgrounds: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a cancer with poor prognosis. Second-line and onward therapy has many options, including immune-checkpoint inhibitors with demonstrated efficacy: 10–25% objective response rate (ORR) and 40–70% disease-control rate (DCR) in clinical trials on selected patients. This study evaluated real-life 2L+ nivolumab efficacy in MPM patients and looked for factors predictive of response. Methods: This retrospective study included (September 2017–July 2021) all MPM patients managed in 11 French centers. Results: The 109 enrolled patients’ characteristics were: median age: 69 years; 67.9% men; 82.6% epithelioid subtype. Strictly, second-line nivolumab was given to 51.4%. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (3.2–5.9) and 12.8 (9.2–16.4) months. ORR was 17/109 (15.6%); 34/109 patients had a stabilized disease (DCR 46.8%). Univariable analysis identified several parameters as significantly (p < 0.05) prognostic of OS [HR (95% CI)]: biphasic subtype: 3.3 (1.52–7.0), intermediate Lung Immune Prognostic Index score: 0.46 (0.22–0.99), progression on the line preceding nivolumab: 2.1 (1.11–3.9) and age > 70 years: 2.5 (1.5–4.0). Multivariable analyses retained only biphasic subtype: 3.57 (1.08–11.8) and albumin < 25 g/L: 10.28 (1.5–70.7) as significant and independent predictors. Conclusions: Second-line and onward nivolumab is effective against MPM in real life but with less effectiveness in >70 years. Ancillary studies are needed to identify the predictive factors.

1. Introduction

Despite the ban of asbestos use in most countries, worldwide malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) incidence of 30,443 cases/year and 25,576 deaths annually, remains a major public health problem [1]. Its prognosis is dismal, with median overall survival (mOS) of ~12 months. Until 2021, where immune checkpoint inhibitors become the new first-line regimen, standard first-line treatment is platinum-based chemotherapy combining pemetrexed with bevacizumab or without that, an achieved mOS lasting 16.1 and 18.8 months, respectively [2,3,4]. Although no standard second-line and onward therapy exists, pemetrexed can be prescribed again for patients whose tumors initially responded to it [5,6] or gemcitabine can be given [7]. The broad heterogeneity of MPMs is an obstacle to developing effective treatments [8,9].
As for non-small cell lung cancer, MPM tumor cells (TCs) express programmed cell-death ligand-1 (PD-L1) on their surface, enabling T-lymphocyte inhibition and, thus, immune system escape. PD-L1 expression on MPM TCs ranges from 18% to 40% and is primarily associated with the sarcomatoid subtype [10,11,12]. The results of several clinical phase I or III trials demonstrated variable efficacies of different second-line and onward immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapies. Nivolumab [13,14,15,16] obtained median progression-free survival (mPFS) and mOS lasting 2.6–5.9 and 9.2–17.3 months, respectively, and an objective response rate (ORR) of 15–29%, with the disease-control rate (DCR) ranging from 44% to 68%. Pembrolizumab obtained comparable outcomes [17,18,19]: mPFS and mOS lasting 2.1–5.4 and 10–11.5 months, respectively, and ORR and DCR ranging, respectively, from 8% to 22% and 45% to 72%. Avelumab [20] achieved mPFS and mOS lasting 4.1 and 10.7 months, respectively, with ORR of 9.1% and DCR of 58%. However, those results were obtained in selected patients and it is not certain that they can be reproduced in non-selected patients, in the routine therapeutic context [21,22].
This study was undertaken to evaluate second-line and onward nivolumab efficacy in MPM patients in the real-life setting and attempt to identify factors predictive of a therapeutic response.

2. Methods

2.1. Patients

Data from MPM patients managed in 11 French centers were analyzed retrospectively. The main inclusion criteria were age > 8 years; the MPM diagnosis was proven in each center after pleuroscopy and a central confirmation made by the MESOPATH network, the French National Referral Center, which is composed by highly experimented pathologists in this field, and having received at least 1 nivolumab infusion. The main exclusion criteria were the patient’s refusal of the treatment and use of his/her medical information and nivolumab administration within the framework of a clinical trial. Nivolumab (3 mg/kg) or a flat dose (240 mg) was administered every 2 weeks.

2.2. Patient Characteristics at Nivolumab Start (Baseline)

The principal parameters analyzed were: body mass index (BMI); sex; asbestos exposure; smoker status; histology; immunohistochemistry-determined BRCA1-associated protein-1 (BAP1) and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor-2A (P16/CDKN2A) mutational status; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS); prescription of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants; previous chemotherapy lines and the responses to them; PD-L1 status (<1% negative and ≥1% positive); blood and pleural lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; U/L); neutrophil, lymphocyte, eosinophil and leukocyte blood counts (G/L); hemoglobin (g/dL), albumin (<25 g/L, ≥25 or <35 g/L, ≥35 g/L), the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR), defined as neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) and separated into 2 classes < 3 and ≥3; and the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) score [23], based on negative factors (dNLR > 3 and LDH > upper limit of normal), rated as good: 0 factors; intermediate: 1 factor; poor: 2 factors.

2.3. Clinical Outcomes

Nivolumab efficacy was evaluated locally according to the standard modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for mesothelioma v1.0 [24]. Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the percentage of patients having a complete or partial response and disease-control rate (DCR) as the percentage of patients having a complete or partial response or stabilized disease. Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 classification. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as survival from nivolumab start to progression or any cause of death and overall survival (OS) as survival from nivolumab onset until any cause of death. Living patients were censured at the end-of-the-study date.

2.4. Statistics

Categorical variables are expressed as number (percentage) of the population and continuous variables as median [interquartile range; IQR]. OS and PFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method and groups were compared with log-rank (with a Bonferroni correction or false-discovery rate applied when there were 2 groups). Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate each variable’s association with mOS and mPFS. Variables achieving statistically significant prognostic association were then entered into a multivariable Cox regression model to determine their independent impact. Univariable and multivariable logistic-regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for significant ORR–factor relationships. Associations between categorical variables were assessed with Pearson’s χ2 or Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Statistical analyses were computed with R 4.0.3 [25] (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

2.5. Ethics

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the French Society for Respiratory Medicine (Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française; no. 2020-075).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

This analysis concerned 109 patients, treated between 1 September 2017 and 31 July 2021, and managed in 11 centers. Their median age was 69 years, with a majority of men (67.9%), and ECOG PS ≤ 1 for 91 (83.5%) of them (Table 1). The MPM histological subtype was most frequently epithelioid (82.6%). BAP1 loss was found in 25% of the patients. PD-L1 expression was analyzed for only 5 (5%) patients. All patients had received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy combined with pemetrexed alone (84.2%) or with bevacizumab (15.8%). Half the patients had also been given second-line chemotherapy, mainly pemetrexed combined with a platinum salt or not. At the start of nivolumab, only 43.1% of the patients had a normal albumin level (>35 g/L) and the dNLR was >3 for half.

3.2. Outcomes of Second-Line and Onward Nivolumab

Second-line nivolumab, exclusively, was prescribed for 51.4% of the patients. ORR was 17/109 (15.6%), with two complete responses and 15 partial; 34/109 (31.2%) patients experienced stabilized disease, for a DCR of 46.8%; 58/109 (53.2%) patients had a progression. Univariable analysis identified only sarcomatoid subtype as being significantly associated with an ORR, with an OR of 4.1 (95% CI: 0.95–16.1; p = 0.045). Multivariable analysis did not retain any factor as being predictive of an objective response.
Median follow-up was 21.13 (95% CI: 11.60–36.53) months and mPFS and mOS were 3.8 (95% CI: 3.2–5.9) and 12.8 (95% CI: 9.2–16.4) months, respectively (Figure 1). According to univariable analysis (Table 2), the parameters that seemed to be prognostic of OS were biphasic subtype HR 3.3 (95% CI: 1.52–7.0; p = 0.002), an intermediate Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) score HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.22–0.99; p = 0.046), albumin < 25 g/L HR 6.8 (95% CI: 1.9–23.7; p = 0.003), progression as the best response to the treatment line preceding nivolumab HR 2.1 (95% CI: 1.11–3.9; p = 0.022) and age > 70 years HR 2.5 (1.5–4.0; p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis retained only the biphasic subtype [HR 3.57 (95% CI: 1.08–11.8; p = 0.037)] and albumin < 25 g/L [HR 10.28 (95% CI: 1.5–70.7; p = 0.018)] as being significantly and independently associated with OS.
Under nivolumab, 72/109 (66.1%) patients suffered an adverse event, 96% of which were grade ≤ 2: most often cutaneous (15%), pulmonary (8% first-line), thyroidal (8%) or asthenia (8%). Three patients suffered grade-3 toxicity: ICI-induced, skin involvement or autoimmune myocarditis. No grade 4 or 5 adverse event occurred.

4. Discussion

This analysis of second-line and onward nivolumab given to patients whose MPMs progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated that it achieved 15.6% ORR and 46.8% DCR, in agreement with the data of different real-life studies that evaluated ICI monotherapies [26,27] (Table 3). Similarly, respective mPFS and mOS of 3.8 and 12.8 months are in line with efficacy findings for patients included in clinical trials, notably, phase III CONFIRM [15]. In this context, nivolumab efficacy seems to be superior to single-agent chemotherapy, with pemetrexed [6,7] or vinorelbine [28], and equivalent to that of the gemcitabine–ramucirumab combination [29], probably with better tolerance.
The sarcomatoid histological subtype was significantly associated with an objective response in univariable but not multivariable analysis; the biphasic subtype was a factor of poor prognosis in both analyses. We have no real-life data on the impact of histological subtypes, probably because of the small numbers of non-epithelioid MPMs.
Despite the fact that the number of biphasic subtype is small (n = 8), which may made us conclude wrongly, patients with the MPM biphasic subtype benefited the least from nivolumab, while the benefit was almost the same for those with the sarcomatoid or epithelioid subtype. According to a recent Australian study comparing immune-cell infiltration and the response to ICI according to histological subtype, it was found that epithelioid and biphasic subtypes were notably less densely infiltrated by CD8+ T lymphocytes and responded more poorly to ICIs [35]. Other than the tumor microenvironment being poor in CD8+ T lymphocytes, the biphasic subtype was more heterogeneous and, thus, its natural plasticity or those that linked to treatments administered could explain the diminished response to ICIs. Prospective studies examining immune-cell–pathology relationships are needed to improve our understanding of MPM histological subtypes in patients given ICIs.
Age also seems to be an important prognostic factor, with mPFS and mOS significantly shorter for patients > 70 years old. This impact of age was also found for first-line ICI in the phase III CheckMate-743 trial [36]. Subgroup analyses of the 157 (26%) patients > 75 years old included did not find a significant difference between nivolumab–ipilimumab and chemotherapy (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70–1.48), even though the interpretation must remain prudent because of the small number of patients. Immunosenescence, which appears around 65 years of age, could in part explain this diminished ICI efficacy [37,38,39].
No predictive biomarker of MPM response to ICIs has been identified. PD-L1 expression is still being discussed in the literature [40]; it could not be assessed herein because it had not been determined systematically in routine clinical practice.
Denutrition is an established factor of poor prognosis, regardless of the MPM histological subtype [41,42], but also for nivolumab [26]. It was identified herein as being associated with shorter survival. However, the number of patients remains small and prospective studies are needed to validate our findings [43].
Despite the higher number of patients included and multicenter participants, this study has several limitations: its retrospective design, probably with a patient selection bias for those having access to nivolumab during the inclusion period—local assessment of the response and evaluation rhythm remaining the choice of the investigator could engender bias in PFS determination. Nonetheless, our results confirmed that, after progression on first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, ICIs, for patients in good general condition, are a reasonable therapeutic option in terms of efficacy and safety.
Prospective trials and ancillary studies are needed to establish, as much for first-line therapy as for beyond, the factors predictive of the response to ICIs.

5. Conclusions

Nivolumab is an effective option as second-line treatment and onward, in less selected patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. There is a lower efficacy in patients over 70 years of age. Prospective trials and ancillary studies are needed to discover predictive or prognostic factors for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. The question of rechallenging ICIs will rise with the new approval of frontline immunotherapy, or even in combination with chemotherapy in the coming years.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: J.-B.A., F.C., C.C., I.M. and A.S.; data curation: J.-B.A., F.C., E.G., A.C. (Anthony Canellas), A.C. (Alexis Cortot), M.G., A.G.-M., N.A., A.R., P.-A.H., M.S., M.W. and A.S.; formal analysis: J.-B.A. and C.C. ; methodology: J.-B.A., C.C., I.M. and A.S.; project administration: J.-B.A. and C.C.; software: J.-B.A.; supervision: J.-B.A., C.C. and I.M.; validation: J.-B.A. and F.C.; roles/writing—original draft: J.-B.A. and C.C.; writing—review and editing: V.B., A.C. (Anthony Canellas), A.C. (Alexis Cortot), C.G., F.C., I.M. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Jean-Baptiste Assié was supported by grants from Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM). The other authors did not receive any funds for this study. This work was supported by the Groupe Français de Pneumologie Cancerologie.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the French Society for Respiratory Medicine (Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française; no. 2020-075).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Our data are not public but can be found on RedCap Online Platform (https://e-crf.activ-france.com/redcap (accessed on 1 February 2022)).

Acknowledgments

We thank all patients and their families for agreeing to participate in this study. We thank Janet Jacobson for language editing assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

For the past 5 years, C.C. has received fees for attending scientific meetings, speaking, organizing research or consulting from AZ, BI, GSK, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Bayer, Janssen and Amgen. M.G. has consultancy and advisory boards for AstraZ, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Chugai, Sanofi and meetings with MSD, Roche and BMS; C.G. has non-financial supports from Merck Sharp and Dohme; A.C. (Alexis Cortot) has consultancy for BMS, MSD, Astra Zeneca and Roche; P.-A.H. received fees for attending scientific meetings with Chiesi, Roche, Boehringer ingelheim, Novartis pharma, Pfizer, Asten Sante and Bristol Meyer Squibb; V.B., F.C., E.G., J.-B.A., M.W., A.C. (Anthony Canellas) and A.S. have no conflict of interests.

Abbreviations

BAP1, BRCA1-associated protein-1 gene; DCR, disease-control rate; dNLR, derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; ICIs, immune-checkpoint inhibitors; LIPI, Lung Immune Prognostic Index; MPM, malignant pleural mesothelioma; PD-L1, programmed cell-death ligand-1; P16/CDKN2A, isoform p16/cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A; mPFS, median progression-free survival; ORR, objective response rate; mOS; median overall survival; TCs, tumor cells; 2L+, second-line and more.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Vogelzang, N.J.; Rusthoven, J.J.; Symanowski, J.; Denham, C.; Kaukel, E.; Ruffie, P.; Gatzemeier, U.; Boyer, M.; Emri, S.; Manegold, C.; et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malig-nant pleural mesothelioma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003, 21, 2636–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Santoro, A.; O'Brien, M.E.; Stahel, R.A.; Nackaerts, K.; Baas, P.; Karthaus, M.; Eberhardt, W.; Paz-Ares, L.; Sundstrom, S.; Liu, Y.; et al. Pemetrexed plus cisplatin or pemetrexed plus carboplatin for chemonaïve patients with malignant pleural mesothe-lioma: Results of the International Expanded Access Program. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2008, 3, 756–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Zalcman, G.; Mazieres, J.; Margery, J.; Greillier, L.; Audigier-Valette, C.; Moro-Sibilot, D.; Molinier, O.; Corre, R.; Monnet, I.; Gounant, V.; et al. Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2015, 387, 1405–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jassem, J.; Ramlau, R.; Santoro, A.; Schuette, W.; Chemaissani, A.; Hong, S.; Blatter, J.; Adachi, S.; Hanauske, A.; Manegold, C. Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Plus Best Supportive Care Compared with Best Supportive Care in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 1698–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ceresoli, G.L.; Zucali, P.A.; De Vincenzo, F.; Gianoncelli, L.; Simonelli, M.; Lorenzi, E.; Ripa, C.; Giordano, L.; Santoro, A. Retreatment with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2011, 72, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kindler, H.L.; Millard, F.; Herndon, J.E., 2nd; Vogelzang, N.J.; Suzuki, Y.; Green, M.R. Gemcitabine for malignant mesothelioma: A phase II trial by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Lung Cancer 2001, 31, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bueno, R.; Stawiski, E.W.; Goldstein, L.D.; Durinck, S.; De Rienzo, A.; Modrusan, Z.; Gnad, F.; Nguyen, T.T.; Jaiswal, B.S.; Chirieac, L.R.; et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma identifies recurrent mutations, gene fusions and splicing alterations. Nat. Genet. 2016, 48, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Blum, Y.; Meiller, C.; Quetel, L.; Elarouci, N.; Ayadi, M.; Tashtanbaeva, D.; Armenoult, L.; Montagne, F.; Tranchant, R.; Re-nier, A.; et al. Dissecting heterogeneity in malignant pleural mesothelioma through histo-molecular gradients for clinical applications. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cedrés, S.; Ponce-Aix, S.; Zugazagoitia, J.; Sansano, I.; Enguita, A.; Navarro-Mendivil, A.; Martinez-Marti, A.; Martinez, P.; Felip, E. Analysis of Expression of Programmed Cell Death 1 Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0121071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, F.; Gong, W. Prognostic and clinicopathological utility of programmed death-ligand 1 in malignant pleural mesotheli-oma: A meta-analysis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020, 83, 106481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mansfield, A.S.; Roden, A.C.; Peikert, T.; Sheinin, Y.M.; Harrington, S.M.; Krco, C.J.; Dong, H.; Kwon, E.D. B7-H1 Expression in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma is Associated with Sarcomatoid Histology and Poor Prognosis. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2014, 9, 1036–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Fujimoto, N.; Okada, M.; Kijima, T.; Aoe, K.; Kato, T.; Nakagawa, K.; Takeda, Y.; Hida, T.; Kanai, K.; Hirano, J.; et al. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab in Japanese Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: 3-Year Results of the MER-IT Study. JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 2021, 2, 100135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. A Fennell, D.; Ewings, S.; Ottensmeier, C.; Califano, R.; Hanna, G.G.; Hill, K.; Danson, S.; Steele, N.; Nye, M.; Johnson, L.; et al. Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 1530–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scherpereel, A.; Mazieres, J.; Greillier, L.; Lantuejoul, S.; Dô, P.; Bylicki, O.; Monnet, I.; Corre, R.; Audigier-Valette, C.; Locatelli-Sanchez, M.; et al. Nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (IFCT-1501 MAPS2): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Quispel-Janssen, J.; van der Noort, V.; de Vries, J.F.; Zimmerman, M.; Lalezari, F.; Thunnissen, E.; Monkhorst, K.; Schouten, R.; Schunselaar, L.; Disselhorst, M.; et al. Programmed Death 1 Blockade with Nivolumab in Patients with Recurrent Malig-nant Pleural Mesothelioma. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2018, 13, 1569–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Popat, S.; Curioni-Fontecedro, A.; Dafni, U.; Shah, R.; O'Brien, M.; Pope, A.; Fisher, P.; Spicer, J.; Roy, A.; Gilligan, D.; et al. A multicentre randomised phase III trial comparing pembrolizumab versus single-agent chemotherapy for advanced pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: The European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP 9-15) PROMISE-meso trial. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1734–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. A Yap, T.; Nakagawa, K.; Fujimoto, N.; Kuribayashi, K.; Guren, T.K.; Calabrò, L.; Shapira-Frommer, R.; Gao, B.; Kao, S.; Matos, I.; et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced mesothelioma in the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021, 9, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Desai, A.; Karrison, T.; Rose, B.; Pemberton, E.; Hill, B.; Straus, C.M.; Tan, Y.-H.C.; Seiwert, T.Y.; Kindler, H.L. Phase II trial of pembrolizumab (P) in patients (pts) with previously-treated mesothelioma (MM). J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 8565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hassan, R.; Thomas, A.; Nemunaitis, J.J.; Patel, M.R.; Bennouna, J.; Chen, F.L.; Delord, J.P.; Dowlati, A.; Kochuparambil, S.T.; Taylor, M.H.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Avelumab Treatment in Patients with Advanced Unresectable Mesothelioma: Phase 1b Results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lau, B.; Boyer, M.; Lee, J.H.; Kao, S. Clinical Trials Eligibility of Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Use of Novel Therapies and Outcomes. Clin. Lung Cancer 2020, 21, 378–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zauderer, M.G. Practical Application of Real-World Evidence in Developing Cancer Therapies. JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 2019, 3, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mezquita, L.; Auclin, E.; Ferrara, R.; Charrier, M.; Remon, J.; Planchard, D.; Ponce, S.; Ares, L.P.; Leroy, L.; Audigier-Valette, C.; et al. Association of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tsao, A.S.; Garland, L.; Redman, M.; Kernstine, K.; Gandara, D.; Marom, E.M. A Practical Guide of the Southwest Oncology Group to Measure Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Tumors by RECIST and Modified RECIST Criteria. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2011, 6, 598–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  26. Cantini, L.; Belderbos, R.A.; Gooijer, C.J.; Dumoulin, D.W.; Cornelissen, R.; Baart, S.; Burgers, J.A.; Baas, P.; Aerts, J.G.J.V. Nivolumab in pre-treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: Real-world data from the Dutch expanded access program. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2020, 9, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, R.Y.; Li, Y.; Marmarelis, M.E.; Vachani, A. Comparative effectiveness of second-line immune checkpoint inhibitor thera-py versus chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2021, 159, 107–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fennell, D.A.; Casbard, A.C.; Porter, C.; Rudd, R.; Lester, J.F.; Nicolson, M.; Morgan, B.; Steele, J.P.; Darlison, L.; Gardner, G.M.; et al. A randomized phase II trial of oral vinorelbine as second-line therapy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 8507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pinto, C.; Zucali, P.A.; Pagano, M.; Grosso, F.; Pasello, G.; Garassino, M.C.; Tiseo, M.; Parra, H.S.; Grossi, F.; Cappuzzo, F.; et al. Gemcitabine with or without ramucirumab as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (RAMES): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 1438–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Metaxas, Y.; Rivalland, G.; Mauti, L.A.; Klingbiel, D.; Kao, S.; Schmid, S.; Nowak, A.; Gautschi, O.; Bartnick, T.; Hughes, B.G.; et al. Pembrolizumab as palliative immunotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2018, 13, 1784–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ahmadzada, T.; Cooper, W.A.; Holmes, M.; Mahar, A.; Westman, H.; Gill, A.J.; Nordman, I.; Yip, P.Y.; Pal, A.; Zielinski, R.; et al. Retrospective Evaluation of the Use of Pembrolizumab in Malignant Mesothelioma in a Real-World Australian Population. JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 2020, 1, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nakamura, A.; Kondo, N.; Nakamichi, T.; Kuroda, A.; Hashimoto, M.; Matsumoto, S.; Yokoi, T.; Kuribayashi, K.; Kijima, T.; Hasegawa, S. Initial evaluation of nivolumab in patients with post-operative recurrence of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 50, 920–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hamad, H.; Shafi, S.; Lenge De Rosen, V.; Zhang, J. A real-world experience of nivolumab in advanced malignant mesothelio-ma (MM). J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 8569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mikami, K.; Yokoi, T.; Takahashi, R.; Shibata, E.; Niki, M.; Nakajima, Y.; Negi, Y.; Ishigaki, H.; Tada, A.; Higashiyama, T.; et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab for malignant mesothelioma in the real world. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 9052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brockwell, N.K.; Alamgeer, M.; Kumar, B.; Rivalland, G.; John, T.; Parker, B.S. Preliminary study highlights the potential of immune checkpoint inhibitors in sarcomatoid mesothelioma. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2020, 9, 639–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Baas, P.; Scherpereel, A.; Nowak, A.K.; Fujimoto, N.; Peters, S.; Tsao, A.S.; Mansfield, A.S.; Popat, S.; Jahan, T.; Antonia, S.; et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2021, 397, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ferrara, R.; Mezquita, L.; Auclin, E.; Chaput, N.; Besse, B. Immunosenescence and immunecheckpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer patients: Does age really matter? Cancer Treat. Rev. 2017, 60, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Ferrara, R.; Naigeon, M.; Auclin, E.; Duchemann, B.; Cassard, L.; Jouniaux, J.M.; Boselli, L.; Grivel, J.; Desnoyer, A.; Mezquita, L.; et al. Circulating T-cell Immunosenescence in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors or Platinum-based Chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 492–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pawelec, G. Hallmarks of human “immunosenescence”: Adaptation or dysregulation? Immun. Ageing 2012, 9, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. de Gooijer, C.J.; Borm, F.J.; Scherpereel, A.; Baas, P. Immunotherapy in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Ikeda, S.; Yoshioka, H.; Ikeo, S.; Morita, M.; Sone, N.; Niwa, T.; Nishiyama, A.; Yokoyama, T.; Sekine, A.; Ogura, T.; et al. Serum albumin level as a potential marker for deciding chemotherapy or best supportive care in elderly, advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with poor performance status. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Awada, G.; Jansen, Y.; Schwarze, J.K.; Tijtgat, J.; Hellinckx, L.; Gondry, O.; Vermeulen, S.; Warren, S.; Schats, K.; van Dam, P.J.; et al. A Comprehensive Analysis of Baseline Clinical Characteristics and Biomarkers Associated with Outcome in Ad-vanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Pembrolizumab. Cancers 2021, 13, E168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Peters, S.; Scherpereel, A.; Cornelissen, R.; Oulkhouir, Y.; Greillier, L.; Kaplan, M.A.; Talbot, T.; Monnet, I.; Hiret, S.; Baas, P.; et al. First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs. chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): 3-Year update from CheckMate 743. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, S1341–S1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 14 01498 g001 550
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier estimated probabilities of (A) PFS and (B) OS for the entire cohort.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier estimated probabilities of (A) PFS and (B) OS for the entire cohort.
Cancers 14 01498 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the 109 MPM patients at nivolumab onset.
Table 1. Characteristics of the 109 MPM patients at nivolumab onset.
CharacteristicValues (n = 109) *
Age, years69 (64–74)
Males74 (67.9)
ECOG PS at nivolumab start
0 or 191 (83.5)
≥214 (12.8)
Unknown4 (3.7%)
Histology
Epithelioid90 (82.6)
Sarcomatoid11 (10.1)
Biphasic8 (7.3)
BAP1 status
Wild-type82 (75.2)
Lost27 (24.8)
Albumin
>35 g/L47 (43.1)
25–35 g/L25 (22.9)
<25 g/L3 (2.8)
Unknown34 (31.2)
Derived neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio
<333 (30.3)
>357 (52.3)
Unknown19 (17.4)
LIPI
Good16 (14.7)
Intermediate27 (24.8)
Poor15 (13.8)
Unknown51 (46.8)
Type of prior systemic treatment, %
1st line: (n = 109): platinum-based ChT + PMX/PMX + Beva84.2/15.8
2nd line: (n = 53): platinum-based ChT + PMX/PMX/Other43.4/30.2/26.4
Best response to last-line ChT
Progressive disease28 (25.7)
Stabilized disease50 (45.9)
Partial response30 (27.5)
Unknown1 (0.9)
* Data are expressed as number, number (percentage) or as median [interquartile range], unless stated otherwise. BAP1, breast cancer-1-associated protein-1 gene; Beva, bevacizumab; ChT, chemotherapy; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; LIPI, Lung Immune Prognostic Index; MPM, metastatic pleural mesothelioma; PMX, pemetrexed.
Table
Table 2. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression model results for overall survival.
Table 2. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression model results for overall survival.
Univariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
VariableHR (95% CI)pHR (95% CI)p
Sex
MenReference
Women0.95 (0.57–1.6)0.834
MPM histology
EpithelioidReference Reference
Sarcomatoid1.4 (0.66–2.9)0.3850.83 (0.26–2.6)0.749
Biphasic3.3 (1.52–7.0)0.0023.57 (1.08–11.8)0.037
LIPI
GoodReference Reference
Intermediate0.46 (0.22–0.99)0.0460.67 (0.26–1.7)0.397
Poor0.73(0.33–1.58)0.421.11 (0.44–2.8)0.821
Albumin
>35 g/LReference Reference
25–35 g/L1.1 (0.6–2.1)0.7161.12 (0.45–2.8)0.808
<25 g/L6.8 (1.9–23.7)0.00310.28 (1.5–70.7)0.018
dNLR
<3Reference
>31.1 (0.68–1.8)0.671
BAP1 status
Wild typeReference
Lost0.68 (0.38–1.2)0.194
ICI-attributed adverse events
NoReference
Yes0.81 (0.5–1.3)0.379
ICI treatment line
2Reference
≥30.97 (0.61–1.5)0.884
Best response to last line
Partial responseReference Reference
Stabilization1.2 (0.68–2.1)0.5320.99 (0.42–2.3)0.986
Progression2.1 (1.11–3.9)0.0220.84 (0.26–2.7)0.772
Age, years
<70Reference Reference
≥702.5 (1.5–4.0)<0.0011.89 (0.85–4.2)0.118
Values correspond to HR (95% confidence interval). Bold p-values are significant. ICI: immune-checkpoint inhibitor; BAP1, breast cancer-1-associated protein-1 gene; dNLR, derived neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; ICI, immune-checkpoint inhibitor; LIPI, Lung Immune Prognostic Index; MPM, metastatic pleural mesothelioma.
Table
Table 3. Summary of real-life studies evaluating ICI monotherapy for metastatic pleural mesothelioma.
Table 3. Summary of real-life studies evaluating ICI monotherapy for metastatic pleural mesothelioma.
1st Author [Reference]CountryLineAgentNDCR, %ORR, %mPFS (Months)mOS (Months)
Metaxas
[30]		Switzerland/
Australia		1st & 2L+ Pembro9348183.17.2
Ahmadzada
[31]		Australia1st: 4
2L+: 94		Pembro9856184.89.5
Cantini
[26]		The Netherlands2nd/3rdNivo10737102.46.7
Nakamura
[32]		JapanRecurrence post-opNivo3577.1204.413.1
Hamad
(abstract) [33]		USA1st
2nd 		Nivo2560245NR
Mikami
(abstract) [34]		Japan2L+Nivo6666244.113.3
Kim
[27]		USA2ndNivo with/without IPI or Pembro115NRNRNR8.7
2L+, 2nd line and more; DCR, disease control rate; IPI, ipilimumab; mPFS, median progression-free survival (months); mOS, median overall survival; N, number of patients included; Nivo, nivolumab; ORR, objective response rate; Pembro, pembrolizumab; NR, not reported.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Assié, J.-B.; Crépin, F.; Grolleau, E.; Canellas, A.; Geier, M.; Grébert-Manuardi, A.; Akkache, N.; Renault, A.; Hauss, P.-A.; Sabatini, M.; et al. Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A French, Multicenter, Retrospective Real-World Study. Cancers 2022, 14, 1498. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061498

AMA Style

Assié J-B, Crépin F, Grolleau E, Canellas A, Geier M, Grébert-Manuardi A, Akkache N, Renault A, Hauss P-A, Sabatini M, et al. Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A French, Multicenter, Retrospective Real-World Study. Cancers. 2022; 14(6):1498. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061498

Chicago/Turabian Style

Assié, Jean-Baptiste, Florian Crépin, Emmanuel Grolleau, Anthony Canellas, Margaux Geier, Aude Grébert-Manuardi, Nabila Akkache, Aldo Renault, Pierre-Alexandre Hauss, Marielle Sabatini, and et al. 2022. "Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A French, Multicenter, Retrospective Real-World Study" Cancers 14, no. 6: 1498. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061498

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop