SummaryBackgroundThe effects of extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) on survival and quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have, to our knowledge, not been assessed in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who were randomly assigned to EPP or no EPP in the context of trimodal therapy in the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) feasibility study.MethodsMARS was a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 12 UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older who had pathologically confirmed mesothelioma and were deemed fit enough to undergo trimodal therapy were included. In a prerandomisation registration phase, all patients underwent induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by clinical review. After further consent, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to EPP followed by postoperative hemithorax irradiation or to no EPP. Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by surgical centre. The main endpoints were feasibility of randomly assigning 50 patients in 1 year (results detailed in another report), proportion randomised who received treatment, proportion eligible (registered) who proceeded to randomisation, perioperative mortality, and quality of life. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. This is the principal report of the MARS study; all patients have been recruited. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN95583524.FindingsBetween Oct 1, 2005, and Nov 3, 2008, 112 patients were registered and 50 were subsequently randomly assigned: 24 to EPP and 26 to no EPP. The main reasons for not proceeding to randomisation were disease progression (33 patients), inoperability (five patients), and patient choice (19 patients). EPP was completed satisfactorily in 16 of 24 patients assigned to EPP; in five patients EPP was not started and in three patients it was abandoned. Two patients in the EPP group died within 30 days and a further patient died without leaving hospital. One patient in the no EPP group died perioperatively after receiving EPP off trial in a non-MARS centre. The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival between the EPP and no EPP groups was 1·90 (95% CI 0·92–3·93; exact p=0·082), and after adjustment for sex, histological subtype, stage, and age at randomisation the HR was 2·75 (1·21–6·26; p=0·016). Median survival was 14·4 months (5·3–18·7) for the EPP group and 19·5 months (13·4 to time not yet reached) for the no EPP group. Of the 49 randomly assigned patients who consented to quality of life assessment (EPP n=23; no EPP n=26), 12 patients in the EPP group and 19 in the no EPP group completed the quality of life questionnaires. Although median quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group than the no EPP group, no significant differences between groups were reported in the quality of life analyses. There were ten serious adverse events reported in the EPP group and two in the no EPP group.InterpretationIn view of the high morbidity ...

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundMalignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life.Methods409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112.FindingsAt the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·72–1·10]; p=0·29). Median survival was 7·6 months in the ASC alone group and 8·5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0·80 [0·63–1·02]; p=0·08), with a median survival of 9·5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0·99 [0·78–1·27]; p=0·95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months.InterpretationThe addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation.FundingCancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council (UK).

Background No phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.Methods This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.

Mesothelioma is an asbestos-related cancer that affects mainly the pleura. World-wide incidence is increasing and set to rise for some time particularly in developing countries. Mesothelioma is uniformly fatal and often associated with difficult symptoms. The purpose of this review is to identify what is known about the experience of people living with mesothelioma. A literature search identified 13 papers covering qualitative studies, patient-reported quality of life data collected as part of a clinical trial, symptoms and survey of patients and carers. The findings suggest the impact of mesothelioma is multidimensional on: physical symptoms (especially pain, breathlessness, fatigue, cough, sleep disturbance, appetite loss and sweating), emotional functioning (anxiety, depression, fear and isolation), social consequences (changes in roles and relationships) and interventions (the necessity of frequent anti-cancer treatments and admissions for symptom control). The impact on family members is significant also. Although limited, these findings provide an important insight into the impact of mesothelioma on patients and family members and suggest areas where service provision may fail to meet their needs. Finally, the review highlights an urgent need for further research to more fully understand the experience of living with mesothelioma and identify the specific needs of patients and family members.

and PFS (RECIST v1.1; blinded, independent central review) were assessed by the stratified log-rank test in the ITT population. The protocol-specified first interim analysis (IA1) was planned to occur when w255 deaths occurred and w12 months after the last participant was randomized. Nonbinding futility criteria at IA1 were differences in the restricted mean survival time (RMST) between pembroeipi and pembroeplacebo of 0.2 at the maximum observation time and 0.1 at 24 months of follow-up. Results: Between 12-January-2018 and 22-August-2019, 568 participants were randomized to pembroeipi (n¼284; 282 treated) and pembroeplacebo (n¼284; 281 treated). As of 01-September-2020, median (range) study follow-up was 20.6 months (12.4-31.7), treatment was ongoing in 21.3% in the pembroe ipi arm vs 23.8% in the pembroeplacebo arm, and median number of treatment cycles was 10 vs 15. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. With 272 deaths, median OS was 21.4 months for pembroeipi vs 21.9 months for pembroeplacebo (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.37]; P ¼ 0.74). RMST differences were e0.56 at the maximum observation time and e0.52 at 24 months, which met the futility criteria. With 372 events, median PFS was 8.2 months for pembroeipi vs 8.4 months for pembroeplacebo (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.86-1.30]; P ¼ 0.72). ORR was 45.4% in both arms; median DOR was 16.1 months for pembroeipi vs 17.3 months for pembroeplacebo. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 76.2% of pembroeipi recipients vs 68.3% of pembroeplacebo recipients, were of grade 3-5 in 35.1% vs 19.6%, led to death in 2.5% vs 0%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 25.2% vs 10.7%. Immune-mediated AEs and infusion reactions occurred in 44.7% of pembroeipi recipients vs 32.4% of pembroe placebo recipients, were grade 3-5 in 20.2% vs 7.8%, led to death in 2.1% vs 0%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 14.9% vs 5.3%. Based on the observed efficacy and safety, the external data monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped due to futility and that participants discontinue ipi/placebo. Conclusion: Adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab does not improve efficacy and is associated with greater toxicity than pembrolizumab alone as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS 50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. These data confirm pembrolizumab monotherapy as a standard-of-care for this population.

No abstract

PURPOSE Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM. METHODS After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. RESULTS Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). CONCLUSION There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.