Amanda Segal

A multicentre phase II study of cisplatin and gemcitabine for malignant mesothelioma

Our previous phase II study of cisplatin and gemcitabine in malignant mesothelioma showed a 47.6% (95% CI 26.2–69.0%) response rate with symptom improvement in responding patients. Here we confirm these findings in a multicentre setting, and assess the effect of this treatment on quality of life and pulmonary function. Fifty-three patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma received cisplatin 100 mg m−2 i.v. day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 i.v. days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28 day cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Quality of life and pulmonary function were assessed at each cycle. The best response achieved in 52 assessable patients was: partial response, 17 (33%, 95% CI 20–46%); stable disease, 31 (60%); and progressive disease, four (8%). The median time to disease progression was 6.4 months, median survival from start of treatment 11.2 months, and median survival from diagnosis 17.3 months. Vital capacity and global quality of life remained stable in all patients and improved significantly in responding patients. Major toxicities were haematological, limiting the mean relative dose intensity of gemcitabine to 75%. This schedule of cisplatin and gemcitabine is active in malignant mesothelioma in a multicentre setting. Investigation of alternative scheduling is needed to decrease haematological toxicity and increase the relative dose intensity of gemcitabine whilst maintaining response rate and quality of life.

Adenocarcinoma in situ of the endocervix.

The current study examines 1) the sensitivity of detection and 2) sampling and screening/diagnostic error in the cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the cervix. The data were taken from public and private sector screening laboratories reporting 25,000 and 80,000 smears, respectively, each year.

Soluble mesothelin in effusions - a useful tool for the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma

Background: The diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma is frequently difficult, the most common differential diagnosis being reactive pleural conditions and metastatic adenocarcinoma. Soluble mesothelin levels in serum have recently been shown to be highly specific and moderately sensitive for mesothelioma. As most patients with mesothelioma present with exudative effusions of either the pleura or the peritoneum, a study was undertaken to determine if levels of mesothelin were raised in these fluids and if the increased levels could help to distinguish mesothelioma from other causes of exudative effusion. Methods: Pleural fluid was collected from 192 patients who presented to respiratory clinics (52 with malignant mesothelioma, 56 with non-mesotheliomatous malignancies and 84 with effusions of non-neoplastic origin). Peritoneal fluid was collected from 42 patients (7 with mesothelioma, 14 with non-mesotheliomatous malignancies and 21 with benign effusions). Mesothelin levels were determined in effusion and serum samples by ELISA. Results: Significantly higher levels of mesothelin were found in effusions of patients with mesothelioma; with a specificity of 98%, the assay had a sensitivity of 67% comparing patients with mesothelioma and those with effusions of non-neoplastic origin. In 7 out of 10 cases mesothelin levels were raised in the effusion collected 3 weeks to 10 months before the diagnosis of mesothelioma was made; in 4 out of 8 of these, mesothelin levels were increased in the effusion but not in the serum. Conclusions: Measurement of mesothelin concentrations in the pleural and/or peritoneal effusion of patients may aid in the differential diagnosis of mesothelioma in patients presenting with effusions.

Comparison of Osteopontin, Megakaryocyte Potentiating Factor, and Mesothelin Proteins as Markers in the Serum of Patients with Malignant Mesothelioma

Introduction: There is increasing interest in identifying a blood-based marker for the asbestos-related tumor, malignant mesothelioma. Three potential markers for mesothelioma are mesothelin, megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF) and osteopontin. The purpose of the current study was to directly compare these biomarkers in the same sample population, determining their sensitivity and specificity in establishing a diagnosis, and to determine if diagnostic accuracy for mesothelioma is improved by combining the data from all three markers. Methods: Serum levels of mesothelin, MPF and osteopontin were determined by commercially available assays in 66 samples from patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma, 20 healthy individuals, 21 patients with asbestos-related lung or pleural disease, 30 patients presenting with benign pleural effusions and 30 patients with other malignancies. Results: Serum levels of the three markers were elevated in mesothelioma patients. At a level of specificity of 95% relative to healthy controls and patients with benign asbestos related disease, the sensitivity for mesothelioma was 34% for MPF, 47% for osteopontin and 73% for mesothelin. Osteopontin and MPF were unable to differentiate patients with mesothelioma from patients with other malignancies or those presenting with transudative pleural effusions. Combining the data from the three biomarkers using a logistic regression model did not improve sensitivity for detecting mesothelioma above that of the mesothelin marker alone. Conclusion: Serum mesothelin remains the most specific marker for the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

A Novel Prognostic Model for Malignant Mesothelioma Incorporating Quantitative FDG-PET Imaging with Clinical Parameters

Purpose: Existing prognostic systems for malignant pleural mesothelioma do not incorporate imaging information. We aimed to identify the contribution of quantitative fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) analysis to other prognostic variables in this disease. Experimental Design: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma underwent helical thoracoabdominal computed tomography and FDG-PET scans at baseline. Patients were treated as clinically indicated and followed for survival. FDG-PET variables derived included total glycolytic volume, a composite of tumor volume and glycolytic activity. Results: Ninety-three patients were accrued from 2003 to 2006. Of 89 eligible assessable patients, 28 had undergone pleurodesis before enrolment. Seventeen patients remained alive at analysis; median survival is 15.4 months. On univariate analysis, significant prognostic factors were: total glycolytic volume on FDG-PET (P = 0.003), sarcomatoid histology (P < 0.0005), weight loss (P = 0.031), computed tomography stage (P = 0.015), and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer good prognostic score (P = 0.049). In patients with epithelioid or biphasic histology, baseline total glycolytic volume remained predictive of survival in patients with (P = 0.01) or without (P = 0.018) previous pleurodesis. In multivariate analysis, no variable other than histology contributed to the model in patients with sarcomatoid histology; total glycolytic volume and weight loss contributed to the models in patients with nonsarcomatoid histology. computed tomography–assessed tumor-node-metastasis stage did not contribute to the model. A nomogram, which incorporates quantitative PET parameters and pleurodesis into prognostic information, is presented. Conclusions: Sarcomatoid histology remains the strongest prognostic factor. In patients with non sarcomatoid disease, volumetric FDG-PET parameters are more predictive of survival than tumor-node-metastasis staging, suggesting that tumor volume and glycolytic activity may be more important determinants of prognosis in malignant pleural mesothelioma than anatomic extent of disease. Clin Cancer Res; 16(8); 2409–17. ©2010 AACR.

A Novel SV40 TAg Transgenic Model of Asbestos-Induced Mesothelioma: Malignant Transformation Is Dose Dependent

Although it has been clear for >40 years that mesothelioma can be caused by asbestos, not all patients with this disease have a history of asbestos exposure. Other factors, including non-asbestos fibers and ionizing radiation, are known to cause malignant transformation of mesothelial cells. In addition, it is likely that genetics will play some role in susceptibility. Recently, it has been suggested that SV40 viral oncogenes could contribute to the carcinogenicity of asbestos. To better understand the role of SV40, we used the mesothelin promoter to construct MexTAg mice that express SV40 large T antigen (TAg) in the mesothelial compartment. We generated four MexTAg lines that carry high, intermediate, and low copy numbers of the transgene. All of these mice show a relatively low level of spontaneous tumor development. High-copy, 299h mice rapidly developed mesotheliomas when exposed to asbestos, and these tumors were faster growing and more invasive than those developing in wild-type and single-copy (266s) mice. In addition, we found a direct relationship between transgene copy number and survival after exposure to asbestos. A single copy of TAg was sufficient to immortalize mesothelial cells in vitro, but these cells did not show evidence of malignant transformation. In contrast, cell lines developed from mesothelial cells of animals carrying multiple copies of TAg were growth factor independent and could be cloned at limiting dilution in soft agar. These data provide the first in vivo demonstration of co-carcinogenicity between SV40 and asbestos.

Comparison of fibulin-3 and mesothelin as markers in malignant mesothelioma

Background Pleural malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a deadly tumour predominantly associated with asbestos exposure. A reliable diagnostic and prognostic marker for MM will significantly enhance clinical care and is an area of intense research. Soluble mesothelin is the most studied and an FDA-approved biomarker for MM. A recent report showed promising results using fibulin-3 as a new diagnostic marker. The aim of this study was to compare the utility of fibulin-3 versus mesothelin, singly or in combination. Methods Fibulin-3 and soluble mesothelin were determined by ELISA in the plasma and pleural fluid of 153 patients presenting with a pleural effusion including 82 with MM, 36 with non-MM malignant effusions and 35 with benign effusions. Biomarker concentrations were determined in the plasma of an additional 49 cases with benign asbestos-related disease. Results Mesothelin provides better diagnostic accuracy than fibulin-3 for MM whether measured in plasma or pleural effusion: area under the curve (AUC) for plasma was 0.822 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.87) compared with 0.671 (0.61 to 0.73), respectively, and for pleural fluid AUC was 0.815 (0.74 to 0.87) compared with 0.588 (0.51 to 0.67), respectively. Effusion fibulin-3 was an independent significant prognostic factor for survival in MM patients; HR 2.08 (1.14 to 3.82), p=0.017. MM patients with effusion fibulin-3 levels below the median survived significantly longer than those with levels above the median (14.1 vs 7.9 months, p=0.012). Mesothelin and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were not significant prognostic markers. Conclusions Soluble mesothelin is a superior diagnostic biomarker for MM compared with fibulin-3, whereas fibulin-3 provides superior prognostic information compared with mesothelin.

A diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma can be made by effusion cytology: results of a 20 year audit

Aims: Cytological diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is controversial, but has been used in our institution for over 30 years. To assess the role of effusion cytology in mesothelioma diagnosis we conducted an audit of pleural fluid cytology results over a 20 year period (1988–2007). Methods: Pleural samples were received from 6285 patients; data linkage with Western Australian Cancer and Mesothelioma Registries demonstrated that 815 of these patients had a diagnosis of MPM. Cytological examination of a pleural effusion specimen had been performed in 517 (63%) of these 815 patients. Results: Definitive cytological diagnosis of MPM was made in 377/517 cases, resulting in an ‘absolute’ sensitivity of 73%. An additional 66 patients were diagnosed as atypical/suspicious, resulting in a ‘complete’ sensitivity of 86%. If only biopsy/necropsy proven cases are considered, the absolute sensitivity is 68% and the complete sensitivity is 82%. There were no false positive diagnoses of malignancy; two patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma were initially diagnosed as MPM, prior to the availability of specific mesothelial markers, resulting in a positive predictive value of 99%. Conclusions: Effusion cytology is an inexpensive, minimally invasive procedure which should be included in the diagnostic work-up of cases of suspected MPM.

Can CD34 discriminate between benign and malignant hepatocytic lesions in fine-needle aspirates and thin core biopsies?

Distinguishing well differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from benign hepatocellular lesions is a well recognized problem in fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. The endothelial cell marker CD34 is negative in normal hepatic sinusoids and stains vessels diffusely in HCC. This feature is useful in distinguishing benign from malignant hepatocytic lesions in histological specimens, although benign lesions may show focal positivity for CD34 confined to periportal and periseptal areas. In this study, we assess the role of CD34 in cell block and thin core biopsy material from benign and malignant hepatocellular lesions, and compare it with reticulin staining.

A Phase II Study of Intermittent Sunitinib Malate as Second-Line Therapy in Progressive Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Introduction: There is no accepted second-line therapy for patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), whose disease has progressed after first-line chemotherapy. The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib malate targets several pathways overexpressed in mesothelioma. This phase II study assessed objective response to sunitinib and correlative biomarkers in patients with progressive pretreated MPM. Methods: Eligible patients had confirmed MPM, radiological progression after chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1, and measurable disease. Patients received oral sunitinib 50 mg daily for 28 of every 42 days. The primary endpoint was objective radiological response. Patients without prior pleurodesis had fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic response assessed by total glycolytic volume criteria. Correlative biomarkers included serum mesothelin, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-C, interleukin-8, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3, and s-kit. Results: Fifty-three patients received sunitinib between July 2006 and December 2009; 51 were assessable for response. Patients received a median of two cycles (range, 1–12); 40% required dose reduction. Fatigue was the most prominent toxicity. Six patients (12%) had a confirmed radiological partial response, 34 (65%) had stable disease, and 11 (22%) had progressive disease as best response. Six of 20 patients had a decrease in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic total glycolytic volume of 15% or more. Median overall survival was 6.1 months, and median time to progression was 3.5 months. Correlative biomarkers did not predict treatment response. Conclusions: Sunitinib has activity in a subset of patients with pretreated MPM. Consideration should be given to different treatment schedules and examination of other biomarkers for further study of sunitinib in MPM.