Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: new treatments, new hopes?

Arnaud Scherpereel
European Respiratory Journal 2017 49: 1700319; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00319-2017
Arnaud Scherpereel
1Pulmonary and Thoracic Oncology, CHU Lille, University of Lille, Lille, France
2French National network of clinical expert centres for malignant pleural mesothelioma management (MESOCLIN)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: arnaud.scherpereel@chru-lille.fr
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

New tools may select mesothelioma patients who can benefit from promising therapeutic multimodal strategies http://ow.ly/yp8W309tg0i

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive tumour type arising from the mesothelial surface of the pleural space. MPM is difficult to treat and commonly associated with asbestos exposure, which is its main risk factor [1]. In Europe, the incidence is about 20 per million, with large inter-country variation [2]. As a ban on the use of asbestos was proposed quite recently in most countries, and the median latency between asbestos exposure and MPM onset is about 40 years, incidence rates in some European nations are still rising, with peak incidences expected around 2020 and beyond. Moreover, asbestos continues to be used in many developing and emerging countries of the world, suggesting a potential mesothelioma epidemic in the future. The clinical signs are usually late and nonspecific. Chest computed tomography scanning, a key imaging procedure in MPM, usually shows unilateral pleural effusion, sometimes combined with pleural thickening [1, 3].

The treatment of MPM is quite elusive and relies mostly on palliative treatment by standard first-line chemotherapy (cisplatin/pemetrexed) and best supportive care, with median overall survival of ∼13 months [1, 3–5]. A recent phase III randomised trial recruiting 448 unresectable MPM patients found significantly longer survival (median 18.8 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.76; p=0.012) when bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies) was added to cisplatin/pemetrexed, compared with chemotherapy alone [6]. This triple treatment had acceptable toxicity, making it a new treatment paradigm for this cancer. Therapeutic options beyond first-line treatment are at present highly limited, with a disease control rate of ≤30% [1, 7, 8], leading to patients being recommended to join as many clinical trials as possible. Preliminary results with targeted therapies and immunotherapy (e.g. anti-PD-1 (anti-programmed death-1) or anti-PD-L1 (anti-programmed death ligand-1) antibodies, and drugs targeting mesothelin) are very exciting but need confirmation by large randomised trials [9]. In fact, the first results with anti-CTLA4 (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) antibodies (tremelimumab) as second/third-line treatment of MPM were recently not confirmed by a larger randomised trial (n=571), when compared with placebo [10]. Early data from a phase Ib basket trial with anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) in the same setting showed a promising RR of 28% and disease control rate of 76% in PD-L1-positive MPM [11]. Other trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors are underway.

Surgery plays an important role in the diagnosis and staging of MPM but it is more controversial in the treatment of this cancer, although it may sometimes be proposed with a curative intent instead of medical treatment, or combined with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy as part of a multimodal treatment. To obtain macroscopic complete resection of MPM, two main procedures are discussed: extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and pleurectomy/decortication (P/D). If including resection of pericardium and diaphragm involved by the tumour, this is termed “extended” P/D [2, 12, 13]. Modalities of this multimodal treatment of MPM patients, including EPP or P/D, are not yet well defined. Therefore, surgery of MPM must be performed by highly experienced multidisciplinary teams in dedicated centres, and is not recommended outside clinical trials [1]. Most recent trials, such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial [14] and the highly controversial Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery trial [15], as well as meta-analyses, plead for stopping EPP and continuing P/D only in clinical trials to find the best multimodal treatment for potentially resectable MPM patients who are fit for surgery [2]. Cao et al. [12] reported median overall survival ranges of 13–29 months for extended P/D and 12–22 months for EPP, which can be compared with median overall survival of 19 months in patients less selected than surgical patients, treated only by cisplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab [6]! Moreover, morbidity and mortality rates are also higher with EPP than with P/D but are decreased in experienced teams for MPM, and patients in the different studies were highly heterogeneously selected and treated.

However, two groups have recently published promising data from large single-centre series. Friedberg et al. [16] found an exciting median overall survival of 3 years (7.3 years in N0 patients) in a series of 90 patients treated by extended P/D, intrapleural photodynamic therapy and adjuvant chemotherapy. de Perrot et al. [17] in Toronto (ON, Canada) reported median overall survival of 36 months (51 months in epithelioïd subtypes compared with 10 months in biphasic subtypes; p=0.001) in patients treated with accelerated hemithoracic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) followed by EPP. Both these experienced groups had an operative mortality rate of 3% or below. Moreover, the switch from induction chemotherapy to induction IMRT in the Toronto group was associated with resection in older patients with more advanced tumours, fewer transfusion requirements, and comparable post-operative morbidity and 90-day mortality [18].

A crucial issue remains: what are the parameters to select good candidates for surgery and multimodal treatment? Operability is usually based on the same criteria as in lung cancer patients [1]. Current best resectability criteria include epithelioïd histological subtype (the most frequent MPM subtype) and tumour staging, although these are still being discussed. A new TNM classification for MPM has recently been proposed by experts from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, to be integrated into the eighth TNM classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control staging system, based on the series of a series of 2460 eligible cases [19–21]. Despite there being a majority of surgical cases in this database, in contrast with there being more usually a large majority of patients having only medical treatment, this initiative is highly interesting and pertinent. The main proposed changes for the T classification are to merge T1a and T1b stages into a unique T1 stage based on the absence of prognostic value of the tumour involvement of the visceral pleura only, a very tricky criterion to assess clinically. The N staging is simplified, merging the previous N1 and N2 stages of similar outcome into the new N1 stage; N3 stage (contralateral intrathoracic or supraclavicular lymph nodes) becomes the new N2 stage. There is no change for the M stage with rare M1 tumours in the series.

Evaluation of tumour volume based on three measurements of pleural thickness seems to have a high prognostic value whatever the tumour stage is. However, it will not be part of the next TNM classification. In fact, assessment of MPM by volumetric computed tomography was found not only to help in assessing the response to treatment [22] but also to have prognostic value. If this tool is found to be practical and reproducible, it could improve clinical MPM classification in the future, as suggested by a first study in six North American centres [23].

In this issue of the European Respiratory Journal, de Perrot et al. [24] report on their assessment of tumour thickness from 65 patients included in their trial evaluating EPP after radiotherapy, which they conducted in order to improve selection of candidates for MPM multimodal treatment. Total tumour thickness was determined by measurements of maximal thickness on nine predefined sectors on the chest wall, mediastinum and diaphragm. They found that total tumour thickness was an independent predictor of overall survival (p=0.02) and disease-free survival (p=0.01) after radical treatment for MPM. Interestingly, in this multivariate analysis, total tumour thickness was an outcome predictor independently of other retained parameters: epithelioïd histological subtype (p<0.0001) and nodal disease status (pN2; p=0.03). Thus, in addition to histology and TNM stage, tumour thickness, correlated with tumour volume and maximum standardised uptake value in this study, could improve patient selection for multimodal treatment including EPP or P/D.

However, these suggested parameters need to be prospectively validated in trials assessing the value of multimodal treatment in MPM patients, in a similar way to what is presently undertaken with biomarkers for targeted therapies and immunotherapy. Moreover, MPM thickness measurement may be very difficult, with sometimes very thin and/or inhomogeneous pleural thickness, which could also be mixed up with non-tumoural pleural abnormalities or atelectasis.

A better knowledge of the disease pathogenesis [25] and the development of these new exciting drugs and strategies, in parallel with the potential capability to target the best patients for each therapy, open promising perspectives in the management of MPM. An ongoing European task force (European Respiratory Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Lung Foundation) has the goal of proposing an update of previous guidelines on MPM management [1] by the end of 2017, based on a systematic review of the literature. All these elements put together may finally bring hope for MPM patients and clinicians after a long dark age.

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

A. Scherpereel ERJ-00319-2017_Scherpereel

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received February 14, 2017.
  • Accepted February 15, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2017

References

  1. ↵
    1. Scherpereel A,
    2. Astoul P,
    3. Baas P, et al.
    Guidelines of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 479–495.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Opitz I
    . Management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: the European experience. J Thorac Dis 2014; 6: Suppl. 2, S238–S252.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. van Zandwijk N,
    2. Clarke C,
    3. Henderson D, et al.
    Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Dis 2013; 5: E254–E307.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Baas P,
    2. Fennell D,
    3. Kerr KM, et al.
    Malignant pleural mesothelioma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: Suppl. 5, v31–v39.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Vogelzang NJ,
    2. Rusthoven JJ,
    3. Symanowski J, et al.
    Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2636–2644.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Zalcman G,
    2. Mazières J,
    3. Margery J, 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 2016; 387: 1405–1414.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Zucali PA,
    2. Simonelli M,
    3. Michetti G, et al.
    Second-line chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of a retrospective multicenter survey. Lung Cancer 2012; 75: 360–367.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Scherpereel A,
    2. Berghmans T,
    3. Lafitte JJ, et al.
    Valproate-doxorubicin: promising therapy for progressing mesothelioma. A phase II study. Eur Respir J 2011; 37: 129–135.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Hassan R,
    2. Kindler HL,
    3. Jahan T, et al.
    Phase II clinical trial of amatuximab, a chimeric antimesothelin antibody with pemetrexed and cisplatin in advanced unresectable pleural mesothelioma. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 5927–5936.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Kindler HL,
    2. Scherpereel A,
    3. Calabrò L, et al.
    Tremelimumab as second- or third-line treatment of unresectable malignant mesothelioma (MM): results from the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled DETERMINE study. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: Suppl., 8502.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Alley EW,
    2. Molife LR,
    3. Santoro A, et al.
    Clinical safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: preliminary results from KEYNOTE-028. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). AACR, Philadelphia, 2015; abstract CT103.
  11. ↵
    1. Cao C,
    2. Tian D,
    3. Park J, et al.
    A systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical treatments for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer 2014; 83: 240–245.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Van Schil PE,
    2. Opitz I,
    3. Weder W, et al.
    Multimodal management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: where are we today? Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 754–764.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Van Schil PE,
    2. Baas P,
    3. Gaafar R, et al.
    Trimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: results from an EORTC phase II multicentre trial. Eur Respir J 2010; 36: 1362–1369.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Treasure T,
    2. Lang-Lazdunski   L,
    3. Waller D, et al.
    Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 763–772.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Friedberg JS,
    2. Simone CB 2nd.,
    3. Culligan MJ, et al.
    Extended pleurectomy-decortication-based treatment for advanced stage epithelial mesothelioma yielding a median survival of nearly three years. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 912–919.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. de Perrot M,
    2. Feld R,
    3. Leighl NB, et al.
    Accelerated hemithoracic radiation followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151: 468–473.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Mordant P,
    2. McRae K,
    3. Cho J, et al.
    Impact of induction therapy on postoperative outcome after extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: does induction-accelerated hemithoracic radiation increase the surgical risk? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 50: 433–438.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Nowak AK,
    2. Chansky K,
    3. Rice DC, et al.
    The IASLC Mesothelioma Staging Project: proposals for revisions of the T descriptors in the forthcoming eighth edition of the TNM classification for pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 2089–2099.
    OpenUrl
    1. Rice D,
    2. Chansky K,
    3. Nowak A, et al.
    The IASLC Mesothelioma Staging Project: proposals for revisions of the N descriptors in the forthcoming eighth edition of the TNM classification for pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 2100–2111.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Rusch VW,
    2. Chansky K,
    3. Kindler HL, et al.
    The IASLC Mesothelioma Staging Project: proposals for the M descriptors and for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (eighth) edition of the TNM classification for mesothelioma. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 2112–2119.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Frauenfelder T,
    2. Tutic M,
    3. Weder W, et al.
    Volumetry: an alternative to assess therapy response for malignant pleural mesothelioma? Eur Respir J 2011; 38: 162–168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Rusch VW,
    2. Gill R,
    3. Mitchell A, et al.
    A multicenter study of volumetric computed tomography for staging malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 1059–1066.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. de Perrot M,
    2. Dong Z,
    3. Bradbury P, et al.
    Impact of tumour thickness on survival after radical radiation and surgery in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1601428.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Bueno R,
    2. Stawiski EW,
    3. Goldstein LD, et al.
    Comprehensive genomic analysis of malignant pleural mesothelioma identifies recurrent mutations, gene fusions and splicing alterations. Nat Genet 2016; 48: 407–416.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 49 Issue 3 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 49 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Malignant pleural mesothelioma: new treatments, new hopes?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Malignant pleural mesothelioma: new treatments, new hopes?
Arnaud Scherpereel
European Respiratory Journal Mar 2017, 49 (3) 1700319; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00319-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Malignant pleural mesothelioma: new treatments, new hopes?
Arnaud Scherpereel
European Respiratory Journal Mar 2017, 49 (3) 1700319; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00319-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Lung cancer
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • GOLD 2023 streamlines pharmacological treatment
  • The ERS PROFILE.net Clinical Research Collaboration
  • Defining good lung health at population and individual level
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society