Tsao, Anne S.

In this 5-year follow-up from the CheckMate 743 study in patients with unresectable pleural mesothelioma (PM), we evaluated updated efficacy and safety outcomes and biomarkers and performed treatment-switching analyses with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 66.8 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated continued overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in all randomly assigned patients (5-year OS rates, 14% v 6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.88]); similar benefit was observed regardless of tumor histology. Of biomarker-evaluable patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 242), high baseline monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (M-MDSC) levels correlated with worse OS versus low M-MDSC levels (HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.43]). After adjusting for 24% of patients in the chemotherapy arm who received subsequent immunotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated continued OS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78]). No new safety signals were observed. These results demonstrate long-term, durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy, which continued to be preserved even after treatment-switching adjustment in the chemotherapy arm. Exploratory analyses suggested greater benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the low M-MDSC subgroup. These results further support first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab as standard of care for unresectable PM.

ImportanceArginine deprivation using ADI-PEG20 (pegargiminase) combined with chemotherapy is untested in a randomized study among patients with cancer. ATOMIC-Meso (ADI-PEG20 Targeting of Malignancies Induces Cytotoxicity-Mesothelioma) is a pivotal trial comparing standard first-line chemotherapy plus pegargiminase or placebo in patients with nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of pegargiminase-based chemotherapy on survival in nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma, an arginine-auxotrophic tumor.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a phase 2-3, double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted at 43 centers in 5 countries that included patients with chemotherapy-naive nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma from August 1, 2017, to August 15, 2021, with at least 12 months’ follow-up. Final follow-up was on August 15, 2022. Data analysis was performed from March 2018 to June 2023.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly intramuscular pegargiminase (36.8 mg/m2) or placebo. All patients received intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and platinum (75-mg/m2 cisplatin or carboplatin area under the curve 5) chemotherapy every 3 weeks up to 6 cycles. Pegargiminase or placebo was continued until progression, toxicity, or 24 months.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was overall survival, and secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety. Response rate by blinded independent central review was assessed in the phase 2 portion only.ResultsAmong 249 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.9] years; 43 female individuals [17.3%] and 206 male individuals [82.7%]), all were included in the analysis. The median overall survival was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.9-11.8 months) with pegargiminase-chemotherapy as compared with 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.1-9.5 months) with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = .02). The median progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.4 months) with pegargiminase-chemotherapy as compared with 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1-5.9 months) with placebo-chemotherapy (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90; P = .02). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events with pegargiminase occurred in 36 patients (28.8%) and with placebo in 21 patients (16.9%); drug hypersensitivity and skin reactions occurred in the experimental arm in 3 patients (2.4%) and 2 patients (1.6%), respectively, and none in the placebo arm. Rates of poststudy treatments were comparable in both arms (57 patients [45.6%] with pegargiminase vs 58 patients [46.8%] with placebo).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of arginine depletion with pegargiminase plus chemotherapy, survival was extended beyond standard chemotherapy with a favorable safety profile in patients with nonepithelioid pleural mesothelioma. Pegargiminase-based chemotherapy as a novel antimetabolite strategy for mesothelioma validates wider clinical testing in oncology.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02709512

Abstract Background: Arginine deprivation with ADI-PEG20 (pegargiminase) alone or combined with chemotherapy displayed antitumor activity in early phase clinical trials of argininosuccinate synthase 1 (ASS1)-deficient cancers, including pleural mesothelioma (PM). The non-epithelioid subtype of mesothelioma is particularly aggressive and arginine-auxotrophic due to frequent ASS1 loss. ATOMIC-meso is a pivotal phase 2-3 trial comparing standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus pegargiminase or placebo for patients (pts) with non-epithelioid PM. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned ECOG PS 0-1 pts with chemonaïve non-epithelioid PM in an intention-to-treat 1:1 ratio to receive q3 week SOC chemotherapy with pemetrexed (500mg/m2 i.v.) and cisplatin (75mg/m2 i.v.) with q1 week pegargiminase (36 mg/m2 i.m.) or placebo i.m. up to 6 cycles. Carboplatin (AUC5) was permitted in the phase 3 portion instead of cisplatin. Maintenance therapy with pegargiminase or placebo was continued until progression, toxicity or 24 months. The primary end point was median OS (mOS) and secondary end points included median PFS (mPFS), safety, pharmacodynamics and immunogenicity. ORR was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) for the phase 2 portion only using modified RECIST or RECIST v1.1. Results: 249 pts with non-epithelioid PM (median age 71, range 28-86; male 82.7%; 48.2% biphasic and 51.8% sarcomatoid) from 5 countries were randomized between Aug 2017 and Aug 2021: 125 pts were assigned to the pegargiminase-chemotherapy group and 124 pts to the placebo-chemotherapy group. The experimental arm showed a superior mOS respect to SOC: 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9-11.8) vs. 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.1-9.5) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; p=0.023). Also, the mPFS was higher in the experimental vs. control arm: 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.4) vs. 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.14-5.91) ([HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90; p=0.019). The ORR by BICR was 13.8% in the pegargiminase-chemotherapy group vs. 13.5% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (p=0.95) with more stable disease in the former (71.3% vs. 62.9%). Plasma arginine declined with a reciprocal increase in citrulline. Anti-ADI-PEG20 antibodies were detected in 97.4% of patients by week 25 on pegargiminase. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events to pegargiminase occurred in 28.8% and to placebo in 16.9%; grade ≥ 3 drug hypersensitivity and skin reactions occurred in 3.2% and 1.6% in the experimental arm, respectively, and none on placebo. Post-study drug treatment was comparable in both arms (45.6% post-pegargiminase vs. 46.8% post-placebo). Conclusions: In this first randomized trial of an arginine-depleting chemotherapy in cancer, the pegargiminase-pemetrexed-platinum triplet prolonged survival and had a favorable safety profile in pts with non-epithelioid PM (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02709512) Citation Format: Peter W. Szlosarek, Ben Creelan, Thomas Sarkodie, Luke Nolan, Paul Taylor, Olga Olevsky, Federica Grosso, Diego Cortinovis, Meenali Chitnis, Amy Roy, David Gilligan, Hedy Kindler, Dionysis Papadatos-Pastos, Giovanni L. Ceresoli, Aaron Mansfield, Anne Tsao, Ken O’Byrne, Anna K. Nowak, Jeremy Steele, Michael Sheaff, Amanda Johnston, John Bomalaski, Marjorie Zauderer, Dean A. Fennell. Phase 2-3 trial of pegargiminase plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with non-epithelioid pleural mesothelioma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT007.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare malignancy with few treatment options. Recent advances have led to US Food and Drug Administration approvals and changes in the standard of care with a novel biomedical device approved for use with platinum-pemetrexed, and also for immunotherapy agents to be included as a frontline treatment option in unresectable disease. Although predictive biomarkers for systemic therapy are not currently in use in clinical practice, it is essential to correctly identify the MPM histology to determine an optimal treatment plan. Patients with nonepithelioid MPM may have a greater magnitude of benefit to dual immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and this regimen should be preferred in the frontline setting for these patients. However, all patients with MPM can derive benefit from immunotherapy treatments, and these agents should ultimately be used at some point during their treatment journey. There are ongoing studies in the frontline unresectable setting that may further define the frontline therapy space, but a critical area of research will need to focus on the immunotherapy refractory population. This review article will describe the new developments in the areas of biology with genomics and chromothripsis, and also focus on updates in treatment strategies in radiology, surgery, radiation, and medical oncology with cellular therapies. These recent innovations are generating momentum to find better therapies for this disease.

Abstract Mesothelioma affects mostly older individuals who have been occupationally exposed to asbestos. The global mesothelioma incidence and mortality rates are unknown, because data are not available from developing countries that continue to use large amounts of asbestos. The incidence rate of mesothelioma has decreased in Australia, the United States, and Western Europe, where the use of asbestos was banned or strictly regulated in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrating the value of these preventive measures. However, in these same countries, the overall number of deaths from mesothelioma has not decreased as the size of the population and the percentage of old people have increased. Moreover, hotspots of mesothelioma may occur when carcinogenic fibers that are present in the environment are disturbed as rural areas are being developed. Novel immunohistochemical and molecular markers have improved the accuracy of diagnosis; however, about 14% (high‐resource countries) to 50% (developing countries) of mesothelioma diagnoses are incorrect, resulting in inadequate treatment and complicating epidemiological studies. The discovery that germline BRCA1‐asssociated protein 1 ( BAP1 ) mutations cause mesothelioma and other cancers (BAP1 cancer syndrome) elucidated some of the key pathogenic mechanisms, and treatments targeting these molecular mechanisms and/or modulating the immune response are being tested. The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma is controversial as it is difficult to predict who will benefit from aggressive management, even when local therapies are added to existing or novel systemic treatments. Treatment outcomes are improving, however, for peritoneal mesothelioma. Multidisciplinary international collaboration will be necessary to improve prevention, early detection, and treatment.

TPS8582 Background: Argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1)-deficient malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is sensitive to arginine deprivation therapy with pegylated arginine deiminase (ADI-PEG20), which also enhances the cytotoxicity of pemetrexed. The TRAP Phase 1 trial (NCT02029690) of ADI-PEG 20 combined with 1st-line pemetrexed (PEM) and cisplatin (CDDP) chemotherapy revealed a 94% disease control rate in non-epithelioid (biphasic and sarcomatoid) MPM subtypes characterized by a 75% rate of ASS1 loss. Thus, we plan to assess the efficacy of ADI-PEG20 or placebo combined with PEM and CDDP in patients (pts) with poor prognosis MPM in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 global trial. Methods: Up to 386 good performance (ECOG 0-1) pts with non-epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma will be enrolled in a phase 2/3 adaptive, biomarker-driven study design. Biopsies will be required prior to randomization: ASS1-agnostic pts will be enrolled initially (phase 2 stage) with an option to restrict enrolment to ASS1-deficient MPM (phase 3 stage). Pts will be randomized to receive weekly ADI-PEG20 (36 mg/m2 IM) or placebo with standard doses of PEM and CDDP for a maximum of 18 weeks (6 cycles) of treatment. Pts who develop CDDP toxicity may be switched to carboplatin. Pts will be assessed every 6 weeks using modified RECIST (RECIST 1.1 allowed for pts with significant extrathoracic disease). The primary endpoint for the phase 2 stage will be overall response rate (ORR) with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS), safety and toxicity. The phase 2 will test ORR proportions with the placebo triplet set at 15% vs. 35% for the ADI-PEG 20 triplet, with a 1:1 randomization, 80% power. After recruitment of 176 pts, the phase 2 will convert to a phase 3 study with the primary endpoint of OS. In summary, ATOMIC-Meso is the first triplet chemotherapy study to assess the role of targeted arginine deprivation in aggressive subtypes of mesothelioma. Pt accrual has commenced across the US and Asia, with enrolment due in Europe and Australia by 2nd quarter of 2017. [Trial sponsored by Polaris Group]. Clinical trial information: NCT02709512.

Purpose: The Conquer Cancer Foundation (CCF), the philanthropic arm of ASCO, is responsible for funding innovative clinical research. CCF wants to broaden its donor base instead of relying predominantly on health-care companies. Our Leadership Development Program (LDP) group was tasked with identifying potential donor sources and making recommendations to increase funding. Materials and Methods: We selected three sources to research: the general public, crowdsourcing/social media, and ASCO members. We subsequently focused our efforts on ASCO members, of whom only 2% to 3% are donors to CCF and < 8% are repeat donors. To analyze this low rate, we sent out two separate surveys to various groups of members within ASCO. Results: We identified lack of knowledge as a major deterrent to giving; surprisingly, even those who hold ASCO leadership positions or participated in committees lacked knowledge about CCF funding. Also, the misconception that ASCO is rich and does not need philanthropic support deterred giving; however, respondents would donate if given the right message that stresses the need of continued member-led donations. Conclusion: ASCO members, including those in leadership positions, need to be engaged more aggressively to support CCF. Increased education and updating the CCF message is likely to provide the greatest impact on higher member donation, repeated donations, and facilitate CCF’s goal of diversifying its donor base away from healthcare companies. Furthermore, we recommend using technology, such as mobile applications, and providing incentives and visibility to major donors.