Validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases recorded in a Japanese administrative database.

BACKGROUND: Validating the information recorded in administrative databases is essential. However, no study has comprehensively validated the accuracy of Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) data on various respiratory diseases. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases in the DPC database. METHODS: We conducted chart reviews of 400 patients hospitalized in the departments of respiratory medicine in two acute-care hospitals in Tokyo, between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2021, and used them as reference standards. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of DPC data on 25 respiratory diseases were determined. RESULTS: Sensitivity ranged from 22.2% (aspiration pneumonia) to 100% (chronic eosinophilic pneumonia and malignant pleural mesothelioma) and was <50% for eight diseases, while specificity was >90% for all diseases. PPV ranged from 40.0% (aspiration pneumonia) to 100% (coronavirus disease 2019, bronchiectasis, chronic eosinophilic pneumonia, pulmonary hypertension, squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, lung cancer of other histological types, and malignant pleural mesothelioma) and was >80% for 16 diseases. Except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (82.9%) and interstitial pneumonia (other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) (85.4%), NPV was >90% for all diseases. These validity indices were similar in both hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of diagnoses of respiratory diseases in the DPC database was high in general, thereby providing an important basis for future studies.

Understanding clinical decision-making in mesothelioma care: a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare, incurable cancer arising from previous asbestos exposure; patients have a poor prognosis, with a median survival rate of 8-14 months. Variation in mesothelioma clinical decision-making remains common with a lack of multidisciplinary knowledge sharing, leading to inconsistencies in treatment decisions. The study aimed to explore which factors impacted on clinicians' decision-making in mesothelioma care, with a view to optimising the mesothelioma care pathway. METHODS: This mixed methods study consisted of documentary analysis of local and national guidelines, policies or documents pertaining to mesothelioma care pathways, secondary analysis of mesothelioma patient data, and interviews with clinicians attending lung cancer and/or mesothelioma-specific multidisciplinary team meetings. The study took place at three National Health Service trusts in England. Documentations relating to patients' treatment pathways were collated and reviewed qualitatively. Records of patients with mesothelioma were extracted from hospital patient records and data collected on diagnosis date, treatment, mortality rates, survival postdiagnosis, age and clinical care team. Data were statistically analysed. Interviews with clinicians explored influences on clinical decision-making, including challenges or barriers involved. Data were thematically analysed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting checklist was used. RESULTS: There were differences in the structure and delivery of mesothelioma treatment and care between trusts. Four main themes were identified: 'collaboration and communication', 'evidence base and knowledge', 'role of the clinician' and 'role of the patient'. Two cross-cutting themes relating to the role of the mesothelioma nurse specialist and the impact of COVID-19 were identified. DISCUSSION: There is a need to review the structure of mesothelioma multidisciplinary team meetings to ensure patients are reviewed by clinicians with appropriate knowledge, expertise and understanding of how, why and when decisions should be made. There is a need for expert clinicians in mesothelioma care to promote an up-to-date evidence and knowledge base within the wider multidisciplinary team.

Long-term benefit of lurbinectedin as palliative chemotherapy in progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): final efficacy and translational data of the SAKK 17/16 study.

BACKGROUND: The SAKK 17/16 study showed promising efficacy data with lurbinectedin as second- or third-line palliative therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Here, we evaluated long-term outcome and analyzed the impact of lurbinectedin monotherapy on the tumor microenvironment at the cellular and molecular level to predict outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two patients were treated with lurbinectedin in this single-arm study. Twenty-nine samples were available at baseline, and seven additional matched samples at day one of cycle two of treatment. Survival curves and rates between groups were compared using the log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical significance was set at P value <0.05. RESULTS: Updated median overall survival (OS) was slightly increased to 11.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.8-13.8 months]. Thirty-six patients (85%) had died. The OS rate at 12 and 18 months was 47% (95% CI 32.1% to 61.6%) and 31% (95% CI 17.8% to 45.0%), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-5.5 months). No new safety signals were observed. Patients with lower frequencies of regulatory T cells, as well as lower tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) at baseline, had a better OS. Comparing matched biopsies, a decrease of M2 macrophages was observed in five out of seven patients after exposure to lurbinectedin, and two out of four patients showed increased CD8+ T-cell infiltrates in tumor. DISCUSSION: Lurbinectedin continues to be active in patients with progressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. According to our very small sample size, we hypothesize that baseline TAMs and regulatory T cells are associated with survival. Lurbinectedin seems to inhibit conversion of TAMs to M2 phenotype in humans.

The impact of COVID-19 on new mesothelioma diagnoses in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to evaluate the impact of the restrictions put in place to control the COVID-19 pandemic on new diagnoses of malignant mesothelioma (MM) in Italy. METHODS: Twelve of the 21 Italian malignant mesothelioma CORs (regional operating centres) participated. The study included all cases of MM with microscopic confirmation; cases without microscopic confirmation and death certificate only (DCO) were excluded. For each case, information on sex, date of birth, tumor site, morphology, and date of diagnosis was retrieved. We compared the number of incident cases in 2020 with 2019, looking at the overall picture and for four periods: pre-pandemic (January-February), first wave (March-May), low incidence (June-September), and second wave (October-December). RESULTS: A total of 604 cases were registered: 307 in 2019 and 297 in 2020. In the 2020 pre-pandemic period, the incidence was higher than in the same months in 2019 (+45%); there was no significant change during the first wave (+1%) or in the low-incidence period (-3%), while a decrease was observed during the second wave (-32%). However, the data were not homogeneous across the country: the increase in the pre-pandemic period concerned mostly the regions of northern (+61.5%) and central Italy (+43.5%); during the first wave, MM diagnoses increased in the northern (+38.5%) and central (+11.4%) regions but decreased in the southern regions (-52.9%). All these differences are compatible with random fluctuations. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had little or no impact on new MM diagnoses, and variations were not homogeneous throughout the country.

NIPU: a randomised, open-label, phase II study evaluating nivolumab and ipilimumab combined with UV1 vaccination as second line treatment in patients with malignant mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive tumour. For patients with inoperable disease, few treatment options are available after first line chemotherapy. The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab has recently shown increased survival compared to standard chemotherapy, but most patients do not respond and improvements are called for. Telomerase is expressed in mesothelioma cells, but only sparsely in normal tissues and is therefore an attractive target for therapeutic vaccination. Vaccination against telomerase is tolerable and has shown to induce immune responses associated with increased survival in other cancer types. There is a well-founded scientific rationale for the combination of a telomerase vaccine and checkpoint inhibition to improve treatment response in MPM patients. METHODS: NIPU is a randomized, multi-centre, open-label, phase II study comparing the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without telomerase vaccine in patients with inoperable malignant pleural mesothelioma after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants (n = 118) are randomized 1:1 into two treatment arms. All participants receive treatment with nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg every 6 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or for a maximum of 2 years. Patients randomised to the experimental arm receive 8 intradermal injections of UV1 vaccine during the first three months of treatment. Tumour tissue, blood, urine, faeces and imaging will be collected for biomarker analyses and exploration of mechanisms for response and resistance to therapy. DISCUSSION: Checkpoint inhibition is used for treatment of mesothelioma, but many patients still do not respond. Increasing therapy response to immunotherapy is an important goal. Possible approaches include combination with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy and other immunotherapeutic agents. Predictive biomarkers are necessary to ensure optimal treatment for each patient and to prevent unnecessary side effects. This trial seeks to improve treatment response by combining checkpoint inhibition with a telomerase vaccine and also to explore mechanisms for treatment response and resistance. Knowledge gained in the NIPU study may be transferred to the first line setting and to other cancers with limited benefit from immunotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04300244, registered March 8th, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04300244?term=NIPU&draw=2&rank=1 .