Efficacy and safety of first- or second-line irinotecan, cisplatin, and mitomycin in mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rapidly progressive lethal tumor. Treatment options remain limited and the outcome in recurrent disease is poor. METHODS: A Phase II open-label noncomparative study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of the triplet combination irinotecan, cisplatin, and mitomycin-C (IPM) chemotherapy in untreated patients and in those with previous exposure to chemotherapy. RESULTS: In 62 patients an objective response rate of 25% was observed. In the first-line setting progression-free survival measured 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5-7.3) and overall survival was 10.8 months (95% CI: 7.9-13.7). In the second-line setting progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI: 3.4-11.2) and overall survival was also 7.3 months (95% CI: 4.8-9.8). Psychosocial well-being improved during chemotherapy and the main toxicity observed was neutropenia (40%). CONCLUSIONS: IPM appeared to have a reasonable response rate with an acceptable toxicity profile in the first- and second-line treatment of MPM.

Prognostic factors in mesothelioma.

Prognostic factors can help clinicians and patients when deciding a treatment plan. Patients in the best prognostic groups can be considered for more intensive or experimental therapy. Alternatively, patients in the best prognostic groups might prefer a period of observation prior to commencement of therapy. For patients with mesothelioma prognostic factors are potentially especially important because of the lack of a widely applicable anatomical staging system. Both the International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) and Brigham staging systems are of limited relevance to patients not undergoing radical debulking surgery. Radiological prediction of IMIG or Brigham stage is of little value. Review of the best-known prognostic scoring systems from the EORTC and CALGB has shown that the most important predictors of poor prognosis are: poor performance status; non-epithelioid histology; male gender; low hemoglobin; high platelet count; high white blood cell count; and high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The EORTC model was validated at St Bartholomew's Hospital in a group of 145 patients treated in sequential phase II chemotherapy trials. For 70 patients treated with vinorelbine, those having the best EORTC prognosis had a median survival of 19.2 months [95% C.I.=14.7-23.7] compared to 9.9 months [95% C.I.=8.5-11.3] for those in the worst group. The suggestion is that all clinical and biological factors relevant to prognosis should be recorded prospectively in mesothelioma patients selected for clinical trials.

Phase II trial of vinorelbine and oxaliplatin as first-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

UNLABELLED: The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is increasing. Treatment options are limited, although recently published data have offered cause for optimism. We reported a response rate of 24% with low toxicity for single agent vinorelbine. Here we report a phase II trial of vinorelbine with oxaliplatin (VO) in patients with untreated MPM. Chemotherapy consisted of vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 of a 21-day-cycle, and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2), day 1. Treatment continued up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free and overall survival. Responses were assessed by modified RECIST criteria. Twenty-six patients were enrolled. There were six partial remissions, 17 patients with stable disease, and three patients with PD. Response rate was 23% (95% confidence interval 9-44%). Median number of cycles delivered was four. Progression-free survival from first treatment was 4.7 months, and overall survival was 8.8 months. One-year-survival was 27%. Toxicity (% of patients with at least one episode of grade 3 or 4 toxicity): neutropenia 18%, phlebitis 12%, malaise 12%, anorexia 12%, nausea and vomiting 12%, constipation 6%. Quality of life assessed by Rotterdam symptom checklist was associated with stabilization or improvement of psychological well-being and lung symptoms in the majority of patients, but deterioration in physical symptoms. CONCLUSION: VO has activity in MPM with most patients responding or having stable disease, although this doublet is associated with significant toxicity.

Statistical validation of the EORTC prognostic model for malignant pleural mesothelioma based on three consecutive phase II trials.

PURPOSE: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) carries a poor prognosis due to chemoresistance. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) prognostic model was reported to predict survival in MPM. Our retrospective analysis set out to test the validity of the model as a prognostic tool in patients treated in three phase II trials at St Bartholomew's Hospital (London, United Kingdom) between 1999 and 2003. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 145 patients were treated in three phase II trials; vinorelbine (VIN; 70 patients), vinorelbine/oxaliplatin (VO; 26 patients), and irinotecan/cisplatin/mitomycin C (IPM; 49 patients). Two subgroups, high-risk and low-risk, were defined by EORTC prognostic score (EPS). EPS was determined by a five-parameter model incorporating age, sex, histology, probability of diagnosis, and leukocyte count. An EPS cutoff of less than 1.27 (low risk) or more than 1.27 (high risk) was used to stratify Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Each of the EPS variables exhibited either trends or significant stratification of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Multivariate analysis confirmed leukocyte count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and sarcomatous histology as independent prognostic variables. EPS stratified OS in both individual and pooled trial datasets. No association between objective tumor response and EPS classification was identified by multinomial logistic regression. EPS stratified progression-free survival for the VO and IPM cohorts, but not for VIN. CONCLUSION: This study validates the EPS system as a robust tool for stratifying small trials into low- and high-risk subgroups. EPS should facilitate patient selection and analysis in randomized clinical trials.