Elsevier

Lung Cancer

Volume 63, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 94-97
Lung Cancer

The efficacy and safety of weekly vinorelbine in relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.04.001Get rights and content

Summary

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rapidly progressive invariably lethal tumor. Treatment options remain limited and the outcome in relapsed disease is poor warranting new therapeutic options. Following our previous experience in the first-line setting, we conducted a phase 2 open-label non-comparative study to assess the safety and efficacy of weekly vinorelbine chemotherapy, each cycle consisting of 30 mg/m2 for 6 weeks, in patients with previous exposure to chemotherapy. In 63 individuals with relapsed MPM who had not received previous vinorelbine, we observed an objective response rate of 16% and an overall survival of 9.6 months (95% confidence interval 7.3–11.8 months). The main grade III/IV toxicity observed was neutropenia and toxicity was similar to weekly vinorelbine when used in the first-line setting. Weekly vinorelbine appeared to have a reasonable response rate with an acceptable toxicity profile in the second-line treatment of MPM. Its use should be prospectively evaluated in a randomised trial in the first or second-line therapy of MPM.

Introduction

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rapidly lethal malignancy causally associated with exposure to asbestos with a prevalence that is set to increase significantly in Europe over the next decade [1], [2], [3], [4]. MPM is often refractory to cytotoxic treatment, which may be due to intrinsic apoptosis resistance [5]; a variety of single agents achieve low response rates of around 20% [6], [7], [8], [9].

No reported randomised trial has yet confirmed a benefit of chemotherapy over best supportive care although one trial, MS-O1 (active symptom control versus vinorelbine versus mitomycin/cisplatin/vinblastine) is due to report full data [10]. Two phase 3 randomised trials comparing either the ‘gold standard’ doublet pemetrexed (Alimta®) and cisplatin [8], [11], [12], or ralitrexed (Tomudex®) and cisplatin [13], [14] versus cisplatin alone, confirmed a survival advantage for both doublets [15].

The efficacy of radical surgery is not yet proven due to a lack of randomised evidence [16], and radical radiotherapy although providing palliative benefit, does not appear to improve overall survival (OS) [17].

There exists only a paucity of reports of second-line therapy for individuals with relapsed MPM. Second-line cytotoxic therapy is considered for a growing group of patients, but the optimal treatment has not been defined to date. We have recently published the use of the triplet irinotecan, cisplatin, and mitomycin-C (IPM) chemotherapy in the front line and second-line settings. In relapsed disease, progression-free survival (PFS) measured 7.3 months (95% CI: 3.4–11.2) and overall survival was also 7.3 months (95% CI: 4.8–9.8) [18].

Vinca alkaloids have known activity in MPM and vinflunine monotherapy has reasonable response rates in untreated individuals [19]. Vinorelbine has been used as part of a first-line triplet regimen in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in 12 patients [20] and we have studied its use in combination with oxaliplatin, a doublet that was found to be associated with significant toxicities with 18% of patients developing grade III or IV neutropenia [21]. A recent study evaluated gemcitabine–vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 of a 3 weekly cycle in 30 individuals pretreated with pemetrexed: a partial response (PR) was observed in 10% and stable disease (SD) occurred in 33.3% with grade III or IV neutropenia occurring in 10% of patients [22]. Overall, the gemcitabine and vinorelbine combination was moderately active and had an acceptable toxicity profile in pemetrexed-pretreated patients with MPM.

We have also previously studied weekly single-agent vinorelbine, in the first-line setting (n = 29), which was found to induce a partial response rate of 24%, a stable disease rate of 55% with 21% having disease progression during chemotherapy [23]. Although grade III or IV neutropenia occurred at least once in 62% of patients, only one patient experienced neutropenic sepsis requiring hospital admission and intravenous antibiotics. To investigate use of this regimen further, we wished to establish the efficacy and toxicity of weekly vinorelbine in 63 individuals with relapsed previously treated MPM.

Section snippets

Patients and methods

A total of 63 patients with MPM, previously treated with one chemotherapy regimen were enrolled onto a single-center trial of weekly vinorelbine. The study had appropriate institutional ethical review board approval, and all patients provided written, informed consent. All recruited individuals were required to have measurable, histologically confirmed, inoperable, MPM and to be >18 years old, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance statuses (PSs) of 0–2 and no uncontrolled

Results

Table 1 demonstrates the patient characteristics for the 63 individuals with relapsed MPM. The median age was 59 years (range 29–77), the majority (94%) were male and all patients had pleural ‘only’ MPM (no patients with peritoneal disease were included). Histology was available on all patients and the majority (62%) had epithelial histology, with more advanced IMIG staging (III or IV in 64%) although only 22% had an ECOG performance status of 2, the remainder having an ECOG performance status

Discussion

Weekly vinorelbine demonstrates useful clinical activity in the second-line treatment of MPM and appears well tolerated in the second-line setting; its use requires validation in prospective randomised studies.

It is surprising that the median overall survival on a salvage study was 9.6 months and the stable disease rate at 6 months was 68% though this may reflect the aggressive nature of MPM when progression does occur, often following cessation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In our previous study

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to the study participants and Linda Clarke for help with patient notes.

References (33)

  • D.L. Gregory et al.

    Intensity modulated radiotherapy to deliver hemithorax irradiation for mesothelioma for the Mars trial

    Clin Oncol (Roy Coll Radiol)

    (2007)
  • J. Peto et al.

    The European mesothelioma epidemic

    Br J Cancer

    (1999)
  • UK-Health-&-Safety-Executive. Mesothelioma mortality in Great Britain: estimating the future burden;...
  • D.A. Fennell et al.

    Advances in the systemic therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma

    Nat Clin Pract Oncol

    (2008)
  • F. Villanova et al.

    Malignant mesothelioma resistance to apoptosis: recent discoveries and their implication for effective therapeutic strategies

    Curr Med Chem

    (2008)
  • D.A. Fennell et al.

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

    J Clin Oncol

    (2005)
  • Cited by (128)

    • EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in patients with relapsed or refractory, BAP1-inactivated malignant pleural mesothelioma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study

      2022, The Lancet Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Additionally, this study did not collect information regarding time since initial diagnosis, which might have biased the cohort to those with more indolent disease. Although the response rate was modest in these patients with relapsed or refractory malignant pleural mesothelioma, the adverse event profile, as well as the evidence of prolonged disease control, compares favourably against traditional second-line cytotoxic agents used in this setting, such as gemcitabine and vinorelbine.10–14 The emerging data for checkpoint inhibitors,15,16 although not directly comparable, provide similar disease control rates: 12-week disease control rate of 44% (95% CI 31–58) with nivolumab and 50% (37–63) with nivolumab plus ipiliminumab in the MAPS2 trial17; 68% disease control rate (95% CI 51–81; median follow-up 16·8 months) with nivolumab in the Japanese study;15 and the survival advantage of nivolumab over placebo in the randomised CONFIRM study (median progression-free survival 3·0 months [95% CI 2·8–4·1] vs 1·8 months [1·4–2·6]; median overall survival 10·2 months [95% CI 8·5–12·1] vs 6·9 months [5·0–8·0]).18

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text