Retrospective review of pemetrexed with or without platinum in malignant mesothelioma: The Australian 'Special Access Scheme' experience

Background: Pemetrexed and cisplatin have recently been shown to significantly improve survival compared with cisplatin alone. However, there are only limited data reflecting teaching hospital experience outside a clinical trial. Pemetrexed has only been available in Australia on a restricted basis since 2002. We reviewed our experience of patients treated on the Australian ‘Special Access Scheme’ at three major thoracic oncology units. Methods: Charts were reviewed for all patients enrolled on the scheme. Data was extracted on age, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, histology, prior therapy, time from diagnosis to starting pemetrexed, chemotherapy (pemetrexed alone or with a platinum), cycle number, response rate, actuarial progression‐free and overall survival. Doses were cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC = 5 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m² every 21 days. Results: 52 patients (32 male and 20 female) were reviewed. Median age was 58 years and 88% were WHO 0–1. Histology included 54% epithelial, 17% biphasic (epithelial and sarcomatoid) and 21% undefined. The median time from diagnosis to administration of pemetrexed was 145 days. Sixty‐five percent had minimal surgical intervention with video assisted thoracoscopy, pleurodesis and biopsy, while 19% had received prior palliative radiation. Seventy‐one percent were chemotherapy naïve, the remaining 29% having received previous platinum and/or gemcitabine regimens. Twenty‐three percent had pemetrexed alone, 35% in combination with carboplatin and 42% with cisplatin. The median number of cycles was 4 (range 1–13). The response rate was 33%. No toxicity was observed in 20% grade 3–4 toxicity in 10% (majority nausea/vomiting). The median progression‐free and overall survival times from starting pemetrexed were 184 days and 298 days, respectively. Conclusions: Pemetrexed‐based regimens are safe and effective in a community setting in malignant mesothelioma.     

Purification of antigenically intact Ro ribonucleoproteins; biochemical and immunological evidence that the 52-kD protein is not a Ro protein.

Anti-Ro sera immunoprecipitate Ro ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) from human cell extracts. Ro RNPs are biochemically heterogeneous particles whose functions are unknown and whose exact composition remains controversial. In addition to 60-kD Ro and to La proteins, a 52-kD polypeptide (p52) has been proposed to be a stable component of the Ro RNPs. To confirm the immunological studies supporting this hypothesis, we have biochemically purified Ro RNPs from HeLa cells using non-denaturing conditions. Ro RNPs segregated into three distinct populations, one of which only contained hY5 RNA (RohY5 RNPs). No p52 co-purified with Ro RNPs. Despite the absence of p52, purified Ro RNPs had biochemical and immunological properties identical to those of unfractionated Ro RNPs. Many anti-Ro sera only recognize p52 in immunoblots, and are said to be monospecific anti-p52. Preincubation with purified RohY5 RNPs (free of p52) of all human anti-Ro (including so-called monospecific anti-p52) sera abolished their capacity to immunoprecipitate Ro RNPs from unfractionated HeLa cell extracts. Conversely, preincubation of anti-Ro sera with purified p52 protein specifically inhibited recognition of p52 in immunoblots, but did not interfere with immunoprecipitation of Ro RNPs. Our data demonstrate that anti-p52 antibodies do not target intact Ro RNPs, nor do they target the native 60-kD Ro protein. Contrary to previous reports, p52 protein is not a stable component of antigenically intact Ro RNPs.