Search

Supplementary Figure from Pilot Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Locoregionally Advanced, Resectable Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Purpose:In locoregionally advanced, resectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CSCC-HN), surgery followed by radiotherapy is standard but can be cosmetically and functionally devastating, and many patients will have recurrence.Patients and Methods:Newly diagnosed or recurrent stage III–IVA CSCC-HN patients amenable to curative-intent surgery received two cycles of neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibition. The primary endpoint was ORR per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included pathologic response [pathologic complete response (pCR) or major pathologic response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumor)], safety, DSS, DFS, and OS. Exploratory endpoints included immune biomarkers of response.Results:Of 20 patients enrolled, 7 had recurrent disease. While only 6 patients [30%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 11.9–54.3] had partial responses by RECIST, 15 patients (75%; 95% CI, 50.9–91.3) had a pCR (n = 11) or MPR (n = 4). No SAEs ocurred during or after the neoadjuvant treatment. At a median follow-up of 22.6 months (95% CI, 21.7–26.1), one patient progressed and died, one died without disease, and two developed recurrence. The 12-month DSS, DFS, and OS rates were 95% (95% CI, 85.9–100), 89.5% (95% CI, 76.7–100), and 95% (95% CI, 85.9–100), respectively. Gene expression studies revealed an inflamed tumor microenvironment in patients with pCR or MPR, and CyTOF analyses demonstrated a memory CD8+ T-cell cluster enriched in patients with pCR.Conclusions:Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in locoregionally advanced, resectable CSCC-HN is safe and induces a high pathologic response rate. Pathologic responses were associated with an inflamed tumor microenvironment.

Supplementary Table from Pilot Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Locoregionally Advanced, Resectable Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Purpose:In oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC), high CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CD8+TIL) density confers improved prognosis. We compared neoadjuvant durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) with durvalumab + tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) in terms of impact on CD8+TIL density, safety, and efficacy in patients with OPC.Patients and Methods:Patients with newly diagnosed stage II–IVA OPC or locoregionally recurrent OPC amenable to resection were included. Patients were randomized to two cycles of durvalumab or durvalumab + tremelimumab before surgery. The primary endpoint was change between baseline and resection specimen in CD8+TIL density between arms. Secondary endpoints included safety, response rate per RECIST, major pathologic response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumor cells) rate, and patient-reported outcomes.Results:Of 28 eligible patients (14/arm), 20 (71%) had newly diagnosed OPC, and 24 (86%) were p16-positive. The posttreatment to pretreatment median CD8+TIL density ratio was 1.31 for durvalumab and 1.15 for combination treatment (P = 0.97; 95% CI: −1.07–2.28). In each group, 6 patients (43%, 95% CI: 17.66–71.14) had a response. Eight patients (29%) had a MPR at the primary tumor and/or nodal metastases. Neither baseline CD8+TIL density nor PD-L1 expression level correlated with overall response, but a trend toward greater CD8+TIL change in patients with a MPR was seen (P = 0.059; 95% CI: −0.33–3.46). Four patients (14%) had grade ≥3 adverse events. At median follow-up time of 15.79 months, all patients were alive, and one had an additional recurrence.Conclusions:Durvalumab + tremelimumab did not increase CD8+TIL density more than durvalumab alone did. The observed safety and activity support further investigation of neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor for OPC.

Supplementary Tables

Purpose: In oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC), high CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CD8+TIL) density confers improved prognosis. We compared neoadjuvant durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) with durvalumab + tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) in terms of impact on CD8+TIL density, safety, and efficacy in patients with OPC. Patients and Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed stage II–IVA OPC or locoregionally recurrent OPC amenable to resection were included. Patients were randomized to two cycles of durvalumab or durvalumab + tremelimumab before surgery. The primary endpoint was change between baseline and resection specimen in CD8+TIL density between arms. Secondary endpoints included safety, response rate per RECIST, major pathologic response (MPR; ≤10% viable tumor cells) rate, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Of 28 eligible patients (14/arm), 20 (71%) had newly diagnosed OPC, and 24 (86%) were p16-positive. The posttreatment to pretreatment median CD8+TIL density ratio was 1.31 for durvalumab and 1.15 for combination treatment (P = 0.97; 95% CI: −1.07–2.28). In each group, 6 patients (43%, 95% CI: 17.66–71.14) had a response. Eight patients (29%) had a MPR at the primary tumor and/or nodal metastases. Neither baseline CD8+TIL density nor PD-L1 expression level correlated with overall response, but a trend toward greater CD8+TIL change in patients with a MPR was seen (P = 0.059; 95% CI: −0.33–3.46). Four patients (14%) had grade ≥3 adverse events. At median follow-up time of 15.79 months, all patients were alive, and one had an additional recurrence. Conclusions: Durvalumab + tremelimumab did not increase CD8+TIL density more than durvalumab alone did. The observed safety and activity support further investigation of neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor for OPC.

Background: Clinician-reported toxicity grading through Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) stages dysphagia based on symptoms, diet, and tube dependence. The new Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) tool offers a similarly scaled 5-point ordinal summary grade of pharyngeal swallowing as determined through results of a modified barium swallow (MBS) study. This study aims to inform clinicians on the similarities and differences between dysphagia severity according to clinical CTCAE and MBS-derived DIGEST grading. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of 95 MBS studies was randomly selected from a prospectively-acquired MBS database among patients treated with organ preservation strategies for head and neck cancer. MBS DIGEST and clinical CTCAE dysphagia grades were compared. Results: DIGEST and CTCAE dysphagia grades had “fair” agreement per weighted k of 0.358 (95% CI .231-.485). Using a threshold of DIGEST ≥3 as reference, CTCAE had an overall sensitivity of 0.50, specificity of 0.84, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.67 to identify severe MBS-detected dysphagia. At less than 6 months, sensitivity was 0.72, specificity was 0.76, and AUC was 0.75 while at greater than 6 months, sensitivity was 0.22, specificity was 0.90, and AUC was 0.56 for CTCAE to detect dysphagia as determined by DIGEST. Conclusions: Classification of pharyngeal dysphagia on MBS using DIGEST augments our understanding of dysphagia severity according to the clinically derived CTCAE while maintaining the simplicity of an ordinal scale. DIGEST likely complements CTCAE toxicity grading through improved specificity for physiologic dysphagia in the acute-phase and improved sensitivity for dysphagia in the late-phase. Citation Format: Ryan P. Goepfert, Jan S. Lewin, Martha P. Barrow, Carla L. Warneke, Clifton D. Fuller, Stephen Y. Lai, Randal S. Weber, Katherine A. Hutcheson. Grading dysphagia as a toxicity of head and neck cancer: Differences in severity classification based on MBS DIGEST and clinical CTCAE grades [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-AHNS Head and Neck Cancer Conference: Optimizing Survival and Quality of Life through Basic, Clinical, and Translational Research; April 23-25, 2017; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2017;23(23_Suppl):Abstract nr 21.