Search

Background: A standard treatment for fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is yet to be established. In the previous EXTREME trial, few older patients were included. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of an adapted EXTREME regimen in fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC., Methods: This single-arm, phase 2 study was done at 22 centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older and assessed as not frail (fit) using the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation (EGE) and had recurrent or metastatic HNSCC in the first-line setting that was not eligible for local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. The adapted EXTREME regimen consisted of six cycles of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m 2 on days 1-4, carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m 2 on cycle 1-day 1, and 250 mg/m 2 subsequently), all intravenously, with cycles starting every 21 days. In patients with disease control after two to six cycles, cetuximab 500 mg/m 2 was continued once every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was systematically administered and erythropoietin was recommended during chemotherapy. The study was based on the two-stage Bryant and Day design, combining efficacy and toxicity endpoints. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate at week 12 after the start of treatment, assessed by central review (with an unacceptable rate of ≤15%). The primary toxicity endpoint was morbidity, defined as grade 4-5 adverse events, or cutaneous rash (grade ≥3) that required cetuximab to be discontinued, during the chemotherapy phase, or a decrease in functional autonomy (Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥2 points from baseline) at 1 month after the end of chemotherapy (with an unacceptable morbidity rate of >40%). Analysis of the coprimary endpoints, and of safety in the chemotherapy phase, was based on the per-protocol population, defined as eligible patients who received at least one cycle of the adapted EXTREME regimen. Safety in the maintenance phase was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of cetuximab as maintenance therapy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01864772, and is completed., Findings: Between Sept 27, 2013, and June 20, 2018, 85 patients were enrolled, of whom 78 were in the per-protocol population. 66 (85%) patients were male and 12 (15%) were female, and the median age was 75 years (IQR 72-79). The median number of chemotherapy cycles received was five (IQR 3-6). Objective response at week 12 was observed in 31 patients (40% [95% CI 30-51]) and morbidity events were observed in 24 patients (31% [22-42]). No fatal adverse events occurred. Four patients presented with a decrease in functional autonomy 1 month after the end of chemotherapy versus baseline. During chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological events (leukopenia [22 patients; 28%], neutropenia [20; 26%], thrombocytopenia [15; 19%], and anaemia [12; 15%]), oral mucositis (14; 18%), fatigue (11; 14%), rash acneiform (ten; 13%), and hypomagnesaemia (nine; 12%). Among 44 patients who received cetuximab during the maintenance phase, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypomagnesaemia (six patients; 14%) and acneiform rash (six; 14%)., Interpretation: The study met its primary objectives on objective response and morbidity, and showed overall survival to be as good as in younger patients treated with standard regimens, indicating that the adapted EXTREME regimen could be used in older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who are deemed fit with use of a geriatric evaluation tool adapted to patients with head and neck cancer, such as the EGE., Funding: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC, and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), Sandoz, GEFLUC, and GEMLUC., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JG has been an advisory board member for BMS, Hookipa, MSD, Merck, Nanobiotix, and Roche, outside the submitted work; reports personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work; and has received grant support during the study, paid to his institution, from the GEMLUC and GEFLUC, and the French National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC, and the Ligue Contre le Cancer, through the French programme PAIR-VADS 2011. F-RF reports travel support for congress from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. ES-B reports personal fees from MSD and Merck Serono, and support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from MSD and Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. JF reports personal fees and non-financial support from MSD and Merck, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche, Rakuten, Elevar, Hookipa, Sanofi, and Seagen, during the conduct of the study; and has been an advisory board member for Roche, Seagen, and Elevar, outside the submitted work. FR reports personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, outside the submitted work. CF reports personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Biogaran, BMS, Chugai Pharma France, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Leo Pharma, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Viatris, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Leo Pharma, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. TC reports personal fees from Merck and has been an advisory board member for MSD outside the submitted work. PDa reports personal fees from Lilly and has been advisory board member for Pfizer and MSD, outside the submitted work. SL has participated on advisory boards of Merck and BMS, outside the submitted work. AA reports grants from the French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 funded by the French National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC, and the Ligue Contre le Cancer, and grants from Sandoz, during the conduct of the study, and other from MSD, outside the submitted work; all paid to her institution. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is the most validated predictive biomarker used for the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Several gene expression-based signatures surrogate of the activation of IFN-gamma pathway and of the presence of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) have also been proposed as potential biomarkers. While they may have a potential therapeutic implication, the longitudinal changes of either PD-L1 or gene expression profiles between the initial and recurrent HNSCC lesions is unknown., Methods: PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and targeted RNA-sequencing of 2,549 transcripts were analyzed on paired specimens from the initial diagnosis and recurrent HNSCC. PD-L1 status was defined using the combined positive score (CPS). PD-L1 mRNA levels were compared with protein expression levels by IHC. Enrichment scores of surrogate signatures for TLS and IFN-gamma (IFN-γ) pathway activation were computed using the single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA)., Results: PD-L1 status was 64% (21/33) concordant between the initial and recurrent lesions using a CPS 1 threshold and 67% (22/33) concordant using a CPS 20 threshold. CPS score was associated with PD-L1 gene expression levels. There was a 43% (15/35) and 66% (23/35) concordance for the IFN-γ and TLS signature scores, respectively., Conclusion: Our study reveals temporal heterogeneity of PD-L1 status and TLS/IFN-γ gene expression surrogates in HNSCC that need to be considered when interpreting biomarker studies., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Mutations in the HRAS (m HRAS ) proto-oncogene occur in 4%-8% of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Tipifarnib is a farnesyltransferase inhibitor that disrupts HRAS function. We evaluated the efficacy of tipifarnib in patients with R/M m HRAS HNSCC., Methods: We enrolled 30 patients with R/M HNSCC in a single-arm, open-label phase II trial of tipifarnib for m HRAS malignancies; one additional patient was treated on an expanded access program. After an ad hoc analysis of the first 16 patients with HNSCC with m HRAS variant allele frequency (VAF) data, enrollment was limited to those with a m HRAS VAF of ≥ 20% (high VAF). The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included assessing safety and tolerability. Patients received tipifarnib 600 or 900 mg orally twice daily on days 1-7 and 15-21 of 28-day cycles., Results: Of the 22 patients with HNSCC with high VAF, 20 were evaluable for response at the time of data cutoff. Objective response rate for evaluable patients with high-VAF HNSCC was 55% (95% CI, 31.5 to 76.9). Median progression-free survival on tipifarnib was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 16.4) versus 3.6 months (95% CI, 1.3 to 5.2) on last prior therapy. Median overall survival was 15.4 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 29.7). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events among the 30 patients with HNSCC were anemia (37%) and lymphopenia (13%)., Conclusion: Tipifarnib demonstrated encouraging efficacy in patients with R/M HNSCC with HRAS mutations for whom limited therapeutic options exist (NCT02383927)., Competing Interests: Alan L. HoConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Sun Pharma, Regeneron, TRM Oncology, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, CureVac, Prelude Therapeutics, Kura Oncology, McGivney Global Advisors, Rgenta, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, AffyimmuneSpeakers' Bureau: Medscape, Omniprex America, NovartisResearch Funding: Lilly, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Kura Oncology, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Allos Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Elevar TherapeuticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen Oncology, Merck, Kura Oncology, Ignyta, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Klus Pharma Irene BranaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp and Dohme, Rakuten Medical, Sanofi, Achilles Therapeutics, eTheRNA Immunotherapies, Cancer Expert NowSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, RocheResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gliknik, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Kura Oncology, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Orion Pharma GmbH, Pfizer, Roche, Shattuck Labs, Nanobiotix, Seattle GeneticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Spain, Merck Serono Robert HaddadEmployment: Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteLeadership: NCCNConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Merck, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Loxo, Genentech, Immunomic Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Vaccinex, EMD Serono, BioNTech AG, Achilles TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, AstraZeneca, VentiRx, Genentech, Pfizer, Kura OncologyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDateOther Relationship: Nanobiotix, ISA Pharmaceuticals Jessica BaumanConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Kura OncologyResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Trident Pharmaceuticals Sjoukje OostingResearch Funding: Celldex Deborah J. WongConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: BioMed Valley Discoveries, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Kura Oncology, Regeneron, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, FSTAR, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Enzychem Lifesciences, Lilly, Elevar Therapeutics Myung-Ju AhnHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, TAKEDAConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, MSD, TAKEDA, Alpha pharmaceutical Caroline EvenConsulting or Advisory Role: Innate Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono Jerome FayetteHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Innate Pharma, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Innate Pharma, RocheResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme Kevin HarringtonHonoraria: Merck Sharp and Dohme, Amgen, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Replimune, Oncolys BioPharma, MersanaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, ReplimuneSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers SquibbResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Replimune Sung-Bae KimHonoraria: DAEHWA Pharmaceutical, ISU ABXISConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, AstraZeneca, DAEHWA Pharmaceutical, ISU AbxisResearch Funding: Novartis, Dongkook Pharma, Genzyme Lisa LicitraConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, SOBI, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, Merck Serono, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Doxapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Nanobiotix, Debiopharm Group, Amgen, IpsenResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Eisai, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Exelixis, IRX Therapeutics, Medpace, Pfizer, Debiopharm Group, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Serono, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai, AstraZeneca Nabil F. SabaHonoraria: Merck, Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CUE Biopharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Aduro Biotech, Kura Oncology, Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Lilly, Bluprint, BiontechResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExelixisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Bluprint Francis WordenHonoraria: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Loxo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Bayer, CUE Biopharma, Rakuten Medical, RegeneronResearch Funding: Pfizer, Merck, Eisai, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Loxo, Oragenics, LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer Binaifer BalsaraEmployment: Kura OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Kura Oncology Mollie LeoniEmployment: Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin InternationalStock and Other Ownership Interests: Kura OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin International Catherine ScholzEmployment: Kura Oncology, H3 BiomedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Kura OncologyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Methods of Treating Cancer Patients With Farnesyltransferase Inhibitors (FTI treatment of H-Ras mutant cancers), co-Inventor (014168-0011-999), Methods of Treating Cancer With Farnesyltransferase Inhibitors (FTI treatment of a CXCL12-expressing cancer), co-Inventor (014168-0021-999), Methods of Treating Cancer Patients With Farnesyltransferase Inhibitors (FTI treatment of Casitas B cell lymphoma [CBL] mutant cancers), co-Inventor (014168-0024-228), Therapies For Squamous Cell Carcinomas (FTI treatment of SCC with high frequencies of H-Ras mutant allele frequency), co-Inventor (014168-0051-888)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Kura OncologyNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Prognosis of recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains poor. The addition of cetuximab, to platinum and fluorouracil chemotherapy (EXTREME regimen) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes in first-line settings., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study, including HNSCC that progressed after a first line of platinum-based chemotherapy and cetuximab, treated either by paclitaxel + cetuximab (PC) or paclitaxel alone (P), between January 2010 and April 2018. The end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rates (ORR). Patients were matched according to their propensity scores, estimated with a logistic regression model. The secondary objectives were to study the safety profile and to look for prognostic and predictive factors of effectiveness., Results: Of the 340 identified patients, 262 were included in the analysis, 165 received PC, and 97 received P. In unmatched population, ORR was 16.4% with PC and 6.2% for P. Median PFS was 2.9 months [95% Confidence Interval 2.7-3.0] for PC versus 2.5 months [2.2-2.7] for P, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.770 [0.596-0.996]. Median OS was 5.5 months [4.4-6.9] for PC versus 4.2 months [3.4-4.8] for P, HR = 0.774 [0.590-1.015]. In multivariate analysis, PC was associated with better PFS and OS. These results were consistent in matched-paired population. Previous cetuximab maintenance for more than 3 months was predictive of better OS with PC., Conclusion: Although the continuation of cetuximab in combination with paclitaxel after EXTREME provides moderate benefit, it could be an interesting option for selected patients., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting., Methods: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 , both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m 2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m 2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m 2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m 2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m 2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m 2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m 2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695., Findings: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group)., Interpretation: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment., Funding: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) can experience severe symptom burden and/or difficulty swallowing, leading to problems with treatment adherence/administration. In LUX-Head and Neck 1 (LH&N1; NCT01345682), second-line afatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. We report adherence and safety across pre-specified and additional subgroups potentially linked to afatinib PFS benefit in LH&N1 (p16 status, smoking history), and afatinib adherence, safety and efficacy by administration (oral versus feeding tube; post-hoc analysis)., Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1) to afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m 2 /week)., Results: Among 320 afatinib-treated and 160 methotrexate-treated patients, 83-92% and 76-92% (of patients with data available) across all subgroups took ≥80% of treatment. Across p16 status and smoking history subgroups, the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (70-91%), rash/acne (72-84%), stomatitis (34-73%) with afatinib; and included stomatitis (39-100%), fatigue (22-50%), nausea (19-36%) with methotrexate. Dose reduction decreased AE incidence/severity. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between oral/feeding tube (n = 276/n = 46) groups. 89%/89% (of patients with data available) took ≥80% of assigned afatinib. Median PFS was 2.6 versus 2.7 months (hazard ratio: 0.997; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.38). The most common afatinib-related AEs were: rash/acne (74% versus 74%), diarrhea (73% versus 65%), stomatitis (40% versus 30%)., Conclusion: Subgroup analyses of LH&N1 demonstrate that afatinib has predictable and manageable safety across patient subgroups, with high treatment adherence, and is effective via oral and feeding tube administration., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Response patterns with immune checkpoint inhibitors may be different from those with chemotherapy. Therefore, assessment of response to immunotherapy with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, could result in premature treatment termination. The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial (NCT02105636), which evaluated nivolumab in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum therapy, allowed treatment beyond first RECIST-defined progression (TBP) according to protocol-specified criteria., Methods: In CheckMate 141, patients with RECIST-defined progression who had a stable performance status and demonstrated clinical benefit without rapid disease progression were permitted to receive TBP with nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until further progression, which was defined as an additional ≥10% increase in tumor volume. This post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes for patients who received TBP with nivolumab., Results: Of 240 patients randomized to nivolumab, 146 experienced RECIST-defined progression. Sixty-two of these patients received TBP, and 84 discontinued treatment (no TBP). Among the 60 TBP patients evaluable for response, 15 (25%) had no change in their tumor burden, and 15 (25%) had reductions in target lesion size; 3 patients (5%) had reductions >30%. The median overall survival among TBP patients was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.6 months). No new safety signals were observed with TBP. Exploratory analyses of immune cell biomarkers suggested a potential relationship with initial and TBP responses., Conclusions: Tumor burden reduction was noted in a proportion of patients who received TBP with nivolumab in CheckMate 141. Additional research is warranted to identify factors predictive of a TBP benefit in this population., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Objectives: Many patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) are ≥65 years old; comorbidities and other age-related factors may affect their ability to tolerate traditional chemotherapy. Nivolumab is the only immunotherapy to significantly improve overall survival (OS) versus investigator's choice (IC) of single-agent chemotherapy at primary analysis in a phase 3 trial (CheckMate 141) in patients with recurrent/metastatic SCCHN post-platinum therapy. In this post hoc analysis, we report efficacy and safety by age., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 240) or IC (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab n = 121). The primary endpoint of the trial was OS. For this analysis, outcomes were analyzed by age < 65 and ≥65 years. The data cut-off date was September 2017 (minimum follow-up 24.2 months)., Results: At baseline, 68 patients (28.3%) receiving nivolumab and 45 patients (37.2%) receiving IC were ≥65 years. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across age groups. OS and tumor response benefits with nivolumab versus IC were maintained regardless of age. The 30-month OS rates of 11.2% (<65 years) and 13.0% (≥65 years) with nivolumab were more than tripled versus corresponding IC rates of 1.4% and 3.3%, respectively. The nivolumab arm had a lower rate of treatment-related adverse events versus IC regardless of age, consistent with the overall patient population., Conclusion: In CheckMate 141, nivolumab resulted in a higher survival versus IC in patients <65 and ≥65 years, with a manageable safety profile in both age groups. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105636., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cetuximab, which modulates immune responses, may affect the efficacy of subsequent immunotherapy. Here, we assessed outcomes with nivolumab, by prior cetuximab exposure, in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) who had experienced progression within 6 months of platinum-containing chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: In the randomized, open-label, phase III CheckMate 141 trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or investigator's choice (IC) of single-agent chemotherapy, with stratification by prior cetuximab exposure. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); additional endpoints were progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety., Results: In patients with prior cetuximab exposure, the median OS was 7.1 months with nivolumab versus 5.1 months with IC (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.15); OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained across most demographic subgroups. In patients without prior cetuximab exposure, the median OS was 8.2 months with nivolumab versus 4.9 months with IC (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.77); OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained across patient baseline subgroups including tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (<1% or ≥1%). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event rates favored nivolumab versus IC in both subgroups., Conclusions: Nivolumab appeared to improve efficacy versus IC regardless of prior cetuximab use, supporting its use in patients with R/M SCCHN with or without prior cetuximab exposure. The reduction in risk of death with nivolumab compared with IC was greater in patients without prior cetuximab exposure versus with prior cetuximab exposure., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) consists mainly of concurrent chemoradiation (CCR) but induction chemotherapy (IC) by docetaxel-cisplatin-fluorouracil (TPF), followed by CCR, is a strong option. Comparative trials suggest that IC and CCR are equivalent, and some trials suggest superiority of IC, whereas none shows inferiority. IC might have less interest in oropharyngeal cancer (more often linked to HPV infection). When functional laryngeal preservation is the patient's priority, essays strongly suggest that IC is the best treatment. There is little data about a less toxic regimen of IC, but several schemes are promising and need to be developed. An early selection of responders to IC by metabolic imaging must be considered. Intensification attempts with cetuximab were too toxic and unsafe, but trials with immunotherapy are ongoing to enhance TPF efficacy. After IC, CCR either with cetuximab or cisplatin seems to be equally effective., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The importance of occupational exposures in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) has received little attention., Methods: In a single-center study, we prospectively characterized occupational exposures in 154 HNSCC cancer patients in a systematic occupational consultation and examined the association between most frequent exposures, HNSCC stage and localization., Results: Patients occupied a mean of 3.3 different positions during their working life. The prevalence of asbestos, the most frequent exposure (46 patients; 29.9%) was higher than in the French population > 50 years. Other frequent exposures were solvents (n = 26; 16.9%) and silica (n = 19; 12.3%). For 37 patients (24%) a possible link was identified between occupational exposures and HNSCC. Duration of asbestos exposure was significantly higher (p = 0.04) in patients with hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer compared to other localizations., Conclusions: Occupational exposures are frequent in patients with HNSCC and should receive increased attention by physicians.

Importance: Dual blockade of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) may overcome immune checkpoint inhibition. It is unknown whether dual blockade can potentiate antitumor activity without compromising safety in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression., Objective: To assess safety and objective response rate of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: The CONDOR study was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of Durvalumab, Tremelimumab, and Durvalumab in Combination With Tremelimumab in Patients With R/M HNSCC. Eligibility criteria included PD-L1-low/negative disease that had progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen in the R/M setting. Patients were randomized (N = 267) from April 15, 2015, to March 16, 2016, at 127 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific., Interventions: Durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) + tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks) for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) monotherapy, or tremelimumab (10 mg/kg every 4 weeks for 7 doses then every 12 weeks for 2 doses) monotherapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and tolerability and efficacy measured by objective response rate., Results: Among the 267 patients (220 men [82.4%]), median age (range) of patients was 61.0 (23-82) years. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (15.8%) treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab, 8 (12.3%) treated with durvalumab, and 11 (16.9%) treated with tremelimumab. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 8 patients (6.0%) in the combination arm only. Objective response rate (95% CI) was 7.8% (3.78%-13.79%) in the combination arm (n = 129), 9.2% (3.46%-19.02%) for durvalumab monotherapy (n = 65), and 1.6% (0.04%-8.53%) for tremelimumab monotherapy (n = 63); median overall survival (95% CI) for all patients treated was 7.6 (4.9-10.6), 6.0 (4.0-11.3), and 5.5 (3.9-7.0) months, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with R/M HNSCC and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression, all 3 regimens exhibited a manageable toxicity profile. Durvalumab and durvalumab + tremelimumab resulted in clinical benefit, with minimal observed difference between the two. A phase 3 study is under way., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02319044.

Background: Patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) progressing on platinum-based chemotherapy have poor prognoses and limited therapeutic options. Programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand 1 (PD-L1) are frequently upregulated in HNSCC. The international, multi-institutional, single-arm, phase II HAWK study (NCT02207530) evaluated durvalumab monotherapy, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, in PD-L1-high patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC., Patients and Methods: Immunotherapy-naïve patients with confirmed PD-L1-high tumour cell expression (defined as patients with ≥25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 [TC ≥ 25%] using the VENTANA PD-L1 [SP263] Assay) received durvalumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The primary end-point was objective response rate; secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Among evaluable patients (n = 111), objective response rate was 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9-24.4); 29.4% (95% CI, 15.1-47.5) for human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive patients and 10.9% (95% CI, 4.5-21.3) for HPV-negative patients. Median PFS and OS for treated patients (n = 112) was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.9-3.7) and 7.1 months (95% CI, 4.9-9.9); PFS and OS at 12 months were 14.6% (95% CI, 8.5-22.1) and 33.6% (95% CI, 24.8-42.7). Treatment-related adverse events were 57.1% (any grade) and 8.0% (grade ≥3); none led to death. At data cut-off, 24.1% of patients remained on treatment or in follow-up., Conclusion: Durvalumab demonstrated antitumour activity with acceptable safety in PD-L1-high patients with R/M HNSCC, supporting its ongoing evaluation in phase III trials in first- and second-line settings. In an ad hoc analysis, HPV-positive patients had a numerically higher response rate and survival than HPV-negative patients., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We report 2-year results from CheckMate 141 to establish the long-term efficacy and safety profile of nivolumab and outcomes by tumor PD-L1 expression in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M),platinum-refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)., Methods: Patients with R/M SCCHN with tumor progression/recurrence within 6 months of platinum therapy were randomized 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or investigator's choice (IC). Primary endpoint: overall survival (OS). Data cutoff: September 2017., Results: With 24.2 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab (n = 240) continued to improve OS vs IC (n = 121), hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.86). Nivolumab nearly tripled the estimated 24-month OS rate (16.9%) vs IC (6.0%), and demonstrated OS benefit across patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1% (HR [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.39-0.78]) and  < 1% (HR [95% CI] = 0.73 [0.49-1.09]), and regardless of tumor HPV status. Estimated OS rates at 18, 24, and 30 months with nivolumab were consistent irrespective of PD-L1 expression (<1%/≥1%). In the nivolumab arm, there were no observed differences in baseline characteristics or safety profile between long-term survivors and the overall population. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 15.3% and 36.9% for nivolumab and IC, respectively., Conclusion: Nivolumab significantly improved OS at the primary analysis and demonstrated prolonged OS benefit vs IC and maintenance of a manageable and consistent safety profile with 2-year follow-up. OS benefit was observed with nivolumab irrespective of PD-L1 expression and HPV status. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02105636)., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

BackgroundIn the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1) trial, second-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Here, we evaluated association of prespecified biomarkers with efficacy outcomes in LUX-H&N1.Patients and methodsRandomized patients with R/M HNSCC and progression following ≥2 cycles of platinum therapy received afatinib (40 mg/day) or methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week). Tumor/serum samples were collected at study entry for patients who volunteered for inclusion in biomarker analyses. Tumor biomarkers, including p16 (prespecified subgroup; all tumor subsites), EGFR, HER2, HER3, c-MET and PTEN, were assessed using tissue microarray cores and slides; serum protein was evaluated using the VeriStrat® test. Biomarkers were correlated with efficacy outcomes.ResultsOf 483 randomized patients, 326 (67%) were included in the biomarker analyses; baseline characteristics were consistent with the overall study population. Median PFS favored afatinib over methotrexate in patients with p16-negative [2.7 versus 1.6 months; HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.50-0.97)], EGFR-amplified [2.8 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.53 (0.33-0.85)], HER3-low [2.8 versus 1.8 months; HR 0.57 (0.37-0.88)], and PTEN-high [1.6 versus 1.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.29-1.05)] tumors. Afatinib also improved PFS in combined subsets of patients with p16-negative and EGFR-amplified tumors [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.47 (0.28-0.80)], and patients with p16-negative tumors who were EGFR therapy-naïve [4.0 versus 2.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.31-0.98)]. PFS was improved in afatinib-treated patients who were VeriStrat 'Good' versus 'Poor' [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.71 (0.49-0.94)], but no treatment interaction was observed. Afatinib improved tumor response versus methotrexate in all subsets analyzed except for those with p16-positive disease (n = 35).ConclusionsSubgroups of HNSCC patients who may achieve increased benefit from afatinib were identified based on prespecified tumor biomarkers (p16-negative, EGFR-amplified, HER3-low, PTEN-high). Future studies are warranted to validate these findings.Clinical trial registrationNCT01345682.

BackgroundIn the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and

BackgroundAfatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated lung cancer. We hypothesized that the agent would have greater antitumor activity compared with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients, whose disease has progressed after platinum-containing therapy.Patients and methodsAn open-label, randomized, phase II trial was conducted in 43 centers; 124 patients were randomized (1 : 1) to either afatinib (50 mg/day) or cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)/week) until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) (stage I), with optional crossover (stage II). The primary end point was tumor shrinkage before crossover assessed by investigator (IR) and independent central review (ICR).ResultsA total of 121 patients were treated (61 afatinib, 60 cetuximab) and 68 crossed over to stage II (32 and 36 respectively). In stage I, mean tumor shrinkage by IR/ICR was 10.4%/16.6% with afatinib and 5.4%/10.1% with cetuximab (P = 0.46/0.30). Objective response rate was 16.1%/8.1% with afatinib and 6.5%/9.7% with cetuximab (IR/ICR). Comparable disease control rates were observed with afatinib (50%) and cetuximab (56.5%) by IR; similar results were seen by ICR. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AEs (DRAEs) were rash/acne (18% versus 8.3%), diarrhea (14.8% versus 0%), and stomatitis/mucositis (11.5% versus 0%) with afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Patients with DRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 23% with afatinib and 5% with cetuximab. In stage II, disease control rate (IR/ICR) was 38.9%/33.3% with afatinib and 18.8%/18.8% with cetuximab.ConclusionAfatinib showed antitumor activity comparable to cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in this exploratory phase II trial, although more patients on afatinib discontinued treatment due to AEs. Sequential EGFR/ErbB treatment with afatinib and cetuximab provided sustained clinical benefit in patients after crossover, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance.