Search

Immunoteràpia Inmunoterapia Immunotherapy Cancer immunotherapy based on the use of antibodies targeting the so-called checkpoint inhibitors, such as programmed cell death-1 receptor, its ligand, or CTLA-4, has shown durable clinical benefit and survival improvement in melanoma and other tumors. However, there are some special situations that could be a challenge for clinical management. Persons with chronic infections, such as HIV-1 or viral hepatitis, latent tuberculosis, or a history of solid organ transplantation, could be candidates for cancer immunotherapy, but their management requires a multidisciplinary approach. The Spanish Melanoma Group (GEM) panel in collaboration with experts in virology and immunology from different centers in Spain reviewed the literature and developed evidence-based guidelines for cancer immunotherapy management in patients with chronic infections and immunosuppression. These are the first clinical guidelines for cancer immunotherapy treatment in special challenging populations. Cancer immunotherapy in chronically infected or immunosuppressed patients is feasible but needs a multidisciplinary approach in order to decrease the risk of complications related to the coexistent comorbidities. This work was supported by the Spanish Melanoma Group (GEM).

LUX-Head & Neck 2 investigators., [Importance] Locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) is treated curatively; however, risk of recurrence remains high among some patients. The ERBB family blocker afatinib has shown efficacy in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC., [Objective] To assess whether afatinib therapy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with HNSCC., [Design, Setting, and Participants] This multicenter, phase 3, double-blind randomized clinical trial (LUX-Head & Neck 2) studied 617 patients from November 2, 2011, to July 4, 2016. Patients who had complete response after CRT, comprising radiotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin, with or without resection of residual disease, for locoregionally advanced high- or intermediate-risk HNSCC of the oral cavity, hypopharynx, larynx, or oropharynx were included in the study. Data analysis was of the intention-to-treat population., [Interventions] Patients were randomized (2:1) to treatment with afatinib (40 mg/d) or placebo, stratified by nodal status (N0-2a or N2b-3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 or 1). Treatment continued for 18 months or until disease recurrence, unacceptable adverse events, or patient withdrawal., [Main Outcomes and Measures] The primary end point was DFS, defined as time from the date of randomization to the date of tumor recurrence or secondary primary tumor or death from any cause. Secondary end points were DFS at 2 years, overall survival (defined as time from the date of randomization to death), and health-related quality of life., [Results] A total of 617 patients were studied (mean [SD] age, 58 [8.4] years; 528 male [85.6%]). Recruitment was stopped after a preplanned interim futility analysis on July 4, 2016, on recommendation from an independent data monitoring committee. Treatment was discontinued. Median DFS was 43.4 months (95% CI, 37.4 months to not estimable) in the afatinib group and not estimable (95% CI, 40.1 months to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.81-1.57; stratified log-rank test P = .48). The most common grade 3 and 4 drug-related adverse effects were acneiform rash (61 [14.8%] of 411 patients in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] of 206 patients in the placebo group), stomatitis (55 [13.4%] in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] in the placebo group), and diarrhea (32 [7.8%] in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] in the placebo group)., [Conclusions and Relevance] This study’s findings indicate that treatment with afatinib after CRT did not improve DFS and was associated with more adverse events than placebo in patients with primary, unresected, clinically high- to intermediate-risk HNSCC. The use of adjuvant afatinib after CRT is not recommended., [Trial Registration] ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01345669., The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Introduction: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy present a high prevalence of malnutrition at baseline. Prophylactic use of gastrostomy has been suggested for these patients for delivering enteral nutrition. On the other hand, other authors have failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this measure over nasogastric tube feeding. Material and methods: We studied 40 patients with HNC with moderate or severe malnutrition who were offered either prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy before starting oncologic treatment or close follow-up with nutritional counseling with the placement of a nasogastric tube when necessary. Results: There were no significant changes throughout the study period in weight (p = 0.338), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.314) or serum proteins (p = 0.729), and these changes showed no differences between the gastrostomy vs nasogastric tube feeding groups. The amount of delivered energy was above the estimated energy needs with both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding, but there were no differences in the total energy provided by enteral nutrition between groups. Patients in the gastrostomy group received enteral nutrition support for a longer period of time (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding are effective methods of delivering enteral nutrition in patients with HNC submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy, with no differences between them in terms of avoiding further nutritional deterioration. Resumen Introducción: los pacientes con cáncer de cabeza y cuello (CCC) que reciben radioterapia o tratamiento combinado con radioterapia y quimioterapia presentan una elevada prevalencia de desnutrición. El uso profiláctico de la gastrostomía se ha sugerido para el soporte nutricional enteral en estos pacientes. Sin embargo, otros autores no han demostrado un beneficio claro de esta medida frente al uso de la sonda nasogástrica. Material y métodos: se realizó el estudio en cuarenta pacientes con CCC con desnutrición moderada o grave, a los cuales se les ofreció la gastrostomía percutánea antes de empezar el tratamiento oncológico o bien seguimiento estrecho mediante consejo nutricional y la colocación de una sonda nasogástrica en el momento necesario. Resultados: no se encontraron cambios significativos en cuanto a peso, (p = 0,338), índice de masa corporal (p = 0,314) o proteínas séricas (p = 0,729) durante el seguimiento, y estos cambios tampoco fueron diferentes entre los pacientes con gastrostomía o con sonda nasogástrica. Las calorías recibidas fueron superiores a los requerimientos estimados en ambos grupos, pero no existieron diferencias entre ellos. Los pacientes con gastrostomía recibieron nutrición enteral durante más tiempo (p = 0,007). Conclusiones: tanto la gastrostomía como la sonda nasogástrica son eficaces para el soporte nutricional enteral en pacientes con CCC que reciben radioterapia o tratamiento combinado con quimioterapia y radioterapia, sin mostrar diferencias en la evolución nutricional entre ambas.

Immunotherapy has become a key element in the treatment of several tumors, such as lung carcinoma and melanoma. Immunotherapy, unlike classical chemotherapy and targeted drugs, may yield long-term survival, even in patients who stop treatment due to toxicity. This fact has generated considerable excitement and a real shift in the paradigm of cancer treatment. However, only a small subset of patients benefit from immunotherapy. Survival curves show that most patients have progression of the disease in the first months after starting immunotherapy, followed by a slower decrease over the first 3 years, until curves reach a plateau. This early progression suggests the presence of mechanisms for primary resistance. In addition, some patients have tumor relapse after years of response, suggesting that there is also acquired resistance in a small subset of patients. Resistance mechanisms are now being elucidated. PD-L1 expression in tumor and immune cells correlates with higher chances of response, but melanoma patients with PD-L1 negative tumors can also respond. Several studies have demonstrated an increased probability of clinical benefit when tumors are infiltrated by CD8 T cells, have a high mutation burden or have an interferon gamma signature. But none of these factors has been implemented in the clinical practice, since more studies confirming their value are needed, as well as the development of standardized techniques.

In recent years, new strategies for treating melanoma have been introduced, improving the outlook for this challenging disease. One of the most important advances has been the development of immunotherapy. The better understanding of the role of the immunological system in tumor control has paved the way for strategies to enhance the immune response against cancer cells. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the immune checkpoints cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have demonstrated high activity in melanoma and other tumors. Ipilimumab, an anti CTLA-4 antibody, was the first drug of this class that was approved. Although the response rate with ipilimumab is low (less than 20% of patients have objective responses), 20% of patients have long survival, with similar results in the first and second line settings. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, both anti PD-1 inhibitors, have been approved for the treatment of melanoma, with response rates of 40% and a demonstrated survival advantage in phase III trials. This has marked a new era in the treatment of metastatic melanoma and much research is now ongoing with other drugs targeting checkpoint inhibitors. In addition, the agonist of activating molecules on T cells and their combinations are being investigated. Herein we review the clinical development of checkpoint inhibitors and their approval for treatment of metastatic melanoma.

The main objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib alone or combined with trametinib for compassionate use in patients with metastatic melanoma.This retrospective, observational study involved 135 patients with unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma from an expanded-access program at 30 Spanish centers.Forty-eight patients received dabrafenib monotherapy and 87 received combination dabrafenib and trametinib; 4.4% and 95.6% of the patients had stage IIIC and IV melanoma, respectively. All patients showed BRAF mutations in their primary or metastatic lesions; 3 were positive for V600K while the remainder had V600E or V600+. A positive response to treatment was reported in 89.3% of the patients. Overall survival rates at 12 and 24 months were 59.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.5-68.9%) and 36.4% (95% CI, 27.8-45%), respectively. Progression-free survival rates at 12 and 24 months were 39.3% (95% CI, 31.1-47.5%) and 21.6% (95% CI, 14.5-28.7%), respectively. Fifty-seven patients (42.2%) reported cutaneous toxicity of any type, mainly hyperkeratosis (14.8%) and rash (11.9%). The most frequent adverse events were pyrexia (27.4%), asthenia (19.3%), arthralgia (16.9%), and diarrhoea (13.2%).Our results suggest that both dabrafenib alone or in combination with trametinib are effective for compassionate use in terms of response and/or survival rates. However, differences in patients' prognostic features ought to be considered. No new findings were revealed regarding the safety profiles of either regimen. This is the first study to evaluate the efficacy of these 2 selective BRAF and mitogen-activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase inhibitors in a real-world setting in Spain., Novartis have provided funding for this observational study.