A phase II study of sorafenib in recurrent and/or metastatic salivary gland carcinomas: Translational analyses and clinical impact.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical and clinical evidence suggests a rationale for the use of anti-angiogenic agents, including sorafenib, in recurrent and/or metastatic salivary gland carcinomas (RMSGCs). This study evaluates the activity of sorafenib in patients with RMSGCs and also investigates whether the activity of sorafenib could be related to its main tailored targets (i.e. BRAF, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR2], platelet-derived growth factor receptor α [PDGFRα] and ß, RET, KIT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received sorafenib at 400 mg BID. The primary end-point was response rate (RR) including complete response or partial response (PR); secondary end-points included RR according to Choi criteria, disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (19 adenoid cystic cancers, ACC) were enrolled. Six PRs were recorded. RR was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6-32; 11% in ACC and 22% in non-ACC). Choi criteria could be applied in 30 out of 37 cases with a RR of 50% (95% CI: 31-69%); DCR was 76% (95% CI: 59-88%). Incidence of ≥G3 adverse events was 29.7%. Median PFS and OS for the entire population were 5.9 months and 23.4 months, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 8.9 and 26.4 months for ACC versus 4.2 and 12.3 months for non-ACC patients. All the cases showed expression of PDGFRß in the stroma and VEGFR2 in endothelial cells; PDGFRα positivity was found in the stroma of four (27%) cases. All except for two cases showed no PDGFRß, VEGFR2 and PDGFRα expression in the tumour cells. KIT expression was restricted to ACC and a weak RET expression was limited to one adenocarcinoma, not otherwise specified (NOS). No BRAF mutation was found. No correlation was observed between the sorafenib activity and the expression of its markers although all six responders (two ACC, one adenocarcinoma, NOS, one salivary duct cancer [SDC], one high-grade mucoepidermoid [HG-MEC] and one poorly-differentiated cancer) are enriched in the stromal component showing a PDGFRß immunodecoration. In ACCs, immunohistochemistry revealed MYB protein expression in 15/16 cases (94%) and the MYB-NFIB fusion oncogene was observed in 9/14 (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib is the first anti-angiogenic agent to demonstrate activity in RMSGC patients, particularly in some histotypes such as HG-MEC, SDC and adenocarcinoma, NOS. The PDGFRß-positive rich stromal component characterising these histotypes and the lack of correlation between the activity of sorafenib and its targets suggests anti-angiogenic effect as the prevalent mechanism of action of sorafenib in SGCs.

Treatment-related outcome of oropharyngeal cancer patients differentiated by HPV dictated risk profile: a tertiary cancer centre series analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, no treatment modality has been identified as more effective for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and no predictive factors are known to guide treatment decision for this disease. This retrospective study evaluates the differential effects of diverse treatment options for OPC according to patient risk profiles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We considered two series of locally advanced squamous cell OPC patients treated with either surgery followed by radiotherapy (surgical series) or chemoradiation (CRT) with/without induction docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) chemotherapy (CRT series). Smoking habits, tumor p16 expression/human papillomavirus (HPV) status and T and N stage were analyzed to stratify the patients according to Ang's risk profile (low, intermediate and high risk). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Globally, 171 patients were considered, 56 in surgical and 115 in CRT series. Patients were stratified in low- (20% of surgical and CRT groups), intermediate- (23% and 41%) and high-risk (57% and 39%) groups. In the surgical series, 5-year OS was 54.5%, 46.9% and 40.0% in low, intermediate and high Ang's risk profiles, respectively, whereas in the CRT series those were 100%, 78.9% and 46.7%, respectively. In the multivariable analyses, adjusting for inhomogeneity between the treatment group, the CRT effect was significantly higher in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (P-value for the interaction treatment risk group = 0.034 in the OS analysis). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, low- and intermediate-risk OPC patients had a better survival when treated with CRT compared with open surgery followed by radiation therapy. These data suggest that different treatment approaches might be essential in determining outcome results.

Tumor stage, human papillomavirus and smoking status affect the survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer: an Italian validation study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor human papillomavirus (HPV) status strongly affects overall survival (OS) of oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) patients. Recently, three groups with different outcomes were identified based on HPV status, smoking history and tumor stage. Our objective was to validate this model using a single-institutional retrospective database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n=120) diagnosed with OPC at our institution, treated with concomitant cisplatin plus radiotherapy (RT) (n=64), induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiation (n=39) or RT alone (n=17), were stratified in three groups with respect to the risk of death (low 26, intermediate 46 and high 49 patients) according to tumor p16 expression as surrogate of HPV status, pack-years of tobacco smoking and nodal/tumor stage. Group-stratified Kaplan-Meier OS curves were estimated and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: The 2-year OS estimates were 100%, 86% and 70%, respectively. The difference between the survival curves was statistically significant (P=0.009). The Harrell's concordance index was 0.70. The calibration plot showed a good concordance between our results and those observed in the original study. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the risk grouping previously identified. Risk-driven clinical decision making and trial designs will help in better defining the most appropriate treatment in OPC patients.