CompARE: study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled platform trial comparing alternative regimens for escalating treatment of intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) have poorer response to standard treatment and poorer overall survival compared to low-risk OPC. CompARE is designed to test alternative approaches to intensified treatment for these patients to improve survival. METHODS: CompARE is a pragmatic phase III, open-label, multicenter randomised controlled trial with an adaptive multi-arm, multi-stage design and an integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention. Eligible OPC patients include those with human papillomavirus (HPV) negative, T1-T4, N1-N3 or T3-4, N0, or HPV positive N3, T4, or current smokers (or ≥ 10 pack years previous smoking history) with T1-T4, N2b-N3. CompARE was originally designed with four arms (one control [arm 1] and three experimental: arm 2-induction chemotherapy followed by arm 1; arm 3-dose-escalated radiotherapy plus concomitant cisplatin; and arm 4-resection of primary followed by arm 1). The three original experimental arms have been closed to recruitment and a further experimental arm opened (arm 5-induction durvalumab followed by arm 1 and then adjuvant durvalumab). Currently recruiting are arm 1 (control): standard treatment of 3-weekly cisplatin 100 mg/m2 or weekly 40 mg/m2 with intensity-modulated radiotherapy using 70 Gy in 35 fractions ± neck dissection determined by clinical and radiological assessment 3 months post-treatment, and arm 5 (intervention): one cycle of induction durvalumab 1500 mg followed by standard treatment then durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for a total of 6 months. The definitive and interim primary outcome measures are overall survival time and event-free survival (EFS) time, respectively. Secondary outcome measures include quality of life, toxicity, swallowing outcomes, feeding tube incidence, surgical complication rates, and cost-effectiveness. The design anticipates that after approximately 7 years, 84 required events will have occurred to enable analysis of the definitive primary outcome measure for this comparison. Planned interim futility analyses using EFS will also be performed. DISCUSSION: CompARE is designed to be efficient and cost-effective in response to new data, emerging new treatments or difficulties, with the aim of bringing new treatment options for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN41478539 . Registered on 29 April 2015.

Dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer (DARS): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most newly diagnosed oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers are treated with chemoradiotherapy with curative intent but at the consequence of adverse effects on quality of life. We aimed to investigate if dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) reduced radiation dose to the dysphagia and aspiration related structures and improved swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. METHODS: DARS was a parallel-group, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 22 radiotherapy centres in Ireland and the UK. Participants were aged 18 years and older, had T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer, a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and no pre-existing swallowing dysfunction. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm (balancing factors: centre, chemotherapy use, tumour type, American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT. Participants and speech language therapists were masked to treatment allocation. Radiotherapy was given in 30 fractions over 6 weeks. Dose was 65 Gy to primary and nodal tumour and 54 Gy to remaining pharyngeal subsite and nodal areas at risk of microscopic disease. For DO-IMRT, the volume of the superior and middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle or inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle lying outside the high-dose target volume had a mandatory 50 Gy mean dose constraint. The primary endpoint was MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score 12 months after radiotherapy, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients who completed a 12-month assessment; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN25458988, and is complete. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2016, to April 27, 2018, 118 patients were registered, 112 of whom were randomly assigned (56 to each treatment group). 22 (20%) participants were female and 90 (80%) were male; median age was 57 years (IQR 52-62). Median follow-up was 39·5 months (IQR 37·8-50·0). Patients in the DO-IMRT group had significantly higher MDADI composite scores at 12 months than patients in the standard IMRT group (mean score 77·7 [SD 16·1] vs 70·6 [17·3]; mean difference 7·2 [95% CI 0·4-13·9]; p=0·037). 25 serious adverse events (16 serious adverse events assessed as unrelated to study treatment [nine in the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nine serious adverse reactions [two vs seven]) were reported in 23 patients. The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (nine [16%] of 55 in the DO-IMRT group vs seven [13%] of 55 in the standard IMRT group), dry mouth (three [5%] vs eight [15%]), and dysphagia (three [5%] vs eight [15%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care for patients receiving radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancers. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Opsoclonus-myoclonus paraneoplastic syndrome in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma can present with epistaxis, cervical lymphadenopathy, audiological symptoms secondary to eustachian tube dysfunction, pain, or neurological symptoms from tumours directly invading the skull base. It is unusual for patients to present with indirect systemic manifestations. Paraneoplastic neurological syndrome can precede clinically overt malignancy by up to 5 years; therefore, a combination of thorough clinical, laboratory and radiological investigations is required to reach a diagnosis. Intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids might improve neurological symptoms initially and prevent irreversible neuronal damage, but treatment of the underlying cancer is important for long-term resolution. Our case adds to a small but growing body of literature related to anti-Ri antibodies, opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome presentations, and is the first reported association of this combination with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy in Locally Advanced Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Case Report.

A 73-year-old female presenting with haemoptysis and dyspnoea was found to have a locally advanced left thyroid mass and vocal cord palsy. A CT scan of the neck and thorax and endoscopy demonstrated invasion into the tracheal lumen. Histopathology of the intraluminal tracheal mass confirmed a papillary thyroid cancer (PTC). The tumour was deemed unresectable due to local extent and patient comorbidities. TKI therapy with lenvatinib was used for 14 months. On serial scanning, a marked reduction in tumour volume from 31 × 59 × 32 mm to 17 × 28 × 22 mm was noted. This subsequently allowed a successful surgical resection with a total thyroidectomy and central neck dissection with no evidence of residual macroscopic disease. Histopathology confirmed a well-differentiated PTC with features of tumour regression. In this case, TKI therapy in a locally advanced unresectable DTC reduced tumour size and infiltration to a degree that surgical resection of macroscopic disease was possible, without requiring airway resection. This raises the possibility that TKIs may have a neoadjuvant role in selected cases of locally advanced DTC to reduce tumour volume and therefore morbidity of subsequent surgical resection.

Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. METHODS: We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m2). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3-5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. FINDINGS: Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3-5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4·8 [95% CI 4·2-5·4] with cisplatin vs 4·8 [4·2-5·4] with cetuximab; p=0·98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29·2 [95% CI 27·3-31·0] with cisplatin vs 30·1 [28·3-31·9] with cetuximab; p=0·49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97·5% vs 89·4%, hazard ratio 5·0 [95% CI 1·7-14·7]; p=0·001) and 2-year recurrence (6·0% vs 16·1%, 3·4 [1·6-7·2]; p=0·0007). INTERPRETATION: Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.