Ramucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a single-centre, phase 1/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF, a key mediator of angiogenesis and resistance to immunotherapy, is overexpressed in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab, a selective VEGFR2 inhibitor, given with pembrolizumab and the objective response rate of this combination as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In this single-centre, phase 1/2 trial, which was done at Washington University (St Louis, MO, USA), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients in phase 2 were required to have had no previous systemic therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. In a dose de-escalation phase 1 design, patients received ramucirumab (starting dose 10 mg/kg given intravenously) and pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. The recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab was defined as the highest dose at which one or fewer of three patients had dose-limiting toxicity during cycle one (primary endpoint of phase 1). In a Simon's two-stage phase 2 design, patients received the recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab. Tumour response (primary endpoint of phase 2) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (version 1.1). We hypothesised that there would be an objective response rate of 32% or higher (null ≤13%). Eight or more responses among 33 evaluable patients (those with at least one response assessment) was evidence for activity (80% power; one-sided α=0·05). Analyses were done per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03650764, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: Between June 18, 2019, and Feb 11, 2021, three patients enrolled and were treated in phase 1 and 37 patients in phase 2. Median age of all patients was 64 years (IQR 59-72). 36 (90%) of 40 patients were men and four (10%) were women, and 36 (90%) patients were White, three (8%) were Black or African American, and one (3%) was Asian. In phase 1, no dose-limiting toxicity event occurred. The recommended phase 2 dose of ramucirumab was 10 mg/kg. Median follow-up for patients on phase 2 was 14·8 months (IQR 4·9-31·0). In phase 2, 18 (55%; 95% CI 38-70) of 33 evaluable patients had an objective response, including confirmed complete response in 11 patients, confirmed partial response in six patients, and unconfirmed partial response in one patient. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were dysphagia (14 [38%] of 37 patients), lung infection (11 [30%]), lymphocyte count decrease (ten [27%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [24%]), and hypertension (eight [22%]). No treatment-related deaths were recorded. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab and pembrolizumab were safe to administer to patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, and the objective response rate with this combination as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC was favourable. Further studies of ramucirumab and pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC are warranted. FUNDING: Lilly and the Joseph Sanchez Foundation.

First-in-human phase 1/1b study to evaluate sitravatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Sitravatinib (MGCD516), a spectrum-selective receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MERTK) and split kinase family receptors, has demonstrated preclinical anti-tumor activity and modulation of tumor microenvironment. This first-in-human phase 1/1b study included sitravatinib dose exploration and anti-tumor activity evaluation in selected patients with advanced solid tumors. Primary objectives included assessment of safety, pharmacokinetics and clinical activity of sitravatinib. Secondary objectives included identifying doses for further investigation and exploring molecular markers for patient selection. In phase 1, 32 patients received 10-200 mg, while phase 1b dose expansion comprised 161 patients (150 mg n = 99, 120 mg n = 62). Maximum tolerated dose was determined as 150 mg daily. Dose-limiting toxicity was reported in 4/28 evaluable phase 1 patients (three at 200 mg, one at 80 mg). In phase 1b, 120 mg was defined as the recommended dose due to tolerability. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were experienced by 174/193 patients (90.2%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in 103 patients (53.4%). Most common TRAEs were diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension and nausea; TRAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 26 patients (13.5%) and death in one patient. Sitravatinib was steadily absorbed and declined from plasma with a terminal elimination half-life of 42.1-51.5 h following oral administration. Overall objective response rate was 11.8% in phase 1b, 13.2% in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 4.2% in patients with NSCLC with prior checkpoint inhibitor experience. Sitravatinib demonstrated manageable safety and modest clinical activity in solid tumors. NCT02219711 (first posted August 14, 2014).

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers address tumors arising in the oral cavity (including mucosal lip), pharynx, larynx, and paranasal sinuses. Occult primary cancer, salivary gland cancer, and mucosal melanoma (MM) are also addressed. The specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guide treatment (eg, the appropriate surgical procedure, radiation targets, dose and fractionation of radiation, indications for systemic therapy). The NCCN Head and Neck Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's most recent recommendations regarding management of HPV-positive oropharynx cancer and ongoing research in this area.

Pembrolizumab plus cetuximab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an open-label, multi-arm, non-randomised, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab (PD-1 inhibitor) and cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) are active as single agents and in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Given each drug's single agent activity and unique mechanism of action, we aimed to evaluate the anti-tumour activity of PD-1 blockade with EGFR inhibition in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: This study is an open-label, non-randomised, multi-arm, phase 2 trial done at four academic centres in the USA. Participants were required to have platinum-resistant or platinum-ineligible, recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, be at least 18 years old, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, have measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, and to have received no previous immunotherapy or EGFR inhibition. All participants received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, combined with an initial loading dose of cetuximab 400 mg/m2 intravenously followed by 250 mg/m2 intravenously weekly (21 day cycle). The primary endpoint was overall response rate defined as the proportion of participants with a partial or complete responses (per RECIST version 1.1) by 6 months in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. Herein, the final analysis of cohort 1 (no previous PD-1, PD-L1, or EGFR inhibition for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC) is reported. Three additional cohorts (two for participants with a previous response to immunotherapy followed by relapse or progression, with or without previous cetuximab exposure, and one for cutaneous HNSCC) will be reported separately once fully accrued. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03082534, and remains open as the three additional cohorts are actively accruing participants. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2017, and July 16, 2019, 33 participants were enrolled to cohort 1. All 33 participants received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. Median follow-up duration was 7·3 months (IQR 3·9-10·9). By 6 months, the overall response rate was 45% (95% CI 28-62), with 15 of 33 participants achieving a partial response. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was oral mucositis (three [9%] of 33 participants), and serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in five (15%) participants. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab combined with cetuximab shows promising clinical activity for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, and merits further investigation. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A randomized phase 2 study of temsirolimus and cetuximab versus temsirolimus alone in recurrent/metastatic, cetuximab-resistant head and neck cancer: The MAESTRO study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cetuximab-resistant, recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have poor outcomes. This study hypothesized that dual blockade of mammalian target of rapamycin and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) would overcome cetuximab resistance on the basis of the role of phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling in preclinical models of EGFR resistance. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized clinical study, patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC with documented progression on cetuximab (in any line in the recurrent/metastatic setting) received 25 mg of temsirolimus weekly plus cetuximab at 400/250 mg/m2 weekly (TC) or single-agent temsirolimus (T). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) in the TC arm versus the T arm. Response rates, overall survival, and toxicity were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized to therapy with TC or T alone. There was no difference for the primary outcome of median PFS (TC arm, 3.5 months; T arm, 3.5 months). The response rate was 12.5% in the TC arm (5 responses, including 1 complete response [2.5%]) and 2.5% in the T arm (1 partial response; P = .10). Responses were clinically meaningful in the TC arm (range, 3.6-9.1 months) but not in the T-alone arm (1.9 months). Fatigue, electrolyte abnormalities, and leukopenia were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events and occurred in less than 20% of patients in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS. However, TC induced responses in cetuximab-refractory patients with good tolerability. The post hoc observation of activity in patients with acquired resistance (after prior benefit from cetuximab monotherapy) may warrant further investigation.

A randomized phase 2 network trial of tivantinib plus cetuximab versus cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: MET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional. RESULTS: The response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.

Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Treatment is complex for patients with head and neck (H&N) cancers with specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guiding treatment decision-making. Treatment planning for H&N cancers involves a multidisciplinary team of experts. This article describes supportive care recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers, as well as the rationale supporting a new section on imaging recommendations for patients with H&N cancers. This article also describes updates to treatment recommendations for patients with very advanced H&N cancers and salivary gland tumors, specifically systemic therapy recommendations.

Palbociclib and cetuximab in platinum-resistant and in cetuximab-resistant human papillomavirus-unrelated head and neck cancer: a multicentre, multigroup, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) are driven by p16INK4A inactivation and cyclin D1 overexpression that results in hyperactivation of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6), rather than by the human papillomavirus (HPV). Deregulated cyclin D1 expression also causes resistance to EGFR inhibitors. We previously reported that palbociclib (a selective CDK4/6 inhibitor) given with cetuximab (an EGFR inhibitor) was safe. The aim of this study was to establish the proportion of patients achieving an objective response with palbociclib and cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: We did a multicentre, multigroup, phase 2 trial to evaluate the activity of palbociclib and cetuximab in platinum-resistant (group 1) and cetuximab-resistant (group 2) HPV-unrelated HNSCC. The study was done across eight university sites in the USA. Eligibility required measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1·1 [RECIST 1·1]), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, age of 18 years or older, and disease progression on platinum but cetuximab-naive (group 1) or disease progression on cetuximab (group 2). All patients received palbociclib orally (125 mg/day, on days 1-21) and intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m2 on cycle one, day 1, then 250 mg/m2 once per week) in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response (complete responses and partial responses per RECIST 1·1). Analyses were done per protocol. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101034, and is ongoing, but both groups are closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2015, and Nov 7, 2018, 62 patients were enrolled onto the trial: 30 patients were enrolled in group 1 and 32 in group 2. Median follow-up was 5·4 months (IQR 4·4-12·1) for group 1 and 5·5 months (4·3-8·3) for group 2. In group 1, of 28 evaluable patients, an objective response was achieved by 11 (39%; 95% CI 22-59). In group 2, of 27 evaluable patients, an objective response was achieved by five (19%; 6-38) in group 2. The most common grade 3-4 palbociclib-related adverse event was neutropenia (in 21 [34%] of 62 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In patients with platinum-resistant or cetuximab-resistant HPV-unrelated HNSCC, palbociclib and cetuximab results in promising activity outcomes. Further studies of CDK4/6 inhibitors are warranted in HPV-unrelated HNSCC. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Pazopanib plus cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an open-label, phase 1b and expansion study.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a hallmark of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and a mechanism of resistance to EGFR inhibition. We investigated the safety and potential activity of pazopanib, an angiogenesis inhibitor, plus cetuximab, an EGFR inhibitor, in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: We did an open-label, single-centre, dose-escalation phase 1b trial using a standard 3 + 3 design, followed by an expansion cohort phase. Eligible participants were patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, aged at least 18 years, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. During dose escalation, pazopanib oral suspension was administered daily in 8-week cycles at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, 600 mg/day, or 800 mg/day, with cetuximab given intravenously once per week (400 mg/m2 first dose and 250 mg/m2 in consecutive cycles). The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose of pazopanib in combination with cetuximab. Analyses were done per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01716416, and it is ongoing but closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2013, and April 4, 2017, we enrolled 22 patients into the phase 1b, dose-escalation phase of the trial. A maximum tolerated dose of pazopanib in combination with cetuximab was not reached. Single dose-limiting toxic events (all grade 3) during dose escalation occurred with pazopanib 400 mg/day (neutropenia with infection), 600 mg/day (proteinuria), and 800 mg/day (fatigue). The established recommended phase 2 dose for the combination was 800 mg/day of pazopanib during cycles of 8 weeks each, plus cetuximab 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, then cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly. A further nine patients were enrolled into the expansion cohort and treated with the established recommended phase 2 dose. The most common (grade 3-4) adverse events for all patients were hypertension (ten [32%] of 31), lymphocyte count decrease (seven [23%]), and dysphagia (seven [23%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. 11 (35%; 95% CI 19·2-54·6) of 31 patients achieved an overall response, as assessed by the investigator; two (6%) had a complete response and nine (29%) a partial response. Tumour responses were also observed in six (55%) of 11 patients with platinum-naive and cetuximab-naive disease, three (25%) of 12 patients with cetuximab-resistant disease, and five (28%) of 18 patients with platinum-resistant disease. INTERPRETATION: Pazopanib oral suspension at a dose of 800 mg/day was feasible to administer in combination with standard weekly cetuximab for patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Encouraging preliminary antitumour activity was observed with this combination therapy and warrants further validation in randomised trials. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 1.2018.

The NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck (H&N) Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, ethmoid and maxillary sinuses, and salivary glands. Recommendations are also provided for occult primary of the H&N, and separate algorithms have been developed by the panel for very advanced H&N cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding evaluation and treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral intensity-modulated radiotherapy for surgically treated squamous cell carcinoma of the palatine tonsil.

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that unilateral intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) would decrease toxicity compared with bilateral IMRT for patients with lateralized palatine tonsillar cancer and a neck classification of N0 to N2b, with similar oncological outcomes. METHODS: A total of 154 patients were treated with postoperative IMRT from 1997 through 2013. Data were collected prospectively from 2005 to 2013 and retrospectively collected before 2005. Of those patients with lateralized primary and N0 to N2b disease, 48 received unilateral IMRT (group 1) and 59 received bilateral IMRT (group 2); a total of 47 patients had nonlateralized primary or N2c to N3 disease and received bilateral IMRT (group 3). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.5 years. The 5-year locoregional control rates were similar in group 1, group 2, and group 3 (100%, 96%, and 94%, respectively; pooled comparison: P = .39 and group 1 vs group 2 comparison: P = .19). The 5-year overall survival rates were similar in group 1, group 2, and group 3 (85%, 79%, and 76%, respectively; pooled comparison: P = .60 and group 1 vs group 2 comparison: P = .25). There were no contralateral neck recurrences noted among unilaterally treated patients. Unilateral IMRT reduced acute toxicity and improved patient-reported quality of life compared with bilateral IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral IMRT appears to reduce acute toxicity and achieves oncological outcomes similar to those of bilateral IMRT in selected patients with lateralized palatine tonsillar cancer with a neck classification of N0 to N2b. Cancer 2017;123:4594-4607. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Olaratumab and doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone for treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with doxorubicin is a present standard of care for patients with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma and median overall survival for those treated is 12-16 months, but few, if any, novel treatments or chemotherapy combinations have been able to improve these poor outcomes. Olaratumab is a human antiplatelet-derived growth factor receptor α monoclonal antibody that has antitumour activity in human sarcoma xenografts. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaratumab plus doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: We did an open-label phase 1b and randomised phase 2 study of doxorubicin plus olaratumab treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma at 16 clinical sites in the USA. For both the phase 1b and phase 2 parts of the study, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma not previously treated with an anthracycline, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and available tumour tissue to determine PDGFRα expression by immunohistochemistry. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either olaratumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously on day 1 and day 8 plus doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2)) or doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to eight cycles. Randomisation was dynamic and used the minimisation randomisation technique. The phase 1b primary endpoint was safety and the phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival using a two-sided α level of 0.2 and statistical power of 0.8. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01185964. FINDINGS: 15 patients were enrolled and treated with olaratumab plus doxorubicin in the phase 1b study, and 133 patients were randomised (66 to olaratumab plus doxorubicin; 67 to doxorubicin alone) in the phase 2 trial, 129 (97%) of whom received at least one dose of study treatment (64 received olaratumab plus doxorubicin, 65 received doxorubicin). Median progression-free survival in phase 2 was 6.6 months (95% CI 4.1-8.3) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 4.1 months (2.8-5.4) with doxorubicin (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 0.44-1.02, p=0.0615). Median overall survival was 26.5 months (20.9-31.7) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 14.7 months (9.2-17.1) with doxorubicin (stratified HR 0.46, 0.30-0.71, p=0.0003). The objective response rate was 18.2% (9.8-29.6) with olaratumab plus doxorubicin and 11.9% (5.3-22.2) with doxorubicin (p=0.3421). Steady state olaratumab serum concentrations were reached during cycle 3 with mean maximum and trough concentrations ranging from 419 µg/mL (geometric coefficient of variation in percentage [CV%] 26.2) to 487 µg/mL (CV% 33.0) and from 123 µg/mL (CV% 31.2) to 156 µg/mL (CV% 38.0), respectively. Adverse events that were more frequent with olaratumab plus doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone included neutropenia (37 [58%] vs 23 [35%]), mucositis (34 [53%] vs 23 [35%]), nausea (47 [73%] vs 34 [52%]), vomiting (29 [45%] vs 12 [18%]), and diarrhoea (22 [34%] vs 15 [23%]). Febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was similar in both groups (olaratumab plus doxorubicin: eight [13%] of 64 patients vs doxorubicin: nine [14%] of 65 patients). INTERPRETATION: This study of olaratumab with doxorubicin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma met its predefined primary endpoint for progression-free survival and achieved a highly significant improvement of 11.8 months in median overall survival, suggesting a potential shift in the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bone Cancer, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bone Cancer provide interdisciplinary recommendations for treating chordoma, chondrosarcoma, giant cell tumor of bone, Ewing sarcoma, and osteosarcoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Bone Cancer Panel's guideline recommendations for treating Ewing sarcoma. The data underlying these treatment recommendations are also discussed.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Head and Neck Cancers, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Head and Neck Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, ethmoid and maxillary sinuses, and salivary glands. Recommendations are also provided for occult primary of the head and neck (H&N), and separate algorithms have been developed by the panel for very advanced H&N cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding the increase in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer and the availability of immunotherapy agents for treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic H&N cancer.

Cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind safety study comparing cetuximab produced from two manufacturing processes using the EXTREME study regimen.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab, in combination with platinum chemotherapy plus 5-fluoruracil (5-FU), is approved for the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Cetuximab manufactured by ImClone (US commercial cetuximab) potentially results in higher systemic exposures than cetuximab manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI-manufactured cetuximab). This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the safety profiles of the two cetuximab formulations. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated locoregionally recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN were randomly assigned to receive the same dose of US commercial cetuximab (Arm A) or BI-manufactured cetuximab (Arm B), each in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin plus 5-FU. The primary outcome was all-grade, all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced ≥ 1 TEAE, regardless of causality (Arm A: 75/77 patients, 97.4%; Arm B: 68/71 patients, 95.8%). TEAEs with the highest incidence included nausea, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia in both arms. The absolute risk difference between the two arms for patients experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) was 0.029 (p = 0.281, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.024, 0.082) for AEs regardless of causality and 0.005 (p = 0.915, 95% CI: -0.092, 0.103) for AEs possibly related to study drug. There were no significant differences between the two arms in the incidence of acneiform rash, cardiac events, infusion reactions, or hypomagnesemia. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rates were similar in the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety between US commercial cetuximab and BI-manufactured cetuximab in combination with platinum-based therapy with 5-FU in patients with locoregionally recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN. The use of US commercial cetuximab in this combination chemotherapy regimen did not result in any unexpected safety signals. The efficacy results of this study are consistent with the efficacy results of the cetuximab arm of the EXTREME study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01081041 ; date of registration: March 3, 2010).

Eliminating radiotherapy to the contralateral retropharyngeal and high level II lymph nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is safe and improves quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Radiation treatment volumes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are controversial. The authors report the outcomes, patterns of failure, and quality of life (QOL) of patients who received treatment for HNSCC using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) that eliminated the treatment of contralateral retropharyngeal lymph nodes (RPLNs) in the clinically uninvolved neck. METHODS: A prospective institutional database was used to identify patients who had primary oral cavity, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, laryngeal, and unknown primary HNSCC for which they received IMRT. There were 3 temporal groups (generations 1-3). Generation 1 received comprehensive neck IMRT with parotid sparing, generation 2 eliminated the contralateral high level II (HLII) lymph nodes, and generation 3 further eliminated the contralateral RPLNs in the clinically uninvolved neck. Patterns of failure and survival analyses were completed, and QOL data measured using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory were compared in a subset of patients from generations 1 and 3. RESULTS: In total, 748 patients were identified. Of the 488 patients who received treatment in generation 2 or 3, 406 had a clinically uninvolved contralateral neck. There were no failures in the spared RPLNs (95% confidence interval, 0%-1.3%) or in the high contralateral neck (95% confidence interval, 0%-0.7%). QOL data were compared between 44 patients in generation 1 and 51 patients in generation 3. QOL improved both globally and in all domains assessed for generation 3, in which reduced radiotherapy volumes were used (P < .007). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with locally advanced HNSCC, eliminating coverage to the contralateral HLII lymph nodes and contralateral RPLNs in the clinically uninvolved side of the neck is associated with minimal risk of failure in these regions and significantly improved patient-reported QOL.

Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (sequential chemoradiotherapy) versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer (PARADIGM): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of the addition of induction chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy compared with chemoradiotherapy alone for patients with head and neck cancer is unclear. The PARADIGM study is a multicentre open-label phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF) induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with previously untreated, non-metastatic, newly diagnosed head and neck cancer were eligible. Patients were eligible if their tumour was either unresectable or of low surgical curability on the basis of advanced tumour stage (3 or 4) or regional-node stage (2 or 3, except T1N2), or if they were a candidate for organ preservation. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive either induction chemotherapy with three cycles of TPF followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy with either docetaxel or carboplatin or concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone with two cycles of bolus cisplatin. A computer-generated randomisation schedule using minimisation was prepared and the treatment assignment was done centrally at one of the study sites. Patients, study staff, and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Stratification factors were WHO performance status, primary disease site, and stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patient accrual was terminated in December, 2008, because of slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095875. FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2004, and Dec 29, 2008, we enrolled 145 patients across 16 sites. After a median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 39-63), 41 patients had died-20 in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group and 21 in the chemoradiotherapy alone group. 3-year overall survival was 73% (95% CI 60-82) in the induction therapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group and 78% (66-86) in the chemoradiotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·59-2·03; p=0·77). More patients had febrile neutropenia in the induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy group (16 patients) than in the chemoradiotherapy alone group (one patient). INTERPRETATION: Although survival results were good in both groups there was no difference noted between those patients treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and those who received chemoradiotherapy alone. We cannot rule out the possibility of a difference in survival going undetected due to early termination of the trial. Clinicians should still use their best judgment, based on the available data, in the decision of how to best treat patients. The addition of induction chemotherapy remains an appropriate approach for advanced disease with high risk for local or distant failure. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis.

Cixutumumab and temsirolimus for patients with bone and soft-tissue sarcoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have shown synergistic antitumour activity by inhibition of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) and mTOR. The expression of IGF-1R seems to be crucial for this effect. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of the IGF-1R antibody cixutumumab and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with chemotherapy-refractory bone and soft-tissue sarcomas according to IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study in 19 cancer centres in the USA. Patients aged at least 16 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of bone or soft-tissue sarcoma were allocated on the basis of IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry to one of three treatment groups: IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma (group A), IGF-1R-positive bone sarcomas (group B), or IGF-1R-negative bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (group C). Patients received weekly treatment with cixutumumab (6 mg/kg, intravenous) and temsirolimus (25 mg, intravenous flat dose) in 6-week cycles. A Simon optimal two-stage design was used for every arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks by intention-to-treat analysis in the first 54 patients assigned to every treatment arm. Although patients still remain on treatment, this trial has completed enrolment and this represents the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016015. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2009, and April 11, 2012, 388 patients were screened for IGF-1R expression and 54 were assigned to each arm. 17 of 54 patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (31%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 21%; two-sided 90% CI 21-43), 19 of 54 in IGF-1R-positive bone sarcoma group (35%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 24%; two-sided 90% CI 24-47), and 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; two-sided 90% CI 28-51) were progression free at 12 weeks. On April 6, 2011, the protocol was amended to include three additional patients in the IGF-1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (total of 57 patients) and nine more in the IGF-1R-negative group (total of 63 patients). There were 2546 adverse events reported during the study, 214 (8%) of which were grade 3-4. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities in the 174 treated patients were anaemia in 16 (9%) patients, hyperglycaemia in 18 (10%), hypophosphataemia in 16 (9%), lymphopenia in 25 (14%), oral mucositis in 19 (11%), and thrombocytopenia in 19 (11%). INTERPRETATION: The combination of cixutumumab and temsirolimus shows clinical activity in patients with sarcoma and forms a basis for future trials. However, IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry is not predictive of clinical outcome after treatment with this combination. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and CycleforSurvival Fund, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Targeting Dendritic Cell Dysfunction to Circumvent Anti-PD1 Resistance in Head and Neck Cancer.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant anti-PD1 (aPD1) therapies are being explored in surgically resectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Encouraging responses have been observed, but further insights into the mechanisms underlying resistance and approaches to improve responses are needed. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We integrated data from syngeneic mouse oral carcinoma (MOC) models and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab HNSCC patient tumor RNA-sequencing data to explore the mechanism of aPD1 resistance. Tumors and tumor-draining lymph nodes (DLN) from MOC models were analyzed for antigen-specific priming. CCL5 expression was enforced in an aPD1-resistant model. RESULTS: An aPD1-resistant mouse model showed poor priming in the tumor DLN due to type 1 conventional dendritic cell (cDC1) dysfunction, which correlated with exhausted and poorly responsive antigen-specific T cells. Tumor microenvironment analysis also showed decreased cDC1 in aPD1-resistant tumors compared with sensitive tumors. Following neoadjuvant aPD1 therapy, pathologic responses in patients also positively correlated with baseline transcriptomic cDC1 signatures. In an aPD1-resistant model, intratumoral cDC1 vaccine was sufficient to restore aPD1 response by enhancing T-cell infiltration and increasing antigen-specific responses with improved tumor control. Mechanistically, CCL5 expression significantly correlated with neoadjuvant aPD1 response and enforced expression of CCL5 in an aPD1-resistant model, enhanced cDC1 tumor infiltration, restored antigen-specific responses, and recovered sensitivity to aPD1 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the contribution of tumor-infiltrating cDC1 in HNSCC aPD1 response and approaches to enhance cDC1 infiltration and function that may circumvent aPD1 resistance in patients with HNSCC.

Trends in ototoxicity monitoring among cisplatin-treated patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to characterize patterns in ototoxicity monitoring and identify potential barriers to audiologic follow-up. METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective cohort study on adult (≥ 18 years old) cancer patients treated with cisplatin from January 2014 to September 2021. Our primary outcomes were rates of baseline and post-treatment audiograms at the following time points: 3, 6, 12, and greater than 12 months. Time-to-event analyses were performed to describe additional insights to ototoxicity monitoring patterns. RESULTS: Nine hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were included for analysis. The most common primary cancer sites were head and neck (64%), followed by cervical (24%). Three hundred seventy-three patients (39%) underwent baseline audiometric assessment, 38 patients (4%) received audiologic evaluation during chemotherapy, and 346 patients (36%) obtained at least one post-treatment audiogram. Audiologic follow-up was greatest within 3 months of completing chemotherapy (26%), but this tapered dramatically to less than 10% at every other post-treatment time point. Patients with head and neck cancer achieved higher rates of audiologic follow-up at every time point than patients with non-head and neck cancer except for during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ototoxicity monitoring is an inconsistent practice, particularly during chemotherapy and for long-term surveillance of hearing loss. Patients with non-head and neck cancer may be at increased risk for loss of audiologic follow-up. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cisplatin ototoxicity is a common occurrence that can be effectively managed with auditory rehabilitation. Therefore, referrals to audiology and counseling on treatment-related ototoxicity are recommended throughout chemotherapy and cancer survivorship.