Safety and Tolerability of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Cancer Patients with HIV (AMC-078), an AIDS Malignancy Consortium (AMC) Study.

BACKGROUND: Persons living with human immunodeficiency virus are an underserved population for evidence-based cancer treatment. Paclitaxel and carboplatin (PCb) is an active regimen against a variety of solid tumors, including several seen in excess in patients with HIV infection. We performed a pilot trial to evaluate the safety of full-dose PCb in people living with human immunodeficiency virus and cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients, stratified by concurrent antiretroviral therapy (ART) that included CYP3A4 inhibitors or not, received paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) in combination with carboplatin (target AUC 6) intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles. RESULTS: Sixteen evaluable patients received 64 cycles of PCb, including 6 patients treated with CYP3A4 inhibiting ART (ritonavir). The adverse event profile was consistent with the known toxicity profile of PCb, with no differences between the 2 strata. There were 4 partial responses (25%, 95% CI: 7%-52%), and overall, CD4+ lymphocyte count was similar after completion of therapy (median: 310/µL) compared with baseline values (median: 389/µL). Pharmacokinetic studies in 6 patients revealed no significant differences in Cmax or AUCinf for paclitaxel between the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSION: Full doses of PCb chemotherapy are tolerable when given concurrently with ART in people living with human immunodeficiency virus with cancer, including patients receiving CYP3A4 inhibitors. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01249443.

Management of locally advanced HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: where are we?

HPV-related (HPV+) oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has a better prognosis compared to HPV unrelated (HPV-) OPC. This review summarizes and discusses several of the controversies regarding the management of HPV+ OPC, including the mechanism of its treatment sensitivity, modern surgical techniques, chemotherapy regimens, and treatment de-intensification protocols. We also discuss and reconsider potential adverse prognostic factors such as tumor EGFR expression, tumor hypoxia, and patient smoking history, as well as the significance of retropharyngeal adenopathy. Finally, we discuss elective nodal treatment of uninvolved lymph node stations. While this review does not exhaust all controversies related to the management of HPV+ OPC, it aims to highlight some of the most clinically relevant ones.

Palliative Reconstruction for the Management of Incurable Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of head and neck cancer is resource intensive and physiologically demanding. In patients with incurable disease, although the indications for surgery are not well defined, palliative benefit can be significant. The goal of this investigation was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent resection and reconstruction of head and neck cancer with curative intent with those who underwent similar procedures with palliative intent. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent reconstruction for head and neck cancer between 2008 and 2014 was conducted. Patients were divided into curative and palliative groups. Outcomes assessed included postoperative complications and survival. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients who underwent 156 operations met inclusion criteria (27 palliative and 129 curative). In both cohorts, the most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and the most common primary tumor site was the oral cavity. There was no significant difference between the cohorts in the rates of systemic and reconstructive complications, postoperative hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, and flap survival. Overall survival in palliative patients was significantly shorter compared with curative patients (median OS, 6.2 months vs. 56.1 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). Among patients undergoing palliative surgery, patients without carotid involvement and those with non-SCC were significantly more likely to have longer survival. CONCLUSION: Surgical resection with reconstruction is possible in head and neck oncologic patients undergoing palliative treatment. Palliative patients have similar short-term outcomes when compared with patients undergoing resection for curative intent. Quality-of-life and economic implications of these approaches deserve closer scrutiny.

Salivary mucoepidermoid carcinoma revisited.

Clinicopathological features, prognosis and therapeutic strategies for mucoepidermoid carcinoma originating in salivary and salivary-type glands of the head and neck are reviewed. We emphasise histopathological aspects, appraise the value of histochemistry, electron microscopy, immunohistochemistry and cytophotometry, and discuss histogenesis and characteristic gene translocations. We additionally consider possible diagnostic difficulties, problems related to histological grading and accuracy of existing literature, and areas of controversy or uncertainty which may benefit from further investigations.

Combined P16 and human papillomavirus testing predicts head and neck cancer survival.

While its prognostic significance remains unclear, p16(INK4a) protein expression is increasingly being used as a surrogate marker for oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). To evaluate the prognostic utility of p16 expression in HNSCC, we prospectively collected 163 primary tumor specimens from histologically confirmed HNSCC patients who were followed for up to 9.4 years. Formalin fixed tumor specimens were tested for p16 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). HPV type-16 DNA and RNA was detected by MY09/11-PCR and E6/E7 RT-PCR on matched frozen tissue, respectively. P16 protein expression was detected more often in oropharyngeal tumors (53%) as compared with laryngeal (24%), hypopharyngeal (8%) or oral cavity tumors (4%; p<0.0001). With respect to prognosis, p16-positive oropharyngeal tumors exhibited significantly better overall survival than p16-negative tumors (log-rank test p=0.04), whereas no survival benefit was observed for nonoropharyngeal tumors. However, when both p16 and HPV DNA test results were considered, concordantly positive nonoropharyngeal tumors had significantly better disease-specific survival than concordantly negative nonoropharyngeal tumors after controlling for sex, nodal stage, tumor size, tumor subsite, primary tumor site number, smoking and drinking [adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.04, 0.01-0.54]. Compared with concordantly negative nonoropharyngeal HNSCC, p16(+)/HPV16(-) nonoropharyngeal HNSCC (n=13, 7%) demonstrated no significant improvement in disease-specific survival when HPV16 was detected by RNA (adjusted HR=0.83, 0.22-3.17). Our findings show that p16 IHC alone has potential as a prognostic test for oropharyngeal cancer survival, but combined p16/HPV testing is necessary to identify HPV-associated nonoropharyngeal HNSCC with better prognosis.

A phase 1/pharmacokinetic study of sunitinib in combination with highly active antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients with cancer: AIDS Malignancy Consortium trial AMC 061.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining cancers may be complicated by drug interactions between highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and chemotherapy. This trial is the first by the AIDS Malignancy Consortium to assess targeted therapies and HAART in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00890747). METHODS: In a modified phase 1 study of sunitinib, patients were stratified into 2 treatment arms based on whether they were receiving therapy with ritonavir, a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor. Patients in treatment arm 1 (non-ritonavir HAART) received standard sunitinib dosing (50 mg/day). Treatment arm 2 (ritonavir-based HAART) used a phase 1, 3 + 3 dose escalation design (from 25 mg/day to 50 mg/day). Cycles were comprised of 4 weeks on treatment followed by a 2-week break (6 weeks total). The pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its active metabolite (N-desethyl sunitinib) were assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled and were evaluable. Patients on treatment arm 1 tolerated treatment with no dose-limiting toxicity observed. In treatment arm 2, a dose-limiting toxicity was experienced at a dose of 37.5 mg, and an additional 3 of 5 patients experienced grade 3 neutropenia (toxicity graded as per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]), an uncommon toxicity of sunitinib. No patient achieved a response, but 10 patients had stable disease, including 8 with prolonged disease stability. Efavirenz, a potent inducer of CYP3A4, resulted in increased exposure of N-desethyl sunitinib, whereas ritonavir caused decreased exposure of the metabolite. Hand-foot syndrome was associated with higher steady-state trough concentrations of sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving non-ritonavir-based HAART regimens tolerated standard dosing of sunitinib. Patients receiving ritonavir-based therapy who were treated with a dose of 37.5 mg/day experienced higher toxicities. Dose reductions of sunitinib to 37.5 mg may be warranted in patients receiving ritonavir.

Causes of death of patients with laryngeal cancer.

Despite remarkable advances in the care of patients with laryngeal cancer over the past several decades, including a growing awareness of therapeutic complications and attention to quality of life, little is known about the causes of mortality in this population. In addition to the laryngeal malignancy itself, acute and late or chronic treatment-associated causes, second primary cancers, intercurrent disease and psychosocial factors are all responsible for patient morbidity and mortality. We examine the current literature related to the causes of death in patients with laryngeal cancer, in the hope of guiding future interventions to improve the longevity and quality of life of individuals with this cancer.

HIV Associated Lung Cancer: Unique Clinicopathologic Features and Immune Biomarkers Impacting Lung Cancer Screening and Management.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in people with HIV (PWH). We study the clinicopathologic characteristics and immune microenvironment in HIV associated lung cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinicopathological characteristics including immunotherapy outcomes were collected for 174 PWH diagnosed with lung cancer. Immunohistochemical staining for PD-L1, CD4, and CD8 was performed. RESULTS: At diagnosis, patients with HIV associated lung cancer were significantly younger (56.9 vs. 69 years, P < .0001) and more frequently had advanced disease (70% vs. 53%, P = .01). The majority were African American (60% vs. 42%, P < .0001) and were smoking at the time of diagnosis or smoked in the past (98% vs. 86%, P = .0001). Only 10% of HIV associated lung cancer was diagnosed through the screening program. The median CD4+ lymphocyte count was 334 cells/µL, 31% had a CD4 ≤200 cells/µL and 63% of the cohort was virally suppressed. HIV associated non-small-cell lung cancer(NSCLC) was characterized by limited PD-L1 expression compared to the HIV negative cohort, 64% vs. 31% had TPS <1%, and 20% vs. 34% had TPS≥50%, respectively (P = .04). Higher CD8+ TILs were detected in PD-L1-high tumors (P < .0001). 50% of patients achieved disease control in the metastatic setting with the use of immunotherapy, and there were no new safety signals in 19 PWH treated with immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer in PWH demonstrates unique features highlighting the need for a specialized screening program. Despite low PD-L1 expression, immunotherapy is well tolerated with reasonable disease control. Altered immune system in lung cancer pathogenesis in PWH should be further investigated.

Current questions in HIV-associated lung cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we explore current questions regarding risk factors contributing to frequent and early onset of lung cancer among populations with HIV infection, treatment, and outcomes of lung cancer in HIV-infected patients as well as challenges in a newly evolving era of lung cancer screening. RECENT FINDINGS: Lung cancer, seen in three-fold excess in HIV-infected populations, has become the most common non-AIDS defining malignancy in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era. HIV-associated lung cancer appears to be associated with young age at diagnosis, cigarette smoking, advanced stage at presentation, and a more aggressive clinical course. There is no unified explanation for these observations, and aside from traditional risk factors, HIV-related immunosuppression and biological differences might play a role. In addition to smoking cessation interventions, screening and early cancer detection in HIV-infected populations are of high clinical importance, although evidence supporting lung cancer screening in this particularly high-risk subset is currently lacking, as are prospective studies of lung cancer therapy. SUMMARY: There is an urgent need for prospective clinical trials in HIV-associated lung cancer to improve understanding of lung cancer pathogenesis and to optimize patient care. Several clinical trials are in progress to address questions in cancer biology, screening, and treatment for this significant cause of mortality in persons with HIV infection.

Follow-up strategies in head and neck cancer other than upper aerodigestive tract squamous cell carcinoma.

Post-therapy follow-up for patients with head and neck cancer other than upper aerodigestive tract squamous cell carcinoma should meet several objectives: to detect both local, regional or distant recurrences, to evaluate acute and long-term treatment-related side effects, to guide the rehabilitation process, and to provide psychosocial support when needed. To our knowledge, there are no published reports in the literature dedicated to the follow-up of patients with these tumours. A comprehensive literature search for post-treatment follow-up strategies spanning from 1980 to 2012 was performed on several databases. This review focuses on malignant salivary gland tumors, soft tissue sarcomas, cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas, and sinonasal adenocarcinomas. Given the varying biological behavior and treatment-related factors and based on the literature, different recommendations are made on the follow-up of patients with the above-mentioned tumors.

Post-therapeutic surveillance strategies in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

The management of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas does not end with the completion of ablative therapy. The oncologic objectives of post-treatment follow-up are to detect recurrences and second primary tumors; beyond that, follow-up should evaluate acute and chronic treatment-related side effects, guide the rehabilitation process, alleviate functional loss, manage pain, restore nutritional status and assess psychosocial factors. In this structured review, we address the questions of timing and the tools required to achieve a complete and coherent routine surveillance. Several guidelines and consensus statements recommend clinical examination as the cornerstone of follow-up which should be performed for at least 5 years, although there are no data in favor of any one particular follow-up program, and only low-level evidence suggests an improvement in oncologic outcomes by close follow-up. Baseline imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) should be obtained within 2-6 months after definitive therapy if used for treatment response evaluation. Metabolic response, if indicated, should be assessed preferably after 3 months in patients who undergo curative-intent therapy with (chemo)-radiotherapy. Chest computed tomography is more sensitive than plain radiography, if used in follow-up, but the benefit and cost-effectiveness of routine chest computed tomography has not been demonstrated. There are no current data supporting modifications specific to the surveillance plan of patients with human papillomavirus-associated disease.

Waiting for Big Changes in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: For Now, More of the Same.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.Concurrent chemoradiotherapy remains central to the treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). SCLC is one of the few tumors treated with twice-daily radiotherapy (RT) in the primary definitive setting, a regimen that was established when Intergroup 0096 demonstrated its superiority over once-daily RT. However, questions remained about the optimal chemoradiotherapy regimen given the low RT dose used in the once-daily RT arm of Intergroup 0096. CALGB 30610/RTOG 0538 and CONVERT attempted to establish whether dose-escalated once-daily RT was superior to twice-daily RT in limited-stage SCLC. Although both studies showed similar survival between treatment regimens, once-daily RT was not found to be superior to twice-daily RT, and trial design limited the ability to conclude dose-escalated once-daily RT as noninferior to twice-daily RT. Thus, twice-daily RT with concurrent chemotherapy remains a standard of care in limited-stage SCLC.

Locally Advanced Lung Cancer.

Consolidation immunotherapy after concurrent chemoradiation has improved five-year survival rates in unresectable, locally advanced lung cancer, but disease progression and treatment personalization remain challenges. New treatment approaches with concurrent immunotherapy and consolidative novel agents are being investigated and show promising efficacy data, but at the risk of additive toxicity. Patients with PD-L1 negative tumors, oncogenic driver mutations, intolerable toxicity, or limited performance status continue to require innovative therapies. This review summarizes historical data that galvanized new research efforts, as well as ongoing clinical trials that address the challenges of current therapeutic approaches for unresectable, locally advanced lung cancer.

Phase I Trial of the Multi-kinase Inhibitor Cabozantinib, a CYP3A4 Substrate, plus CYP3A4-Interacting Antiretroviral Therapy in People Living with HIV and Cancer (AMC-087).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects of cabozantinib, a CYP3A4 substrate, in people living with human immunodeficiency virus and cancer receiving antiretrovirals (ARV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received a reduced dose of cabozantinib (20 mg orally daily) with strong CYP3A4 inhibitors (ARV ritonavir or non-ARV cobicistat, stratum A), or a standard 60 mg dose with ARVs that are CYP3A4 inducers (efavirenz or etravirine, stratum B) or noninteracting ARVs (stratum C). Initial dose escalation in stratum A and stratum B was performed on the basis of tolerability. RESULTS: 36 patients received cabozantinib plus ARVs, including 20 in stratum A, 9 in B, and 7 in C. The recommended initial cabozantinib doses for stratum A, B, and C were 20, 60, and 60 mg, respectively. Doses of 40 or 60 mg plus CYP3A4 inhibitors in stratum A and 100 mg plus CYP3A4 inducers in stratum B were associated with excessive toxicity, whereas 60 mg with noninteracting ARVs was not. The steady state minimal concentrations were lower at 20 mg in stratum A or 60 mg in stratum B compared with 60 mg in stratum C, while total exposure was only lower in 60 mg in stratum B compared with 60 mg in stratum C. Activity was observed in Kaposi sarcoma and an AXL-amplified sarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib as a single agent should be initiated at 20 mg daily and 60 mg daily when taken concurrently with ARVs that are strong CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers, respectively, with consideration for subsequent escalation per current cabozantinib guidelines. See related commentary by Eisenmann and Sparreboom, p. 4999.

Safety and Efficacy of MEDI0457 plus Durvalumab in Patients with Human Papillomavirus-Associated Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Tumoral programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression is common in human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We assessed whether a DNA vaccine targeting HPV-16/18 E6/E7 with IL12 adjuvant (MEDI0457) combined with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab could enhance HPV-specific T-cell response and improve outcomes in recurrent/metastatic HPV-16/18-associated HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase Ib/IIa study, immunotherapy-naïve patients with ≥1 previous platinum-containing regimen (neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy or for recurrent/metastatic disease) received MEDI0457 7 mg intramuscularly with electroporation on weeks 1, 3, 7, and 12, then every 8 weeks, plus durvalumab 1,500 mg intravenously on weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 4 weeks, until confirmed progression and/or unacceptable toxicity. Coprimary objectives were safety and objective response rate (ORR; H0: ORR ≤ 15%); secondary objectives included 16-week disease control rate (DCR-16), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of 35 treated patients, 29 were response evaluable (confirmed HPV-associated disease; received both agents). ORR was 27.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 12.7-47.2; four complete responses, four partial responses]; responses were independent of PD-L1 tumor-cell expression (≥25% vs. <25%). DCR-16 was 44.8% (95% CI, 26.5-64.3). Median PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.9-9.0); median OS was 29.2 months (15.2-not calculable). Twenty-eight (80.0%) patients had treatment-related adverse events [grade 3: 5 (14.3%); no grade 4/5], resulting in discontinuation in 2 (5.7%) patients. HPV-16/18-specific T cells increased on treatment; 4 of 8 evaluable patients had a >2-fold increase in tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells. CONCLUSIONS: MEDI0457 plus durvalumab was well tolerated. While the primary efficacy endpoint was not reached, clinical benefit was encouraging.

Contemporary management of cancer of the oral cavity.

Oral cancer represents a common entity comprising a third of all head and neck malignant tumors. The options for curative treatment of oral cavity cancer have not changed significantly in the last three decades; however, the work up, the approach to surveillance, and the options for reconstruction have evolved significantly. Because of the profound functional and cosmetic importance of the oral cavity, management of oral cavity cancers requires a thorough understanding of disease progression, approaches to management and options for reconstruction. The purpose of this review is to discuss the most current management options for oral cavity cancers.