Phase 2, open-label, 1:1 randomized controlled trial exploring the efficacy of EMD 1201081 in combination with cetuximab in second-line cetuximab-naïve patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).

AIM: To determine whether EMD 1201081, a TLR9 agonist, added to cetuximab had antitumor activity in second-line recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS: This was a phase 2, open-label, randomized trial of EMD 1201081 0.32 mg/kg subcutaneously weekly plus cetuximab (combination) vs cetuximab monotherapy (control) in cetuximab-naïve patients with R/M SCCHN who progressed on 1 cytotoxic regimen. Crossover to combination was permitted after progression. RESULTS: Objective response rate in both arms was 5.7% (95% CI 1.2-15.7%) by independent assessment. Disease control was 37.7% for patients on combination (24.8-52.1%) and 43.4% on control (29.8-57.7%). Neither independent nor investigator assessments showed significant differences between study arms. Median progression-free survival was 1.5 months (1.3-2.6) for patients on combination, and 1.9 months (1.5-2.9) on control. The most frequent adverse events in the combination arm were rash (29.6%), acneiform dermatitis (22.2%), and injection site reactions (20.4%). Grade 3/4 dyspnea and hypokalemia were more frequent with cetuximab monotherapy (7.5% and 5.7% vs 1.9% each, respectively), and grade 3/4 respiratory failure and disease progression were more frequent with combination (5.6% each vs 1.9% each). CONCLUSION: EMD 1201081 was well tolerated combined with cetuximab, but there was no incremental clinical efficacy.

Cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab (PFE) with or without cilengitide in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: results of the randomized phase I/II ADVANTAGE trial (phase II part).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M-SCCHN) overexpresses αvß5 integrin. Cilengitide selectively inhibits αvß3 and αvß5 integrins and is investigated as a treatment strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase I/II study ADVANTAGE evaluated cilengitide combined with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab (PFE) in R/M-SCCHN. The phase II part reported here was an open-label, randomized, controlled trial investigating progression-free survival (PFS). Patients received up to six cycles of PFE alone or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg once (CIL1W) or twice (CIL2W) weekly. Thereafter, patients received maintenance therapy (cilengitide arms: cilengitide plus cetuximab; PFE-alone arm: cetuximab only) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-two patients were treated. Median PFS per investigator read was similar for CIL1W + PFE, CIL2W + PFE, and PFE alone (6.4, 5.6, and 5.7 months, respectively). Accordingly, median overall survival and objective response rates were not improved with cilengitide (12.4 months/47%, 10.6 months/27%, and 11.6 months/36%, respectively). No clinically meaningful safety differences were observed between groups. None of the tested biomarkers (expression of integrins, CD31, Ki-67, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, vascular endothelial-cadherin, type IV collagen, epidermal growth factor receptor, or p16 for human papillomavirus) were predictive of outcome. CONCLUSION: Neither of the cilengitide-containing regimens demonstrated a PFS benefit over PFE alone in R/M-SCCHN patients.

Evaluation of EGFR gene copy number as a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EXTREME study.

BACKGROUND: The phase III EXTREME study demonstrated that combining cetuximab with platinum/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) compared with platinum/5-FU alone. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate elevated tumor EGFR gene copy number as a predictive biomarker in EXTREME study patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dual-color FISH was used to determine absolute and relative EGFR copy number. Models of differing stringencies were used to score and investigate whether increased copy number was predictive for the activity of cetuximab plus platinum/5-FU. RESULTS: Tumors from 312 of 442 patients (71%) were evaluable by FISH and met the criteria for statistical analysis. A moderate increase in EGFR copy number was common, with high-level amplification of the gene occurring in a small fraction of tumors (∼11%). Considering each of the models tested, no association of EGFR copy number with overall survival, progression-free survival or best overall response was found for patients treated with cetuximab plus platinum/5-FU. CONCLUSION: Tumor EGFR copy number is not a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of cetuximab plus platinum/5-FU as first-line therapy for patients with R/M SCCHN.

[Quality assurance, audit and quality control of radiotherapy at radiology departments in Hungary]. / A magyarországi sugárterápiás osztályok minöségbiztosítási, számvetési és minöségellenörzési rendszere.

The first quality assurance, audit and control system in the Hungarian "'health" care industry" is described for the medical specialty of radiotherapy. The prerequisites of the elaboration of the programme were an exact knowledge of the current Hungarian infrastructural and staffing conditions, and the radiotherapeutic activities. The recommendations cover the 5 medical universities including the national institute (the Debrecen, Pécs, Semmelweis, Szent-Györgyk Albert Medical Universities, and Haynal Imre University of Health Sciences) and the 5 regional oncological centres in hospitals (Jósa András, Markusovszky, Petz Aladár, Szentpéteri kapu and Uzsoki Hospitals). The departmental functions (patient care, teaching-education, research work and scientific organizing activity) and the structure (organization, infrastructure, staffing conditions, etc.) are described first, followed by the therapeutic principles and clinical process (patient referral and selection, decision-making, priorities in therapy initiation, treatment preparation and execution, etc.). The informal daily/weekly quality assurance programme long applied in the routine patient care has been formalized and supplemented with a weekly audit conference. In the course of the medical audit, all relevant clinical data are reviewed and scored by an internal or an external expert (not participating directly in the treatment process), e.g. for the adequacy of the medical decision preparative process, conformation to the institutional treatment protocol, equipment selection, treatment planning, simulation and portal film, etc. If a major deviation is detected, an immediate correction is initiated; minor deviations need analysis and then preventive and correcting action. As concern the audit of the other activities of the departments, the important indicators and their minimally desirable level are defined. The final goal of the implementation of this programme is high-precision radiotherapy with the best achievable treatment result.