Final analysis of phase II results with cemiplimab in metastatic basal cell carcinoma after hedgehog pathway inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) is a rare condition with no effective second-line treatment options. Cemiplimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor that blocks the binding of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) to its ligands, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death-ligand 2 (PD-L2). Here, we present the final analysis of cemiplimab in patients with mBCC after first-line hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) treatment (NCT03132636). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm, phase II study, adults with mBCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, post-HHI treatment, received cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤93 weeks or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Duration of response (DOR) was a key secondary endpoint. Other secondary endpoints were ORR per investigator assessment, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), complete response rate, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled: 70% were male and the median age of patients was 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 57.0-73.0] years. The median duration of follow-up was 8 months (IQR 4-21 months). The ORR per ICR was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 36%], with 2 complete responses and 10 partial responses. Among responders, the median time to response per ICR was 3 months (IQR 2-7 months). The estimated median DOR per ICR was not reached [95% CI 10 months-not evaluable (NE)]. The disease control rate was 63% (95% CI 49% to 76%) per ICR and 70% (95% CI 56% to 82%) per investigator assessment. The median PFS per ICR was 10 months (95% CI 4-16 months); the median OS was 50 months (95% CI 28 months-NE). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue [23 (43%)] and diarrhoea [20 (37%)]. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Cemiplimab demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumour activity, including durable responses, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with mBCC who had disease progression on or intolerance to HHI therapy.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: EAGLE, a randomized, open-label phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w × 4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n = 247), or SoC (n = 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.08; P = 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85-1.26; P = 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9-43.1), 30.4% (24.7-36.3), and 30.5% (24.7-36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade ≥3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

Personalized biomarker-based treatment strategy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EORTC position and approach.

The molecular landscape of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and the neck (SCCHN) has been characterized and actionable or targetable genomic alterations have been identified. However, targeted therapies have very limited activity in unselected SCCHN, and the current treatment strategy is still based on tumor location and disease stage and not on tumor biology. Trying to select upfront the patients who will benefit from a specific treatment might be a way to improve patients' outcome. With the objective of optimizing the activity of targeted therapies and immunotherapy, we have designed an umbrella biomarker-driven study dedicated to recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN patients (EORTC-1559-HNCG, NCT03088059). In this article, we review not only the different trial designs for biomarker-driven studies with their respective advantages and opportunities but also the potential pitfalls that led to the design of the EORTC-1559-HNCG protocol. We also discuss the scientific and logistic challenges of biomarker-driven trials.

Activity and safety of afatinib in a window preoperative EORTC study in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

Background: To investigate the activity and safety of afatinib in the preoperative treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Patients and methods: This study was an open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase II window of opportunity trial. Treatment-naïve SCCHN patients selected for primary curative surgery were randomized (5 : 1 ratio) to receive afatinib during 14 days (day -15 until day -1) before surgery (day 0) or no treatment. Tumor biopsies, 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were carried out at diagnosis and just before surgery. The primary end point was metabolic FDG-PET response (according to EORTC guidelines). Other end points included response assessment based on the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, diffusion weighted (DW)-MRI, safety, and translational research (TR). Results: Thirty patients were randomized: 25 to afatinib and 5 to control arm. Of the 23 eligible patients randomized to afatinib, 16 (70%; 95% CI: 47% to 87%) patients had a partial metabolic FDG-PET response (PMR). Five patients (22%; 95% CI: 8% to 44%) showed a partial response by RECISTv1.1. Responses assessed via DCE-MRI and DWI-MRI did not show a strong association with PMR or RECIST. One patient discontinued afatinib after 11 days for grade 3 diarrhea with subsequent renal failure and 24 days delay in surgery. No grade 4 toxicities or surgical comorbidities related to afatinib were reported. TR results indicated that PMR was more frequent in the tumors with high Cluster3-hypoxia score expression and with TP53 wild type. Conclusion: Afatinib given for 2 weeks to newly diagnosed SCCHN patients induces a high rate of FDG-PET partial metabolic response and partial response according to RECISTv1.1. Afatinib can be safely administered before surgery. Although exploratory, the hypoxic gene signature needs further investigations as a predictive biomarker of afatinib activity. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538381.

TPF plus cetuximab induction chemotherapy followed by biochemoradiation with weekly cetuximab plus weekly cisplatin or carboplatin: a randomized phase II EORTC trial.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to test the safety of cetuximab added to chemoradiation with either cisplatin or carboplatin after prior induction chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage III/IV unresectable, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck received up to four cycles of TPF-E (cisplatin and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 followed by 5-FU 750 mg/m2/day as a continuous infusion on days 1-5 plus cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by a weekly dose of 250 mg/m2), with prophylactic antibiotics but no growth factors. Patients not progressing after four cycles of TPF-E were randomly assigned to radiotherapy (70 Gy over 7 weeks in 2 Gy fractions) and weekly cetuximab with either weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m2 or carboplatin, AUC of 1.5 mg/ml/min. Primary endpoint was feasibility. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were recruited. One patient did not start TPF (hypersensitivity reaction during the cetuximab loading dose). Induction TPF-E was discontinued in 12 patients due to toxicity (6 patients), medical decision (2), death (1), patient refusal (1), protocol violation (1), co-morbidity (1). Three further patients were not randomized [progressive disease (1), protocol violation (1), toxicity and co-morbidity (1)]. Of particular interest are three patients who suffered from bowel perforation, one patient who died as results of pneumonia and septic shock, and a second patient who was found dead at home 12 days after starting TPF-E (cause of death unknown). Weekly cisplatin and carboplatin was stopped early in seven and four patients, respectively. Radiotherapy was stopped in two patients with cisplatin and interrupted in one patient with cisplatin and four patients with carboplatin. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to full dose TPF induction chemotherapy led to unacceptable complications and premature closing of the study. Only 34 out of 46 patients completed four cycles of TPF-E and only 30 started biochemoradiation.

A randomized, phase 2 study of cetuximab plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: B490 (EudraCT# 2011-002564-24) is a randomized, phase 2b, noninferiority study investigating the efficacy and safety of first-line cetuximab plus cisplatin with/without paclitaxel (CetCis versus CetCisPac) in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had confirmed R/M SCCHN (oral cavity/oropharynx/larynx/hypopharynx/paranasal sinus) and no prior therapy for R/M disease. Cetuximab was administered on day 1 (2-h infusion, 400 mg/m2), then weekly (1-h infusions, 250 mg/m2). Cisplatin was given as a 1-h infusion (CetCis arm: 100 mg/m2; CetCisPac arm: 75 mg/m2) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-h infusion (175 mg/m2) on day 1 of each cycle. After six cycles, maintenance cetuximab was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We assumed a noninferiority margin of 1.40 as compatible with efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to each regimen; 191 were assessable. PFS with CetCis (median, 6 months) was noninferior to PFS with CetCisPac (median, 7 months) [HR for CetCis versus CetCisPac 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72-1.36, P = 0.906; margin of noninferiority (90% CI of 1.4) not reached]. Median overall survival was 13 versus 11 months (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53-1.11, P = 0.117). The overall response rates were 41.8% versus 51.7%, respectively (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.38-1.20, P = 0.181). Grade ≥3 adverse event rates were 76% and 73% for CetCis versus CetCisPac, respectively, while grade 4 toxicities were lower in the two-drug versus three-drug arm (14% versus 33%, P = 0.015). No toxic death or sepsis were reported and cardiac events were negligible (1%). CONCLUSION: The two-drug CetCis regimen proved to be noninferior in PFS to a three-drug combination with CetCisPac. The median OS of both regimens is comparable with that observed in EXTREME, while the life-threatening toxicity rate appeared reduced. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: EudraCT# 2011-002564-24.

Overall survival analysis of EXAM, a phase III trial of cabozantinib in patients with radiographically progressive medullary thyroid carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Primary analysis of the double-blind, phase III Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival with cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with progressive medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Final analysis of overall survival (OS), a key secondary endpoint, was carried out after long-term follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EXAM compared cabozantinib with placebo in 330 patients with documented radiographic progression of metastatic MTC. Patients were randomized (2:1) to cabozantinib (140 mg/day) or placebo. Final OS and updated safety data are reported. RESULTS: Minimum follow-up was 42 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 5.5-month increase in median OS with cabozantinib versus placebo (26.6 versus 21.1 months) although the difference did not reach statistical significance [stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.12; P = 0.24]. In an exploratory assessment of OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate, cabozantinib appeared to have a larger treatment effect in patients with RET M918T mutation-positive tumors compared with patients not harboring this mutation. For patients with RET M918T-positive disease, median OS was 44.3 months for cabozantinib versus 18.9 months for placebo [HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94; P = 0.03 (not adjusted for multiple subgroup analyses)], with corresponding values of 20.2 versus 21.5 months (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70-1.82; P = 0.63) in the RET M918T-negative subgroup. Median treatment duration was 10.8 months with cabozantinib and 3.4 months with placebo. The safety profile for cabozantinib remained consistent with that of the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: The secondary end point was not met in this final OS analysis from the trial of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic, radiographically progressive MTC. A statistically nonsignificant increase in OS was observed for cabozantinib compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggest that patients with RET M918T-positive tumors may experience a greater treatment benefit with cabozantinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00704730.

Evaluation of the impact of tumor HPV status on outcome in patients with locally advanced unresectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) receiving cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil with or without docetaxel: a subset analysis of EORTC 24971 study.

BACKGROUND: EORTC 24971 was a phase III trial demonstrating superiority of induction regimen TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil) over PF (cisplatin/5-fluorouracil), in terms of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in locoregionally advanced unresectable head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data aiming to evaluate whether only HPV(-) patients (pts) benefit from adding docetaxel to PF, in which case deintensifying induction treatment in HPV(+) pts could be considered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pretherapy tumor biopsies (blocks or slides) were assessed for high-risk HPV by p16 immunohistochemistry, PCR and quantitative PCR. HPV-DNA+ and/or p16+ tumors were subjected to in situ hybridization (ISH) and HPV E6 oncogene expression qRT-PCR analysis. Primary and secondary objectives were to evaluate the value of HPV/p16 status as predictive factor of treatment benefit in terms of PFS and OS. The predictive effect was analyzed based on the model used in the primary analysis of the study with the addition of a treatment by marker interaction term and tested at two-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: Of 358, 119 pts had available tumor samples and 58 of them had oropharyngeal cancer. Median follow-up was 8.7 years. Sixteen of 119 (14%) evaluable samples were p16+ and 20 of 79 (25%) evaluable tumors were HPV-DNA+. 13 of 40 pts (33%) assessed with HPV-DNA ISH and 12 of 28 pts (43%) assessed for HPV E6 mRNA were positive. The preplanned analysis showed no statistical evidence of predictive value of HPV/p16 status for PFS (P = 0.287) or OS (P = 0.118). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of HPV positivity was low in the subset of EORTC 24971 pts analyzed. In this analysis only powered to detect a large treatment by marker interaction, there was no statistical evidence that treatment effect found overall was different in magnitude in HPV(+) or HPV(-) pts. These results do not justify selection of TPF versus PF according to HPV status.

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1) trial, second-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Here, we evaluated association of prespecified biomarkers with efficacy outcomes in LUX-H&N1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized patients with R/M HNSCC and progression following ≥2 cycles of platinum therapy received afatinib (40 mg/day) or methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week). Tumor/serum samples were collected at study entry for patients who volunteered for inclusion in biomarker analyses. Tumor biomarkers, including p16 (prespecified subgroup; all tumor subsites), EGFR, HER2, HER3, c-MET and PTEN, were assessed using tissue microarray cores and slides; serum protein was evaluated using the VeriStrat® test. Biomarkers were correlated with efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Of 483 randomized patients, 326 (67%) were included in the biomarker analyses; baseline characteristics were consistent with the overall study population. Median PFS favored afatinib over methotrexate in patients with p16-negative [2.7 versus 1.6 months; HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.50-0.97)], EGFR-amplified [2.8 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.53 (0.33-0.85)], HER3-low [2.8 versus 1.8 months; HR 0.57 (0.37-0.88)], and PTEN-high [1.6 versus 1.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.29-1.05)] tumors. Afatinib also improved PFS in combined subsets of patients with p16-negative and EGFR-amplified tumors [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.47 (0.28-0.80)], and patients with p16-negative tumors who were EGFR therapy-naïve [4.0 versus 2.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.31-0.98)]. PFS was improved in afatinib-treated patients who were VeriStrat 'Good' versus 'Poor' [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.71 (0.49-0.94)], but no treatment interaction was observed. Afatinib improved tumor response versus methotrexate in all subsets analyzed except for those with p16-positive disease (n = 35). CONCLUSIONS: Subgroups of HNSCC patients who may achieve increased benefit from afatinib were identified based on prespecified tumor biomarkers (p16-negative, EGFR-amplified, HER3-low, PTEN-high). Future studies are warranted to validate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01345682.

Best practice guidelines in the psychosocial management of HPV-related head and neck cancer: recommendations from the European Head and Neck Cancer Society's Make Sense Campaign.

Over the past three decades, oral human papillomavirus (HPV) has been associated with an increase in the incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) in several countries. Specialist oncologists in head and neck cancer are observing a wider range of demographics, sexual behaviours, and survival outcomes with their patients. Additionally, there are fewer smokers, consumers of alcohol, or people of lower socioeconomic status than in previous decades. In order to support patients, the European Head and Neck Society's Make Sense Campaign aims to promote best practice in the management of head and neck cancer through the delivery of counselling, psychological assessment, support with the patient experience following HPV-related cancer diagnosis, sexual impact (in terms of communication, behaviour and prevention), facilitating access to educational resources about HPV in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and OPSCC, and early referral if necessary. New concerns about psychosocial distress and unmet psychosocial needs following diagnosis, therefore, exist throughout the disease and treatment periods. Oncologists treating patients with HPV-related head and neck cancer must integrate new parameters focused on infection risk transmission and sexual topics. The development and dissemination of best practice guidelines through The European Head and Neck Cancer Society Make Sense Campaign will help healthcare professionals to be more confident and resourceful in supporting patients with HPV-related head and neck cancer.

Afatinib versus methotrexate in older patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis of the LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and <65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day oral afatinib or 40 mg/m(2)/week intravenous methotrexate. PFS was the primary end point; overall survival (OS) was the key secondary end point. Other end points included: objective response rate (ORR), patient-reported outcomes, tumor shrinkage, and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 483 randomized patients, 27% (83 afatinib; 45 methotrexate) were aged ≥65 years (older) and 73% (239 afatinib; 116 methotrexate) <65 years (younger) at study entry. Similar PFS benefit with afatinib versus methotrexate was observed in older {median 2.8 versus 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.03], P = 0.061} and younger patients [2.6 versus 1.6 months, HR = 0.79 (0.62-1.01), P = 0.052]. In older and younger patients, the median OS with afatinib versus methotrexate was 7.3 versus 6.4 months [HR = 0.84 (0.54-1.31)] and 6.7 versus 6.2 months [HR = 0.98 (0.76-1.28)]. ORRs with afatinib versus methotrexate were 10.8% versus 6.7% and 10.0% versus 5.2%; DCRs were 53.0% versus 37.8% and 47.7% versus 38.8% in older and younger patients, respectively. In both subgroups, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were rash/acne (73%-77%) and diarrhea (70%-80%) with afatinib, and stomatitis (43%) and fatigue (31%-34%) with methotrexate. Fewer treatment-related discontinuations were observed with afatinib (each subgroup 7% versus 16%). A trend toward improved time to deterioration of global health status, pain, and swallowing with afatinib was observed in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing age (≥65 years) did not adversely affect clinical outcomes or safety with afatinib versus methotrexate in second-line R/M HNSCC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01345682 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS: Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT00869310.

Italian version of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory--Head and Neck Module: linguistic validation.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients can experience symptoms due to the tumor itself or to the treatment, with an impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures pertaining to HRQoL are used in medical research and to support clinical decisions. PRO instrument applicability and cultural adaptation must be tested for each population. The aim of this study is to linguistically validate the Italian translation of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory--Head and Neck Module (MDASI-HN). METHODS: Following forward and backward translation of the items of the English MDASI-HN into Italian, it was administered along with a cognitive debriefing to HNC patients able to read and understand Italian language. Individual and group responses are presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From May 2013 through September 2013, 56 patients with HNC (18 during curative treatment, 20 in palliative chemotherapy, and 18 in follow-up period) completed the MDASI-HN followed by accompanying cognitive debriefing. Ninety-nine percent of the individual MDASI-HN items were completed. Average time to complete the MDASI-HN was 8.5 min (range 3-15). Results suggested overall ease of completion, relevance, and comprehensibleness of this translated self-report instrument in this Italian patient population. CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of the MDASI-HN is linguistically valid; future research should explore dimensionality, reliability, and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of this patient-reported instrument, in order to use this translated version in outcomes research and clinical settings.

Comprehensive gene expression meta-analysis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma microarray data defines a robust survival predictor.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma refers to a heterogeneous disease frequently aggressive in its biologic behavior. Despite the improvements in the therapeutic modalities, the long-term survival rate remained unchanged over the past decade and patients with this type of cancer are at a high risk of developing recurrence. For this reason, there is a great need to find better ways to foresee outcome, to improve treatment choices, and to enable a more personalized approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine microarray gene expression datasets, reporting survival data of a total of 841 samples, were retrieved from publicly repositories. Three datasets, profiled on the same version of microarray chips, were selected and merged following a meta-analysis approach to build a training set. The remaining six studies were used as independent validation sets. RESULTS: The training set led us to identify a 172-gene signature able to stratify patients in low or high risk of relapse [log-rank, P = 2.44e-05; hazard ratio (HR) = 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58-3.76]. The model based on the 172 genes was validated on the six independent datasets. The performance of the model was challenged against other proposed prognostic signatures (radiosensitivity index, 13-gene oral squamous cell carcinoma signature, hypoxia metagene, 42-gene high-risk signature) and was compared with a human papillomavirus (HPV) signature: our model resulted independent and even better in prediction. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified and validated a prognostic model based on the expression of 172 genes, independent from HPV status and able to improve assessment of patient's risk of relapse compared with other molecular signatures. In order to transpose our model into a useful clinical grade assay, additional work is needed following the framework established by the Institute of Medicine and REMARK guidelines.

Preoperative chemotherapy in advanced resectable OCSCC: long-term results of a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on preoperative chemotherapy in resectable oral cavity cancer are conflicting. We present the long-term results of a randomized trial of induction chemotherapy in resectable oral cavity cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, parallel, multicentre trial evaluated the impact of three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 (120-h infusion administered every 21 days) in stage T2-T4, N0-N2, previously untreated patients with advanced disease. Control group received upfront surgery. Postoperative radiation was offered to both arms when pathologic risk features were identified. The co-primary end points were the occurrence of locoregional or distant tumour relapse, and death. RESULTS: Among the 198 enrolled patients, with a median follow-up of 11.5 years, there was no difference in the incidence of locoregional relapse between chemotherapy and control group (P=0.6337), nor in distant metastasis development (P=0.1527). There was also no difference between groups in overall survival (P=0.3402). Patients with a pathological complete response (pCR) had higher probability of survival than those without (10-year OS: 76.2% versus 41.3%, P=0.0004). Late toxicities in patients with a minimum follow-up of 60 months (42 in each group) were similar between arms, except from fibrosis (cumulative incidence 40% versus 22% in chemotherapy arm) and grade 2 dysphagia (14% versus 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of this randomized trial confirmed the absence of survival benefit with preoperative chemotherapy in oral cavity cancer. Late toxicity was similar in the two arms except for fibrosis and dysphagia, which were less in the chemotherapy arm. The survival benefit for patients achieving a pCR was maintained.

Impact of tumor HPV status on outcome in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck receiving chemotherapy with or without cetuximab: retrospective analysis of the phase III EXTREME trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumor human papillomavirus (HPV) status is an important prognostic factor in locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Prognostic value in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) disease remains to be confirmed. This retrospective analysis of the EXTREME trial, comparing chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy first line in R/M SCCHN, investigated efficacy and prognosis according to tumor p16 and HPV status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Paired tissue samples were used: p16INK4A expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry, and HPV status determined in extracted DNA samples using oligonucleotide hybridization assays. RESULTS: Altogether, 416 of 442 patients had tumor samples available for p16 and HPV: 10% of tumors were p16 positive and 5% were HPV positive. Adding cetuximab to chemotherapy improved survival, irrespective of tumor p16 or HPV status. This pattern remained in a combined analysis of p16 and HPV. p16 positivity and HPV positivity were associated with prolonged survival compared with p16 negativity and HPV negativity. Subgroup analysis of patients with oropharyngeal cancer demonstrated a similar pattern to all evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: The results from this analysis suggest that p16 and HPV status have prognostic value in R/M SCCHN and survival benefits of chemotherapy plus cetuximab over chemotherapy alone are independent of tumor p16 and HPV status.

Best practices in the management of the psycho-oncologic aspects of head and neck cancer patients: recommendations from the European Head and Neck Cancer Society Make Sense Campaign.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is considered a worldwide health care problem. The majority of patients have a history of alcohol abuse and high-level tobacco consumption; however, SCCHN is also associated with exposure to viruses including human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus. A major problem facing SCCHN patients is that their disease is often diagnosed at an advanced stage where treatment options may not be curative, or can have severe post-treatment consequences. Confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options, the patient can express a range of emotional reactions which may lead to maladaptive coping. During the SCCHN patient journey, there are a number of stages where emotional support could be offered. A point of contact should be allocated to help patients navigate these stages and deliver practical emotive support (such as encouraging attendance at hospital appointments, compliance with lifestyle modifications and treatment adherence), and to identify if or when more advanced emotive support, in the form of a mental health professional, might be needed. This role might be carried out by a representative within the multidisciplinary health care team (e.g. a nurse). While optimal care is provided by specialist health care professionals, each with specific roles and responsibilities during the patient journey, all are important in screening for emotional distress and providing referral to the mental health team. This article reviews the key points for delivering emotional support to SCCHN patients at each stage of their care. Emotional problems cannot be ignored in SCCHN patients if optimal outcomes are to be achieved, particularly as therapeutic options extend overall survival for many patients. Health care professionals must be able to implement efficient screening for psychological distress to support patient's compliance to their care and treatment. They must also be able to recognize when to refer patients at risk for pharmacological and/or psychotherapeutic interventions.