Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: role, controversy, and future directions.

Background: The value of induction chemotherapy (ICT) remains under investigation despite decades of research. New advancements in the field, specifically regarding the induction regimen of choice, have reignited interest in this approach for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). Sufficient evidence has accumulated regarding the benefits and superiority of TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil) over the chemotherapy doublet cisplatin and fluorouracil. We therefore sought to collate and interpret the available data and further discuss the considerations for delivering ICT safely and optimally selecting suitable post-ICT regimens. Design: We nonsystematically reviewed published phase III clinical trials on TPF ICT in a variety of LA SCCHN patient populations conducted between 1990 and 2017. Results: TPF may confer survival and organ preservation benefits in a subgroup of patients with functionally inoperable or poor-prognosis LA SCCHN. Additionally, patients with operable disease or good prognosis (who are not candidates for organ preservation) may benefit from TPF induction in terms of reducing local and distant failure rates and facilitating treatment deintensification in selected populations. The safe administration of TPF requires treatment by a multidisciplinary team at an experienced institution. The management of adverse events associated with TPF and post-ICT radiotherapy-based treatment is crucial. Finally, post-ICT chemotherapy alternatives to cisplatin concurrent with radiotherapy (i.e. cetuximab or carboplatin plus radiotherapy) appear promising and must be investigated further. Conclusions: TPF is an evidence-based ICT regimen of choice in LA SCCHN and confers benefits in suitable patients when it is administered safely by an experienced multidisciplinary team and paired with the optimal post-ICT regimen, for which, however, no consensus currently exists.

A randomized phase III trial comparing induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as treatment of unresectable head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for patients with unresectable, nonmetastatic locoregionally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN). This randomized, open-label, phase III clinical trial compared the efficacy between standard CCRT and two different induction chemotherapy (ICT) regimens followed by CCRT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated LASCCHN were randomly assigned to ICT (three cycles), with either docetaxel (Taxotere), cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF arm) or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF arm), followed by CCRT [7 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) with cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 22 and 43]; or 7 weeks of CCRT alone. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 439), the median PFS times were 14.6 (95% CI, 11.6-20.4), 14.3 (95% CI, 11.8-19.3) and 13.8 months (95% CI, 11.0-17.5) at TPF-CCRT, PF-CCRT and CCRT arms, respectively (log-rank P = 0.56). The median TTF were 7.9 (95% CI, 5.9-11.8), 7.9 (95% CI, 6.5-11.8) and 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.7-12.6) for TPF-CCRT, PF-CCRT and CCRT alone, respectively (log-rank P = 0.90). There were no statistically significant differences for overall survival (OS). Toxic effects from ICT-CCRT were manageable. CONCLUSION: Overall, this trial failed to show any advantage of ICT-CCRT over CCRT alone in patients with unresectable LASCCHN.

A randomized, phase II study of afatinib versus cetuximab in metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated lung cancer. We hypothesized that the agent would have greater antitumor activity compared with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients, whose disease has progressed after platinum-containing therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label, randomized, phase II trial was conducted in 43 centers; 124 patients were randomized (1 : 1) to either afatinib (50 mg/day) or cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)/week) until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) (stage I), with optional crossover (stage II). The primary end point was tumor shrinkage before crossover assessed by investigator (IR) and independent central review (ICR). RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were treated (61 afatinib, 60 cetuximab) and 68 crossed over to stage II (32 and 36 respectively). In stage I, mean tumor shrinkage by IR/ICR was 10.4%/16.6% with afatinib and 5.4%/10.1% with cetuximab (P = 0.46/0.30). Objective response rate was 16.1%/8.1% with afatinib and 6.5%/9.7% with cetuximab (IR/ICR). Comparable disease control rates were observed with afatinib (50%) and cetuximab (56.5%) by IR; similar results were seen by ICR. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AEs (DRAEs) were rash/acne (18% versus 8.3%), diarrhea (14.8% versus 0%), and stomatitis/mucositis (11.5% versus 0%) with afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Patients with DRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 23% with afatinib and 5% with cetuximab. In stage II, disease control rate (IR/ICR) was 38.9%/33.3% with afatinib and 18.8%/18.8% with cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Afatinib showed antitumor activity comparable to cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in this exploratory phase II trial, although more patients on afatinib discontinued treatment due to AEs. Sequential EGFR/ErbB treatment with afatinib and cetuximab provided sustained clinical benefit in patients after crossover, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance.

Phase II study of the combination of cetuximab and weekly paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a novel combination of weekly paclitaxel and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody cetuximab for the first-line treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) and cetuximab (400/250 mg/m(2)), weekly, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was response rate. RESULTS: Among 46 patients enrolled, the overall response rate was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 39% to 69%], with 10 (22%) complete responses and a disease control rate of 80%. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 4.2 (95% CI 2.9-5.5 months) and 8.1 months (95% CI 6.6-9.6 months), respectively. Common grade 3/4 adverse events were acne-like rash (24%), asthenia (17%) and neutropenia (13%). Prior chemotherapy and the development of acne-like rash were associated with tumor response but not survival. No association between tumor EGFR expression or EGFR gene copy number and response or survival was found. CONCLUSION: The combination of cetuximab and weekly paclitaxel was active and well tolerated by these poor prognosis patients and may be an option for the treatment of medically unfit patients, particularly those for whom platinum is contraindicated.

Effects of lapatinib monotherapy: results of a randomised phase II study in therapy-naive patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib is a dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human EGFR-2 (HER-2) tyrosine kinases. This study investigated the pharmacodynamic and clinical effects of lapatinib in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). METHODS: In total, 107 therapy-naive patients with locally advanced SCCHN were randomised (2 : 1) to receive lapatinib or placebo for 2-6 weeks before chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Endpoints included apoptosis and proliferation rates, clinical response, and toxicity. RESULTS: Versus placebo, lapatinib monotherapy did not significantly increase apoptosis detected by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate-biotin nick-end labelling or caspase-3 assays. A statistically significant decrease in proliferation using Ki67 assay was observed (P=0.030). In a subset of 40 patients that received 4 weeks of lapatinib or placebo, objective response rate (ORR) was 17% (n=4/24) vs 0% (n=0/16). In the lapatinib single-agent responders, all had EGFR overexpression, 50% had EGFR amplification, and 50% had HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry (including one patient with HER2 amplification). However, these patients showed variable modulation of apoptosis, proliferation, and phosphorylated EGFR on drug treatment. Following CRT, there was a statistically non-significant difference in ORR between lapatinib (70%) and placebo (53%). There was no clear correlation between changes in apoptosis or proliferation and response to chemoradiation. Mucosal inflammation, asthenia, odynophagia, and dysphagia were the most commonly reported adverse events with lapatinib. CONCLUSION: Short-term lapatinib monotherapy did not demonstrate apoptotic changes, but provided evidence of clinical activity in locally advanced SCCHN, and warrants further investigation in this disease.

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.

Long-term outcomes of induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy alone as treatment of unresectable head and neck cancer: follow-up of the Spanish Head and Neck Cancer Group (TTCC) 2503 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Our previous phase-3 study (TTCC 2503) failed to show overall survival advantage of 2 induction chemotherapy (IC) regimens followed by standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) over CRT alone in patients with unresectable locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC). This study described the long-term survival of those patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term follow-up study of patients with untreated LAHNSCC assigned to IC (three cycles), with either docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF arm) or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF arm), followed by CRT, or CRT alone, included in the previous TTCC 2503 trial. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (n = 439), the median OS times were 25.4 (95% CI, 16.8-34.4), 26.2 (95% CI, 18.2-36.6) and 25.4 months (95% CI, 17.4-36.0) in the TPF-CRT, PF-CRT and CRT arms, respectively (log-rank p = 0.51). In the per-protocol population (n = 355), patients with larynx-hypopharynx primary tumors treated with IC (TPF or PF) followed by CRT had a longer median PFS than those who received CRT alone. Moreover, patients with ECOG 0 treated with IC (TPF or PF) followed by CRT had a better TTF than those with CRT alone. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of OS, PFS or TTF, according to the tumor load or affected nodes. CONCLUSION: After a long follow-up, the TTCC 2503 trial failed to show the benefit of IC-CRT in unresectable LAHNSCC regarding the primary end point. However, fit patients with ECOG 0 and primary larynx-hypopharyngeal tumors may benefit from the use of IC if administered by an experienced team. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00261703.

Phase II study of capecitabine as palliative treatment for patients with recurrent and metastatic squamous head and neck cancer after previous platinum-based treatment.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based therapy (PBT) is the standard therapy for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC), but the incidence of recurrence remains high. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine as palliative monotherapy for recurrent HNC previously treated with PBT. METHODS: Patients aged 18-75 years, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, squamous HNC with locoregional and/or metastatic recurrence previously treated with PBT and adequate organ functions, were included. Capecitabine (1.250 mg m(-2) BID) was administered on days 1-14 every 21 days for at least two cycles. RESULTS: A total of 40 male patients with a median age of 58 years were analysed. All patients received a median number of four cycles of capecitabine (range: 1-9) and the median relative dose intensity was 91%. Seven patients were not evaluable for response. Overall response rate was 24.2%. Median time to progression and overall survival were 4.8 and 7.3 months, respectively. Haematological adverse events (AEs) grade 3/4 were reported in six patients. Most common grade 3/4 non-haematological AEs were asthenia (12.5%), palmar-plantar eritrodisestesia (10%), mucositis (10%), dysphagia (10%) and diarrhoea (7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine seems to be an active, feasible and well-tolerated mode of palliative treatment for advanced HNC patients who have previously received PBT schedules.

Quality of life of patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab first line for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: A phase III trial demonstrated that cetuximab is the first agent in 30 years to improve survival when added to platinum-based chemotherapy (platinum-fluorouracil) first line for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). This analysis of the trial assessed the impact of treatment on quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ-Head and Neck 35 (QLQ-H&N35) module were used to assess QoL. RESULTS: Of 442 patients randomly assigned, 291 (QLQ-C30) and 289 (QLQ-H&N35) patients completed at least one evaluable questionnaire. For QLQ-C30, cycle 3 and month 6 mean scores for platinum-fluorouracil plus cetuximab were not significantly worse than those for platinum-fluorouracil. Pattern-mixture analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in the global health status/QoL score in the cetuximab arm (P = 0.0415) but no treatment differences in the social functioning scale. For QLQ-H&N35, the mean score for the cetuximab arm was not significantly worse than that for the chemotherapy arm for all symptom scales at all post-baseline visits. At cycle 3, some symptom scores significantly favored the cetuximab arm (pain, swallowing, speech problems, and social eating). CONCLUSION: Adding cetuximab to platinum-fluorouracil does not adversely affect the QoL of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN.

Improving treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever by administration of colony-stimulating factors.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized trials have tested the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in relieving chemotherapy-induced bone marrow suppression. However, the use of CSFs in the treatment of neutropenic fever remains virtually unexplored. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the benefits of adding CSF therapy to the standard antibiotic treatments given to cancer patients for chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever. The usefulness of CSFs was quantified in terms of reducing the following: (a) the duration of neutropenia, (b) the length of hospitalization, and (c) the overall cost of the treatment. METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted to test whether the administration of either G-CSF or GM-CSF improved the outcome of standard antibiotic therapy (ceftazidime plus amikacin) in nonleukemic cancer patients with fever (> 38 degrees C) and grade IV neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 500/mm3) induced by standard-dose chemotherapy. Of 121 patients who entered the trial, 39 received G-CSF (5 micrograms/kg body weight per day), 39 received GM-CSF (5 micrograms/kg body weight per day), and 43 received a placebo beginning just after the first dose of antibiotics. Treatments were continued for at least 5 days (7 days with clinically or microbiologically documented infections) or until 2 days after fever subsided and ANCs rose above 1000/mm3. RESULTS: The median duration of grade IV neutropenia (ANC of < 500/mm3) was 2 days in both CSF arms and 3 days in the placebo arm (P < .001). The median duration of neutropenia with an ANC of less than 1000/mm3 was also significantly shorter in patients receiving G-CSF or GM-CSF (P < .001). The median duration of fever was similar in the three arms. The median hospital stay was 5 days (range, 5-14 days) in the G-CSF arm, 5 days (range, 5-10 days) in the GM-CSF arm, and 7 days (range, 5-34 days) in the placebo arm (P < .001). The median time on CSF was 4 days in both treatment arms. The mean cost of overall treatment was reduced by $1300-$1400 in the CSF arms compared with the placebo arm (P = .11 for G-CSF versus placebo; P = .06 for GM-CSF versus placebo; P = .7 for G-CSF versus GM-CSF). CONCLUSIONS: Adding G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy to antibiotic treatment shortens the duration of neutropenia and the duration of hospitalization in patients with neutropenic fever. A statistically nonsignificant trend toward lower cost was observed in the CSF arms as compared with the placebo arm. IMPLICATIONS: The benefits of CSFs to cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenic fever merit further evaluation in large randomized trials.