Pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-412): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite multimodal therapy, 5-year overall survival for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is about 50%. We assessed the addition of pembrolizumab to concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced HNSCC. METHODS: In the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE-412 trial, participants with newly diagnosed, high-risk, unresected locally advanced HNSCC from 130 medical centres globally were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab (200 mg) plus chemoradiotherapy or placebo plus chemoradiotherapy. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system and was stratified by investigator's choice of radiotherapy regimen, tumour site and p16 status, and disease stage, with participants randomly assigned in blocks of four per stratum. Participants, investigators, and sponsor personnel were masked to treatment assignments. Local pharmacists were aware of assignments to support treatment preparation. Pembrolizumab and placebo were administered intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 doses (one before chemoradiotherapy, two during chemoradiotherapy, 14 as maintenance therapy). Chemoradiotherapy included cisplatin (100 mg/m2) administered intravenously once every 3 weeks for two or three doses and accelerated or standard fractionation radiotherapy (70 Gy delivered in 35 fractions). The primary endpoint was event-free survival analysed in all randomly assigned participants. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03040999, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between April 19, 2017, and May 2, 2019, 804 participants were randomly assigned to the pembrolizumab group (n=402) or the placebo group (n=402). 660 (82%) of 804 participants were male, 144 (18%) were female, and 622 (77%) were White. Median study follow-up was 47·7 months (IQR 42·1-52·3). Median event-free survival was not reached (95% CI 44·7 months-not reached) in the pembrolizumab group and 46·6 months (27·5-not reached) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·68-1·03]; log-rank p=0·043 [significance threshold, p≤0·024]). 367 (92%) of 398 participants treated in the pembrolizumab group and 352 (88%) of 398 participants treated in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (108 [27%] of 398 participants in the pembrolizumab group vs 100 [25%] of 398 participants in the placebo group), stomatitis (80 [20%] vs 69 [17%]), anaemia (80 [20%] vs 61 [15%]), dysphagia (76 [19%] vs 62 [16%]), and decreased lymphocyte count (76 [19%] vs 81 [20%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 245 (62%) participants in the pembrolizumab group versus 197 (49%) participants in the placebo group, most commonly pneumonia (43 [11%] vs 25 [6%]), acute kidney injury (33 [8%] vs 30 [8%]), and febrile neutropenia (24 [6%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related adverse events led to death in four (1%) participants in the pembrolizumab group (one participant each from aspiration pneumonia, end-stage renal disease, pneumonia, and sclerosing cholangitis) and six (2%) participants in the placebo group (three participants from pharyngeal haemorrhage and one participant each from mouth haemorrhage, post-procedural haemorrhage, and sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy did not significantly improve event-free survival compared with chemoradiotherapy alone in a molecularly unselected, locally advanced HNSCC population. No new safety signals were seen. Locally advanced HNSCC remains a challenging disease that requires better treatment approaches. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. FINDINGS: At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [50·7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49·3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8-18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 [19·1%; 95% CI 16·4-22·0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16·8%; 13·8-20·3] of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6·2%; 3·5-10·2] of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha-delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6-22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9-27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7·4%; 95% CI 3·5-13·5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9·8%; 5·8-15·5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [18·5%; 16·5-20·9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4·4%; 1·6-9·6], 11 [6·0%; 3·0-10·7] vs 148 [9·9%; 8·4-11·6], p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2·2%; 0·1-6·4], ten [5·4%; 2·6-10·0] vs 115 [7·7%; 6·3-9·3], p=0·037). INTERPRETATION: Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

How to prevent human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is responsible of the increasing incidence rates of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) in high-income countries. This significant epidemiological change requires several and diverse prevention strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: The cervical cancer prevention model is the paradigm of HPV-related cancer, and its success provides encouragement for the development of similar methods to prevent HPV-related OPSCC. However, there are some limitations that hinder its application in this disease. Here, we review the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of HPV-related OPSCC and discuss some directions for future research. SUMMARY: The development of new and targeted strategies to prevent HPV-related OPSCC is needed since they could definitely have a direct impact on the reduction of morbidity and mortality of this disease.

Outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant outbreak among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer in Europe: results from the retrospective, multicentre, OnCovid registry study.

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16-0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17-0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09-0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15-0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14-0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. INTERPRETATION: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.

International recommendations for plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA measurement in nasopharyngeal carcinoma in resource-constrained settings: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to constrain health-care staff and resources worldwide, despite the availability of effective vaccines. Aerosol-generating procedures such as endoscopy, a common investigation tool for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, are recognised as a likely cause of SARS-CoV-2 spread in hospitals. Plasma Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA is considered the most accurate biomarker for the routine management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A consensus statement on whether plasma EBV DNA can minimise the need for or replace aerosol-generating procedures, imaging methods, and face-to-face consultations in managing nasopharyngeal carcinoma is urgently needed amid the current pandemic and potentially for future highly contagious airborne diseases or natural disasters. We completed a modified Delphi consensus process of three rounds with 33 international experts in otorhinolaryngology or head and neck surgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and clinical oncology with vast experience in managing nasopharyngeal carcinoma, representing 51 international professional societies and national clinical trial groups. These consensus recommendations aim to enhance consistency in clinical practice, reduce ambiguity in delivering care, and offer advice for clinicians worldwide who work in endemic and non-endemic regions of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, in the context of COVID-19 and other airborne pandemics, and in future unexpected settings of severe resource constraints and insufficiency of personal protective equipment.

SOLTI-1904 ACROPOLI TRIAL: efficacy of spartalizumab monotherapy across tumor-types expressing high levels of PD1 mRNA.

Improved selection of cancer patients who are most likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors remains an unmet clinical need. Recently, a positive correlation between levels of PD1 mRNA and clinical outcome in response to PD1 blockade across diverse tumor histologies has been confirmed in several datasets. ACROPOLI is a parallel cohort, non-randomized, phase II study that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitor spartalizumab as monotherapy in metastatic patients with solid tumors that express high levels of PD1 (cohort 1; n = 111). An additional cohort of 30 patients with tumors expressing low levels of PD1, where PD1/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy are standard treatment, will also be included (cohort 2). Primary end point is overall response rate in cohort 1. Trial registration number: NCT04802876 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin versus platinum, fluorouracil, and cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (GORTEC 2014-01 TPExtreme): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment. FUNDING: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is active in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression associated with improved response. METHODS: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64-0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71-1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63-0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45-0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53-0·80], p<0·0001) at final analysis. Neither pembrolizumab alone nor pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival at the second interim analysis. At final analysis, grade 3 or worse all-cause adverse events occurred in 164 (55%) of 300 treated participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 235 (85%) of 276 in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 239 (83%) of 287 in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Adverse events led to death in 25 (8%) participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 32 (12%) in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 28 (10%) in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: Based on the observed efficacy and safety, pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A phase 1b study of the MET inhibitor capmatinib combined with cetuximab in patients with MET-positive colorectal cancer who had progressed following anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment.

Background Overcoming resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in patients with KRAS wildtype (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) could help meet the needs of patients with limited treatment options. Methods In this phase 1b study, patients with N/KRAS WT, MET-positive mCRC who had progressed following anti-EGFR mAb treatment received escalating oral doses of capmatinib (150, 300, and 400 mg) twice daily plus weekly intravenous cetuximab (at the approved dose). The primary objective was to establish a recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of capmatinib in combination with cetuximab. Safety, preliminary activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were also explored. Results Thirteen patients were enrolled. No patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at investigated doses; the RDE was established as capmatinib 400 mg twice daily plus cetuximab. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs) suspected to be related to the study treatment. Five patients (38.5%) reported study-drug-related AEs of grade 3/4 in severity. No patients achieved a complete or partial response according to RECIST v1.1; however, tumor shrinkage of 29-44% was observed in 4 patients. Conclusions Capmatinib plus cetuximab was well tolerated. Preliminary signs of activity were observed. Further investigation is warranted to obtain efficacy data and refine predictive biomarkers of response. Clinical trial registration NCT02205398.

The emergence of long-term survivors in recurrent and metastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The systemic therapies available in recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma to date are palliative-intent treatments in most cases. However, a small subgroup of patients derives unconventional benefit and become long-term survivors, achieving cure in some cases. This review focusses on this group of patients, discusses recent literature and suggests plausible molecular hypothesis. RECENT FINDINGS: Human papillomavirus-related disease is known to confer a better prognosis in metastatic patients, probably because of its greater sensitivity to systemic therapies. This group of patients seems to have a greater immune activation, which could partly explain this fact. Moreover, the use of antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapies in the metastatic setting has doubled the prevalence of long-term survivors. One of the most plausible explanations is the immune-modulatory effect of cetuximab mediated by antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity.These facts, along with the recent encouraging results of checkpoint inhibitors in this disease, give hope that these therapies will not only improve survival but also increase the prevalence of long-term survivors. SUMMARY: Long-term survivors merit our utmost attention as an in-depth study of these patients could help us to better understand the tumour biology and allow us to develop robust biomarkers and effective targeted therapies, which could in turn lead to a true paradigm shift.

Opioid-Induced Constipation in Oncological Patients: New Strategies of Management.

OPINION STATEMENT: Cancer-associated pain has traditionally been treated with opioid analgesics, often in escalating doses. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common problem associated with chronic use of opioid analgesics. Typical treatment strategies to alleviate constipation are based on dietary changes, exercise, and laxatives. However, laxatives have a nonspecific action and do not target underlying mechanisms of OIC. This article will review prevalent, clinical presentation and recommendations for the treatment of OIC. An independent literature search was carried out by the authors. We reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials that studied the efficacy of laxatives, naloxone, and naloxegol in treating OIC. Newer strategies addressing the causal pathophysiology of OIC are needed for a more effective assessment and management of OIC. Finally, traditional recommended therapies are appraised and compared with the latest pharmacological developments. Future research should address whether naloxegol is more efficacious by its comparison directly with first-line treatments, including laxatives.

Translational Research Opportunities Regarding Homologous Recombination in Ovarian Cancer.

Homologous recombination (HR) is a DNA repair pathway that is deficient in 50% of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOC). Deficient HR (DHR) constitutes a therapeutic opportunity for these patients, thanks to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi; olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib are already commercialized). Although initially, PARPi were developed for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, robust clinical data have shown their benefit in a broader population without DHR. This breakthrough in daily practice has raised several questions that necessitate further research: How can populations that will most benefit from PARPi be selected? At which stage of ovarian cancer should PARPi be used? Which strategies are reasonable to overcome PARPi resistance? In this paper, we present a summary of the literature and discuss the present clinical research involving PARPi (after reviewing ClinicalTrials.gov) from a translational perspective. Research into the functional biomarkers of DHR and clinical trials testing PARPi benefits as first-line setting or rechallenge are currently ongoing. Additionally, in the clinical setting, only secondary restoring mutations of BRCA1/2 have been identified as events inducing resistance to PARPi. The clinical frequency of this and other mechanisms that have been described in preclinics is unknown. It is of great importance to study mechanisms of resistance to PARPi to guide the clinical development of drug combinations.

Buparlisib and paclitaxel in patients with platinum-pretreated recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (BERIL-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck contributes to treatment resistance and disease progression. Buparlisib, a pan-PI3K inhibitor, has shown preclinical antitumour activity and objective responses in patients with epithelial malignancies. We assessed whether the addition of buparlisib to paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes compared with paclitaxel and placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study (BERIL-1), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after disease progression on or after one previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting. Eligible patients were enrolled from 58 centres across 18 countries and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive second-line oral buparlisib (100 mg once daily) or placebo, plus intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) in 28 day treatment cycles. Randomisation was done via a central patient screening and randomisation system with an interactive (voice and web) response system and stratification by number of previous lines of therapy in the recurrent and metastatic setting and study site. Patients and investigators (including local radiologists) were masked to treatment assignment from randomisation until the final overall survival analysis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in all randomly assigned patients. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment according to the treatment they received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01852292, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5, 2013, and May 5, 2015, 158 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either buparlisib plus paclitaxel (n=79) or placebo plus paclitaxel (n=79). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·5-5·3) in the buparlisib group and 3·5 months (2·2-3·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·45-0·95], nominal one-sided p=0·011). Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 62 (82%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 56 (72%) of 78 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of patients in the buparlisib group vs the placebo group) were hyperglycaemia (17 [22%] of 76 vs two [3%] of 78), anaemia (14 [18%] vs nine [12%]), neutropenia (13 [17%] vs four [5%]), and fatigue (six [8%] vs eight [10%]). Serious adverse events (regardless of relation to study treatment) were reported for 43 (57%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 37 (47%) of 78 in the placebo group. On-treatment deaths occurred in 15 (20%) of 76 patients in the buparlisib group and 17 (22%) of 78 patients in the placebo group; most were caused by disease progression and none were judged to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: On the basis of the improved clinical efficacy with a manageable safety profile, the results of this randomised phase 2 study suggest that buparlisib in combination with paclitaxel could be an effective second-line treatment for patients with platinum-pretreated recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Further phase 3 studies are warranted to confirm this phase 2 finding. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

p16, HPV, and Cetuximab: What Is the Evidence?

Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. It has recently been appreciated that human papillomavirus (HPV) status (or p16 status, which is a frequently used surrogate for HPV status) is prognostic for oropharyngeal SCCHN. Here, we review and contextualize existing p16 and HPV data, focusing on the cetuximab registration trials in previously untreated, locoregionally advanced, nonmetastatic SCCHN (LA SCCHN) and in recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN (R/M SCCHN): the IMCL-9815 and EXTREME clinical trials, respectively. Taken together, the available data suggest that, while p16 and HPV are prognostic biomarkers in patients with LA SCCHN and R/M SCCHN, it could not be shown that they are predictive for the outcomes of the described cetuximab-containing trial regimens. Consequently, although HPV status provides prognostic information, it is not shown to predict therapy response, and so is not helpful for assigning first-line therapy in patients with SCCHN. In addition, we discuss assays currently used to assess p16 and HPV status, as well as the differentiation between these two biomarkers. Ultimately, we believe HPV E6/E7 polymerase chain reaction-based mRNA testing may represent the most informative technique for assessing HPV status in patients with SCCHN. While p16 is a valid surrogate for HPV status in oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), there is a higher risk of discordance between p16 and HPV status in non-OPC SCCHN. Collectively, these discussions hold key implications for the clinical management of SCCHN. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (or its commonly utilized surrogate p16) is a known prognostic biomarker in oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We evaluated implications of the available evidence, including cetuximab registration trials in previously untreated locoregionally advanced (LA) SCCHN and recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) SCCHN. We conclude that, although p16 and HPV are prognostic biomarkers for both LA and R/M SCCHN, they have not been shown to be predictive of response to the described cetuximab-containing regimens for either indication. Thus, current evidence suggests that benefits of cetuximab are observed in both p16-/HPV-positive and -negative SCCHN.

Enrichment of Cells with Cancer Stem Cell-Like Markers in Relapses of Chemoresistant Patients with Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) present different responses to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. One explanation may be the differences in the individual rates of stem cell-like cells. METHODS: We included patients with HNSCC and tumor progression or relapse. Tumor samples were obtained before and after primary chemotherapy, and immunohistochemical analyses were performed for CD44, HLA class I (HLA-I), pancytokeratin, and phosphorylated epidermal growth factor receptor (p-EGFR). Differences in expression between the first and second specimens were assessed. RESULTS: Expression between the first and second specimens varied as follows: CD44 increased by 14.67% (95% confidence interval, CI: 6.94 to 22.40; p < 0.01); HLA-I decreased by 16.72% (95% CI: -23.87 to -9.47; p < 0.01); pancytokeratin decreased by 24.91% (95% CI: -32.8 to -17.7; p < 0.01), and p-EFGR expression decreased by 12.30% (95% CI: -20.61 to -3.98; p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HNSCC, there is an enrichment of cells with stem-like markers in relapsed tumors when compared with the primary tumor. This finding should be considered when developing treatment strategies.

Panitumumab plus radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CONCERT-2): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against EGFR, plus radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck from 22 sites in eight countries worldwide. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage III, IVa, or IVb, previously untreated, measurable (≥ 10 mm for at least one dimension), locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (non-nasopharygeal) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (2:3) by an independent vendor to open-label chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) during radiotherapy) or to radiotherapy plus panitumumab (three cycles of panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks administered with radiotherapy) using a stratified randomisation with a block size of five. All patients received 70-72 Gy to gross tumour and 54 Gy to areas of subclinical disease with accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was local-regional control at 2 years, analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of their assigned protocol-specific treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or panitumumab). The trial is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00547157. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2007, and Nov 16, 2009, 152 patients were enrolled, and 151 received treatment (61 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 90 in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group). Local-regional control at 2 years was 61% (95% CI 47-72) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 51% (40-62) in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were mucosal inflammation (25 [40%] of 62 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs 37 [42%] of 89 patients in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group), dysphagia (20 [32%] vs 36 [40%]), and radiation skin injury (seven [11%] vs 21 [24%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 30 (34%) of 89 patients in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group. INTERPRETATION: Panitumumab cannot replace cisplatin in the combined treatment with radiotherapy for unresected stage III-IVb squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and the role of EGFR inhibition in locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck needs to be reassessed. FUNDING: Amgen.

Chemoradiotherapy with or without panitumumab in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CONCERT-1): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Panitumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets EGFR. We aimed to compare chemoradiotherapy plus panitumumab with chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck from 41 sites in nine countries worldwide. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage III, IVa, or IVb, previously untreated, measurable (≥ 10 mm for at least one dimension), locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (non-nasopharygeal) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (2:3) by an independent vendor to open-label chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)) or panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy (three cycles of intravenous panitumumab 9.0 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2)) using stratified randomisation with a block size of five. All patients received 70 Gy to gross tumour and 50 Gy to areas at risk for subclinical disease with standard fractionation. The primary endpoint was local-regional control at 2 years, analysed in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of their assigned protocol-specific treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or panitumumab). The trial is closed and this is the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00500760. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2007, and March 26, 2009, 153 patients were enrolled and 150 received treatment (63 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group). Local-regional control at 2 years was 68% (95% CI 54-78) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 61% (50-71) in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (17 [27%] of 63 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs 35 [40%] of 87 in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group), mucosal inflammation (15 [24%] vs 48 [55%]), and radiation skin injury (eight [13%] vs 27 [31%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 20 (32%) of 63 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 37 (43%) of 87 patients in the panitumumab plus chemoradiotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, the addition of panitumumab to standard fractionation radiotherapy and cisplatin did not confer any benefit, and the role of EGFR inhibition in these patients needs to be reassessed. FUNDING: Amgen.

Real-world treatment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors used off-label in oncology: A comprehensive cancer institution experience.

Off-label use (OLU) is quite common in oncology due to the complexity of cancer and the time-consuming regulatory process. However, outcomes of OLU in cancer treatment remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), duration of treatment (DOT), and reason for treatment discontinuation in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as OLU for solid tumors from 2011 to 2020. The study collected data on 356 episodes (353 patients), with a median age of 64.4 years, 36.2% women, and 14.6% ECOG ≥ 2. Median OS was 15.7 (11.9-18.7) months, and median EFS was 5.4 (3.8-6.6) months. Men, patients with metastatic disease or ECOG-PS higher than 1, had worse survival outcomes. The findings derived from this study provide valuable information regarding the real-world use of ICI-OLU and contributes to enhancing the decision-making process for individuals with cancer. Further research on immunotherapy outcomes of OLU in cancer is needed.

HLA-I levels correlate with survival outcomes in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have provided a breakthrough in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but only some patients benefit substantively. Identifying definitive predictive biomarkers could overcome this limitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected 146 metastatic NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1. Immunohistochemistry of HLA-I, PD-L1 and CD73 was performed in 122 tumor biopsies at diagnosis. The association with patients, tumor parameters, and the predictive value to ICI treatment were determined. RESULTS: In our cohort, 42 %, 25 %, and 21 % of the tumors exhibited high levels of HLA-I, PD-L1, and CD73, respectively. Lung adenocarcinomas displayed elevated CD73 levels, compared with lung squamous cell carcinomas (P = 0.026). High PD-L1 was significantly correlated with high levels of HLA-I (P = 0.005) and of CD73 (P = 0.025). Patients with high-level HLA-I tumors exhibited more favorable clinical outcomes following ICI, with a median overall survival of 30.7 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 18.3 months-not reached), compared with 18.2 months (95 % CI: 12.4-25.2 months) in patients with low-level HLA-I tumors (P = 0.016). The median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with high-level HLA-I tumors was 18.5 months (95 % CI: 11.1-57.1 months), longer than patients with low-level HLA-I tumors, whose median PFS was 9.2 months (95 % CI: 7.2-11.9 months) (P = 0.006). In a multivariable analysis, high-level HLA-I was independently associated with lower risk of progression to ICI (HR = 0.46, 95 % CI 0.24-0.87; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: High-level HLA-I were associated with better clinical outcomes to ICI in our cohort of NSCLC patients. Therefore, further investigations are warranted to refine this biomarker and validate its efficacy in prospective and larger set of patients.