Consensuses, controversies, and future directions in treatment deintensification for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

The most common cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the United States is oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and its incidence has been rising since the turn of the century. Because of substantial long-term morbidities with chemoradiation and the favorable prognosis of HPV-positive OPC, identifying the optimal deintensification strategy for this group has been a keystone of academic head-and-neck surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology for over the past decade. However, the first generation of randomized chemotherapy deintensification trials failed to change the standard of care, triggering concern over the feasibility of de-escalation. National database studies estimate that up to one third of patients receive nonstandard de-escalated treatments, which have subspecialty-specific nuances. A synthesis of the multidisciplinary deintensification data and current treatment standards is important for the oncology community to reinforce best practices and ensure optimal patient outcomes. In this review, the authors present a summary and comparison of prospective HPV-positive OPC de-escalation trials. Chemotherapy attenuation compromises outcomes without reducing toxicity. Limited data comparing transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with radiation raise concern over toxicity and outcomes with TORS. There are promising data to support de-escalating adjuvant therapy after TORS, but consensus on treatment indications is needed. Encouraging radiation deintensification strategies have been reported (upfront dose reduction and induction chemotherapy-based patient selection), but level I evidence is years away. Ultimately, stage and HPV status may be insufficient to guide de-escalation. The future of deintensification may lie in incorporating intratreatment response assessments to harness the powers of personalized medicine and integrate real-time surveillance.

Safety of opioid prescribing among older cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors receive more long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. METHODS: Opioid-naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008-2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow-up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. RESULTS: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow-up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5-8.0 months). Seventy-two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high-dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing.

Change in chemotherapy during concurrent radiation followed by surgery after a suboptimal positron emission tomography response to induction chemotherapy improves outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A positron emission tomography (PET) scan after induction chemotherapy before preoperative chemoradiation and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma predicts outcomes. Some patients with progression on PET after induction chemotherapy had long-term overall survival (OS) when they were changed to alternative chemotherapy during radiation. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation before planned surgery; all had undergone a PET scan before and after induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 201 patients, and 113 (56%) were PET responders (≥35% decrease in the maximum standardized uptake value of the tumor). All PET responders received the same chemotherapy during radiation, whereas 38 of the 88 PET nonresponders (43%) changed chemotherapy. Among the 152 patients who underwent surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 15% for PET responders and 3% for PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy (P = .046). The median progression-free survival (PFS; 18.9 vs 10.0 months, P < 0.01) and OS (37 vs 25.3 months, P = .02) were significantly better for PET responders versus PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy. The median PFS for PET nonresponders who changed chemotherapy was 17.9 months, and it was superior to the median PFS for PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy (P = .01). For PET nonresponders, the 5-year OS rates were 37% for those who changed chemotherapy and 25% for those who did not change chemotherapy (P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: A PET scan after induction chemotherapy predicts outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who undergo chemoradiation and surgery. The median PFS is improved, and trends toward improved OS appear possible in PET nonresponders who change chemotherapy during radiation. The fully accrued Cancer and Leukemia Group B 80803 study (NCT01333033) is evaluating this strategy. Cancer 2016;122:2083-90. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Pain management for post-treatment survivors of complex cancers: a qualitative study of opioids and cannabis.

Aim: We aimed to understand experiences with opioids and cannabis for post-treatment cancer survivors. Patients & methods: We conducted seven focus groups among head and neck and lung cancer survivors, using standard qualitative methodology to explore themes around 1) post-treatment pain and 2) utilization, perceived benefits and perceived harms of cannabis and opioids. Results & conclusion: Survivors (N = 25) experienced addiction fears, stigma and access challenges for both products. Opioids were often perceived as critical for severe pain. Cannabis reduced pain and anxiety for many survivors, suggesting that anxiety screening, as recommended in guidelines, would improve traditional pain assessment. Opioids and cannabis present complex harms and benefits for post-treatment survivors who must balance pain management and minimizing side effects.

A phase 1 study of concurrent cabozantinib and cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition with cetuximab is a standard treatment for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Activation of the receptor tyrosine kinases AXL, MET and VEGFR can mediate resistance to cetuximab. Cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor (MKI) targeting AXL/MET/VEGFR, has demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models of HNSCC. This investigator- initiated phase I trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of cetuximab plus cabozantinib in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) HNSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received cetuximab concurrently with cabozantinib daily on a 28-day cycle. Using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, the primary endpoint was to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of cabozantinib. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) RESULTS: Among the 20 patients enrolled, most had prior disease progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors (95 %), platinum-based chemotherapy (95 %), and cetuximab (80 %). No dose-limiting toxicities were recorded and the MTD for cabozantinib was established to be 60 mg. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 65 % of patients (n = 13). ORR was 20 %, with 4 partial responses (PRs). Two PRs were observed in cetuximab-naïve patients (n = 4), with an ORR of 50 % in this subgroup. In the overall population, DCR was 75 %, median PFS was 3.4 months and median OS was 8.1 months. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab plus cabozantinib demonstrated a manageable toxicity profile and preliminary efficacy in patients with heavily treated R/M HNSCC. The combination of cetuximab with MKIs targeting the AXL/MET/VEGFR axis warrants further investigation, including in cetuximab-naïve patients.

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical value of second opinions in oncology are limited. We examined diagnostic and treatment changes resulting from second opinions and the expected impact on morbidity and prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients presenting in 2018 to a high-volume cancer center for second opinions about newly diagnosed colorectal, head and neck, lung, and myeloma cancers or abnormal results. Two sub-specialty physicians from each cancer type reviewed 30 medical records (120 total) using a process and detailed data collection guide meant to mitigate institutional bias. The primary outcome measure was the rate of treatment changes that were "clinically meaningful", i.e., expected to impact morbidity and/or prognosis. Among those with treatment changes, another outcome measure was the rate of clinically meaningful diagnostic changes that led to treatment change. RESULTS: Of 120 cases, forty-two had clinically meaningful changes in treatment with positive expected outcomes (7 colorectal, 17 head and neck, 11 lung, 7 myeloma; 23-57%). Two patients had negative expected outcomes from having sought a second opinion, with worse short-term morbidity and unchanged long-term morbidity and prognosis. All those with positive expected outcomes had improved expected morbidity (short- and/or long-term); 11 (0-23%) also had improved expected prognosis. Nine involved a shift from treatment to observation; 21 involved eliminating or reducing the extent of surgery, compared to 6 adding surgery or increasing its extent. Of the 42 with treatment changes, 13 were due to clinically meaningful diagnostic changes (1 colorectal, 5 head and neck, 3 lung, 4 myeloma; 3%-17%) . CONCLUSIONS: Second-opinion consultations sometimes add clinical value by improving expected prognoses; more often, they offer treatment de-escalations, with corresponding reductions in expected short- and/or long-term morbidity. Future research could identify subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced salivary gland cancer: a phase 2 trial.

Salivary gland cancers (SGCs) are rare, aggressive cancers without effective treatments when metastasized. We conducted a phase 2 trial evaluating nivolumab (nivo, anti-PD-1) and ipilimumab (ipi, anti-CTLA-4) in 64 patients with metastatic SGC enrolled in two histology-based cohorts (32 patients each): adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC; cohort 1) and other SGCs (cohort 2). The primary efficacy endpoint (≥4 objective responses) was met in cohort 2 (5/32, 16%) but not in cohort 1 (2/32, 6%). Treatment safety/tolerability and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary endpoints. Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥3 occurred in 24 of 64 (38%) patients across both cohorts, and median PFS was 4.4 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4, 8.3) and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.8, 5.3) for cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. We present whole-exome, RNA and T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing data from pre-treatment and on-treatment tumors and immune cell flow cytometry and TCR sequencing from peripheral blood at serial timepoints. Responding tumors universally demonstrated clonal expansion of pre-existing T cells and mutational contraction. Responding ACCs harbored neoantigens, including fusion-derived neoepitopes, that induced T cell responses ex vivo. This study shows that nivo+ipi has limited efficacy in ACC, albeit with infrequent, exceptional responses, and that it could be promising for non-ACC SGCs, particularly salivary duct carcinomas. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03172624 .

Toxicity Profiles and Survival Outcomes Among Patients With Nonmetastatic Oropharyngeal Carcinoma Treated With Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy vs Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Importance: Patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) treated with radiotherapy often experience substantial toxic effects, even with modern techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has a potential advantage over IMRT due to reduced dose to the surrounding organs at risk; however, data are scarce given the limited availability and use of IMPT. Objective: To compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a single-institution tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, with follow-up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: IMPT or IMRT with or without chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic (present after ≥6 months) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence (LRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Fisher exact tests and χ2 tests were used to evaluate associations between toxic effects and treatment modality (IMPT vs IMRT), and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare LRR, PFS, and OS between the 2 groups. Results: The study included 292 patients with OPC (272 [93%] with human papillomavirus [HPV]-p16-positive tumors); 254 (87%) were men, 38 (13%) were women, and the median age was 64 years (IQR, 58-71 years). Fifty-eight patients (20%) were treated with IMPT, and 234 (80%) were treated with IMRT. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR, 17-36 months). Most patients (283 [97%]) received a dose to the primary tumor of 70 Gy. Fifty-seven of the patients treated with IMPT (98%) and 215 of those treated with IMRT (92%) had HPV-p16-positive disease. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS (97% IMPT vs 91% IMRT; P = .18), PFS (82% IMPT vs 85% IMRT; P = .62), or LRR (5% IMPT vs 4% IMRT; P = .59). The incidence of acute toxic effects was significantly higher for IMRT compared with IMPT for oral pain of grade 2 or greater (42 [72%] IMPT vs 217 [93%] IMRT; P < .001), xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (12 [21%] IMPT vs 68 [29%] IMRT; P < .001), dysgeusia of grade 2 or greater (16 [28%] IMPT vs 134 [57%] IMRT; P < .001), grade 3 dysphagia (4 [7%] IMPT vs 29 [12%] IMRT; P < .001), mucositis of grade 3 or greater (10 [53%] IMPT vs 13 [70%] IMRT; P = .003), nausea of grade 2 or greater (0 [0%] IMPT vs 18 [8%] IMRT; P = .04), and weight loss of grade 2 or greater (22 [37%] IMPT vs 138 [59%] IMRT; P < .001). There were no significant differences in chronic toxic effects of grade 3 or greater, although there was a significant difference for chronic xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (6 IMPT [11%] vs 22 IMRT [10%]; P < .001). Four patients receiving IMRT (2%) vs 0 receiving IMPT had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for longer than 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT for nonmetastatic OPC was associated with a significantly reduced acute toxicity burden compared with IMRT, with few chronic toxic effects and favorable oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence of only 5% at 2 years. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 technologies and of patient-reported outcomes are warranted.

Trends in chronic opioid therapy among survivors of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) have increased risk of opioid misuse. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results-Medicare data, we matched adults ≥66 years diagnosed with HNC 2008-2015 with cancer-free controls. We computed odds ratios (OR) for receipt of chronic opioid therapy (COT, claims for ≥90 consecutive days) for HNC survivors compared to controls each year after matching through 2016. RESULTS: The cohort of HNC survivors declined from 5107 in the first year after diagnosis to 604 in the sixth year after diagnosis. For 5 years, rates of COT among HNC survivors exceeded that of controls. Differences between survivors and controls declined each year (ORs: year 1, 4.36; year 2, 2.60; year 3, 2.18; year 4, 1.85; and year 5, 1.35; all P-values <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among older HNC survivors, cancer-associated opioid use in the first years after diagnosis suggests that the benefit of opioids must balance the risk of opioid misuse.

Clinical and Morphologic Characteristics of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor-Associated Retinopathy.

IMPORTANCE: Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1 to 4 inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and suppress the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, with a potential for treatment-related retinopathy. To date, implications of FGFR inhibitor-associated ocular toxic effects are poorly described. Therefore, more detailed clinical descriptions of this ocular toxic effect could help explain visual symptoms while receiving drug therapy. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and morphologic characteristics of serous retinal disturbances associated with FGFR inhibitors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective case series, 146 patients receiving FGFR inhibitors as cancer treatment at a single tertiary referral center were included. This study included 40 eyes of 20 patients with retinopathy by optical coherence tomography (OCT). OCTs were obtained on the remaining patients and the results were judged normal. Patients were recruited from March 2012 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Characteristics of treatment-emergent choroidal and retinal OCT abnormalities as compared with baseline OCT, associated with visual acuity at presentation and at fluid resolution. RESULTS: A total of 20 of 146 patients (13.7%) exhibited FGFR inhibitor-associated retinopathy. Of these 20 patients, 11 (55%) were female, and the median (range) age was 62.6 (42.7-86.0) years. The median (range; mean) time from medication start to initial subretinal fluid detection was 21 (5-125; 32) days. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) baseline logMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0 (0-0.1). At fluid accumulation, 11 eyes had decreased vision: the median (IQR) subgroup baseline BCVA was 0 (0-0.1); and the median (IQR) BCVA change from baseline to accumulation was -0.1 (-0.2 to -0.1). For 26 eyes (65%) with follow-up, the subretinal fluid resolved without medical intervention or drug interruption in all but 1 patient. At fluid resolution, the median (IQR) BCVA was 0.1 (0-0.1), and the change in median (IQR) BCVA from baseline to fluid resolution was 0 (-0.03 to 0). No patient discontinued drug therapy on account of their retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: FGFR inhibitors result in subretinal fluid foci similar to other drugs that inhibit the MAPK pathway. In this series, FGFR inhibitors did not cause irreversible loss of vision; the retinopathy was self-limited and did not require medical intervention. These results may explain visual symptoms while taking the drug, although the precise frequency or magnitude of this adverse effect cannot be determined with certainty from this retrospective investigation.

The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors.

Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) can have multiple health concerns. To facilitate their care, we developed and pilot-tested a clinical informatics intervention, HN-STAR. HN-STAR elicits concerns online from HNC survivors prior to a routine oncology clinic visit. HN-STAR then presents tailored evidence-based clinical recommendations as a clinical decision support tool to be used during the visit where the oncology clinician and survivor select symptom management strategies and other actions. This generates a survivorship care plan (SCP). Online elicitation of health concerns occurs 3, 6, and 9 months after the clinic visit, generating an updated SCP each time. HN-STAR encompasses important methods of improving survivorship care (e.g., needs assessment, tailored interventions, dissemination of guidelines) and will be evaluated in a pragmatic trial to maximize external validity. This hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial tests HN-STAR effectiveness while studying barriers and facilitators to implementation in community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Effectiveness will be measured as differences in key survivorship outcomes between HNC participants who do and do not use HN-STAR over one year after the clinic visit. The primary endpoint is HNC-specific quality of life; other outcomes include patient-centered measures and receipt of guideline-concordant care. Implementation outcomes will be assessed of survivors, providers, and clinic stakeholders. The hybrid design will provide insight into a dose-response relationship between the extent of implementation fidelity and effectiveness outcomes, as well as how to incorporate HN-STAR into standard practice outside the research setting.

Chemotherapy Tolerance and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Colorectal Cancer With and Without Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), comprising Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis, is a risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). Chemotherapy toxicity may exacerbate IBD symptoms and vice versa, but data are limited. We evaluated chemotherapy tolerance and oncologic outcomes in patients with CRC with and without IBD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with CRC with and without IBD treated between 2008 and 2013 were reviewed. Where possible, patients were matched by age, sex, stage, and diagnosis year. Chemotherapy tolerance and survival outcomes were compared between patients with IBD and without IBD. RESULTS: A total of 158 subjects with CRC were included: 80 patients had IBD and 78 matched control patients did not have IBD. Between cases and controls, there were no significant differences in demographic data, stage of CRC, and cancer treatments, with equivalent numbers of patients receiving surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Patients with IBD experienced more CRC treatment alterations than those without IBD (74% vs. 44%, P = .03), largely due to a higher frequency of treatment delays among patients with IBD. Differences in stage-specific 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with and without IBD were not significant, except for stage IV patients with IBD who had significantly shorter OS than those without IBD. Patients with histologically active IBD did not require more chemotherapy alterations than patients with inactive IBD. CONCLUSION: In this series, patients with CRC with IBD experienced more treatment alterations (mostly delays) than those without IBD. Patients with stage IV CRC with IBD had shorter survival than patients without IBD.