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.

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.

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).