Study of late toxicity biomarkers of locally advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab points to the relevance of skin macrophages (TOX-TTCC-2015-01).

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant cisplatin (CRT) or cetuximab (ERT) are accepted treatment options for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Long-term adverse events (AEs) have a vast impact on patients' quality of life. This study explored tissue biomarkers which could help predict late toxicity. METHODS/PATIENTS: Single-institution prospective study including patients aged ≥ 18 with histologically confirmed newly diagnosed LA-SCCHN treated with RT and either concomitant cisplatin q3w or weekly cetuximab, according to institutional protocols. All patients underwent pre- and post-treatment skin biopsies of neck regions included in the clinical target volume. Angiogenesis, macrophages, and extracellular matrix (ECM) markers were evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC). RESULTS: From April 15, 2016, to December 11, 2017; 31 patients were evaluated [CRT = 12 (38.7%) and ERT = 19 (61.3%)]. 27 patients (87%) had received induction chemotherapy. All patients finished RT as planned. IHC expression of vasculature (CD34) and collagen (Masson's Trichrome) did not differ significantly between and within CRT and ERT arms. Conversely, an increased CD68 and CD163 macrophage infiltration expression was observed after treatment, without significant impact of treatment modality. Patients with higher late toxicity showed lower expression of macrophage markers in pre-treatment samples compared with those with lower late toxicity, with statistically significant differences for CD68. CONCLUSIONS: Angiogenesis and ECM biomarkers did not differ significantly between CRT and ERT. Macrophage markers increased after both treatments and deserve further investigation as predictors of late toxicity in LA-SCCHN patients. [Protocol code: TOX-TTCC-2015-01/Spanish registry of clinical studies (REec): 2015-003012-21/Date of registration: 27/01/2016].

When Less May Be Enough: Dose Selection Strategies for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Focusing on AntiPD-(L)1 Agents.

Early clinical trials investigating antiPD(L)-1 agents rarely reached a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and efficacy signals were observed even at the lowest dose levels. Most extended treatment intervals investigated indicated that these drugs do not follow a direct dose-toxicity or dose-efficacy relationship. Within this context and considering the high cost of antiPD(L)-1 agents, there is a significant debate on whether lower doses or the administration of such agents at an extended interval should be prospectively evaluated in already-approved agents, or at least be considered in novel combination trials involving antiPD(L)-1 drugs. Herein, we review the dosing, overall response rates, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events of antiPD(L)-1 agents in early dose-escalation trials and discuss the appropriateness of recommended Phase 2 dose selection as well as the final regulatory approved doses of such agents. Efficacy and safety data from randomized dose-range Phase 2 trials and real-world data (RWD) on the usage of lower doses and/or non-standard extended treatment intervals are also examined. As the accumulating evidence suggests lower doses or extended dosing intervals of antiPD(L)-1 may achieve a similar clinical benefit in comparison to the currently approved doses, we address the clinical and financial toxicity implications of using potentially higher doses than necessary. Last, we discuss ways to resolve the current dosing conundrum of antiPD-(L)1 agents such as performing near-equivalence studies and propose a framework for future development of immunotherapeutics to find the lowest efficacious dose instead of MTD.

Contemporary dose-escalation methods for early phase studies in the immunotherapeutics era.

Phase 1 dose-escalation trials are crucial to drug development by providing a framework to assess the toxicity of novel agents in a stepwise and monitored fashion. Despite widely adopted, rule-based dose-escalation methods (such as 3 + 3) are limited in finding the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and tend to treat a significant number of patients at subtherapeutic doses. Newer methods of dose escalation, such as model-based and model-assisted designs, have emerged and are more accurate in finding MTD. However, these designs have not yet been broadly embraced by investigators. In this review, we summarise the advantages and disadvantages of contemporary dose-escalation methods, with emphasis on model-assisted designs, including time-to-event designs and hybrid methods involving optimal biological dose (OBD). The methods reviewed include mTPI, keyboard, BOIN, and their variations. In addition, the challenges of drug development (and dose-escalation) in the era of immunotherapeutics are discussed, where many of these agents typically have a wide therapeutic window. Fictional examples of how the dose-escalation method chosen can alter the outcomes of a phase 1 study are described, including the number of patients enrolled, the trial's timeframe, and the dose level chosen as MTD. Finally, the recent trends in dose-escalation methods applied in phase 1 trials in the immunotherapeutics era are reviewed. Among 856 phase I trials from 2014 to 2019, a trend towards the increased use of model-based and model-assisted designs over time (OR = 1.24) was detected. However, only 8% of the studies used non-rule-based dose-escalation methods. Increasing familiarity with such dose-escalation methods will likely facilitate their uptake in clinical trials.