Immunotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: An updated review.

Squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (HNSCC) is the sixth most common cancer and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The tumor microenvironment for HNSCC is a complex interplay of immune cells, stromal cells, and cytokines amongst others. Immunotherapy acts as an effective antineoplastic agent by influencing this complex environment and includes immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). ICI have been approved in the frontline setting for recurrent and metastatic (R/M) HNSCC as well as platinum-refractory (second line) R/M HNSCC. However, recent clinical studies highlight that the response to immunotherapy varies, and different ICI, as well as different combination strategies play a crucial role in augmenting the efficacy of immunotherapy. An in-depth analysis and focused study of the immune contexture in patients with HNSCC receiving ICI remains critical. Many novel immunotherapies including CAR-T cell therapy, oncolytic virus therapy, and vaccines are underway. Ongoing trials are testing ICI in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Furthermore, identifying better biomarkers to target population that benefits from immunotherapy is of paramount importance. Pioneering the optimal combination regimen utilizing new novel immunotherapy has recently become a paradigm shift in the HNSCC treatment landscape. Herein, we summarize the clinical development with all ongoing clinical trials of immunotherapy in HNSCC.

Mipsagargin, a novel thapsigargin-based PSMA-activated prodrug: results of a first-in-man phase I clinical trial in patients with refractory, advanced or metastatic solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Mipsagargin (G-202; (8-O-(12-aminododecanoyl)-8-O-debutanoyl thapsigargin)-Asp-γ-Glu-γ-Glu-γ-GluGluOH)) is a novel thapsigargin-based targeted prodrug that is activated by PSMA-mediated cleavage of an inert masking peptide. The active moiety is an inhibitor of the sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium adenosine triphosphatase (SERCA) pump protein that is necessary for cellular viability. We evaluated the safety of mipsagargin in patients with advanced solid tumours and established a recommended phase II dosing (RP2D) regimen. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours received mipsagargin by intravenous infusion on days 1, 2 and 3 of 28-day cycles and were allowed to continue participation in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The dosing began at 1.2 mg m(-2) and was escalated using a modified Fibonacci schema to determine maximally tolerated dose (MTD) with an expansion cohort at the RP2D. Plasma was analysed for mipsagargin pharmacokinetics and response was assessed using RECIST criteria. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were treated at doses ranging from 1.2 to 88 mg m(-2), including 28 patients in the dose escalation phase and 16 patients in an expansion cohort. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; Grade 3 rash) was observed in the dose escalation portion of the study. At 88 mg m(-2), observations of Grade 2 infusion-related reaction (IRR, 2 patients) and Grade 2 creatinine elevation (1 patient) led to declaration of 66.8 mg m(-2) as the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Across the study, the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, rash, nausea, pyrexia and IRR. Two patients developed treatment-related Grade 3 acute renal failure that was reversible during the treatment-free portion of the cycle. To help ameliorate the IRR and creatinine elevations, a RP2D of 40 mg m(-2) on day 1 and 66.8 mg m(-2) on days 2 and 3 with prophylactic premedications and hydration on each day of infusion was established. Clinical response was not observed, but prolonged disease stabilisation was observed in a subset of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mipsagargin demonstrated an acceptable tolerability and favourable pharmacokinetic profile in patients with solid tumours.