Phase II Multi-institutional Clinical Trial Result of Concurrent Cetuximab and Nivolumab in Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A phase II multi-institutional clinical trial was conducted to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with a combination of cetuximab and nivolumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with R/M HNSCC were treated with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 i.v. on day 14 as a lead-in followed by cetuximab 500 mg/m2 i.v. and nivolumab 240 mg i.v. on day 1 and day 15 of each 28-day cycle. Expression of p16 and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) in archived tumors were determined. Tumor-tissue-modified human papillomavirus (TTMV) DNA was quantified in plasma. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled, and 88 patients were evaluable for OS with a median follow-up of 15.9 months. Median OS in the 45 patients who had prior therapy for R/M HNSCC (cohort A) was 11.4 months, with a 1 year OS 50% [90% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-0.57]. Median OS in the 43 patients who had no prior therapy (cohort B) was 20.2 months, with a 1-year OS 66% (90% CI, 0.59-0.71). In the combined cohorts, the p16-negative immunostaining was associated with higher response rate (RR; P = 0.02) but did not impact survival while higher PD-L1 combined positive score was associated with higher RR (P = 0.03) and longer OS (log-rank P = 0.04). In the p16-positive patients, lower median (1,230 copies/mL) TTMV DNA counts were associated with higher RR (P = 0.01) and longer OS compared with higher median (log-rank P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cetuximab and nivolumab is effective in patients with both previously treated and untreated R/M HNSCC and warrants further evaluation.

Concurrent Cetuximab and Nivolumab as a Second-Line or beyond Treatment of Patients with Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Results of Phase I/II Study.

We hypothesized the combination of cetuximab and nivolumab would improve survival in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC by providing synergy in cancer control and evaluated toxicities and efficacy of the combination. Effects of sequential administration of cetuximab and anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) were also explored. Patients who failed at least one line of palliative treatment for incurable HNSCC were treated with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 IV on Day (D)-14 as a lead-in followed by cetuximab 500 mg/m2 IV and nivolumab 240 mg/m2 IV on D1 and D15 every 28-D cycle. Electronic health record-derived real-world data (RWD) were used to explore sequential treatment effects of CPI and cetuximab. A total of 45 evaluable patients were analyzed, and 31/45 (69%) patients had prior exposure to either CPI or cetuximab. The only grade 4 treatment-related adverse event was cetuximab infusion reaction in one patient. The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 19% and 44%, respectively. Although patients with no prior CPI (23/45, 51%) showed a trend for more favorable PFS relative to patients with prior CPI (22/45, 49%), the improvement in the 1-year OS did not reach the statistical threshold. For evaluation of sequential CPI and cetuximab treatment effects, we selected RWD-cetuximab cohort with 173 patients and RWD-CPI cohort with 658 patients from 6862 R/M HNSCC. Our result suggested patients treated with RWD-cetuximab after RWD-CPI had worse OS compared to no prior RWD-CPI (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02-3.16). Our data suggest the combination of cetuximab and nivolumab is well tolerated. Optimal sequencing of cetuximab and CPI may have an impact in prognosis and requires further evaluation.