Platinum/taxane/pembrolizumab vs platinum/5FU/pembrolizumab in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/m HNSCC).

OBJECTIVES: Pembrolizumab +/- chemotherapy is standard therapy for r/m HNSCC. Despite regulatory approval of platinum/5FU/pembrolizumab, a taxane is often substituted for 5FU for convenience and tolerability. We aimed to characterize nationwide use patterns and compare outcomes between platinum/taxane/pembrolizumab vs platinum/5FU/pembrolizumab. METHODS: Patients in a US nationwide database with r/m HNSCC treated from 2017 to 2022 with pembrolizumab plus platinum chemotherapy were included. Demographic and cancer-specific characteristics were summarized. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology, and compared between groups using log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression. Time on treatment, number of cycles, receipt of second-line therapy, and toxicities were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 438 patients, 320 (73 %) received 5FU and 118 (27 %) received a taxane. Taxane use became more frequent over time and was higher in academic vs community practices (51 % vs 23 %, p < 0.001). OS did not differ between taxane and 5FU groups (mOS 12.2 vs 13.4 months, p = 0.662). On multivariable Cox regression, HR for death associated with taxane vs 5FU was 0.99 (95 %CI 0.71-1.38). Receipt of 2L therapy was numerically higher for 5FU patients (46 %) compared to taxane patients (35 %, p = 0.071). Grade ≥ 3 anemia was more common in taxane patients (33 % vs 20 %, p = 0.003), whereas grade ≥ 3 lymphopenia and thrombocytopenia were numerically higher in 5FU patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with r/m HNSCC undergoing chemoimmunotherapy, taxane vs 5FU use varies by practice setting and geographical region. Platinum/taxane/pembrolizumab was associated with similar survival as platinum/5FU/pembrolizumab; these results suggest that chemoimmunotherapy with taxane is a reasonable alternative to 5FU.

Cost comparison of treatment for oropharyngeal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Based on current guidelines, surgical and nonsurgical therapies are viable frontline treatment for patients with locoregional oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). We sought to compare financial parameters between chemoradiation and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: In this study we identified patients with selected American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th Edition stage II to IVa OPC treated with TORS between January 2013 and December 2014. Fifteen patients who underwent TORS were stage matched with 15 patients treated with chemoradiation. Total charges and cost data for each patient were analyzed at 4-month and 1-year time points; functional and oncologic outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in functional and oncologic outcomes. Patients undergoing TORS had a longer inpatient hospital stay, and most required a nasogastric tube for an average of 3.5 days. There were no local or regional recurrences. Across all time points, the TORS group had lower charges and costs compared to the chemoradiation group, with 14% lower costs at 1 year. In the chemoradiation group, nearly two-thirds of costs came from radiation therapy and pharmacy expenses. Chemotherapy accounted for most pharmacy costs. The costs of operating the surgical robot accounted for a about half of surgical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with stage II to IVa oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with TORS may incur lower costs than those treated nonsurgically. With rising healthcare spending, the financial impact of treatment might be considered for those patients eligible for treatment regimens with comparable functional and oncologic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b Laryngoscope, 129:1604-1609, 2019.