Cetuximab versus methotrexate in first-line treatment of older, frail patients with inoperable recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (ELAN UNFIT): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: At present, there is no established standard treatment for frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cetuximab to those of methotrexate (the reference regimen) in this population. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 20 hospitals in France. Patients aged 70 years or older, assessed as frail by the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation, with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cetuximab 500 mg/m2 intravenously every 2 weeks or methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously every week, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, serum albumin concentration, and geriatrician consultation. To avoid deterministic minimisation and assure allocation concealment, patients were allocated with a probability of 0·80 to the treatment that most reduced the imbalance. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression, death, discontinuation of treatment, or loss of 2 or more points on the Activities in Daily Living scale, whichever occurred first) and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. 151 failures expected out of 164 patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·625 with 0·05 alpha error, with 80% power. A futility interim analysis was planned when approximately 80 failures were observed, based on failure-free survival. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01884623) and was stopped for futility after the interim analysis. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2013, and April 23, 2018, 82 patients were enrolled (41 to the cetuximab group and 41 to the methotrexate group); 60 (73%) were male, 37 (45%) were aged 80 years or older, 35 (43%) had an ECOG performance status of 2, and 36 (44%) had metastatic disease. Enrolment was stopped for futility at the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 30·8-52·1). At data cutoff, all 82 patients had failure; failure-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 1·4 months [95% CI 1·0-2·1] in the cetuximab group vs 1·9 months [1·1-2·6] in the methotrexate group; adjusted HR 1·03 [95% CI 0·66-1·61], p=0·89). The frequency of patients who had grade 3 or worse adverse events was 63% (26 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 73% (30 of 41) in the methotrexate group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the cetuximab group were fatigue (four [10%] of 41 patients), lung infection (four [10%]), and rash acneiform (four [10%]), and those in the methotrexate group were fatigue (nine [22%] of 41), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (seven [17%]), natraemia disorder (four [10%]), anaemia (four [10%]), leukopenia (four [10%]), and neutropenia (four [10%]). The frequency of patients who had serious adverse events was 44% (18 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 39% (16 of 41) in the methotrexate group. Four patients presented with a fatal adverse event in the cetuximab group (sepsis, decreased level of consciousness, pulmonary oedema, and death of unknown cause) as did two patients in the methotrexate group (dyspnoea and death of unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: The study showed no improvement in failure-free survival with cetuximab versus methotrexate. Patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 did not benefit from these systemic therapies. New treatment options including immunotherapy should be explored in frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, after an initial geriatric evaluation, such as the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation. FUNDING: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), GEMLUC, GEFLUC, and Merck Santé. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Cetuximab every 2 weeks versus standard weekly dosing administration schedule.

Cetuximab every 2 weeks (Q2W) dosing schedule is approved by the US FDA and by the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Phase II trials have found comparable efficacy and safety for the weekly (Q1W) and Q2W schedules, and real-world studies have shown noninferiority of the Q2W compared with the Q1W schedule. Several guidelines recommend cetuximab Q2W administration as an alternative to the Q1W dosing schedule. Cetuximab Q2W can be administered with a Q2W dose of chemotherapy, making it a more convenient option to the Q1W schedule, potentially resulting in reduced costs for administration, increased flexibility for clinical staff and improved patient adherence.

Cetuximab is a drug for patients with colorectal cancer or cancer of the head and neck. It is usually administered once a week. However, studies have shown that cetuximab given once every 2 weeks instead has similar clinical benefits and side effects. Based on this evidence, the every 2 weeks dosing schedule has been approved for use in USA and Japan. The every 2 weeks dosing schedule is a convenient alternative to the weekly schedule. It may result in fewer hospital visits, improved patient quality of life, reduced healthcare costs and more flexibility for medical staff. This review summarizes the current evidence and benefits for the every 2 weeks dosing schedule.

Chemotherapy postimmunotherapy for recurrent metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical data on salvage chemotherapy used after checkpoints inhibitors in oncology are reviewed, with a special focus on recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). RECENT FINDINGS: Converging evidence is emerging about high response and/or disease control rates associated with salvage chemotherapy after immunotherapy failure in advanced solid tumours. This phenomenon is mainly reported in retrospective studies for "hot tumours" such as R/M HNSCC, melanoma, lung, urothelial or gastric cancers, but also in haematological malignancies. Some physiopathological hypotheses have been raised. SUMMARY: Several independent series show increased response rates associated with postimmuno chemotherapy when compared with retrospective series in similar settings. Several mechanisms could be involved such as a "carry-over" allowed by a persistence of the checkpoint inhibitor, a modulation of tumour microenvironment components but also an intrinsic immunomodulatory effect of chemotherapy, increased by a specific immunologic state induced by the therapeutic pressure of checkpoint inhibitors. These data establish a rationale for prospectively evaluating the features of postimmunotherapy salvage chemotherapy.

Systemic treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: what is the best therapeutic sequence?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients is revolutionized by the advent of anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors. RECENT FINDINGS: Indeed, Pembrolizumab is approved as monotherapy or used in combination with platin and fluorouracil for first-line patients with tumors expressing PD-L1. Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab are also approved in second line of recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Moreover, the substitution of fluorouracil for a taxane in the TPEx regimen has shown improvement in safety profile when compared with EXTREME regimen. SUMMARY: Here we carry out a review of the main results of pivotal trials and discuss the pros and cons of the three possible scenarios when considering the therapeutic sequence (first and second line).

Long-term Outcomes with Nivolumab as First-line Treatment in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: Subgroup Analysis of CheckMate 141.

In the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial, nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at primary analysis among 361 patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) post-platinum therapy. Nivolumab versus IC as first-line treatment also improved OS among patients with R/M SCCHN who progressed on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary setting at 1-year follow-up. In the present long-term follow-up analysis of patients receiving first-line treatment, OS benefit with nivolumab (n = 50) versus IC (n = 26) was maintained (median: 7.7 months versus 3.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94) at 2 years. No new safety signals were identified. In summary, this long-term 2-year analysis of CheckMate 141 supports the use of nivolumab as a first-line treatment for patients with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN.

Observational, prospective, phase 4 study in patients with first-line recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with cetuximab and platinum-based therapy: DIRECT.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab plus platinum-based therapy (PBT) followed by cetuximab maintenance until progression (EXTREME) is a guideline-recommended first-line treatment option in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). DIRECT (Dose Intensity RElative to CeTuximab) was the first phase 4 observational study evaluating EXTREME administration in the real-world setting. AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to assess the relative dose intensity of cetuximab in patients with R/M SCCHN treated with first-line cetuximab according to the EXTREME regimen. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were ≥18 years old and eligible to receive cetuximab/PBT. Primary endpoint was cetuximab relative dose intensity (RDI). Of prospectively enrolled patients (n = 157), 119 received ≥1 cycle of EXTREME. Practices differing from the EXTREME trial were 5-fluorouracil omission (14%), maintenance cetuximab given every other week (54%), prior cetuximab, disease-free interval <6 months. 64% of patients reached cetuximab RDI ≥80%; mean cetuximab RDI was 88%. 46% of patients received maintenance cetuximab (mean RDI, 91%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.5 and 9.4 months. No new/unexpected safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The DIRECT study showed that first-line cetuximab plus PBT was a feasible, beneficial first-line treatment regimen in patients with R/M SCCHN in the real-world setting.

A phase II study of monalizumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: The I1 cohort of the EORTC-HNCG-1559 UPSTREAM trial.

PURPOSE: Monalizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the inhibitory natural killer group 2A (NKG2A) receptor localised on natural killer (NK) and T cells. Its ligand, the human leukocyte antigen E (HLA-E), is overexpressed in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). By targeting the HLA-E-NKG2A pathway, monalizumab may enhance NK and T cell activity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The UPSTREAM trial is a biomarker-driven umbrella trial studying targeted therapies and immunotherapies in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) SCCHN progressing after platinum therapy. The immunotherapy 1 (I1) cohort was a phase II, single-arm substudy evaluating monalizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of a 14-day cycle). The primary end-point was the objective response (OR) rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1) over the first 16 weeks. A two-stage Simon design was used (H1 15%, H0 3%, α 8%, power 90%) with pre-planned interruption of accrual if no OR was observed after the first 25 patients. RESULTS: Twenty-six eligible patients were enrolled. Seventeen (65%) patients had received ≥2 previous lines of systemic treatment, and 15 (58%) patients were PD(-L)1 inhibitor pretreated. No OR was observed. Stable disease was observed in 6 patients (23%) with a median duration of 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.7-NE). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.7 months (95% CI: 1.5-1.8) and 6.7 months (95% CI: 3.0-9.6), respectively. The most frequent treatment-related adverse event was grade I/II fatigue (19%). CONCLUSIONS: Monalizumab monotherapy has limited activity in R/M SCCHN. The I1 cohort did not meet its primary objective. Monalizumab combined with durvalumab is under investigation within UPSTREAM.

Avelumab for platinum-ineligible/refractory recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: phase Ib results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) disease develops in approximately 65% of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and is associated with a poor prognosis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have proven effective in multiple tumor types, including R/M SCCHN. We report the efficacy and safety of avelumab (antiprogrammed death ligand 1 antibody) in an expansion cohort of patients with platinum-refractory/ineligible R/M SCCHN enrolled in the phase I JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial (NCT01772004). METHODS: Eligible patients with R/M SCCHN were aged ≥18 years and had received ≥1 line of platinum-based chemotherapy with disease progression or recurrence within 6 months of the last dose or were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. All patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Tumor assessments were carried out by a blinded independent review committee (IRC) and investigators according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1 (RECIST 1.1). Key endpoints included best overall response, duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by IRC and investigator per RECIST 1.1, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Between April 24, 2015, and November 13, 2015, 153 patients were enrolled. Patients had a median of two prior lines of therapy for metastatic or locally advanced disease (range 0-6); 12 patients (7.8%) were not eligible for platinum-based chemotherapy. At data cut-off (December 31, 2017), the confirmed objective response rate was 9.2% (95% CI 5.1% to 14.9%) assessed by IRC and 13.1% (95% CI 8.2% to 19.5%) assessed by investigator. Median DOR was not reached (95% CI 4.2 to not estimable) based on IRC assessment. Median PFS was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.4 to 2.6) assessed by IRC and 1.8 months (95% CI 1.4 to 2.7) assessed by investigator; median OS was 8.0 months (95% CI 6.5 to 10.2). Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 83 patients (54.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 10 patients (6.5%). The most common TRAEs were fatigue (n=19, 12.4%), fever (n=14, 9.2%), pruritus (n=12, 7.8%), and chills (n=11, 7.2%), and there were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Avelumab showed clinical activity and was associated with a low rate of grade ≥3 TRAEs in heavily pretreated patients with platinum-refractory/ineligible R/M SCCHN.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in elderly patients (≥70 years) with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analysis showed that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have comparable activity between younger and older patients. However, little is known about efficacy and safety of ICI in elderly patients with relapsed/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of ICI for patients aged ≥70 y to that for younger patients, while taking into account potential confounding factors. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at four hospitals in France. Patients treated with ICI for R/M SCCHN between September 2014 and December 2018 were eligible. Patients' charts were reviewed for clinical and radiological data as well as oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: We included 226 patients, of whom 67 were aged ≥70 years. Objective response rate (ORR), median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 23%, 9.7 months and 2.7 months, respectively, for elderly patients, compared to 13%, 8.7 months and 1.9 months for younger patients (respective p-values: 0.071, 0.87 and 0.21). After adjustment for performance status, site of progression, number of ICI drugs, time between initial diagnosis and ICI start and number of previous lines, age ≥70 years was significantly associated with a better PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; p = 0.021) but not OS (HR, 0.91; p = 0.59). Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 15% of patients aged ≥70 years and in 8% of younger patients (p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Patients aged ≥70 years with R/M SCCHN may respond to ICI similarly as younger patients in terms of ORR, OS and PFS, while maintaining comparable rate of AEs.

Phase II, Randomized Study of Spartalizumab (PDR001), an Anti-PD-1 Antibody, versus Chemotherapy in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: No standard treatment exists for platinum-refractory, recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). This phase II study (NCT02605967) evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) of spartalizumab, an antiprogrammed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, versus chemotherapy, in NPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nonkeratinizing recurrent/metastatic NPC who progressed on/after platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. Spartalizumab was dosed 400 mg once every 4 weeks, and chemotherapy was received per investigator's choice. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to receive either spartalizumab (82 patients) or chemotherapy (40 patients). The most common spartalizumab treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (10.3%) and pruritus (9.3%). Median PFS in the spartalizumab arm was 1.9 months versus 6.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (P = 0.915). The overall response rate in the spartalizumab arm was 17.1% versus 35.0% in the chemotherapy arm. Median duration of response was 10.2 versus 5.7 months in the spartalizumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Median overall survival was 25.2 and 15.5 months in the spartalizumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Tumor RNA sequencing showed a correlation between response to spartalizumab and IFNγ, LAG-3, and TIM-3 gene expression. CONCLUSIONS: Spartalizumab demonstrated a safety profile consistent with other anti-PD-1 antibodies. The primary endpoint of median PFS was not met; however, median overall survival and median duration of response were longer with spartalizumab compared with chemotherapy.

Phase I trial of copanlisib, a selective PI3K inhibitor, in combination with cetuximab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Background The phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathway is often altered in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and is involved in the resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Objective We investigated the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of the combination of copanlisib, an intravenous, pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab in recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC patients in a phase I dose-escalation trial. Patients and methods Copanlisib was given intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycles at the dose of 45 mg and 30 mg, in combination with standard doses of weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, and 22, and weekly thereafter). Results Three patients received copanlisib 45 mg, of whom two experienced grade 3 hyperglycemia during Cycle 1 that met the DLT criteria. Eight patients were then treated with copanlisib at the dose of 30 mg. Because of the occurrence of hyperglycemia, a premedication with metformine was introduced on the day of the injections. No DLTs were reported at this dose level. The trial was stopped early because of the unfavourable toxicity profile of the combination. Among eight evaluable patients for response, four patients (50%) had disease stabilization according to RECIST1.1 as best response. Conclusion Copanlisib combined with cetuximab demonstrated unfavorable toxicity and limited efficacy in heavily pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC patients.Trial registration NCT02822482, Date of registration: June 2016.

Systemic treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: proposal for management changes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Worldwide, head and neck carcinomas account for 5% of all malignancies. Two-thirds of patients relapse after initial multimodal therapy. Until early 2010, the median overall survival (OS) of metastatic patients was about 10 months. RECENT FINDINGS: New drugs have been incorporated in patient management, thus enabling an increase in OS. Several first and second line protocols are now available but the lack of direct comparison makes the choice difficult between them. SUMMARY: This work aims to define the comprehensive medical management of patients with relapsing head and neck carcinoma. In September 2020, the French head and neck groups GORTEC, Unicancer head and Neck group, GROCC and GETTEC decided to promote a one-day meeting to propose how to incorporate these new regimens in first and second line treatment for recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer (R/M SCCHNC). Twelve French medical oncologist involved in the management of R/M SCCHNC for more than 10 years examined the literature and proposed a simple and practical management based on five criteria: age, delay from last platinum injection, combined positive score expression level, FIT or UNFIT patient according to physician decision, fast response needed or not.

Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin versus platinum, fluorouracil, and cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (GORTEC 2014-01 TPExtreme): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2, both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment. FUNDING: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma.

Avelumab-cetuximab-radiotherapy versus standards of care in locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck: The safety phase of a randomised phase III trial GORTEC 2017-01 (REACH).

BACKGROUND: Based on the hypothesis of synergistic effect of avelumab with cetuximab and radiotherapy, this new combination is tested in a randomised trial against two well-established standard of care (SOC) in locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). METHODS: This phase III trial comprises two cohorts of patients deemed fit to receive cisplatin (100 mg/m2 Q3W) (cohort 1) or unfit to cisplatin (cohort 2). The SOC was Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) with cisplatin in cohort 1 (arm A) and with weekly cetuximab in cohort 2 (arm D). In both cohorts, experimental arms (arms B and C) were IMRT with cetuximab and avelumab (10 mg/kg day 7 and every 2 weeks) followed by avelumab every two weeks for 12 months. A safety phase was planned among the first 41 patients in experimental arms by monitoring grade ≥IV adverse events (AEs) with an unacceptable rate of 35%. RESULTS: Between September 2017 and August 2018, 82 patients with LA-SCCHN were randomised including 41 patients in experimental arms. All patients of experimental arms except one (arm C) received entire radiotherapy as planned. Most common grade ≥III AEs were mucositis, radio-dermatitis, and dysphagia. Grade ≥IV AEs occurred in 5/41 (12%) patients, all in arm C (no grade V). This rate was acceptable according to the hypotheses of the safety phase. In the SOC arms, grade ≥IV AEs occurred in 3/21 patients (14%) in arm A and 2/20 (10%) in arm D. One grade V haemorrhage occurred in arm A. CONCLUSION: The avelumab-cetuximab-RT combination was tolerable for patients with LA-SCCHN, and the approval was given for continuing the trial without modification. CLINICALTRIAL.GOV: NCT02999087.

Occurrence and number of immune-related adverse events are independently associated with survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated by nivolumab.

It has been found that occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is associated with outcome in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 or anti-PDL1 agents. Independent correlation with survival was not consistently demonstrated and correlation with the number of toxicities was also not previously described. All patients treated with nivolumab for advanced NSCLC, in the second line setting, were retrospectively reviewed in a single-center from March 2015 to March 2017. Sixty-nine patients were identified. After a median follow-up of 13 months (95% CI: 10.8; 15.3), there were 46 tumor progressions and 37 deaths. The 6-month and one-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 29%/61% and 24%/49%, respectively. Thirty-one patients (44.9%) presented irAEs. Patients presenting tumor response to previous chemotherapy had a higher rate of irAEs (P=0.01) and a better OS (HR=2, P=0.04). Occurrence of irAEs correlated with OS in multivariate analysis (HR=0.4, 95% CI [0.19; 0.8], P=0.02). The number of irAEs correlated with tumor response, PFS and OS in univariate analysis. Having≥2 irAEs correlated with better outcome compared with one irAE, which correlated with better tumor response and PFS in comparison with 0 irAE, in multivariate analysis. In this study, irAEs was associated with a better outcome in patients treated with nivolumab for advanced NSCLC in the second line setting. Interestingly, the number of irAEs correlated with tumor response and PFS.

Author Correction: Hyperprogression under Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor: a potential role for germinal immunogenetics.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.