Immune-related adverse events are associated with improved response, progression-free survival, and overall survival for patients with head and neck cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that patients developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) while receiving immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) would have improved oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Patients with recurrent/metastatic HNC received ICI at 2 centers. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier methods, and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to associate the irAE status with the overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in cohort 1 (n = 108). These outcomes were also analyzed in an independent cohort of patients receiving ICI (cohort 2; 47 evaluable for irAEs). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 8.4 months for patients treated in cohort 1. Sixty irAEs occurred in 49 of 108 patients with 5 grade 3 or higher irAEs (10.2%). ORR was higher for irAE+ patients (30.6%) in comparison with irAE- patients (12.3%; P = .02). The median PFS was 6.9 months for irAE+ patients and 2.1 months for irAE- patients (P = .0004), and the median OS was 12.5 and 6.8 months, respectively (P = .007). Experiencing 1 or more irAEs remained associated with ORR (P = .03), PFS (P = .003), and OS (P = .004) in multivariate analyses. The association between development of irAEs and prolonged OS persisted in a 22-week landmark analysis (P = .049). The association between development of irAEs and favorable outcomes was verified in cohort 2. CONCLUSIONS: The development of irAEs was strongly associated with an ICI benefit, including overall response, PFS, and OS, in 2 separate cohorts of patients with recurrent/metastatic HNC.

Academics as leaders in the cancer artificial intelligence revolution.

The successful translation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications into clinical cancer care practice requires guidance by academic cancer researchers and providers who are well poised to step into leadership roles. In this commentary, the authors describe the landscape of the deep learning-based AI innovation boom in cancer research. For progress in applied AI research to continue, 4 essential components must be present: algorithms, data, computational resources, and domain-specific expertise. Each of these components is available to researchers and providers in academic settings; in particular, cancer care domain-specific expertise in academia is superb. Three common pitfalls for deep learning research also are detailed along with a discussion of how the academic oncology research environment is well suited to guard against these challenges. In this rapidly developing field, there are few established standards, and oncology researchers and providers must educate themselves about emerging AI technology to avoid common pitfalls and ensure responsible use.

A randomized phase 2 network trial of tivantinib plus cetuximab versus cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: MET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional. RESULTS: The response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.