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.

[French national standard for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of upper aero-digestive tract - General principles of treatment]. / Référentiel national de traitement des carcinomes épidermoïdes des voies aérodigestives supérieures ­ Principes généraux de traitement.

OBJECTIVES: The management of upper aerodigestive tract cancers is a complex specialty. It is essential to provide an update to establish optimal care. At the initiative of the INCa and under the auspices of the SFORL, the scientific committee, led by Professor Béatrix Barry, Dr. Gilles Dolivet, and Dr. Dominique De Raucourt, decided to develop a reference framework aimed at defining, in a scientific and consensus-based manner, the general principles of treatment for upper aerodigestive tract cancers applicable to all sub-locations. METHODOLOGY: To develop this framework, a multidisciplinary team of practitioners was formed. A systematic analysis of the literature was conducted to produce recommendations classified by grades, in accordance with the standards of the French National Authority for Health (HAS). RESULTS: The grading of recommendations according to HAS standards has allowed the establishment of a reference for patient care based on several criteria. In this framework, patients benefit from differentiated care based on prognostic factors they present (age, comorbidities, TNM status, HPV status, etc.), conditions of implementation, and quality criteria for indicated surgery (operability, resectability, margin quality, mutilation, salvage surgery), as well as quality criteria for radiotherapy (target volume, implementation time, etc.). The role of medical and postoperative treatments was also evaluated based on specific criteria. Finally, supportive care must be organized from the beginning and throughout the patients' care journey. CONCLUSION: All collected data have led to the development of a comprehensive framework aimed at harmonizing practices nationally, facilitating decision-making in multidisciplinary consultation meetings, promoting equality in practices, and providing a state-of-the-art and reference practices for assessing the quality of care. This new framework is intended to be updated every 5 years to best reflect the latest advances in the field.

Long-term results from a clinical study of xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy in people with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is the most common type of head and neck cancer. About half of the people with locally advanced (LA) SCCHN will have surgery to remove their cancer. For people who do not have surgery, chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment, with the aim of fully removing the cancer. However, in many people, this treatment does not completely kill the cancer. This summary presents the main results of a phase 2 study of a medicine called xevinapant, which is under investigation as a potential future medicine for people with this type of cancer. WHAT DID THE RESEARCHERS WANT TO FIND OUT?: In this study, researchers wanted to find out whether xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy could stop the cancer from growing back or getting worse in the years after treatment completion in people with LA SCCHN. They also looked at whether people with this type of cancer had side effects from taking this medicine. Short-term results were collected 18 months after treatment with chemoradiotherapy ended. These results showed that people who received xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy were less likely to have their cancer grow back, or get worse in the part of the body where it was first found, than people who received liquid placebo-which looked and tasted the same as the active medicine (in this case, xevinapant), but did not contain any medicine-plus chemoradiotherapy. Researchers then continued to collect information for a longer amount of time (at least 3 years). They wanted to see if treatment with xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy was stopping the cancer from growing back or getting worse and helping people live longer. After this, people were monitored for a further 2 years to see if they were alive 5 years after treatment. WHAT WERE THE MAIN FINDINGS OF THE STUDY?: The results showed that people with this type of cancer who were treated with xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy were less likely to die, lived longer on average, and were less likely to have their cancer get worse. A phase 3 study, named TrilynX, in a larger group of people, is currently taking place to confirm the results of this study. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02022098 (Debio 1143-201 Dose-finding and Efficacy Phase I/II Trial) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Extended follow-up of a phase 2 trial of xevinapant plus chemoradiotherapy in high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report long-term efficacy and overall survival (OS) results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study (NCT02022098) investigating xevinapant plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (CRT) vs. placebo plus CRT in 96 patients with unresected locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to xevinapant 200 mg/day (days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle for 3 cycles), or matched placebo, plus CRT (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 3 cycles plus conventional fractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy [70 Gy/35 F, 2 Gy/F, 5 days/week for 7 weeks]). Locoregional control, progression-free survival, and duration of response after 3 years, long-term safety, and 5-year OS were assessed. RESULTS: The risk of locoregional failure was reduced by 54% for xevinapant plus CRT vs. placebo plus CRT but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.13; P = .0893). The risk of death or disease progression was reduced by 67% for xevinapant plus CRT (adjusted HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.67; P = .0019). The risk of death was approximately halved in the xevinapant arm compared with placebo (adjusted HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.84; P = .0101). OS was prolonged with xevinapant plus CRT vs. placebo plus CRT; median OS not reached (95% CI, 40.3-not evaluable) vs. 36.1 months (95% CI, 21.8-46.7). Incidence of late-onset grade ≥3 toxicities was similar across arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomised phase 2 study of 96 patients, xevinapant plus CRT demonstrated superior efficacy benefits, including markedly improved 5-year survival in patients with unresected LA SCCHN.

Afatinib maintenance therapy following post-operative radiochemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Results from the phase III randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study BIB2992ORL (GORTEC 2010-02).

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the efficacy and safety of afatinib maintenance therapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with macroscopically complete resection and adjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT). METHODS: This French multicentric randomised phase III double-blind placebo-controlled study included adult patients with ECOG-PS≤2, normal haematological, hepatic and renal functions, and non-metastatic, histologically confirmed HNSCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx or hypopharynx, with macroscopically complete resection and adjuvant RCT (≥2 cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 J1, J22, J43 and 66Gy (2Gy/fraction, 5 fractions/week, conventional or intensity modulated radiotherapy ≥60Gy). Randomised patients were planned to receive either afatinib (afa arm) or placebo (control arm (C)) as maintenance therapy for one year. Primary endpoint was disease free survival (DFS). A 15% improvement in DFS was expected at 2 years with afatinib (from 55 to 70%). RESULTS: Among the 167 patients with resected HNSCC included in 19 cancer centres and hospitals from Dec 2011, 134 patients were randomised to receive one-year maintenance afatinib or placebo (afa:67; C:67). Benefit/risk ratio was below assumptions and independent advisory committee recommended to stop the study in Feb 2017, the sponsor decided premature study discontinuation, with a 2-year follow-up for the last randomised patient. 2y-DFS was 61% (95% CI 0.48-0.72) in the afatinib group and 64% (95% CI 0.51-0.74) in the placebo group (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.70-1.80). CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy with afatinib compared with placebo following post-operative RCT in patients with HNSCC did not significantly improve 2y-DFS and should not be recommended in this setting outside clinical trials. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT01427478.

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.

A double-blind phase III trial of immunomodulating nutritional formula during adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients: IMPATOX.

BACKGROUND: In a previous phase II study an immunonutrient supplement was found to reduce severe acute toxicities for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) patients treated with concomitant cisplatin and radiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate efficacy of the same immunonutrient supplement on severe mucositis. Secondary objectives included tolerance, compliance to oral supplementation, chemotherapy interruptions and delays, quality of life, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 1, 2, and 3 y. METHODS: Between November 2009 and June 2013, 180 HNSCC patients eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery with curative intent were included in our double-blind phase III multicenter trial. They were assigned to receive oral supplementation (3 sachets/d) of either a formula enriched with l-arginine and omega-3 (n-3) fatty and ribonucleic acids (experimental arm), or an isocaloric isonitrogenous control (control arm), for 5 d before each of 3 cycles of cisplatin. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were undertaken, along with subgroup analyses of ≥75% compliant patients, to compare the incidence of acute mucositis (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and WHO scales) and 36-mo survival. RESULTS: At 1 mo after terminating chemoradiotherapy (CRT), no differences were observed in the incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis between treatment groups, in the ITT, PP (172 patients), and subgroup (≥75% compliance, n = 112) analyses. The immunomodulating supplement did not significantly improve survival in the ITT and PP analyses at 3 y after CRT. Among ≥75% compliant patients, however, OS at 3 y was significantly improved in the immunomodulating formula group (81%; 95% CI: 67%, 89%) compared with controls (61%; 95% CI: 46%, 73%; P = 0.034), as well as PFS (73%; 95% CI: 58%, 83% compared with 50%; 95% CI: 36%, 63%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Although this immunomodulating formula failed to reduce severe mucositis during CRT, the findings suggest that the long-term survival of compliant HNSCC patients was improved.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01149642.

Debio 1143 and high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy in high-risk locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Debio 1143 is an orally available antagonist of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins with the potential to enhance the antitumour activity of cisplatin and radiotherapy. The radiosensitising effect of Debio 1143 is mediated through caspase activation and TNF, IFNγ, CD8 T cell-dependent pathways. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Debio 1143 in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 study by the French Head and Neck Radiotherapy Oncology Group (GORTEC) was run at 19 hospitals in France and Switzerland. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years with locoregionally advanced, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (characterised as non-metastatic, measurable stage III, IVa, or IVb [limited to T ≥2, N0-3, and M0] disease), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a history of heavy tobacco smoking (>10 pack-years) with no previous or current treatment for invasive head and neck cancer, and no previous treatment with inhibitor of apoptosis protein antagonists. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral Debio 1143 (200 mg per day on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles, for three cycles) or oral placebo (20 mg/mL, administered at the same dosing schedule) using a stochastic minimisation technique according to node involvement and primary tumour site, and HPV-16 status in patients with an oropharyngeal primary tumour site. All patients received standard high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and repeated in the per-protocol population. Responses were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02022098, and is still active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2016, and April 24, 2017, 48 patients were randomly assigned to the Debio 1143 group and 48 to the placebo group (one patient in the placebo group did not receive the study drug and was not included in the safety analysis). Median duration of follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 19·6-29·4) in the Debio 1143 group and 24·2 months (6·6-26·8) in the placebo group. Locoregional control 18 months after chemoradiotherapy was achieved in 26 (54%; 95% CI 39-69) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group versus 16 (33%; 20-48) of 48 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·69 [95% CI 1·13-6·42], p=0·026). Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 41 (85%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and in 41 (87%) of 47 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dysphagia (in 24 [50%] patients in the Debio 1143 group vs ten [21%] in the placebo group), mucositis (in 15 [31%] vs ten [21%]), and anaemia (in 17 [35%] vs 11 [23%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 30 (63%) of 48 patients in the Debio 1143 group and 28 (60%) of 47 in the placebo group. In the placebo group, two (4%) deaths were due to adverse events (one multiple organ failure and one asphyxia; neither was considered to be related to treatment). No deaths due to adverse events occurred in the Debio 1143 group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first treatment regimen to achieve superior efficacy in this disease setting against a high-dose cisplatin chemoradiotherapy comparator in a randomised trial. These findings suggest that inhibition of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins is a novel and promising approach in this poor prognostic population and warrant confirmation in a phase 3 study with the aim of expanding the therapeutic options for these patients. FUNDING: Debiopharm.

Patient Satisfaction with Fentanyl Pectin Nasal Spray in Breakthrough Cancer Pain Management During Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The severity of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) impacts patients' quality of life, increases the risk of anxiety and depression, lowers functional capacities, and may lead to poor compliance with cancer treatments. The aim of the current study was to assess, in a real-life setting, patient satisfaction with a fentanyl-pectin-nasal-spray (FPNS) for BTcP management in head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated by radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This non-interventional, prospective study was conducted in 92 adult H&N-cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy and who started FPNS treatment for BTcP. Throughout the radiotherapy period, the patients completed self-diaries to assess their BTcP episodes, FPNS use, satisfaction on FPNS efficiency (primary outcome), tolerability and ease of use. RESULTS: Prior to FPNS treatment, 86% of the patients were experiencing ≤4 BTcP episodes/day. During the radiotherapy period, the BTcP episodes were treated with a median dose of 100µg of FPNS. Patients were "satisfied/very-satisfied" with the efficiency (73% of assessments), ease of use (87% of assessments) and tolerability (87% of assessments) of FPNS. In total, 27% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to FPNS and 4% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. None of the adverse events were serious. Patient quality of life was maintained throughout the radiotherapy period. CONCLUSION: This study showed, in a real-life setting, that a clear majority of H&N cancer patients treated with FPNS for BTcP throughout radiotherapy expressed satisfaction with this analgesic treatment.

Induction chemotherapy followed by cisplatin or cetuximab concomitant to radiotherapy for laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer: Long-term results of the TREMPLIN randomised GORTEC trial.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by radiotherapy is preferred to conventional chemoradiotherapy to avoid total laryngectomy in patients with laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer. In comparison with conventional radiotherapy, bioradiotherapy with cetuximab significantly improves locoregional control rates (LCRs) and overall survival (OS) without any increase in unmanageable toxicity. METHODS: Patients included had untreated non-metastatic stage III-IV laryngeal/hypopharyngeal invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Good responders after three cycles of docetaxel-cisplatin-5-fluorouracil (TPF)-ICT (docetaxel and cisplatin, 75 mg/m2 each on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil, 750 mg/m2/day on days 1-5) every 3 weeks were randomised to receive radiotherapy (70 Gy) with concurrent cisplatin (100 mg/m2/day on days 1, 22 and 43 of radiotherapy) or cetuximab (400 mg/m2 of loading dose, 250 mg/m2/week during radiotherapy). The primary end-point was larynx preservation. The secondary end-points were laryngo-oesophageal dysfunction-free survival (LEDFS), LCR and OS. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were enrolled. Among 126 TPF-ICT responders, 116 were randomised to receive either cisplatin (n = 60) or cetuximab (n = 56). The median follow-up was 77.5 months. Five-year OS rates were 66.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.79) versus 66.9% (95% CI: 0.54-0.79) (p = 0.9), respectively. Five-year LCRs were 79.8% (95% CI: 69.5-90.0) versus 67.8% (95% CI: 55.1-80.5%) (p = 0.18). Five-year LEDFS was 62.2% (95% CI: 49.7-74.8%) versus 56.2% (95% CI: 43.0-69.4) (p = 0.38). Late grade III/IV salivary gland and laryngeal toxicity occurred in 10.3% versus 9.8% and 6.8% versus 11.8% of patients receiving cisplatin-radiotherapy versus cetuximab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in LEDFS was observed between the two arms. TPF-ICT followed by conventional chemoradiotherapy or cetuximab was feasible, and long-term toxicity was not statistically different between the two arms. LEDFS appears as a relevant end-point.

Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Cetuximab Radiotherapy Is Not Superior to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Head and Neck Carcinomas: Results of the GORTEC 2007-02 Phase III Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Both concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) and cetuximab radiotherapy (cetux-RT) have been established as the standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. It was not known whether the addition of induction chemotherapy before cetux-RT could improve outcomes compared with standard of care CT-RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The current trial was restricted to patients with nonmetastatic N2b, N2c, or N3 squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and fit for taxotere, cisplatin, fluorouracil (TPF). Patients were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of TPF followed by cetux-RT versus concurrent carboplatin fluorouracil and RT as recommended in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. The trial was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 in favor of TPF plus cetux-RT for progression-free survival at 2 years. The inclusion of 180 patients per arm was needed to achieve 80% power at a two-sided significance level of .05. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2013, 370 patients were included. All patients and tumors characteristics were well balanced between arms. There were more cases of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia in the induction arm, and the induction TPF was associated with 6.6% treatment-related deaths. With a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 2-year progression-free survival was not different between both arms (CT-RT, 0.38 v TPF + cetux-RT, 0.36; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.20]; P = .58). HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.3; P = .90) for locoregional control and 1.12 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.46; P = .39) for overall survival. These effects were observed regardless of p16 status. The rate of distant metastases was lower in the TPF arm (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99]; P = .05). CONCLUSION: Induction TPF followed by cetux-RT did not improve outcomes compared with CT-RT in a population of patients with advanced cervical lymphadenopathy.

Improved Outcome by Adding Concurrent Chemotherapy to Cetuximab and Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Carcinomas: Results of the GORTEC 2007-01 Phase III Randomized Trial.

Purpose To investigate the effect of adding concurrent chemotherapy (CT) to cetuximab plus radiotherapy (RT; CT-cetux-RT) compared with cetuximab plus RT (cetux-RT) in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Patients and Methods In this phase III randomized trial, patients with N0-2b, nonoperated, stage III or IV (nonmetastatic) LA-SCCHN were enrolled. Patients received once-daily RT up to 70 Gy with weekly cetuximab or with weekly cetuximab and concurrent carboplatin and fluorouracil (three cycles). To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64 for progression-free survival (PFS) with 85% power at a two-sided significance level of P = .05, 203 patients needed to be included in each arm. Results Four hundred six patients were randomly assigned to either CT-cetux-RT or cetux-RT. Patient and tumor characteristics were well balanced between arms, including p16 status. With a median follow-up of 4.4 years, the HR for PFS favored the CT-cetux-RT arm (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .015), with 3-year PFS rates of 52.3% and 40.5% and median PFS times of 37.9 and 22.4 months in the CT-cetux-RT and cetux-RT arms, respectively. The HR for locoregional control was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.76; P < .001) in favor of CT-cetux-RT. These benefits were observed regardless of p16 status for oropharynx carcinomas. Overall survival (HR, 0.80; P = .11) and distant metastases rates (HR, 1.19; P = .50) were not significantly different between the two arms. The CT-cetux-RT arm, compared with cetux-RT, had a higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 mucositis (73% v 61%, respectively; P = .014) and of hospitalizations for toxicity (42% v 22%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion The addition of concurrent carboplatin and fluorouracil to cetux-RT improved PFS and locoregional control, with a nonsignificant gain in survival. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of a clinical benefit for treatment intensification using cetux-RT as a backbone in LA-SCCHN.

Multicenter Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial GORTEC (Groupe Oncologie Radiotherapie Tete et Cou) 2009-01 Evaluating the Effect of the Regenerating Agent on Radiodermatitis of Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: Concomitant cetuximab and radiation therapy (RT) can induce severe radiodermatitis in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). OTD70DERM, a regenerating agent (RGTA), is a structural and functional analogue of glycosaminoglycans. Preclinical studies have shown that topical RGTA can markedly reduce radiation-induced mucosal and cutaneous toxicities without tumor protection. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of topical RGTA on radiodermatitis in patients with HNC undergoing RT and cetuximab, for whom RT-induced skin reactions are frequent and/or severe. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade ≥2 radiodermatitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with newly diagnosed HNC undergoing conventionally fractionated RT (70 Gy in 35 fractions) and weekly cetuximab. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive topical OTD70DERM or placebo on irradiated skin once daily. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, was used to evaluate radiodermatitis (photographs of radiation zone). The Dermatology Life Quality Index score was also evaluated. All the skin reactions seen on the photographs were scored independently by 2 outside experts. RESULTS: Of the 76 randomized patients (38 in each arm), 72 were available for the final radiodermatitis evaluation (37 in the RGTA arm and 35 in the placebo arm). No significant difference was observed concerning the incidence or duration of grade ≥2 radiodermatitis between the 2 arms (81% for RGTA vs 80% for placebo; P=.9). Also, no significant difference was found between the 2 arms regarding grade ≥2 radiodermatitis evaluated by the 2 experts using the photographs of 68 patients (76% vs 74%; P=.78). Finally, no significant difference was found in the Dermatology Life Quality Index score (score >10, 15% vs 20%; P=.45). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the good preclinical rationale, RGTA did not reduce the incidence and severity of radiodermatitis in patients with HNC.

Very accelerated radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy for N3 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Pooled analysis of two GORTEC randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcome of N3 patients treated with very accelerated radiotherapy (VART) or different schedules of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) within two phase III trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 179 patients with N3 HNSCC from two GORTEC randomized trials (96-01 and 99-02) were pooled. Patients received either VART: 64.8Gy/3.5weeks or one of the 3 following CRT regimens: Conventional CRT: 70Gy/7weeks+3 cycles carboplatin-5FU; Moderately accelerated CRT: 70Gy/6weeks+2 cycles carboplatin-5FU; Strongly intensified CRT: 64Gy/5weeks+cisplatin (days 2, 16, 30) and 5 FU (days 1-5, 29-33) followed by 2 cycles adjuvant cisplatin-5FU. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 13.3 and 5.2years for GORTEC 96-01 and GORTEC 99-02, respectively. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 13.8%. No significant difference was observed between CRT versus VART in terms of OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.93, p=0.68), loco-regional progression (HR: 0.70, p=0.13), or distant progression (HR: 0.86, p=0.53). OS was worse for patients with T3-4 tumors versus early T stage (11.0% versus 25.7%, p=0.015). In multivariate analysis, the oropharyngeal subsite presented a higher risk of distant metastasis (as first event 46.5% vs 19.2%, p<0.001),). A significant interaction between treatment modalities and subsites has been observed concerning loco-regional and distant failures. CONCLUSION: The outcome of N3 HNSCC was extremely poor despite treatment intensification and no difference between CRT and VART. Both distant metastases and loco-regional failures remain important treatment challenge.

Long-term Results of a Multicenter Randomized Phase III Trial of Induction Chemotherapy With Cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, ± Docetaxel for Larynx Preservation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of GORTEC 2000-01 was to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin (P) and 5-fluorouracil (F) with or without docetaxel (T) for larynx preservation. METHODS: Operable patients with untreated stage III or IV larynx or hypopharynx invasive squamous cell carcinoma who required total laryngectomy were randomly assigned to three cycles of induction chemotherapy with either TPF or PF, followed by radiation therapy for responders. The primary endpoint was three-year larynx preservation rate. Secondary endpoints included larynx dysfunction-free survival (LDFFS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), loco-regional control rate (LCR), cause of death, and later toxicity rates. Survival and other data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen patients were treated with median follow-up of 105 months. The five- and 10-year larynx preservation rates were 74.0% (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.82) vs 58.1% (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.68) and 70.3% (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.8) vs 46.5% (95% CI = 0.31 to 0.63, P = .01) in the TPF vs PF arm, respectively. The five- and 10-year LDFFS rates were 67.2% (95% CI = 0.57 to 0.76) vs 46.5% (95% CI = 0.36 to 0.57) and 63.7% (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.74) vs 37.2% (95% CI = 0.24 to 0.52, P = .001), respectively. OS, DFS, and LCR were not statistically improved in the TPF vs the PF arm. Statistically fewer grade 3-4 late toxicities of the larynx occurred with the TPF regimen compared with the PF arm (9.3% vs 17.1%, G-test, P = .038). CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up confirms that induction chemotherapy with TPF increased larynx preservation and larynx dysfunction-free survival. In this larynx preservation approach using induction chemotherapy, TPF should be recommended, followed by radiation therapy.

Induction chemotherapy followed by either chemoradiotherapy or bioradiotherapy for larynx preservation: the TREMPLIN randomized phase II study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT) for larynx preservation (LP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with stage III to IV larynx/hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma received three cycles of ICT-docetaxel and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) each on day 1 and fluorouracil 750 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 through 5. Poor responders (< 50% response) underwent salvage surgery. Responders (≥ 50% response) were randomly assigned to conventional radiotherapy (RT; 70 Gy) with concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) per day on days 1, 22, and 43 of RT (arm A) or concurrent cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) loading dose and 250 mg/m(2) per week during RT (arm B). Primary end point was LP at 3 months. Secondary end points were larynx function preservation (LFP) and overall survival (OS) at 18 months. RESULTS: Of the 153 enrolled patients, 116 were randomly assigned after ICT (60, arm A; 56, arm B). Overall toxicity of both CRT and BRT was substantial following ICT. However, treatment compliance was higher in the BRT arm. In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in LP at 3 months between arms A and B (95% and 93%, respectively), LFP (87% and 82%, respectively), and OS at 18 months (92% and 89%, respectively). There were fewer local treatment failures in arm A than in arm B; salvage surgery was feasible in arm B only. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that one treatment was superior to the other or could improve the outcome reported with ICT followed by RT alone (French Groupe Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête et Cou [GORTEC] 2000-01 trial [Induction CT by Cisplatin, 5FU With or Without Docetaxel in Patients With T3 and T4 Larynx and Hypopharynx Carcinoma]). The protocol that can best compare with RT alone after ICT is still to be determined.

Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant chemoradiotherapy and accelerated radiotherapy independently improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of these approaches. METHODS: In our open-label phase 3 randomised trial, we enrolled patients with locally advanced, stage III and IV (non-metastatic) HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly allocated patients centrally with a computer program (with centre, T stage, N stage, and localisation as minimisation factors) in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy (70 Gy in 7 weeks plus three cycles of 4 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (70 Gy in 6 weeks plus two cycles of 5 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), or very accelerated radiotherapy alone (64·8 Gy [1·8 Gy twice daily] in 3·5 weeks). The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is completed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828386. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2000, and May 9, 2007, we randomly allocated 279 patients to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy, 280 to accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 281 to very accelerated radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-6·2); rates of chemotherapy and radiotherapy compliance were good in all groups. Accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy offered no PFS benefit compared with conventional chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·84-1·23; p=0·88) or very accelerated radiotherapy (0·83, 0·69-1·01; p=0·060); conventional chemoradiotherapy improved PFS compared with very accelerated radiotherapy (0·82, 0·67-0·99; p=0·041). 3-year PFS was 37·6% (95% CI 32·1-43·4) after conventional chemoradiotherapy, 34·1% (28·7-39·8) after accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 32·2% (27·0-37·9) after very accelerated radiotherapy. More patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group had RTOG grade 3-4 acute mucosal toxicity (226 [84%] of 268 patients) compared with accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (205 [76%] of 271 patients) or conventional chemoradiotherapy (180 [69%] of 262; p=0·0001). 158 (60%) of 265 patients in the conventional chemoradiotherapy group, 176 (64%) of 276 patients in the accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy group, and 190 (70%) of 272 patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group were intubated with feeding tubes during treatment (p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy has a substantial treatment effect given concomitantly with radiotherapy and acceleration of radiotherapy cannot compensate for the absence of chemotherapy. We noted the most favourable outcomes for conventional chemoradiotherapy, suggesting that acceleration of radiotherapy is probably not beneficial in concomitant chemoradiotherapy schedules. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without docetaxel for larynx preservation.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy with cisplatin (P) and 5-fluorouracil (F) followed by radiotherapy in patients who respond to chemotherapy is an alternative to total laryngectomy for patients with locally advanced larynx and hypopharynx cancer. Data suggest that docetaxel (T) may add to the efficacy of PF. The objective of this trial was to determine whether adding T to PF could increase the larynx preservation rate. METHODS: Patients who had larynx and hypopharynx cancer that required total laryngectomy were randomly assigned to receive three cycles of TPF or PF. Patients who responded to chemotherapy received radiotherapy with or without additional chemotherapy. Patients who did not respond to chemotherapy underwent total laryngectomy followed by radiotherapy with or without additional chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was 3-year larynx preservation rate. Secondary endpoints included acute toxicities and overall response. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Baseline patient and tumor characteristics were well balanced between the TPF (n = 110) and PF (n = 103) groups. With a median follow-up of 36 months, the 3-year actuarial larynx preservation rate was 70.3% with TPF vs 57.5% with PF (difference = 12.8%; P = .03). Patients in the TPF group had more grade 2 alopecia, grade 4 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia, whereas patients in the PF group had more grade 3 and 4 stomatitis, thrombocytopenia, and grade 4 creatinine elevation. The overall response was 80.0% in the TPF group vs 59.2% in the PF group (difference = 20.8%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced larynx and hypopharynx carcinomas, TPF induction chemotherapy was superior to the PF regimen in terms of overall response rate. These results suggest that larynx preservation could be achieved for a higher proportion of patients.