Induction chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: role, controversy, and future directions.

BackgroundThe value of induction chemotherapy (ICT) remains under investigation despite decades of research. New advancements in the field, specifically regarding the induction regimen of choice, have reignited interest in this approach for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). Sufficient evidence has accumulated regarding the benefits and superiority of TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil) over the chemotherapy doublet cisplatin and fluorouracil. We therefore sought to collate and interpret the available data and further discuss the considerations for delivering ICT safely and optimally selecting suitable post-ICT regimens.DesignWe nonsystematically reviewed published phase III clinical trials on TPF ICT in a variety of LA SCCHN patient populations conducted between 1990 and 2017.ResultsTPF may confer survival and organ preservation benefits in a subgroup of patients with functionally inoperable or poor-prognosis LA SCCHN. Additionally, patients with operable disease or good prognosis (who are not candidates for organ preservation) may benefit from TPF induction in terms of reducing local and distant failure rates and facilitating treatment deintensification in selected populations. The safe administration of TPF requires treatment by a multidisciplinary team at an experienced institution. The management of adverse events associated with TPF and post-ICT radiotherapy-based treatment is crucial. Finally, post-ICT chemotherapy alternatives to cisplatin concurrent with radiotherapy (i.e. cetuximab or carboplatin plus radiotherapy) appear promising and must be investigated further.ConclusionsTPF is an evidence-based ICT regimen of choice in LA SCCHN and confers benefits in suitable patients when it is administered safely by an experienced multidisciplinary team and paired with the optimal post-ICT regimen, for which, however, no consensus currently exists

A randomized, phase II study of afatinib versus cetuximab in metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BackgroundAfatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated lung cancer. We hypothesized that the agent would have greater antitumor activity compared with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients, whose disease has progressed after platinum-containing therapy.Patients and methodsAn open-label, randomized, phase II trial was conducted in 43 centers; 124 patients were randomized (1 : 1) to either afatinib (50 mg/day) or cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)/week) until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) (stage I), with optional crossover (stage II). The primary end point was tumor shrinkage before crossover assessed by investigator (IR) and independent central review (ICR).ResultsA total of 121 patients were treated (61 afatinib, 60 cetuximab) and 68 crossed over to stage II (32 and 36 respectively). In stage I, mean tumor shrinkage by IR/ICR was 10.4%/16.6% with afatinib and 5.4%/10.1% with cetuximab (P = 0.46/0.30). Objective response rate was 16.1%/8.1% with afatinib and 6.5%/9.7% with cetuximab (IR/ICR). Comparable disease control rates were observed with afatinib (50%) and cetuximab (56.5%) by IR; similar results were seen by ICR. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AEs (DRAEs) were rash/acne (18% versus 8.3%), diarrhea (14.8% versus 0%), and stomatitis/mucositis (11.5% versus 0%) with afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Patients with DRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 23% with afatinib and 5% with cetuximab. In stage II, disease control rate (IR/ICR) was 38.9%/33.3% with afatinib and 18.8%/18.8% with cetuximab.ConclusionAfatinib showed antitumor activity comparable to cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in this exploratory phase II trial, although more patients on afatinib discontinued treatment due to AEs. Sequential EGFR/ErbB treatment with afatinib and cetuximab provided sustained clinical benefit in patients after crossover, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance

Sorafenib dose escalation is not uniformly associated with blood pressure elevations in normotensive patients with advanced malignancies.

Hypertension after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitors is associated with superior treatment outcomes for advanced cancer patients. To determine whether increased sorafenib doses cause incremental increases in blood pressure (BP), we measured 12-h ambulatory BP in 41 normotensive advanced solid tumor patients in a randomized dose-escalation study. After 7 days' treatment (400 mg b.i.d.), mean diastolic BP (DBP) increased in both study groups. After dose escalation, group A (400 mg t.i.d.) had marginally significant further increase in 12-h mean DBP (P = 0.053), but group B (600 mg b.i.d.) did not achieve statistically significant increases (P = 0.25). Within groups, individuals varied in BP response to sorafenib dose escalation, but these differences did not correlate with changes in steady-state plasma sorafenib concentrations. These findings in normotensive patients suggest BP is a complex pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF inhibition. Patients have intrinsic differences in sensitivity to sorafenib's BP-elevating effects

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the United States.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the US.Methods: We constructed a cohort-based partitioned survival model for three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death). Using overall survival and progression-free survival data from the nivolumab and investigator's choice (IC) arms of the CheckMate 141 study, the proportion of patients in each health state was estimated by parametric modeling over a 25-year period. Cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management data inputs were obtained from relevant literature and applied to patients in each health state. A scenario analysis was conducted assuming increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of variation in multiple parameters. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which probabilistic distributions were applied to each input during 1,000 model iterations was also conducted.Results: Total costs incurred were higher with nivolumab ($101,552) than with IC ($38,067). Nivolumab was associated with a higher number of life-years (LY; 1.21) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.89), compared with IC (0.68 and 0.42, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab compared with IC was $134,438 per QALY, and this remained qualitatively similar when increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies was assumed ($129,603 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings.Conclusions: These results suggest that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, nivolumab is a cost-effective option for therapy of SCCHN in the US

Cetuximab in the treatment of metastatic mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the salivary glands: A case report and review of literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Patients with metastatic mucoepidermoid carcinoma of salivary glands have a poor outcome. The epidermal growth factor receptor protein is overexpressed in approximately 70% of mucoepidermoid carcinoma patients and may represent a therapeutic target. However, whether treatment with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents is effective is unclear and clinical trials are difficult due to the rarity of the disease. Here we assessed the activity of cetuximab in mucoepidermoid carcinoma on a molecular basis.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We present the case of a 40-year old Caucasian man with a mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the major salivary glands who developed distant bone and visceral metastases despite platinum-based chemotherapy. Epidermal growth factor receptor was overexpressed and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis demonstrated a chromosome 7 polysomy. The patient was treated with the monoclonal antibody cetuximab in combination with cisplatin. After 11 doses of cetuximab, the patient developed brain metastases but evidence of response was documented at all extracranial metastatic sites.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This case report indicates that cetuximab can be active in mucoepidermoid carcinoma and may restore sensitivity to cisplatin in platinum-treated patients. Cetuximab does not cross the blood brain barrier and may select a metastatic clone to home the central nervous system while responding at other sites.</p

Tolerability of gefitinib in patients receiving treatment in everyday clinical practice

Gefitinib (‘Iressa’, ZD1839), an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has recently been approved in several countries for use in advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In contrast to chemotherapies, which are generally used at or near their maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), gefitinib is used at an optimal biological dose (250 mg day−1), which is substantially below its MTD, minimising the risk of adverse events without compromising efficacy. Tolerability data from the compassionate use of gefitinib in the ‘Iressa’ Expanded Access Programme support the favourable safety profile of the agent reported in Phase I and II trials. In both settings, the majority of adverse drug reactions were mild/moderate and consisted mainly of grade 1/2 diarrhoea and skin rash. Although skin rash has been suggested to predict response to gefitinib, available data do not support this hypothesis. Overall, these tolerability data demonstrate that gefitinib has a relatively benign side-effect profile and is a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with previously treated NCSLC, who currently have few alternatives

Gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa™) as palliative treatment in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer

To assess the level of activity and toxicity of gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa™) in a population of patients with locally recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer. Patients were recruited into an expanded access programme through the multidisciplinary head and neck clinics at the Royal Marsden and St George's Hospitals. Patients were required to have received at least one course of standard systemic chemotherapy or radiation therapy, or be medically unfit for chemotherapy. Patients were commenced on single-agent gefitinib at a dose of 500 mg day−1. Clinical, symptomatic and radiological response, time to progression (TTP), survival and toxicity were recorded. A total of 47 patients were enrolled (35 male and 12 female) with a median age of 62 years (range 18–93 years). The observed clinical response rate was 8% with a disease control rate (complete response, partial response, stable disease) of 36%. In all, 34% of patients experienced an improvement in their symptoms. The median TTP and survival were 2.6 and 4.3 months, respectively. Acneiform folliculitis was the most frequent toxicity observed (76%) but the majority of cases were grade 1 or 2. Only four patients experienced grade 3 toxicity of any type (all cases of folliculitis). Gefitinib was well tolerated and yielded symptomatic improvement in one-third of patients. However, this agent appeared to possess limited antitumour activity in this group of patients with head and neck cancer in whom the objective response rate, median TTP and survival were all lower than has been reported in a previous study