Effect of Standard Radiotherapy With Cisplatin vs Accelerated Radiotherapy With Panitumumab in Locoregionally Advanced Squamous Cell Head and Neck Carcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group study HN.6 is the largest randomized clinical trial to date comparing the concurrent administration of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies with radiotherapy (RT) to standard chemoradiotherapy in locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN). Objective: To compare progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with LA-SCCHN treated with standard-fractionation RT plus high-dose cisplatin vs accelerated-fractionation RT plus the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized phase 3 clinical trial in 17 Canadian centers. A total of 320 patients were randomized between December 2008 and November 2011. Interventions: Patients with TanyN+M0 or T3-4N0M0 LA-SCCHN were randomized 1:1 to receive standard-fractionation RT (70 Gy/35 over 7 weeks) plus cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 intravenous for 3 doses (arm A) vs accelerated-fractionation RT (70 Gy/35 over 6 weeks) plus panitumumab at 9 mg/kg intravenous for 3 doses (arm B). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was PFS. Due to an observed declining event rate, the protocol was amended to a time-based analysis. Secondary end points included overall survival, local and regional PFS, distant metastasis-free survival, quality of life, adverse events, and safety. Results: Of 320 patients randomized (268 [84%] male; median age, 56 years), 156 received arm A and 159 arm B. A total of 93 PFS events occurred. By intention-to-treat, 2-year PFS was 73% (95% CI, 65%-79%) in arm A and 76% (95% CI, 68%-82%) in arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.60-1.50; P = .83). The upper bound of the HR 95% CI exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margin. Two-year overall survival was 85% (95% CI, 78%-90%) in arm A and 88% (95% CI, 82%-92%) in arm B (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.54-1.48; P = .66). Incidence of any grade 3 to 5 nonhematologic adverse event was 88% in arm A and 92% in arm B (P = .25). Conclusions and Relevance: With a median follow-up of 46 months, the PFS of panitumumab plus accelerated-fractionation RT was not superior to cisplatin plus standard-fractionation RT in LA-SCCHN and noninferiority was not proven. Despite having negative results, HN.6 has contributed important data regarding disease control and toxic effects of these treatment strategies. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00820248

Circulating biomarkers for therapeutic monitoring of anti-cancer agents

Circulating biomarkers have emerged as valuable surrogates for evaluating disease states in solid malignancies. Their relative ease of access and rapid turnover has bolstered clinical applications in monitoring treatment efficacy and cancer progression. In this review, the roles of various circulating biomarkers in monitoring treatment response are described. Non-specific markers of disease burden, tumor markers (eg CA 125, CEA, PSA, etc.), circulating tumor cells, nucleic acids, exosomes, and metabolomic arrays are highlighted. Specifically, the discovery of each of these markers is reviewed, with examples illustrating their use in influencing treatment decisions, and barriers to their application noted where these exist. Finally, opportunities for future work using these circulating biomarkers are discussed

Immune biomarkers of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) agents have become the standard of care for platinum-refractory recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and are currently being evaluated in various disease settings. However, despite the gain in overall survival seen in some of the clinical trials, the majority of patients display primary resistance and do not benefit from these agents. Taking into consideration the potentially severe immune-related toxicities and their high cost, the search for predictive biomarkers of response is crucial. Besides Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression, other biomarkers such as immune infiltration, tumor mutational burden or immune-gene expression profiling have been explored, but none of them has been validated in this disease. Among these, the microbiota has recently garnered tremendous interest since it has proven to influence the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in some tumor types. With the accumulating evidence on the effect of the microbiota in HNSCC tumorigenesis and progression, the study of its potential role as a predictive immune biomarker is warranted. This review examines the available evidence on emerging immune predictive biomarkers of response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in HNSCC, introducing the microbiota and its potential use as a predictive immune biomarker in this disease

Impact of pharmacodynamic biomarkers in immuno-oncology phase 1 clinical trials

Background: Phase 1 immuno-oncology (IO) trials frequently involve pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarker assessments involving tumour biopsies and/or blood collection, with increasing use of molecular imaging. PD biomarkers are set to play a fundamental role in early drug development of immuno-oncology (IO) agents. In the IO era, the impact of PD biomarkers for confirmation of biologic activity and their role in subsequent drug development have not been investigated. Methods: Phase 1 studies published between January 2014 and December 2020 were reviewed. Studies that reported on-treatment PD biomarkers [tissue-derived (tissue-PD), blood-based (blood-PD) and imaging-based (imaging-PD)] were analysed. PD biomarker results and their correlation with clinical activity endpoints were evaluated. Authors' statements on the influence of PD biomarkers on further drug development decisions, and subsequent citations of PD biomarker study results were recorded. Results: Among 386 trials, the most frequent IO agent classes evaluated were vaccines (32%) and PD-(L)1 inhibitors (25%). No PD biomarker assessments were reported in 100 trials (26%). Of the remaining 286, blood-PD, tissue-PD, and imaging-PD data were reported in 270 (94%), 94 (33%), and 12 (4%) trials, respectively. Assessments of more than one PD biomarker type were reported in 82 studies (29%). Similar proportions of blood-PD (9%), tissue-PD (7%), and imaging-PD studies (8%) had positive results that correlated with clinical activity. Results of 22 PD biomarker studies (8%) were referenced in subsequent clinical trials. Conclusions: Most phase 1 IO studies performed PD biomarker assessments. Overall, positive PD biomarker results were infrequently correlated with clinical activity or cited in subsequent trials, suggesting a limited impact on subsequent drug development. With emerging health regulatory emphasis on optimal dose selection based on PD activity, more informative and integrative multiplexed assays that capture the complexity of tumour-host immunity interactions are warranted to improve phase 1 IO trial methodology. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Safety and pharmacokinetics of motesanib in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib for the treatment of solid tumors: a phase 1b study

Background: This phase 1b study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and pharmacokinetics of motesanib (a small-molecule antagonist of VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptor; and Kit) administered once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in combination with erlotinib and gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors. Methods: Patients received weekly intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and erlotinib (100 mg QD) alone (control cohort) or in combination with motesanib (50 mg QD, 75 mg BID, 125 mg QD, or 100 mg QD; cohorts 1-4); or erlotinib (150 mg QD) in combination with motesanib (100 or 125 mg QD; cohorts 5 and 6). Results: Fifty-six patients were enrolled and received protocol-specified treatment. Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in 11 patients in cohorts 1 (n = 2), 2 (n = 4), 3 (n = 3), and 6 (n = 2). The MTD of motesanib in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib was 100 mg QD. Motesanib 125 mg QD was tolerable only in combination with erlotinib alone. Frequently occurring motesanib-related adverse events included diarrhea (n = 19), nausea (n = 18), vomiting (n = 13), and fatigue (n = 12), which were mostly of worst grade < 3. The pharmacokinetics of motesanib was not markedly affected by coadministration of gemcitabine and erlotinib, or erlotinib alone. Erlotinib exposure, however, appeared lower after coadministration with gemcitabine and/or motesanib. Of 49 evaluable patients, 1 had a confirmed partial response and 26 had stable disease. Conclusions: Treatment with motesanib 100 mg QD plus erlotinib and gemcitabine was tolerable. Motesanib 125 mg QD was tolerable only in combination with erlotinib alone.Dusan Kotasek, Niall Tebbutt, Jayesh Desai, Stephen Welch, Lillian L Siu, Sheryl McCoy, Yu-Nien Sun, Jessica Johnson, Adeboye H Adewoye and Timothy Pric

All is not lost: learning from 9p21 loss in cancer

The cancer research community continues to search for additional biomarkers of response and resistance to immune checkpoint treatment (ICT). The ultimate goal is to direct the use of ICT in patients whose tumors are most likely to benefit to achieve a refinement that is equivalent to that of a genotype-matched targeted treatment. Dissecting the mechanisms of ICT resistance can help us characterize ICT nonresponders more efficiently. In this opinion, we argue that there may be additional knowledge gained about immune evasion in cancer by analyzing the loss of the human 9p21.3 locus; as an example, we highlight findings of 9p21.3 loss from the investigator-initiated, pan-cancer INSPIRE study, in which patients were treated with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) ICT

Phase I study of daily and weekly regimens of the orally administered MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin in patients with advanced tumors

SUMMARY: Aim The oral MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin inhibits the p53-MDM2 interaction, enabling p53 activation, tumor growth inhibition, and increased survival in xenograft models. Methods We conducted a Phase I study of idasanutlin (microprecipitate bulk powder formulation) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, food effect, and clinical activity in patients with advanced malignancies. Schedules investigated were once weekly for 3 weeks (QW × 3), once daily for 3 days (QD × 3), or QD × 5 every 28 days. We also analyzed p53 activation and the anti-proliferative effects of idasanutlin. Results The dose-escalation phase included 85 patients (QW × 3, n = 36; QD × 3, n = 15; QD × 5, n = 34). Daily MTD was 3200 mg (QW × 3), 1000 mg (QD × 3), and 500 mg (QD × 5). Most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, decreased appetite, and thrombocytopenia. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea/vomiting and myelosuppression; myelosuppression was more frequent with QD dosing and associated with pharmacokinetic exposure. Idasanutlin exposure was approximately dose proportional at low doses, but less than dose proportional at > 600 mg. Although inter-patient variability in exposure was high with all regimens, cumulative idasanutlin exposure over the whole 28-day cycle was greatest with a QD × 5 regimen. No major food effect on pharmacokinetic exposure occurred. MIC-1 levels were higher with QD dosing, increasing in an exposure-dependent manner. Best response was stable disease in 30.6% of patients, prolonged (> 600 days) in 2 patients with sarcoma. Conclusions Idasanutlin demonstrated dose- and schedule-dependent p53 activation with durable disease stabilization in some patients. Based on these findings, the QD × 5 schedule was selected for further development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01462175 (ClinicalTrials.gov), October 31, 2011. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10637-021-01141-2

Barriers in phase I cancer clinical trials referrals and enrollment: five-year experience at the Princess Margaret Hospital

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature on the referral outcome of patients seen in phase I trial clinics in academic oncology centres. This study aims to provide information on the accrual rate and to identify obstacles in the recruitment process. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all new patients referred and seen in the phase I clinic at the Princess Margaret Hospital between January 2000 and June 2005. Data on their demographics, medical history, and details of trial participation or non-entry were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 667 new phase I referrals were seen during the stated period. Of these patients, 197 (29.5%) patients were enrolled into a phase I trial, and 64.5% of them started trial within 1 month of the initial visit. About a quarter (165 of 667) of the patients referred were deemed ineligible at their first visit, with the most frequent reasons for ineligibility being poor performance status, unacceptable bloodwork, too many prior treatments and rapid disease progression. The remaining 305 patients (45.7%) were potentially eligible at their initial visit, but never entered a phase I trial. The main reasons for their non-entry were patient refusal, other treatment recommended first, and lack of available trials or trial spots. CONCLUSION: This study provides information on the clinical realities underlying a referral to a phase I clinic and eventual trial enrollment. Better selection of patients, appropriate education of referring physicians, and opening phase I trials with fewer restrictions on some criteria such as prior therapy may enhance their recruitment rates

A comparison of weekly versus 3-weekly cisplatin during adjuvant radiotherapy for high-risk head and neck cancer

SummaryObjectivesTo compare cumulative cisplatin dose and toxicity between patients who received 3-weekly versus weekly cisplatin during adjuvant radiotherapy for high-risk head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).Materials and methodsConsecutive HNSCC patients with involved resection margins and/or extra-capsular extension in two tertiary cancer centers with different institutional practices were identified. Cumulative cisplatin dose was calculated and information on toxicity reviewed and compared between patients who received 3-weekly versus weekly cisplatin.ResultsOf 270 high risk patients, 60 received 3-weekly 100mg/m2 and 48 received weekly 50mg/m2 cisplatin during adjuvant radiotherapy (60–66Gy in 30–33 fractions). Fourteen patients received other chemotherapy schedules and 148 received no chemotherapy. Mean cumulative cisplatin dose was 199.4mg/m2 (standard error (SE) 5.4) in 3-weekly versus 239.8mg/m2 (SE 11.0, P=0.001) in weekly treated patients. Cumulative cisplatin ⩾200mg/m2 was given to 67.7% of patients in the 3-weekly cohort and 85.2% (P=0.039) in the weekly cohort. The rate of feeding tube dependency 6months after treatment, osteoradionecrosis, neutropenic fever, and persistent renal function decline were not statistically different.ConclusionsAbout one half of high-risk HNSCC patients are not eligible for cisplatin during postoperative radiotherapy. Patients treated with weekly 50mg/m2 cisplatin received a higher cumulative dose with comparable toxicity as patients who received 3-weekly 100mg/m2 cisplatin. Efficacy and applicability to the frequently used weekly 40mg/m2 schedule remains to be evaluated