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

Artemisinin suppressed tumour growth and induced vascular normalisation in oral squamous cell carcinoma via inhibition of macrophage migration inhibitory factor

BACKGROUND

Tumour vascular normalisation therapy advocates a balance between pro-angiogenic factors and anti-angiogenic factors in tumours. Artemisinin (ART), which is derived from traditional Chinese medicine, has been shown to inhibit tumour growth; however, the relationship between ART and tumour vascular normalisation in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has not been previously reported.

METHODS

Different concentrations(0 mg/kg, 25 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg)of ART were used to treat the xenograft nude mice model of OSCC. The effects of ART on migration and proliferation of OSCC and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) cells were detected by scratch assay and CCK-8 assay. OSCC cells with macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) silenced were constructed to explore the effect of MIF.

RESULTS

Treatment with ART inhibited the growth and angiogenesis of OSCC xenografts in nude mice and downregulated vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), IL-8, and MIF expression levels. ART reduced the proliferation, migration, and tube formation of HUVEC, as well as the expression of VEGFR1 and VEGFR2. When the dose of ART was 50 mg/kg, vascular normalisation of OSCC xenografts was induced. Moreover, VEGF and IL-8 were needed in rhMIF restoring tumour growth and inhibit vascular normalisation after the addition of rhMIF to ART-treated cells.

CONCLUSION

Artemisinin might induce vascular normalisation and inhibit tumour growth in OSCC through the MIF-signalling pathway.

Genetic variability in cisplatin metabolic pathways and outcome of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients

Advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients have been treated with cisplatin (CDDP) chemoradiation, and the variability of treatment effects has been attributed to single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in genes of metabolic pathways. This study investigated the roles of GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1 c.313A>G, XPC c.2815A>C, XPD c.934G>A and c.2251A>C, XPF c.2505T>C, ERCC1 c.354C>T, MLH1 c.93G>A, MSH2 c.211+9C>G, MSH3 c.3133G>A, EXO1 c.1765G>A, TP53 c.215G>C, CASP3 c.-1191A>G and c.-182-247G>T, FAS c.-1378G>A and c.-671A>G and FASL c.-844C>T SNVs in outcome of 109 patients treated with CDDP chemoradiation. Genotypes were identified in genomic DNA by PCR-based methods. Conventional criteria and tests analyzed response and survival. Patients with XPC c.2815AC or CC had 3.43 times more chances of presenting partial response or stable disease. Patients with FAS c.-671GG, GSTM1 present plus XPC c.2815AA, or plus XPD c.934GG, or plus XPD c.2251AA, or plus TP53 c.215GC or CC, and XPD c.2251AA plus XPF c.2505TT had up to 2.70 and 2.37 times more chances of presenting tumor progression and evolving to death, respectively. Our data indicate, for the first time, preliminary evidence that combined SNVs of CDDP metabolism act as independent prognostic factors and can be used to select patients for distinct treatments.

Consensuses, controversies, and future directions in treatment deintensification for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer

The most common cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the United States is oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and its incidence has been rising since the turn of the century. Because of substantial long-term morbidities with chemoradiation and the favorable prognosis of HPV-positive OPC, identifying the optimal deintensification strategy for this group has been a keystone of academic head-and-neck surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology for over the past decade. However, the first generation of randomized chemotherapy deintensification trials failed to change the standard of care, triggering concern over the feasibility of de-escalation. National database studies estimate that up to one third of patients receive nonstandard de-escalated treatments, which have subspecialty-specific nuances. A synthesis of the multidisciplinary deintensification data and current treatment standards is important for the oncology community to reinforce best practices and ensure optimal patient outcomes. In this review, the authors present a summary and comparison of prospective HPV-positive OPC de-escalation trials. Chemotherapy attenuation compromises outcomes without reducing toxicity. Limited data comparing transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with radiation raise concern over toxicity and outcomes with TORS. There are promising data to support de-escalating adjuvant therapy after TORS, but consensus on treatment indications is needed. Encouraging radiation deintensification strategies have been reported (upfront dose reduction and induction chemotherapy-based patient selection), but level I evidence is years away. Ultimately, stage and HPV status may be insufficient to guide de-escalation. The future of deintensification may lie in incorporating intratreatment response assessments to harness the powers of personalized medicine and integrate real-time surveillance.

Treating Head and Neck Cancer in the Age of Immunotherapy: A 2023 Update

Most patients diagnosed with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) will present with locally advanced disease, requiring multimodality therapy. While this approach has a curative intent, a significant subset of these patients will develop locoregional failure and/or distant metastases. The prognosis of these patients is poor, and therapeutic options other than palliative chemotherapy are urgently needed. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression is an important factor in the pathogenesis of HNSCC, and a decade ago, the EGFR targeting monoclonal antibody cetuximab was approved for the treatment of late-stage HNSCC in different settings. In 2016, the anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab were both approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy, and in 2019, pembrolizumab was approved for first-line treatment (either as monotherapy in PD-L1 expressing tumors, or in combination with chemotherapy). Currently, trials are ongoing to include immune checkpoint inhibition in the (neo)adjuvant treatment of HNSCC as well as in novel combinations with other drugs in the recurrent/metastatic setting to improve response rates and survival and help overcome resistance mechanisms to immune checkpoint blockade. This article provides a comprehensive review of the management of head and neck cancers in the current era of immunotherapy.

EGFR pathway targeting drugs in head and neck cancer in the era of immunotherapy

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are cell surface receptors that bind growth factor ligands and initiate cellular signaling. Of the 20 classes of RTKs, 7 classes, I-V, VIII, and X, are linked to head and neck cancers (HNCs). We focus on the first class of RTK, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), as it is the most thoroughly studied class. EGFR overexpression is observed in 20% of tumors, and expression of EGFR variant III is seen in 15% of aggressive chemoradiotherapy resistant HNCs. Currently, the EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb) cetuximab is the only FDA approved RTK-targeting drug for the treatment of HNCs. Clinical trials have also included EGFR mAbs, with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and small molecule inhibitors targeting the EGFR, MAPK, and mTOR pathways. Additionally, Immunotherapy has been found to be effective in 15 to 20% of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNC as a monotherapy. Thus, attempts are underway for the combinatorial treatment of immunotherapy and EGFR mAbs to determine if the recruitment of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment can overcome EGFR resistance.

Association of Inherited Copy Number Variation in ADAM3A and ADAM5 Pseudogenes with Oropharynx Cancer Risk and Outcome

Inherited copy number variations (CNVs) can provide valuable information for cancer susceptibility and prognosis. However, their association with oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is still poorly studied. Using microarrays analysis, we identified three inherited CNVs associated with OPSCC risk, of which one was validated in 152 OPSCC patients and 155 controls and related to pseudogene-microRNA-mRNA interaction. Individuals with three or more copies of ADAM3A and ADAM5 pseudogenes (8p11.22 chromosome region) were under 6.49-fold increased risk of OPSCC. ADAM5 shared a highly homologous sequence with the ADAM9 3'-UTR, predicted to be a binding site for miR-122b-5p. Individuals carrying more than three copies of ADAM3A and ADAM5 presented higher ADAM9 expression levels. Moreover, patients with total deletion or one copy of pseudogenes and with higher expression of miR-122b-5p presented worse prognoses. Our data suggest, for the first time, that ADAM3A and ADAM5 pseudogene-inherited CNV could modulate OPSCC occurrence and prognosis, possibly through the interaction of ADAM5 pseudogene transcript, miR-122b-5p, and ADAM9.

Correlation Between Early Time-to-Event Outcomes and Overall Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Definitive Chemoradiation Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Overall survival (OS) is the most patient-relevant outcome in oncology; however, in early cancers, large sample sizes and extended follow-up durations are needed to detect statistically significant differences in OS between interventions. Use of early time-to-event outcomes as surrogates for OS can help facilitate faster approval of cancer therapies. In locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC), event-free survival (EFS) was previously evaluated as a surrogate outcome (Michiels 2009) and demonstrated a strong correlation with OS. The current study aimed to further assess the correlation between EFS and OS in LA-HNSCC using an updated systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on patients receiving definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT).

Methods

An SLR was conducted on May 27, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials assessing radiotherapy alone or CRT in the target population. Studies assessing CRT and reporting hazard ratios (HRs) or Kaplan-Meier data for OS and EFS were eligible for the analysis. CRT included any systemic treatments administered concurrently or sequentially with radiation therapy. Trial-level EFS/OS correlations were assessed using regression models, and the relationship strength was measured with Pearson correlation coefficient (R). Correlations were assessed across all CRT trials and in trial subsets assessing concurrent CRT, sequential CRT, RT+cisplatin, targeted therapies and intensity-modulated RT. Subgroup analysis was conducted among trials with similar EFS definitions (i.e. EFS including disease progression and/or death as events) and longer length of follow-up (i.e.≥ 5 years).

Results

The SLR identified 149 trials of which 31 were included in the analysis. A strong correlation between EFS and OS was observed in the overall analysis of all CRT trials (R=0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.93). Similar results were obtained in the sensitivity analyses of trials assessing concurrent CRT (R=0.88), sequential CRT (R=0.83), RT+cisplatin (R=0.82), targeted therapies (R=0.83) and intensity-modulated RT (R=0.86), as well as in trials with similar EFS definitions (R=0.87), with longer follow-up (R=0.81).

Conclusion

EFS was strongly correlated with OS in this trial-level analysis. Future research using individual patient-level data can further investigate if EFS could be considered a suitable early clinical endpoint for evaluation of CRT regimens in LA-HNSCC patients receiving definitive CRT.

The dogma of Cetuximab and Radiotherapy in head and neck cancer – A dawn to dusk journey

•

Cetuximab is routinely used in the radical treatment of head and neck cancers.

•

Results of many important studies are out now and are not encouraging.

•

Routine use of Cetuximab in this setting has to be re-evaluated again.

Since the introduction of Cetuximab as a biological molecule against Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR), its use in the cancers of head and neck region is widely explored. With the recognition that EGFR expression is associated with radioresistance and poor prognosis, incorporation of an anti-EGFR agent along with Radiotherapy (RT) is a logical and attractive option. Cetuximab in combination with RT as Bio-Radiotherapy (BRT) is considered one of the standard treatment modalities in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancers (LA-HNSCC). Many important phase-III clinical trials were undertaken simultaneously, where the use of Cetuximab BRT was tested in various clinical scenarios with different hypothesis. With the studies still ongoing and the results awaited, its use was continued in clinical practice. Today the results are out and definitely not encouraging. After the initial success, Cetuximab has miserably failed to win over cisplatin based chemoradiation which is the current standard of care in LA-HNSCC. Hence, it is the need of the hour to re-evaluate and define the present role of Cetuximab in the definitive management of LA-HNSCC in the light of the latest clinical evidence..

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

Current and Emerging Molecular Therapies for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Head and neck cancer affects nearly 750,000 patients, with more than 300,000 deaths annually. Advances in first line surgical treatment have improved survival rates marginally particularly in developed countries, however survival rates for aggressive locally advanced head and neck cancer are still poor. Recurrent and metastatic disease remains a significant problem for patients and the health system. As our knowledge of the genomic landscape of the head and neck cancers continues to expand, there are promising developments occurring in molecular therapies available for advanced or recalcitrant disease. The concept of precision medicine is underpinned by our ability to accurately sequence tumour samples to best understand individual patient genomic variations and to tailor targeted therapy for them based on such molecular profiling. Not only is their purported response to therapy a factor of their genomic variation, but so is their inclusion in biomarker-driven personalised medicine therapeutic trials. With the ever-expanding number of molecular druggable targets explored through advances in next generation sequencing, the number of clinical trials assessing these targets has significantly increased over recent years. Although some trials are focussed on first-line therapeutic approaches, a greater majority are focussed on locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic disease. Similarly, although single agent monotherapy has been found effective in some cases, it is the combination of drugs targeting different signalling pathways that seem to be more beneficial to patients. This paper outlines current and emerging molecular therapies for head and neck cancer, and updates readers on outcomes of the most pertinent clinical trials in this area while also summarising ongoing efforts to bring more molecular therapies into clinical practice.

Pseudogene Transcripts in Head and Neck Cancer: Literature Review and In Silico Analysis

Once considered nonfunctional, pseudogene transcripts are now known to provide valuable information for cancer susceptibility, including head and neck cancer (HNC), a serious health problem worldwide, with about 50% unimproved overall survival over the last decades. The present review focuses on the role of pseudogene transcripts involved in HNC risk and prognosis. We combined current literature and in silico analyses from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database to identify the most deregulated pseudogene transcripts in HNC and their genetic variations. We then built a co-expression network and performed gene ontology enrichment analysis to better understand the pseudogenes’ interactions and pathways in HNC. In the literature, few pseudogenes have been studied in HNC. Our in silico analysis identified 370 pseudogene transcripts associated with HNC, where SPATA31D5P, HERC2P3, SPATA31C2, MAGEB6P1, SLC25A51P1, BAGE2, DNM1P47, SPATA31C1, ZNF733P and OR2W5 were found to be the most deregulated and presented several genetic alterations. NBPF25P, HSP90AB2P, ZNF658B and DPY19L2P3 pseudogenes were predicted to interact with 12 genes known to participate in HNC, DNM1P47 was predicted to interact with the TP53 gene, and HLA-H pseudogene was predicted to interact with HLA-A and HLA-B genes. The identified pseudogenes were associated with cancer biology pathways involving cell communication, response to stress, cell death, regulation of the immune system, regulation of gene expression, and Wnt signaling. Finally, we assessed the prognostic values of the pseudogenes with the Kaplan–Meier Plotter database, and found that expression of SPATA31D5P, SPATA31C2, BAGE2, SPATA31C1, ZNF733P and OR2W5 pseudogenes were associated with patients’ survival. Due to pseudogene transcripts’ potential for cancer diagnosis, progression, and as therapeutic targets, our study can guide new research to HNC understanding and development of new target therapies.

Progress of molecular targeted therapy for head and neck cancer in clinical aspects

Since the body's head and neck area affects many functions such as breathing, swallowing, and speaking, systemic treatments to head and neck cancer patients are important not only for survival but also for preserving functions and quality of life. With the progress that has been made in molecular targeted therapy, anti-EGFR antibody (cetuximab) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) have provided survival benefits to head and neck cancer patients and are approved for clinical practice. Clinical trials incorporating these new drugs for patients with locally advanced head/neck cancers are underway. However, the existing clinical evidence regarding molecular targeted drugs for head and neck cancers is based mostly on clinical trials allocated to squamous cell carcinoma patients. New targeted therapies for non-squamous cell carcinoma patients were recently reported, e.g., tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of thyroid cancers and HER2-targeted therapy for salivary gland cancers. With the goal of improving local control, molecular targeted treatment strategies as salvage local therapy are being investigated, including boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) and near-infrared photoimmunotherapy (NIR-PIT). Herein the history and landscape of molecular targeted therapy for head and neck cancers are summarized and reviewed.

Sequential chemotherapy regimen of induction with panitumumab and paclitaxel followed by radiotherapy and panitumumab in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer unfit for platinum derivatives. The phase II, PANTERA/TTCC-2010-06 study

BACKGROUND

Sequential treatment of Panitumumab (Pb) plus Paclitaxel (Px) as induction treatment (IT) followed by concurrent bioradiotherapy (Bio-RT) with Pb may be an alternative for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN) in patients ineligible for high-dose cisplatin therapy.

METHODS

Phase II, single-arm, multicentre study, with two-stage design, in patients ≥ 18 years with stage III-IVa-b LA-SCCHN unfit for platinum. Patients received Px + Pb (9 weeks) as IT followed by Bio-RT + Pb. Primary endpoint: overall response rate (ORR) after IT, defined as: more than 70% of patients achieving complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to IT. Secondary end-points: progression-free survival, organ preservation rate, safety profile.

RESULTS

Study ended prematurely (51 patients) due to slow recruitment. ORR: 66.7% (95% CI: 53.7-79.6), 8 (15.7%) CR and 26 (51.0%) PR. 39 patients (76%) completed radiotherapy (RT). Pb and/or Px-related adverse events (AEs) grade 3-4: 56.9% during IT and 63.4% during the concomitant phase, of which most common were skin toxicity (33.3%). Five deaths occurred during treatment, two of them (3.9%) were Pb and/or Px-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Although underpowered, ORR was higher than the pre-specified boundary for considering the treatment active. Although Px + Pb as IT provides some benefit, the safety profile is worse than expected. To consider Pb + Px as IT as an alternative for platinum-unsuitable LA-SCCHN, further research/investigation would be needed.

Statistical fundamentals on cancer research for clinicians: Working with your statisticians

PURPOSE

To facilitate understanding statistical principles and methods for clinicians involved in cancer research.

METHODS

An overview of study design is provided on cancer research for both observational and clinical trials addressing study objectives and endpoints, superiority tests, non-inferiority and equivalence design, and sample size calculation. The principles of statistical models and tests including contemporary standard methods of analysis and evaluation are discussed. Finally, some statistical pitfalls frequently evident in clinical and translational studies in cancer are discussed.

RESULTS

We emphasize the practical aspects of study design (superiority vs non-inferiority vs equivalence study) and assumptions underpinning power calculations and sample size estimation. The differences between relative risk, odds ratio, and hazard ratio, understanding outcome endpoints, purposes of interim analysis, and statistical modeling to minimize confounding effects and bias are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Proper design and correctly constructed statistical models are critical for the success of cancer research studies. Most statistical inaccuracies can be minimized by following essential statistical principles and guidelines to improve quality in research studies.

Phase II study of nimotuzumab (TheraCim-hR3) concurrent with cisplatin/radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of a combination of nimotuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to the epidermal growth factor receptor, with chemoradiation in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) was evaluated in a phase II study.

METHODS

Patients with stage III/IV HNSCC received 3-weekly cisplatin 100 mg/m² for three cycles and weekly nimotuzumab 200 mg for 8 weeks concurrently with radiotherapy. Primary endpoint was best overall response (BOR) and secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were included; the majority were Chinese (76%), male (89%), and had stage IVA/IVB HNSCC (92%). BOR of complete and partial response was seen in 22/37 (59%) and 10/37 (27%) patients, respectively. Median PFS was 17.5 months (95% CI: 11.1-54.5) and 3-year PFS was 40.4% (95% CI: 24.3-55.9). The frequency and type of adverse events observed were similar to standard chemoradiation.

CONCLUSION

The combination of nimotuzumab with cisplatin and radiotherapy was safe and achieved high response rates in HNSCC.

Oncology Gold Standard® practical consensus recommendations for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck

We present the 2017 Oncology Gold Standard Practical Consensus Recommendation for use of monoclonal antibodies in the management of advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head neck region.

microRNAs deregulation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Head and neck (HN) squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the eighth most common human cancer worldwide. Besides tobacco and alcohol consumption, genetic and epigenetic alterations play an important role in HNSCC occurrence and progression. microRNAs (miRNAs) are small noncoding RNAs that regulate cell cycle, proliferation, development, differentiation, and apoptosis by interfering in gene expression. Expression profiling of miRNAs showed that some miRNAs are upregulated or downregulated in tumor cells when compared with the normal cells. The present review focuses on the role of miRNAs deregulations in HNSCC, enrolled in risk, development, outcome, and therapy sensitivity. Moreover, the influence of single nucleotide variants in miRNAs target sites, miRNAs seed sites, and miRNAs-processing genes in HNSCC was also revised. Due to its potential for cancer diagnosis, progression, and as a therapeutic target, miRNAs may bring new perspectives in HNSCC understanding and therapy, especially for those patients with no or insufficient treatment options.

Combining Systemic Therapy With Radiation: Head and Neck Cancer Treatments in an Era of Targeted Agents and Immunotherapy

The addition of chemotherapy to radiation therapy (RT) has been established for decades to improve outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Concurrent chemoradiation increases both local control and overall survival but at the cost of significant toxicity, motivating extensive investigations to optimize the balance of clinical efficacy and adverse effects. This review discusses the rationale and seminal studies underlying the concurrent chemoradiation treatment paradigm in HNC, and describes attempts to better tailor systemic therapy beyond standard-of-care cisplatin, such as the use of alternate cytotoxic agents and nonstandard dosing regimens. Modern efforts to incorporate targeted therapies and immunotherapy are then summarized, particularly for patients unable to receive standard cytotoxic chemotherapy. Finally, mechanisms through which RT and systemic therapy cooperate to improve the therapeutic ratio are discussed, with a focus on the interaction between immunotherapy and RT, a rapidly emerging treatment paradigm. With increasing application of novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, determining the optimal concurrent systemic program to maximize RT efficacy will continue to evolve. Identification of patient- and tumor-specific factors will offer a unique opportunity to implement personalized oncologic care.

The Evolution of Care of Cancers of the Head and Neck Region: State of the Science in 2020

Cancers that arise in the head and neck region are comprised of a heterogeneous group of malignancies that include carcinogen- and human papillomavirus (HPV)-driven mucosal squamous cell carcinoma as well as skin cancers such as cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma. These malignancies develop in critical areas for eating, talking, and breathing and are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality despite advances in treatment. Understanding of advances in the management of these various cancers is important for all multidisciplinary providers who care for patients across the cancer care continuum. Additionally, the recent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated adaptations to head and neck cancer care to accommodate the mitigation of COVID-19 risk and ensure timely treatment. This review explores advances in diagnostic criteria, prognostic factors, and management for subsites including head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and the various forms of skin cancer (basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and melanoma). Then, this review summarizes emerging developments in immunotherapy, radiation therapy, cancer survivorship, and the delivery of care during the COVID-19 era.

Patient Experience Captured by Quality-of-Life Measurement in Oncology Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in cancer medicine, especially because drugs are becoming more costly and may only result in modest gains in overall survival. However, there has been no descriptive analysis for the points at which QoL is measured in cancer trials.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of studies that measure QoL at different points and see how many studies measure QoL for the entirety of a patient's life.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis includes all articles on oncology clinical trials in the 3 highest-impact oncology journals, published between July 2015 and June 2018, that reported QoL outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Data were abstracted on when QoL was assessed and the characteristics of these studies.

RESULTS

For all 149 studies that met inclusion criteria, QoL assessment was high during treatment (104 articles [69.8%]), during follow-up (81 articles [54.4%]), and after the end of the intervention (68 articles [45.6%]). In 5 of the 149 studies (3.4%), QoL was assessed until death, including in only 1 of the 74 studies on metastatic or incurable cancers. Among these 5 studies, only 1 (20%) used a drug intervention, 1 (20%) used a behavioral intervention, and 2 (40%) used a radiation intervention; only 1 of 5 was in the metastatic setting. The number of studies that reported a positive QoL outcome (ie, QoL outcome was more favorable in the intervention group than in the control group) was between 42 of 81 articles (51.9%) and 16 of 28 articles (57.1%) for most QoL assessment points but only 1 of 5 articles (20%) for studies measuring QoL until death.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that most clinical trials assessed QoL during the treatment or intervention and often during a given amount of follow-up but infrequently assessed QoL on disease progression and rarely followed QoL until the end of the patient's life. Most studies reporting QoL until the end of life reported worse QoL outcomes for the intervention group than the control group. Future research and policy recommendations should consider not just short-term QoL outcomes but QoL outcomes throughout the patient's cancer care.

Treatment de-escalation for HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with radiotherapy vs. trans-oral surgery (ORATOR2): study protocol for a randomized phase II trial

Background

Patients with human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) have substantially better treatment response and overall survival (OS) than patients with HPV-negative disease. Treatment options for HPV+ OPC can involve either a primary radiotherapy (RT) approach (± concomitant chemotherapy) or a primary surgical approach (± adjuvant radiation) with transoral surgery (TOS). These two treatment paradigms have different spectrums of toxicity. The goals of this study are to assess the OS of two de-escalation approaches (primary radiotherapy and primary TOS) compared to historical control, and to compare survival, toxicity and quality of life (QOL) profiles between the two approaches.

Methods

This is a multicenter phase II study randomizing one hundred and forty patients with T1–2 N0–2 HPV+ OPC in a 1:1 ratio between de-escalated primary radiotherapy (60 Gy) ± concomitant chemotherapy and TOS ± de-escalated adjuvant radiotherapy (50–60 Gy based on risk factors). Patients will be stratified based on smoking status (< 10 vs. ≥ 10 pack-years). The primary endpoint is OS of each arm compared to historical control; we hypothesize that a 2-year OS of 85% or greater will be achieved. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, QOL and toxicity.

Discussion

This study will provide an assessment of two de-escalation approaches to the treatment of HPV+ OPC on oncologic outcomes, QOL and toxicity. Results will inform the design of future definitive phase III trials.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03210103. Date of registration: July 6, 2017, Current version: 1.3 on March 15, 2019.

Current Standards for Organ Preservation in Locoregionally Advanced Non-nasopharyngeal Head and Neck Cancer and Evolving Strategies for Favorable-Risk and Platinum-Ineligible Populations

OPINION STATEMENT

Standard-of-care treatment for the majority of patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is either upfront surgery followed by adjuvant treatment as indicated by intraoperative or pathologic findings or concurrent chemoradiation reserving surgical salvage for non-responsive disease. An attempt at upfront complete resection should be pursued if feasible in patients with oral cavity or paranasal sinus primary tumors. Given multimodality treatment paradigms, patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN should be managed in a multidisciplinary setting. Modern radiation therapy, whether postoperative or definitive in intent, is based on target delineation guided by high-quality imaging, using an intensity-modulated radiation technique to spare organs at risk. In select groups of low-risk patients, most notably those with HPV-associated oropharyngeal SCC (OPSCC), several treatment deintensification approaches are currently under investigation. Major experimental strategies within this non-surgical organ preservation domain include reductions in the intensity of the chemotherapy or radiation therapy components of the chemoradiation program, use of induction chemotherapy, or imaging-based selection of patients eligible for deintensified radiation-based treatment. Of note, recent efforts to substitute cetuximab for cisplatin in low-risk HPV-associated OPSCC have demonstrated the inferiority of cetuximab to cisplatin in cisplatin-eligible patients, re-confirming cisplatin as the standard systemic therapy of choice in HNSCC. In patients who are not candidates for any type of cisplatin administration, carboplatin-based therapy or cetuximab remain options, and other non-cisplatin therapies are under investigation. Altered fractionation may be considered in patients who are not candidates for any type of systemic therapy. The role of immunotherapy in the management of locoregional SCCHN remains investigational.

Clinical Development of Molecular Targeted Therapy in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

A better understanding of cancer biology has led to the development of molecular targeted therapy, which has dramatically improved the outcome of some cancer patients, especially when a biomarker of efficacy has been used for patients' selection. In head and neck oncology, cetuximab that targets epidermal growth factor receptor is the only targeted therapy that demonstrated a survival benefit, both in the recurrent and in the locally advanced settings, yet without prior patients' selection. We herein review the clinical development of targeted therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in light of the molecular landscape and give insights in on how innovative clinical trial designs may speed up biomarker discovery and deployment of new molecular targeted therapies. Given the recent approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death-1 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, it remains to be determined how targeted therapy will be incorporated into a global drug development strategy that will inevitably incorporate immunotherapy.

Does 5 + 5 Equal Better Radiation Treatment Plans in Head and Neck Cancers?

Purpose

Accurate contouring in head and neck cancer (HNC) is critical. International consensus guidelines recommend the 5 + 5 mm rule for expansions around the primary tumor, wherein high- and low-dose clinical target volumes (CTV-P1 and CTV-P2, respectively) are created using successive 5 mm expansions on the gross tumor volume. To our knowledge, the necessity of a low-dose CTV-P2 has never been assessed; therefore, we evaluated the dosimetric impact of adding a CTV-P2 expansion using the 5 + 5 mm rule compared with contouring with a high-dose CTV-P1 alone.

Methods and materials

A retrospective study of clinically delivered (chemo)radiation therapy treatment plans for HNC was conducted. All patients were treated with 70 Gy in 35 fractions using volumetric modulated arc therapy in a single phase. CTV-P2 was retrospectively contoured per guidelines as a 5 mm expansion on CTV-P1 from the clinical plan, carving off specified barriers to spread. We used a 5 mm planning target volume (PTV) expansion. Our primary outcome was whether 95% of the volume of the PTV for the CTV-P2 contour (ie, PTV-P2) received at least 56 Gy. To assess dose falloff, the coverage of a PTV ring structure was created by subtracting PTV-P1 from PTV-P2.

Results

Twenty-seven patients from 4 HNC subsites (base of tongue, tonsil, hypopharynx, and supraglottic larynx) were included. In all 108 treatment plans, at least 95% of the PTV-P2 structure received at least 56 Gy. The minimum volume of the PTV-P2 structure receiving at least 56 Gy was 97.4%. Eight of 108 treatment plans had borderline coverage of the PTV ring substructure alone.

Conclusions

Adding a CTV-P2 structure using the 5 + 5 mm rule had no dosimetric impact, adds contouring time, adds treatment planning complexity, and could potentially introduce errors. The 5 + 5 mm rule may have value in other settings, such as when smaller PTV margins are used, and warrants further evaluation with prospective or randomized studies.

Cetuximab-Containing Combinations in Locally Advanced and Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Cetuximab remains to date the only targeted therapy approved for the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The EGFR pathway plays a key role in the tumorigenesis and progression of this disease as well as in the resistance to radiotherapy (RT). While several anti-EGFR agents have been tested in HNSCC, cetuximab, an IgG1 subclass monoclonal antibody against EGFR, is the only drug with proven efficacy for the treatment of both locoregionally-advanced (LA) and recurrent/metastatic (R/M) disease. The addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy is a validated treatment option in LA-HNSCC. However, its use has been limited to patients who are considered unfit for standard of care chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with single agent cisplatin given the lack of direct comparison of these two regimens in randomized phase III trials and the inferiority suggested by metanalysis and phase II studies. The current use of cetuximab in HNSCC is about to change given the recent results from randomized prospective clinical trials in both the LA and R/M setting. Two phase III studies evaluating RT-cetuximab vs. CRT in Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-positive LA oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (De-ESCALaTE and RTOG 1016) showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival for RT-cetuximab combination, and therefore CRT with cisplatin remains the standard of care in this disease. In the R/M HNSCC, the EXTREME regimen has been the standard of care as first-line treatment for the past 10 years. However, the results from the KEYNOTE-048 study will likely position the anti-PD-1 agent pembrolizumab as the new first line treatment either alone or in combination with chemotherapy in this setting based on PD-L1 status. Interestingly, cetuximab-mediated immunogenicity through antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity (ADCC) has encouraged the evaluation of combined approaches with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in both LA and R/M-HNSCC settings. This article reviews the accumulated evidence on the role of cetuximab in HNSCC in the past decade, offering an overview of its current impact in the treatment of LA and R/M-HNSCC disease and its potential use in the era of immunotherapy.

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis

Importance

Only 3.4% of cancer drugs evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most failing in phase 3 trials.

Objective

To investigate whether an association exists between the sponsorship and conduct of a negative phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating a cancer drug that lacked supporting phase 2 trial evidence for that drug, and to evaluate the association with overall survival among patients randomized to the experimental arm of such phase 3 trials.

Data Sources

Articles in the Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology published between January 2016 and June 2018 were searched.

Study Selection

Phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that failed to improve the primary end point were selected and any prior phase 2 trial of the same drug that supported the phase 3 trial was selected without any date or journal restrictions.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Percentages of negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that lacked any phase 2 evidence, had a negative phase 2 trial, or had a positive phase 2 study were extracted. Associations were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the overall survival of patients enrolled in these negative phase 3 RCTs were estimated using a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Negative phase 3 RCTs with a lack of a phase 2 trial or the presence of a negative phase 2 trial and overall survival of enrolled patients in the phase 3 RCTs.

Results

In this meta-epidemiological study, 67 negative phase 3 RCTs on cancer drugs, which included 64 600 patients, met the criteria of being sponsored by industry or academic groups, of which 42 RCTs (63%) were industry sponsored and the remaining 25 RCTs (37%) were academic. A phase 2 trial was not available for 28 of these trials (42%). Of 29 trials (43%) with a phase 2 trial available, 8 trials (28%) failed to meet their primary end points and 5 of those were industry sponsored. There was no association with overall survival for patients participating in these negative phase 3 RCTs (pooled hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). When the pooled analysis was limited to the 27 RCTs with a hazard ratio above 1.00, the overall pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16). No association between having a negative or undefined phase 2 trial and trial sponsorship was found using the Fisher exact test.

Conclusions and Relevance

More than 40% of the negative phase 3 RCTs in oncology published in these 5 journals were conducted without a supporting phase 2 trial and were sponsored by both academia and industry. Running such trials not only may risk loss of resources owing to a failed trial but also may be associated with decreased patient survival. Further research and regulations in this area appear warranted.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Background

There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity.

Methods

We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (p_S) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (p_A). The non-inferiority margin, p_A – p_S = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal.

Results

Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with cetuximab-an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor-can preserve high survival and reduce treatment toxicity is unknown. We investigated whether cetuximab would maintain a high proportion of patient survival and reduce acute and late toxicity.

METHODS

RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA and Canada. Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma; American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition clinical categories T1-T2, N2a-N3 M0 or T3-T4, N0-N3 M0; Zubrod performance status 0 or 1; age at least 18 years; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either radiotherapy plus cetuximab or radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks, and patients were stratified by T category (T1-T2 vs T3-T4), N category (N0-N2a vs N2b-N3), Zubrod performance status (0 vs 1), and tobacco smoking history (≤10 pack-years vs >10 pack-years). Patients were assigned to receive either intravenous cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m² 5-7 days before radiotherapy initiation, followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m² weekly for seven doses (total 2150 mg/m²), or cisplatin 100 mg/m² on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy (total 200 mg/m²). All patients received accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered at 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks at six fractions per week (with two fractions given on one day, at least 6 h apart). The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1·45. Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby all patients meeting eligibility criteria are included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302834.

FINDINGS

Between June 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 987 patients were enrolled, of whom 849 were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy plus cetuximab (n=425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (n=424). 399 patients assigned to receive cetuximab and 406 patients assigned to receive cisplatin were subsequently eligible. After median follow-up duration of 4·5 years, radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1·94; p=0·5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0·0163). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·4-82·5) in the cetuximab group versus 84·6% (80·6-88·6) in the cisplatin group. Progression-free survival was significantly lower in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 1·72, 95% CI 1·29-2·29; p=0·0002; 5-year progression-free survival 67·3%, 95% CI 62·4-72·2 vs 78·4%, 73·8-83·0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 2·05, 95% CI 1·35-3·10; 5-year proportions 17·3%, 95% CI 13·7-21·4 vs 9·9%, 6·9-13·6). Proportions of acute moderate to severe toxicity (77·4%, 95% CI 73·0-81·5 vs 81·7%, 77·5-85·3; p=0·1586) and late moderate to severe toxicity (16·5%, 95% CI 12·9-20·7 vs 20·4%, 16·4-24·8; p=0·1904) were similar between the cetuximab and cisplatin groups.

INTERPRETATION

For patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin is the standard of care for eligible patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute USA, Eli Lilly, and The Oral Cancer Foundation.

Feasibility of concomitant cisplatin with hypofractionated radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Background

The evolution of radiotherapy over recent decades has reintroduced the hypofractionation for many tumor sites with similar outcomes to those of conventional fractionated radiotherapy. The use of hypofractionation in locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) has been already used, however, its use has been restricted to only a few countries. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (HYP-RT) with concomitant cisplatin (CDDP).

Methods

This single-arm trial was designed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of HYP-RT with concomitant CDDP in LAHNC. Stage III and IV patients withnonmetastatic disease were enrolled. Patients were submitted to intensity modulatedradiation therapy, which comprised 55 Gy/20 fractions to the gross tumor and44–48 Gy/20 fractions to the areas of subclinical disease. Concomitant CDDPconsisted of 4 weekly cycles of 35 mg/m2. The primary endpoints were the treatment completion rate and acute toxicity.

Results

Twenty patients were enrolled from January 2015 to September 2016, and 12 (60%) were classified as unresectable. All patients completed the total dose of radiotherapy, and 19 patients (95%) received at least 3 of 4 cycles of chemotherapy. The median overall treatment time was 29 days (27–34). Grade 4 toxicity was reported twice (1 fatigue and 1 lymphopenia). The rates of grade 3 dermatitis and mucositis were 30% and 40%, respectively, with spontaneous resolution. Nasogastric tubes were offered to 15 patients (75%) during treatment; 4 patients (20%) needed feeding tubes after 2 months, and only 1 patient needed a feeding tube after 12 months.

Conclusion

HYP-RT with concomitant CDDP was considered feasible for LAHNC, and the rate of acute toxicity was comparable to that of standard concomitant chemoradiation. A feeding tube was necessary for most patients during treatment. Further investigation of this strategy is warranted.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials, NCT03194061. Registered 21 Jun 2017 – Retrospectively registered.

Toxicity Reduction in the Treatment of HPV Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer: Emerging Combined Modality Approaches

Human papillomavirus positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPC) is a distinct clinical entity within the head and neck cancers, with a unique epidemiology and, in general, a favorable prognosis. Because of this favorable prognosis, researchers have considered de-intensifying the current standard treatment of HPV+ OPC in order to reduce acute and late treatment related toxicity without compromising outcome. Current ongoing trials can be divided in three main categories: de-intensification of the chemotherapy by replacing concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy with the EGFR-inhibitor cetuximab, or de-intensification of the radiation dose of either the primary radiotherapy of selected, good-responding patients after induction chemotherapy or of the adjuvant radiotherapy based on pathology features after primary surgery. Despite the good prognosis of the majority of HPV+ OPC patients, a proportion of them still have poor prognosis. This unmet need has led clinical research on new treatment strategies focused on influencing the unique micro-environment of HPV+ OPC with for example immunotherapy. This article summarizes the current understanding regarding the optimal treatment of non-metastatic HPV+ OPC. Ongoing and published clinical trials regarding de-intensification strategies, immunotherapy and proton therapy are described focusing on the rationale and underlying evidence of these emerging treatment strategies. Nevertheless, until the results of the ongoing trials are known, the treatment of HPV+ OPC in clinical practice should remain identical to the treatment of HPV negative OPC.

Comparison of high-dose Cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy and Cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy for p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in the context of revised HPV-based staging

AIM

To perform a comparison of Cisplatin vs. Cetuximab in p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) in the context of the revised HPV-based staging.

BACKGROUND

Previous reports comparing these agents in head and neck cancer have included heterogenous disease and p16-status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted from 2006 to 2016 of patients with p16-positive OPSCC who underwent definitive radiotherapy concurrent with either triweekly Cisplatin (n = 251) or Cetuximab (n = 40). AJCC 8th Edition staging was adapted.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for surviving patients was 40 months. On multivariate analysis for all-comers, comparing Cisplatin and Cetuximab, 3-year locoregional recurrence (LRR): 6% vs. 16% (p = 0.07), 3-year distant metastasis (DM): 8% vs. 21% (p = 0.04), 3-year overall recurrence rate (ORR): 11% vs. 29% (p = 0.01), and 3-year cause-specific survival (CSS): 94% vs. 79% (p = 0.06), respectively. On stage-based subgroup analysis, for stage I-II disease, 3-year LRR: 5% vs. 10% (p = 0.51), 3-year DM: 7% vs. 16% (p = 0.32), 3-year ORR: 10% vs. 23% (p = 0.15), and 3-year CSS: 95% vs. 82% (p = 0.38). For stage III disease, 3-year LRR: 10% vs. 40% (p = 0.07), 3-year DM: 9% vs. 43% (p = 0.07), 3-year ORR: 15% vs. 55% (p = 0.04), and 3-year CSS: 94% vs. 57% (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

When given concurrently with radiotherapy, Cetuximab and triweekly Cisplatin demonstrated comparable efficacy for AJCC 8th Edition stage I-II p16-positive OPSCC. However, Cetuximab appeared to be associated with higher rates of treatment failure and cancer-related deaths in stage III disease. Upon availability of the RTOG 1016 trial results, analysis based on the revised HPV-based staging should be performed to confirm these findings.

Head and neck cancer in Hong Kong

Head and neck cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Hong Kong. HNC is well-known for its heterogeneity in epidemiology, clinical behavior, clinic-pathological features and patient characteristics. Treatment strategies for this heterogeneous disease vary greatly in different parts of the world, depending on availability of resources, local expertise and experience. Extensive research in head and neck cancer, particularly nasopharyngeal carcinoma, has been conducted in Hong Kong in the past few decades. In this article, we will review the available local evidence and summarize common practice in management of head and neck cancer in Hong Kong.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in cisplatin versus cetuximab chemoradiation for locally advanced p16 positive oropharyngeal carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Randomized trials evaluating cisplatin versus cetuximab chemoradiation (CRT) for p16+ oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) have yet to report preliminary data. Meanwhile, as a preemptive step toward morbidity reduction, the off-trial use of cetuximab in p16+ patients is increasing, even in those who could potentially tolerate cisplatin. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cisplatin versus cetuximab CRT in the treatment of p16+ OPC and to identify prognostic factors and predictors of tumor response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cases of p16+ OPC treated with cisplatin or cetuximab CRT at our institution from 2010 to 2014 were identified. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classification was used to determine low-risk (LR-RPA) and intermediate-risk (IR-RPA) groups. Log-rank/Kaplan-Meier and Cox Regression methods were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

We identified 205 patients who received cisplatin (n = 137) or cetuximab (n = 68) CRT in the definitive (n = 178) or postoperative (n = 27) setting. Median follow-up was 3 years. Cisplatin improved 3-year locoregional control (LRC) [92.7 vs 65.4%], distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) [88.3 vs 71.2%], recurrence-free survival (RFS) [86.6 vs 50.6%], and overall survival (OS) [92.6 vs 72.2%] compared to cetuximab [all p < .001]. Concurrent cisplatin improved 3-year OS for LR-RPA (97.1 vs 80.3%, p < .001) and IR-RPA (97.1 vs 80.3%, p < .001) groupings.

CONCLUSION

When treating p16+ OPC with CRT, the threshold for substitution of cisplatin with cetuximab should be maintained appropriately high in order to prolong survival times and optimize locoregional and distant tumor control. When cetuximab is used in cisplatin-ineligible patients, altered fractionation RT should be considered in an effort to improve LRC.

Perspectives in Head and Neck Medical Oncology

The modern treatment of locoregionally advanced disease often requires a multimodality combination approach. A number of chemotherapeutic agents can be combined with radiation, but the platinum agent cisplatin, a potent radiation sensitizer, is best studied in head and neck cancer. Newer agents such as cetuximab can be used in combination with radiation therapy for those patients who cannot tolerate cisplatin. For chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic head and neck cancer who demonstrate a good performance status, platinum doublet regimens are commonly used. Doublet regimens generally improve response rates compared to single-agent chemotherapies, although they have not demonstrated a survival benefit over single agents and they have added toxicity. Immunotherapies, alternative cytotoxic chemotherapies, and targeted therapies are second-line options for patients with disease that has progressed on platinum-based therapy. Immunotherapy, in particular, has gained focus by enhancing the ability of the immune system to recognize and destroy malignant cells. When multimodal approaches are used, as in combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy, toxicities are increased. It is imperative that patients are followed closely in order to maximize treatment benefit while minimizing complications.

Association of Neurocognitive Deficits With Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

Neurocognitive deficits (NCD) have been observed in noncentral nervous system cancers, yet short- and long-term neurocognitive data on patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) are lacking.

Objective

To assess objective neurocognitive function before and after definitive radiation therapy for HNC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In a prospective, longitudinal study, neurocognitive function and self-reported symptoms were assessed in 80 patients with histologically proven HNC requiring definitive chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy and in 40 healthy controls 4 times (baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months after baseline) prior to commencing treatment at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Neurocognitive test scores were converted to age-corrected z scores (mean, 0; standard deviation, 1) and reported as mean scores, standardized regression-based scores, and frequencies of impairments in intellectual capacity, concentration, memory, executive function, processing speed, and motor dexterity. Multivariable analysis was used to identify factors associated with NCD 2 years after treatment.

Results

Eighty patients and 40 healthy controls enrolled. Analyses revealed significant differences between patient and control mean performance in some domains, with patient deficits increasing over time: intellectual capacity (Cohen d, effect sizes [95% CIs] of -0.46 [-0.64 to 0.30], -0.51 [-0.72 to -0.30], and -0.70 [-0.92 to -0.49] for time points 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively); concentration/short-term attention span (-0.19 [-0.37 to 0.00], -0.38 [-0.55 to -0.21], -0.54 [-0.71 to -0.37]); verbal memory (-0.16 [-0.33 to 0.02], -0.38 [-0.64 to -0.12], -0.53 [-0.74 to -0.32]); executive function (-0.14 [-0.27 to 0.00], -0.34 [-0.52 to -0.16], -0.43 [-0.64 to -0.22]), and global cognitive function composite (-0.38 [-0.55 to -0.22], -0.75 [-0.92 to -0.58], -1.06 [-1.26 to -0.86]). There was an increased rate of impaired global neurocognitive functioning among patients (38%) at 24 months compared with controls (0%). Neurocognitive deficits were not associated with baseline cytokines.

Conclusions and Relevance

Head and neck cancer survivors have neurocognitive sequelae up to 2 years after definitive chemoradiotherapy or radiation treatment. Patients and health care teams should know about such potential risks. Further research is warranted in search of strategies to avoid, reduce, and compensate for declines.

The use of rapid and cost-effective blood-based biomarkers in combination with tumour TNM stage for individual head and neck cancer patient treatment selection

Head and neck (H&N) cancer is an aggressive disease and the incidence has increased in younger population worldwide. Tumour TNM staging is the main basis for treatment decision despite significant variation in clinical outcome. Survival time of these patients has marginally improved during the last 30 years. Various biomarkers with cumbersome analysis, high cost, time consumption and requirement of special laboratory facilities have been investigated. However, none of these biomarkers have been shown to be suitable to use for individual H&N cancer patient treatment selection in the clinic. For practical use in clinical settings, the given biomarkers must be simple to analyse, rapid, cost effective and available in routine laboratories. With this intension, we suggested the combination of standard TNM staging and biomarkers associated with inflammation such as neutrophils, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, plasma C-reactive protein or plasma tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFa) and single-nucleotide polymorphism in TNFa rs1800629 using blood-based analysis. The optimal treatment outcome of H&N cancer by using combination of TNM stage and these blood-based biomarkers for individual patient selection need further investigation.

Quality of life and swallowing with standard chemoradiotherapy versus accelerated radiotherapy and panitumumab in locoregionally advanced carcinoma of the head and neck: A phase III randomised trial from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (HN.6)

AIM

To compare quality of life (QOL) between standard (SFX) chemoradiotherapy (arm A) and altered fractionation radiotherapy (AFX) with panitumumab (PMab; arm B).

METHODS

Patients with T any N + M0 or T3-4N0M0 squamous cell head-neck carcinoma were randomised to SFX (70 Gy/35/7 wks) plus cisplatin (100 mg/m² IV × 3) versus AFX (70 Gy/35/6 wks) plus PMab (9 mg/kg IV × 3). QOL was collected at baseline, end of radiation therapy (RT) and 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months post-RT using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Head and Neck (FACT-H&N), MD Anderson Dysphagia Index (MDADI) and SWAL-QOL. We hypothesised a 6-point more favourable change in FACT-H&N score from baseline to 1 year in arm B over arm A.

RESULTS

Among 320 patients, median follow-up was 46 (range: 0.1-64.3) months, median age 56, 84% male, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0 (71%), 1 (29%). Primary site was oropharynx in 81% (p16+ 68%, p16- 16%, missing 16%). Baseline scores did not differ by arm (A/B): FACT-H&N 116.5/115, MDADI Global 83/77, SWAL-QOL General 67/68. At 1 year, no difference was seen between arms in FACT-H&N change from baseline: A -1.70, B -4.81, p = 0.194. Subscale change scores by arm were (A/B): last week RT, FACT-Physical (-11.6, -10, p = 0.049), MDADI Physical (-40.4, -33.9, p = 0.045), and SWAL-QOL Eating Duration (-61.2, -51.2, p = 0.02), Eating Desire (-53.3, -43.9, p = 0.031) and Mental Health (-42, -32.6, p = 0.009); 4 months, HN subscale (-7.7, -10, p = 0.014). No clinically important differences by arm were seen post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PMab with AFX did not durably improve QOL or swallowing as compared with SFX with cisplatin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00820248.