Research progress of immunotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer

Head and neck cancer accounts for about one-fifth of all malignant tumors, and the incidence is increasing year by year. The overall mortality rate was high and the 5-year survival rate was low. At present, the combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy is the main treatment in clinical practice, but the treatment of recurrent or metastatic advanced head and neck cancer is still a challenge. With the rise of immunotherapy, more and more studies on immune checkpoint inhibitors have been conducted. This review summarizes the mechanism, clinical application and safety of immunotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer.

Dose exploration results from Phase 1 study of cemiplimab, a human monoclonal programmed death (PD)-1 antibody, in Japanese patients with advanced malignancies

PURPOSE

Part 1 of this two-part, open-label, Phase 1 study (NCT03233139) assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and clinical activity of cemiplimab in Japanese patients with advanced malignancies.

METHODS

Patients received cemiplimab 250 mg (n = 6) or 350 mg (n = 7) every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 108 weeks in Part 1. Tumor responses were assessed by investigators every 9 weeks using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

RESULTS

Of 13 patients enrolled, median age was 62 years (range 33-75) and eight patients were female. Median duration of cemiplimab exposure was 13.1 weeks (range 3.0‒113.6). At the time of data cut-off, 11 patients (84.6%) had discontinued treatment (majority due to disease progression: n = 8, 61.5%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were contact dermatitis, rash, and viral upper respiratory tract infection (each n = 3, 23.1%). Five grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in four patients: autoimmune colitis, dehydration, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, and muscular weakness. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported and no TEAEs led to death. Cemiplimab concentrations in serum were consistent with previously reported pharmacokinetic characteristics of cemiplimab. No anti-drug antibodies were detected in serum. Objective response rate [ORR; complete response + partial response (PR)] was 30.8% (four PR) and disease control rate [ORR + stable disease (SD)] was 46.2% (6/13; two SD).

CONCLUSION

Cemiplimab exhibited antitumor activity in Japanese patients with advanced malignancies. The safety profile was comparable to those previously reported for cemiplimab and other PD-1 inhibitors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03233139 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Immunogenicity of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced tumors

Background

Pembrolizumab is a potent, humanized, monoclonal anti–programmed death 1 antibody that has demonstrated effective antitumor activity and acceptable safety in multiple tumor types. Therapeutic biologics can result in the development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs), which may alter drug clearance and neutralize target binding, potentially reducing drug efficacy; such immunogenicity may also result in infusion reactions, anaphylaxis, and immune complex disorders. Pembrolizumab immunogenicity and its impact on exposure, safety, and efficacy was assessed in this study.

Patients and methods

Pembrolizumab immunogenicity was assessed in 3655 patients with advanced or metastatic cancer treated in 12 clinical studies. Patients with melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma were treated with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 200 mg every 3 weeks. An additional study involving 496 patients with stage III melanoma treated with 200 mg adjuvant pembrolizumab every 3 weeks after complete resection was analyzed separately.

Results

Of 3655 patients, 2000 were evaluable for immunogenicity analysis, 36 (1.8%) were treatment-emergent (TE) ADA-positive; 9 (0.5%) of these TE-positive patients had antibodies with neutralizing capacity. The presence of pembrolizumab-specific ADAs did not impact pembrolizumab exposure, nor did pembrolizumab immunogenicity affect the incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) or infusion-related reactions. There was no clear relationship between the presence of pembrolizumab-specific ADAs and changes in tumor size across treatment regimens. Of the 496 patients treated with pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy, 495 were evaluable, 17 (3.4%) were TE ADA–positive; none had neutralizing antibodies.

Conclusions

The incidence of TE (neutralizing positive) ADAs against pembrolizumab was low in patients with advanced tumors. Furthermore, immunogenicity did not appear to have any clinically relevant effects on the exposure, safety, or efficacy of pembrolizumab.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01295827 (February 15, 2011), NCT01704287 (October 11, 2012), NCT01866319 (May 31, 2013), NCT01905657 (July 23, 2013), NCT02142738 (May 20, 2014), NCT01848834 (May 8, 2013), NCT02255097 (October 2, 2014), NCT02460198 (June 2, 2015), NCT01953692 (October 1, 2013), NCT02453594 (May 25, 2015), NCT02256436 (October 3, 2014), NCT02335424 (January 9, 2015), NCT02362594 (February 13, 2015).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0663-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Feasibility of a deep hyperthermia and radiotherapy programme for advanced tumors: first Spanish experience

BACKGROUND

Hyperthermia (HT) is used to increase the temperature of the tumor-sensitizing cells to the effects of radiation/chemotherapy. We aimed to assess the feasibility, tolerability and safety of hyperthermia treatment in a Radiation Oncology Department.

METHODS

Between June 2015 and June 2017, 106 patients and a total of 159 tumor lesions were included in a prospective study (EudraCT 2018-001089-40) of HT concomitant with radiotherapy (RT). Systemic treatment was accepted. HT was given twice a week, 60 min per session, during RT treatment by a regional capacitive device (HY-DEEP 600WM system) at 13.56 MHz radiofrequency.

RESULTS

Most lesions (138 cases, 86.8%) received all HT sessions planned. Thirteen lesions (12 patients) withdrew treatment due to grade ≥3 QMHT toxicity. All these 12 patients completed the prescribed radiotherapy and/or systemic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Regional hyperthermia is a feasible and safe technique to be used in combination with radiotherapy and systemic treatment.