Pembrolizumab versus methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-040): Subgroup analysis by pattern of disease recurrence.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-040 study, pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in previously treated recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC. We present a post hoc subgroup analysis by disease recurrence pattern: recurrent-only, recurrent and metastatic (recurrent-metastatic), and metastatic-only HNSCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients had HNSCC that progressed during or after platinum-containing treatment for R/M disease or had recurrence or progression within 3-6 months of previous platinum-containing definitive therapy for locally advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or investigator's choice of standards of care (SOC): methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab. Outcomes included OS, PFS, ORR, and DOR. The data cutoff was May 15, 2017. RESULTS: There were 125 patients (pembrolizumab, 53; SOC, 72) in the recurrent-only subgroup, 204 in the recurrent-metastatic subgroup (pembrolizumab, 108; SOC, 96), and 166 in the metastatic-only subgroup (pembrolizumab, 86; SOC, 80). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for death for pembrolizumab versus SOC was 0.83 (0.55-1.25) in the recurrent-only, 0.78 (0.58-1.06) in the recurrent-metastatic, and 0.74 (0.52-1.05) in the metastatic-only subgroups. PFS was similar between treatment arms in all subgroups. ORR was 22.6% for pembrolizumab versus 16.7% for SOC in the recurrent-only, 10.2% versus 6.3% in the recurrent-metastatic, and 15.1% versus 8.8% in the metastatic-only subgroups. DOR was numerically longer with pembrolizumab in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provided numerically longer OS and durable responses in all subgroups compared with SOC, suggesting that patients with previously treated R/M HNSCC benefit from pembrolizumab regardless of recurrence pattern.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase II study of cediranib with or without lenalidomide in iodine 131-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) pathway have activity in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Lenalidomide demonstrated preliminary efficacy in DTC, but its safety and efficacy in combination with VEGFR-targeted TKIs is unknown. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of cediranib, a VEGFR-targeted TKI, with or without lenalidomide, in the treatment of iodine 131-refractory DTC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase II clinical trial, 110 patients were enrolled and randomized to cediranib alone or cediranib with lenalidomide. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). Patients (≥18 years of age) with DTC who were refractory to further surgical or radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy as reviewed at a multispecialty tumor board conference, and evidence of disease progression within the previous 12 months and no more than one prior line of systemic therapy were eligible. RESULTS: Of the 110 patients, 108 started therapy and were assessable for efficacy. The median PFS was 14.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5-23.8 months] in the cediranib arm and 11.3 months (95% CI 8.7-18.9 months) in the cediranib with lenalidomide arm (P = 0.36). The 2-year OS was 64.8% (95% CI 43.3% to 86.4%) and 75.3% (95% CI 59.4% to 91.0%), respectively (P = 0.80). The serious adverse event rate was 41% in the cediranib arm and 46% in the cediranib with lenalidomide arm. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent therapy with cediranib showed promising efficacy in RAI-refractory DTC similar to other VEGFR-targeted TKIs, while the addition of lenalidomide did not result in clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes.

Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in Asian patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 3): an open-label, randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) following progression after first-line platinum-based therapy, particularly in Asian countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase III trial, we enrolled Asian patients aged ≥18 years, with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent/metastatic HNSCC following first-line platinum-based therapy who were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1. Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week), stratified by ECOG performance status and prior EGFR-targeted antibody therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS: A total of 340 patients were randomised (228 afatinib; 112 methotrexate). After a median follow-up of 6.4 months, afatinib significantly decreased the risk of progression/death by 37% versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.82; P = 0.0005; median 2.9 versus 2.6 months; landmark analysis at 12 and 24 weeks, 58% versus 41%, 21% versus 9%). Improved PFS was complemented by quality of life benefits. Objective response rate was 28% with afatinib and 13% with methotrexate. There was no significant difference in overall survival. The most common grade ≥3 drug-related adverse events were rash/acne (4% with afatinib versus 0% with methotrexate), diarrhoea (4% versus 0%), fatigue (1% versus 5%), anaemia (<1% versus 5%) and leukopenia (0% versus 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial, afatinib significantly improved PFS versus methotrexate, with a manageable safety profile. These results demonstrate the efficacy and feasibility of afatinib as a second-line treatment option for certain patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01856478.

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

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

Overall survival analysis of EXAM, a phase III trial of cabozantinib in patients with radiographically progressive medullary thyroid carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Primary analysis of the double-blind, phase III Efficacy of XL184 (Cabozantinib) in Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer (EXAM) trial demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival with cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with progressive medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Final analysis of overall survival (OS), a key secondary endpoint, was carried out after long-term follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EXAM compared cabozantinib with placebo in 330 patients with documented radiographic progression of metastatic MTC. Patients were randomized (2:1) to cabozantinib (140 mg/day) or placebo. Final OS and updated safety data are reported. RESULTS: Minimum follow-up was 42 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 5.5-month increase in median OS with cabozantinib versus placebo (26.6 versus 21.1 months) although the difference did not reach statistical significance [stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.12; P = 0.24]. In an exploratory assessment of OS, progression-free survival, and objective response rate, cabozantinib appeared to have a larger treatment effect in patients with RET M918T mutation-positive tumors compared with patients not harboring this mutation. For patients with RET M918T-positive disease, median OS was 44.3 months for cabozantinib versus 18.9 months for placebo [HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94; P = 0.03 (not adjusted for multiple subgroup analyses)], with corresponding values of 20.2 versus 21.5 months (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70-1.82; P = 0.63) in the RET M918T-negative subgroup. Median treatment duration was 10.8 months with cabozantinib and 3.4 months with placebo. The safety profile for cabozantinib remained consistent with that of the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: The secondary end point was not met in this final OS analysis from the trial of cabozantinib in patients with metastatic, radiographically progressive MTC. A statistically nonsignificant increase in OS was observed for cabozantinib compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggest that patients with RET M918T-positive tumors may experience a greater treatment benefit with cabozantinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00704730.

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1) trial, second-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Here, we evaluated association of prespecified biomarkers with efficacy outcomes in LUX-H&N1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized patients with R/M HNSCC and progression following ≥2 cycles of platinum therapy received afatinib (40 mg/day) or methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week). Tumor/serum samples were collected at study entry for patients who volunteered for inclusion in biomarker analyses. Tumor biomarkers, including p16 (prespecified subgroup; all tumor subsites), EGFR, HER2, HER3, c-MET and PTEN, were assessed using tissue microarray cores and slides; serum protein was evaluated using the VeriStrat® test. Biomarkers were correlated with efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: Of 483 randomized patients, 326 (67%) were included in the biomarker analyses; baseline characteristics were consistent with the overall study population. Median PFS favored afatinib over methotrexate in patients with p16-negative [2.7 versus 1.6 months; HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.50-0.97)], EGFR-amplified [2.8 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.53 (0.33-0.85)], HER3-low [2.8 versus 1.8 months; HR 0.57 (0.37-0.88)], and PTEN-high [1.6 versus 1.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.29-1.05)] tumors. Afatinib also improved PFS in combined subsets of patients with p16-negative and EGFR-amplified tumors [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.47 (0.28-0.80)], and patients with p16-negative tumors who were EGFR therapy-naïve [4.0 versus 2.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.31-0.98)]. PFS was improved in afatinib-treated patients who were VeriStrat 'Good' versus 'Poor' [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.71 (0.49-0.94)], but no treatment interaction was observed. Afatinib improved tumor response versus methotrexate in all subsets analyzed except for those with p16-positive disease (n = 35). CONCLUSIONS: Subgroups of HNSCC patients who may achieve increased benefit from afatinib were identified based on prespecified tumor biomarkers (p16-negative, EGFR-amplified, HER3-low, PTEN-high). Future studies are warranted to validate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01345682.

Afatinib versus methotrexate in older patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis of the LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and <65 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day oral afatinib or 40 mg/m(2)/week intravenous methotrexate. PFS was the primary end point; overall survival (OS) was the key secondary end point. Other end points included: objective response rate (ORR), patient-reported outcomes, tumor shrinkage, and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 483 randomized patients, 27% (83 afatinib; 45 methotrexate) were aged ≥65 years (older) and 73% (239 afatinib; 116 methotrexate) <65 years (younger) at study entry. Similar PFS benefit with afatinib versus methotrexate was observed in older {median 2.8 versus 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.03], P = 0.061} and younger patients [2.6 versus 1.6 months, HR = 0.79 (0.62-1.01), P = 0.052]. In older and younger patients, the median OS with afatinib versus methotrexate was 7.3 versus 6.4 months [HR = 0.84 (0.54-1.31)] and 6.7 versus 6.2 months [HR = 0.98 (0.76-1.28)]. ORRs with afatinib versus methotrexate were 10.8% versus 6.7% and 10.0% versus 5.2%; DCRs were 53.0% versus 37.8% and 47.7% versus 38.8% in older and younger patients, respectively. In both subgroups, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were rash/acne (73%-77%) and diarrhea (70%-80%) with afatinib, and stomatitis (43%) and fatigue (31%-34%) with methotrexate. Fewer treatment-related discontinuations were observed with afatinib (each subgroup 7% versus 16%). A trend toward improved time to deterioration of global health status, pain, and swallowing with afatinib was observed in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing age (≥65 years) did not adversely affect clinical outcomes or safety with afatinib versus methotrexate in second-line R/M HNSCC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01345682 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Response-adapted volume de-escalation (RAVD) in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the late toxicity associated with chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (LA-HNSCC) have focused on radiotherapy (RT) dose de-escalation. In this phase I/II protocol investigating the addition of everolimus to induction chemotherapy (IC), we incorporated a novel response-adapted volume de-escalation (RAVD) approach using IC response to guide the extent of RT volume reduction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable LA-HNSCC received two cycles of IC (cisplatin, paclitaxel, cetuximab ± everolimus). Patients with ≥50% reduction in the sum of tumor diameters [good response (GR)] received TFHX (paclitaxel, fluorouracil, hydroxyurea, and 1.5 Gy twice daily RT every other week) to a dose of 75 Gy with the single planning target volume (PTV1) encompassing exclusively gross disease. Patients with <50% response [non-response (NR)] were treated with TFHX encompassing PTV1 and the next nodal station at risk (PTV2) to a dose of 45 Gy followed by a sequential boost to PTV1 to a dose of 75 Gy. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were enrolled. Randomization to everolimus was discontinued on interim analysis after 50 patients due to futility. IC response was evaluable in 89 patients. Thirty-seven patients (41.6%) had GR and 52 (58.4%) had NR. There was a trend for improved progression-free (P = 0.086) but not overall survival (P = 0.94) for GR versus NR. The 2-year PFS and OS were 86.0% and 83.5% for GR and 68.7% and 85.4% for NR, respectively. NR were significantly more likely to undergo G-tube placement during treatment (50.0% GR versus 73.5% NR, P = 0.040) and be G-tube dependent at 6-month follow-up (5.7% GR versus 32.6% NR, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of everolimus to IC was not beneficial. The elimination of elective nodal coverage in patients with GR to IC did not appear to compromise outcomes and resulted in significantly decreased late toxicity. Further investigation of RAVD is warranted. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01133678.

Phase II trial of dasatinib for recurrent or metastatic c-KIT expressing adenoid cystic carcinoma and for nonadenoid cystic malignant salivary tumors.

BACKGROUND: Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a subtype of malignant salivary gland tumors (MSGT), in which 90% of cases express cKIT. Dasatinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of five oncogenic protein tyrosine kinases (PTKs)/kinase families including cKIT. We conducted a phase II study to determine the antitumor activity of dasatinib in ACC and non-ACC MSGT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a two-stage design, patients with progressive, recurrent/metastatic ACC (+cKIT) and non-ACC MSGT (separate cohort) were treated with dasatinib 70 mg p.o. b.i.d. Response was assessed every 8 weeks using RECIST. RESULTS: Of 54 patients: 40 ACC, 14 non-ACC (1, ineligible excluded); M:F = 28 : 26, median age 56 years (range 20-82 years), ECOG performance status 0 : 1 : 2 = 24 : 28 : 2, prior radiation: 44, prior chemotherapy: 21. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) (as % of patients, worst grade 2 or higher) were: fatigue (28%), nausea (19%), headache (15%), lymphopenia (7%), dyspnea (11%), alanine aminotransferase increased (7%), anorexia (7%), vomiting (7%), alkaline phosphatase increased (6%), diarrhea (6%), neutropenia (6%), and noncardiac chest pain (6%). No grade 4 AE occurred, 15 patients experienced a grade 3 AE, primarily dyspnea (5) and fatigue (4), and cardiac toxicity (1 prolonged QTc). Among ACC patients, best response to dasatinib: 1 patient (2.5%) had partial response, 20 patients (50%) had stable disease (SD) (3-14 months), 12 patients (30%) had PD, 2 withdrew, 3 discontinued therapy due to AE, and 2 died before cycle 2. Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months. Median overall survival was 14.5 months. For 14 assessable non-ACC patients, none had objective response, triggering early stopping rule. Seven had SD (range 1-7 months), 4 PD, 2 discontinued therapy due to AE, and 1 died before cycle 2. CONCLUSION: Although there was only one objective response, dasatinib is well tolerated, with tumor stabilization achieved by 50% of ACC patients. Dasatinib demonstrated no activity in non-ACC MSGT.

Prognostic role of pretreatment plasma fibrinogen in patients with solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Plasma fibrinogen may be involved in several stages of cancer progression. Clinical studies have demonstrated that pretreatment plasma fibrinogen is associated with poor survival in various cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the prognostic effect of circulating fibrinogen in solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and meeting proceedings to identify studies assessing the effect of pretreatment plasma fibrinogen on survival of cancer patients. Pooled multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were estimated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Data from 52 observational studies and 15,371 patients were summarized. An elevated baseline plasma fibrinogen was significantly associated with worse OS (pooled HR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.48­1.92). The highest negative effect of elevated plasma fibrinogen on OS was demonstrated in renal cell carcinoma (pooled HR = 2.22), followed by head and neck cancer (pooled HR = 2.02), and colorectal cancer (pooled HR = 1.89). The adverse prognostic impact of high plasma fibrinogen remained in both non-metastatic and metastatic disease and patients of different ethnicity. Patients with high baseline fibrinogen had a significantly shorter DFS (pooled HR = 1.52) and CSS (pooled HR = 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: An elevated pretreatment plasma fibrinogen significantly correlates with decreased survival in patients with solid tumors. Future clinical trials are warranted to determine whether plasma fibrinogen could be incorporated in cancer staging systems and whether fibrinogen-lowering therapies have a favorable effect on disease recurrence and mortality.

Comparison of outcomes of locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal and non-oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma over two decades.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) has emerged as a causative agent and positive prognostic factor for oropharyngeal (OP) head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). This prompts inquiry into whether therapy improvements or increasing incidence of HPV drives the apparent improvements in HNSCC outcomes observed in non-randomized clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed all locoregionally advanced HNSCC patients treated with chemotherapy and radiation in prospective institutional trials at a single institution. Patients were divided into three groups (1, 2, 3) according to treatment time period (1993-1998, 1999-2003, 2004-2010, respectively). We reasoned that if a favorable trend was observed over time in OP but not non-OP patients, HPV status may be confounding treatment effects, whereas this would be unlikely if both subgroups improved over time. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-two patients were identified with OP (55.7%) and non-OP (44.3%) HNSCC. Five-year OP overall survival (OS) improved from 42.3% (group 1) to 72.5% (group 2), and 78.4% (group 3), adjusted P = 0.0084. Non-OP 5-year OS was 51.0% (group 1), 58.8% (group 2), and 66.3% (group 3), adjusted P = 0.51. Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) improved for OP groups from 42.3% to 68.4% to 75.8% (adjusted P = 0.017). Non-OP 5-year RFS was 42.9%, 53.6%, and 61.7% for sequential groups (adjusted P = 0.30). Five-year OP distant failure-free survival (DFFS) improved from 42.3% to 71.1% to 77.8% (adjusted P = 0.011). Five-year non-OP DFFS was 46.9%, 57.1%, and 66.0% for sequential groups (adjusted P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past two decades, OP HNSCC outcomes improved significantly, while non-OP outcomes only trended toward improvement. Although our patients are not stratified by HPV status, improving OP outcomes are likely at least partly due to the increasing HPV incidence. These data further justify trial stratification by HPV status, investigations of novel approaches for carcinogen-related HNSCC, and current de-intensification for HPV-related HNSCC.

A Phase II trial of axitinib in patients with various histologic subtypes of advanced thyroid cancer: long-term outcomes and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses.

PURPOSE: Axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, has shown activity in advanced thyroid cancer in a Phase II study. We report updated overall survival and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analyses from the study. METHODS: Patients (N = 60) with advanced thyroid cancer of any histology for whom iodine-131 ((131)I) failed to control the disease or (131)I was not appropriate therapy were administered axitinib 5 mg twice daily. Objective response rate (primary endpoint), duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and PK/PD relationships were assessed. RESULTS: Objective response rate was 38 % [23 partial responses; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 26-52], and 18 (30 %) patients had stable disease lasting ≥16 weeks. Responses occurred in all histologic subtypes. With median follow-up of 34 months (95 % CI 32-37), median overall survival was 35 months (95 % CI 19-not estimable), median progression-free survival was 15 months (95 % CI 10-20), and median duration of response was 21 months (95 % CI 13-46). Most common Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events included hypertension (13 %), proteinuria (8 %), diarrhea (7 %), weight decrease (7 %), and fatigue (5 %). PK/PD analyses revealed trends toward greater tumor size reduction and response probability with higher axitinib plasma exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib appears active and well tolerated in patients with various histologic subtypes of advanced thyroid cancer, demonstrating durable responses and long overall survival. Axitinib may be useful for the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer.

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

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

Eruptive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and psoriasis: response to cetuximab.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) comprise 20-30% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), and continue to increase in incidence. We report a case of a patient with severe psoriasis who had recurrent and eruptive CSCCs on her leg, which were successfully treated with cetuximab and radiotherapy. The patient had successful long-term clearance of her skin tumours, with the additional finding of resolution of psoriasis while on cetuximab therapy.

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

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

Oral cavity tumors in younger patients show a poor prognosis and do not contain viral RNA.

BACKGROUND: Oral cavity and in particular oral tongue cancers occur with a rising incidence in younger patients often lacking the typical risk factors of tobacco use, alcohol use, and human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. Their prognosis when treated with chemoradiation has not been well studied and responsible risk factors remain elusive. A viral etiology (other than HPV) has been hypothesized. METHODS: First we analyzed outcomes from 748 head and neck cancer patients with locoregionally advanced stage tumors treated with curative-intent chemoradiation by anatomic site. Second, we analyzed seven oral tongue (OT) tumors from young, non-smokers/non-drinkers for the presence of viral mRNA using short-read massively-parallel sequencing (RNA-Seq) in combination with a newly-developed digital subtraction method followed by viral screening and discovery algorithms. For positive controls we used an HPV16-positive HNC cell line, a cervical cancer, and an EBV-LMP2A transgene lymphoma. RESULTS: Younger patients with oral cavity tumors had worse outcomes compared to non-oral cavity patients. Surprisingly none of the seven oral tongue cancers showed significant presence of viral transcripts. In positive controls the expected viral material was identified. CONCLUSION: Oral cavity tumors in younger patients have a poor prognosis and do not appear to be caused by a transcriptionally active oncovirus.

Outcomes of induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Current standard therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is concurrent chemoradiation based on randomized data. However, limited randomized data exist to support the addition of induction chemotherapy (ICT). METHODS: 58 Patients with NPC were treated from 1990 to 2010. All patients received platinum-based ICT. All 58 patients were treated with chemoradiation, 57 in a week-on/week-off (WOWO) fashion. Concurrent chemotherapy included hydroxyurea/5-fluorouracil for all patients. Median radiation dose was 70 Gy. No patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: AJCC 2009 stage was II=13, III=21, IVa=13, and IVb=11. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 66 months. Response to ICT was complete response (CR) 17% and partial response (PR) 64%. The CR rate after chemoradiation was 96%. Five-year actuarial freedom from local failure (FFLF), freedom from distant failure (FFDF), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) was 98%, 90%, 90%, and 76%, respectively. Analysis of pediatric patients (n=9) demonstrated 5-year actuarial FFLF, FFDF, CSS, and OS of 100%, 88%, 80%, and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICT followed by concurrent chemoradiation demonstrates excellent FFLF, FFDF, CSS, and OS with tolerable toxicity. Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation for patients with NPC should be explored further in a randomized setting.

A phase I dose escalation study of Ad GV.EGR.TNF.11D (TNFerade™ Biologic) with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer undergoing reirradiation.

BACKGROUND: AdGV.EGR.TNF.11D (TNFerade™ Biologic) is a replication-deficient adenoviral vector expressing human tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) under the control of the chemoradiation-inducible EGR-1 promoter. TNF-α has been shown to function as a radiation sensitizer. We conducted a phase I dose escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of TNFerade™ Biologic, when added to chemoradiotherapy in poor prognosis patients with recurrent, previously irradiated head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: TNFerade™ Biologic was injected intratumorally on day 1 of each 14-day cycle and dose-escalated in log increments from 4 × 10(9) to 4 × 10(11) PU. Daily radiation, infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and hydroxyurea were given on days 1-5 for seven cycles (FHX). Tumor biopsies were obtained before, during, and after treatment. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated. DLT was reached at a dose level of 3 (4 × 10(11) PU) with three thrombotic events. The response rate was 83.3%. The median survival was 9.6 months. One patient (7.1%) remained alive 3 years after treatment. Biopsies were obtained in 90% of patients. Nearly all tumors expressed adenovirus receptors, TNF-α, and TNF-α receptors. Adenoviral DNA was detected in three biopsies from one patient. CONCLUSIONS: TNFerade™ Biologic can be safely integrated with FHX chemoradiotherapy at an MTD of 4 × 10(10) PU. Monitoring for thrombotic events is indicated.

Nonlinear population pharmacokinetics of sirolimus in patients with advanced cancer.

Sirolimus, the prototypical inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, has substantial antitumor activity. In this study, sirolimus showed nonlinear pharmacokinetic characteristics over a wide dose range (from 1 to 60 mg/week). The objective of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model to describe the nonlinearity of sirolimus. Whole blood concentration data, obtained from four phase I clinical trials, were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM) approach. The influence of potential covariates was evaluated. Model robustness was assessed using nonparametric bootstrap and visual predictive check approaches. The data were well described by a two-compartment model incorporating a saturable Michaelis-Menten kinetic absorption process. A covariate analysis identified hematocrit as influencing the oral clearance of sirolimus. The visual predictive check indicated that the final pharmacokinetic model adequately predicted observed concentrations. The pharmacokinetics of sirolimus, based on whole blood concentrations, appears to be nonlinear due to saturable absorption.CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology (2012) 1, e17; doi:10.1038/psp.2012.18; advance online publication 5 December 2012.