Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab versus the EXTREME regimen as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: KESTREL, a randomized, open-label, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) have a poor prognosis. The phase III KESTREL study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab [programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody] with or without tremelimumab [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) antibody], versus the EXTREME regimen in patients with R/M HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HNSCC who had not received prior systemic treatment for R/M disease were randomized (2 : 1 : 1) to receive durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) plus tremelimumab 75 mg Q4W (up to four doses), durvalumab monotherapy 1500 mg Q4W, or the EXTREME regimen (platinum, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab) until disease progression. Durvalumab efficacy, with or without tremelimumab, versus the EXTREME regimen in patients with PD-L1-high tumors and in all randomized patients was assessed. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab were not superior to EXTREME for overall survival (OS) in patients with PD-L1-high expression [median, 10.9 and 11.2 versus 10.9 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.32; P = 0.787 and HR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.80-1.39, respectively]. Durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab prolonged duration of response versus EXTREME (49.3% and 48.1% versus 9.8% of patients remaining in response at 12 months), correlating with long-term OS for responding patients; however, median progression-free survival was longer with EXTREME (2.8 and 2.8 versus 5.4 months). Exploratory analyses suggested that subsequent immunotherapy use by 24.3% of patients in the EXTREME regimen arm contributed to the similar OS outcomes between arms. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and EXTREME were 8.9%, 19.1%, and 53.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PD-L1-high expression, OS was comparable between durvalumab and the EXTREME regimen. Durvalumab alone, and with tremelimumab, demonstrated durable responses and reduced TRAEs versus the EXTREME regimen in R/M HNSCC.

A randomized phase II study comparing the efficacy and safety of the glyco-optimized anti-EGFR antibody tomuzotuximab against cetuximab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck - the RESGEX study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the RESGEX study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) antibody tomuzotuximab against cetuximab both in combination with chemotherapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck in the first-line treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial 240 patients were equally randomized for six cycles to receive either tomuzotuximab (initial dose 990 mg then 720 mg) weekly and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 and fluorouracil (5-FU; 1000 mg/m2/day, days 1-4) every 3 weeks or cetuximab (400 mg/m2 subsequent 250 mg/m2) weekly with the same chemotherapeutic backbone followed by antibody maintenance treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-7.9 months] in the tomuzotuximab group and 6.2 months (95% CI 5.8-7.3 months) in the cetuximab group (P = 0.86). The median overall survival (OS) estimate was 11.6 months (95% CI 9.5-17.2 months) in the tomuzotuximab group and 13.8 months (95% CI 12.3-16.4 months) in the cetuximab group (P = 0.96). In an exploratory analysis a small subgroup of p16-positive patients had a significantly longer OS compared with p16-negative patients (hazard ratio 1.860, 95% CI 1.09-3.16, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The glyco-engineered antibody tomuzotuximab failed to demonstrate improved efficacy with a chemotherapeutic backbone in the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. It remains a so far unanswered question whether such antibody would partner better with different drugs such as checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment of a first cancer is associated with a decreased incidence of second primary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Second primary cancers (SPCs) are diagnosed in over 5% of patients after a first primary cancer (FPC). We explore here the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) given for an FPC on the risk of SPC in different age groups, cancer types and treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of the 46 829 patients diagnosed with an FPC in the Centre Léon Bérard from 2013 to 2018 were analyzed. Structured data were extracted and electronic patient records were screened using a natural language processing tool, with validation using manual screening of 2818 files of patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the incidence of SPC according to patient characteristics and treatment were conducted. RESULTS: Among the 46 829 patients, 1830 (3.9%) had a diagnosis of SPC with a median interval of 11.1 months (range 0-78 months); 18 128 (38.7%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) and 1163 (2.5%) received ICIs for the treatment of the FPC in this period. SPCs were observed in 7/1163 (0.6%) patients who had received ICIs for their FPC versus 437/16 997 (2.6%) patients receiving CC and no ICIs for the FPC versus 1386/28 669 (4.8%) for patients receiving neither CC nor ICIs for the FPC. This reduction was observed at all ages and for all histotypes analyzed. Treatment with ICIs and/or CC for the FPC are associated with a reduced risk of SPC in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy with ICIs alone and in combination with CC was found to be associated with a reduced incidence of SPC for all ages and cancer types.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: EAGLE, a randomized, open-label phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w × 4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n = 247), or SoC (n = 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.08; P = 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85-1.26; P = 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9-43.1), 30.4% (24.7-36.3), and 30.5% (24.7-36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade ≥3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

Effective Altruism as an Ethical Lens on Research Priorities.

Effective altruism is an ethical framework for identifying the greatest potential benefits from investments. Here, we apply effective altruism concepts to maximize research benefits through identification of priority stakeholders, pathosystems, and research questions and technologies. Priority stakeholders for research benefits may include smallholder farmers who have not yet attained the minimal standards set out by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; these farmers would often have the most to gain from better crop disease management, if their management problems are tractable. In wildlands, prioritization has been based on the risk of extirpating keystone species, protecting ecosystem services, and preserving wild resources of importance to vulnerable people. Pathosystems may be prioritized based on yield and quality loss, and also factors such as whether other researchers would be unlikely to replace the research efforts if efforts were withdrawn, such as in the case of orphan crops and orphan pathosystems. Research products that help build sustainable and resilient systems can be particularly beneficial. The "value of information" from research can be evaluated in epidemic networks and landscapes, to identify priority locations for both benefits to individuals and to constrain regional epidemics. As decision-making becomes more consolidated and more networked in digital agricultural systems, the range of ethical considerations expands. Low-likelihood but high-damage scenarios such as generalist doomsday pathogens may be research priorities because of the extreme potential cost. Regional microbiomes constitute a commons, and avoiding the "tragedy of the microbiome commons" may depend on shifting research products from "common pool goods" to "public goods" or other categories. We provide suggestions for how individual researchers and funders may make altruism-driven research more effective.[Formula: see text] Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY 4.0 International license.

Molecular screening program to select molecular-based recommended therapies for metastatic cancer patients: analysis from the ProfiLER trial.

BACKGROUND: Antitumor activity of molecular-targeted agents is guided by the presence of documented genomic alteration in specific histological subtypes. We aim to explore the feasibility, efficacy and therapeutic impact of molecular profiling in routine setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentric prospective study enrolled adult or pediatric patients with solid or hematological advanced cancer previously treated in advanced/metastatic setting and noneligible to curative treatment. Each molecular profile was established on tumor, relapse or biopsies, and reviewed by a molecular tumor board (MTB) to identify molecular-based recommended therapies (MBRT). The main outcome was to assess the incidence rate of genomic mutations in routine setting, across specific histological types. Secondary objectives included a description of patients with actionable alterations and for whom MBRT was initiated, and overall response rate. RESULTS: Four centers included 2579 patients from February 2013 to February 2017, and the MTB reviewed the molecular profiles achieved for 1980 (76.8%) patients. The most frequently altered genes were CDKN2A (N = 181, 7%), KRAS (N = 177, 7%), PIK3CA (N = 185, 7%), and CCND1 (N = 104, 4%). An MBRT was recommended for 699/2579 patients (27%), and only 163/2579 patients (6%) received at least one MBRT. Out of the 182 lines of MBRT initiated, 23 (13%) partial responses were observed. However, only 0.9% of the whole cohort experienced an objective response. CONCLUSION: An MBRT was provided for 27% of patients in our study, but only 6% of patients actually received matched therapy with an overall response rate of 0.9%. Molecular screening should not be used at present to guide decision-making in routine clinical practice outside of clinical trials.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774409.

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.

The immune microenvironment of HPV-negative oral squamous cell carcinoma from never-smokers and never-drinkers patients suggests higher clinical benefit of IDO1 and PD1/PD-L1 blockade.

BACKGROUND: Never-smokers and never-drinkers patients (NSND) suffering from oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) are epidemiologically different from smokers drinkers (SD). We therefore hypothesized that they harbored distinct targetable molecular alterations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) (discovery set), Gene Expression Omnibus and Centre Léon Bérard (CLB) (three validation sets) with available gene expression profiles of HPV-negative OSCC from NSND and SD were mined. Protein expression profiles and genomic alterations were also analyzed from TCGA, and a functional pathway enrichment analysis was carried out. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples from 44 OSCC including 20 NSND and 24 SD treated at CLB were retrospectively collected to perform targeted-sequencing of 2559 transcripts (HTG EdgeSeq system), and CD3, CD4, CD8, IDO1, and PD-L1 expression analyses by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Enrichment of a six-gene interferon-γ signature of clinical response to pembrozulimab (PD-1 inhibitor) was evaluated in each sample from all cohorts, using the single sample gene set enrichment analysis method. RESULTS: A total of 854 genes and 29 proteins were found to be differentially expressed between NSND and SD in TCGA. Functional pathway analysis highlighted an overall enrichment for immune-related pathways in OSCC from NSND, especially involving T-cell activation. Interferon-γ response and PD1 signaling were strongly enriched in NSND. IDO1 and PD-L1 were overexpressed and the score of response to pembrolizumab was higher in NSND than in SD, although the mutational load was lower in NSND. IHC analyses in the CLB cohort evidenced IDO1 and PD-L1 overexpression in tumor cells that was associated with a higher rate of tumor-infiltrating T-cells in NSND compared with SD. CONCLUSION: The main biological and actionable difference between OSCC from NSND and SD lies in the immune microenvironment, suggesting a higher clinical benefit of PD-L1 and IDO1 inhibition in OSCC from NSND.

Hyperprogression during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 that have recently been approved in pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) patients. In the clinic, some patients seem not only not to benefit from anti-PD-L1/PD-1 agents but rather to experience an acceleration of tumor growth kinetics (TGK). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared TGK on immunotherapy and TGK on last treatment in patients with R/M HNSCC treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in four French centers. The TGK ratio (TGKR, ratio of the slope of tumor growth before treatment and the slope of tumor growth on treatment) was calculated. Hyperprogression was defined as a TGKR ≥ 2. RESULTS: From September 2012 to September 2015, 34 patients were identified. Patterns of recurrence included exclusive loco-regional recurrence in 14 patients, exclusive distant metastases in 11 patients, and both in 9 patients. No pseudo-progression was observed. Hyperprogression was observed in 10 patients (29%), including 9 patients with at least a locoregional recurrence, and only 1 patient with exclusively distant metastases. Hyperprogression significantly correlated with a regional recurrence (TGKR ≥ 2: 90% versus TGKR < 2: 37%, P = 0.008), but not with local or distant recurrence. Hyperprogression was associated with a shorter progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST (P = 0.003) and irRECIST (P = 0.02), but not with overall survival (P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Hyperprogression was observed in 29% of patients with R/M HNSCC treated with anti-PD-L1/PD-1 agents and correlated with a shorter PFS. It occurred in 39% of patients with at least a locoregional recurrence and 9% of patients with exclusively distant metastases. No pseudo-progressions were reported. Mechanisms and causality of hyperprogression should further be assessed through prospective controlled studies.

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).

Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter, phase II GORTEC study.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab in combination with platinum and 5-fluorouracil is the standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Cetuximab and taxane combinations have shown promising activity. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of four cycles of docetaxel associated with cisplatin and cetuximab (TPEx), followed by maintenance with cetuximab every 2 weeks. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a histologically confirmed HNSCC with metastasis or recurrence unsuitable for locoregional curative treatment received docetaxel and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) both) at day 1 and weekly cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) (loading dose of 400 mg/m(2)), repeated every 21 days for four cycles, followed by maintenance cetuximab 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Prophylactic administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was done systematically after each chemotherapy cycle. Patients had a good general status (performance status ≤1) and were under 71 years. Prior total doses of cisplatin exceeding 300 mg/m(2) were not allowed. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) after four cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled. The primary end point was met with an ORR of 44.4% (95% CI 30.9-58.6). Median overall and progression-free survivals were, respectively, 14 months (95% CI 11.3-17.3) and 6.2 months (95% CI 5.4-7.2). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were skin rash (16.6%) and non-febrile neutropenia (20.4%). There were one pulmonary embolism and two infectious events leading to death. CONCLUSIONS: The TPEx regimen showed promising activity as first-line treatment in fit patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. Further studies are needed to compare the TPEx versus EXTREME regimen in this population. CLINICALTRIALGOV: NCT01289522.

Phase 2, open-label, 1:1 randomized controlled trial exploring the efficacy of EMD 1201081 in combination with cetuximab in second-line cetuximab-naïve patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).

AIM: To determine whether EMD 1201081, a TLR9 agonist, added to cetuximab had antitumor activity in second-line recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS: This was a phase 2, open-label, randomized trial of EMD 1201081 0.32 mg/kg subcutaneously weekly plus cetuximab (combination) vs cetuximab monotherapy (control) in cetuximab-naïve patients with R/M SCCHN who progressed on 1 cytotoxic regimen. Crossover to combination was permitted after progression. RESULTS: Objective response rate in both arms was 5.7% (95% CI 1.2-15.7%) by independent assessment. Disease control was 37.7% for patients on combination (24.8-52.1%) and 43.4% on control (29.8-57.7%). Neither independent nor investigator assessments showed significant differences between study arms. Median progression-free survival was 1.5 months (1.3-2.6) for patients on combination, and 1.9 months (1.5-2.9) on control. The most frequent adverse events in the combination arm were rash (29.6%), acneiform dermatitis (22.2%), and injection site reactions (20.4%). Grade 3/4 dyspnea and hypokalemia were more frequent with cetuximab monotherapy (7.5% and 5.7% vs 1.9% each, respectively), and grade 3/4 respiratory failure and disease progression were more frequent with combination (5.6% each vs 1.9% each). CONCLUSION: EMD 1201081 was well tolerated combined with cetuximab, but there was no incremental clinical efficacy.

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.

[Advances in head and neck cancers on behalf of the French Intergroup ORL and GORTEC]. / Évolution des concepts dans les cancers des voies aérodigestives supérieures, sous l'égide de l'Intergroupe ORL (GORTEC, GETTEC, GERCOR).

Head and neck cancers are the fifth among the most common cancers in France. Two thirds of cases occur at an advanced stage. For advanced disease, progression-free survival, despite undeniable progress, remains below 50% at three years. The last 20 years have been marked by the necessity to identify situations where less intense surgery and/or radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy is possible without jeopardizing the prognosis, and situations where a therapeutic intensification is necessary and results in a gain in survival while better preserving function with less toxicity. French cooperative groups gathering radiation oncologists (GORTEC), surgeons (GETTEC) and medical oncologists or physicians involved in the management of systemic treatments in head and neck cancers (GERCOR) are now belonging to the INCa-labelled Intergroup ORL to deal with the challenges of head and neck cancers.

[Locally advanced head and neck cancers: recommendations of an expert panel and perspectives for the use of TPF regimen (docetaxel, cisplatin and fluoro-uracil) as induction therapy]. / Cancers des voies aérodigestives supérieures (VADS) localement avancés: recommandations d'un panel d'experts et de perspectives pour l'utilisation du schéma TPF (docétaxel, cisplatine, 5-fluoro-uracile) en induction.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present article was to evaluate indications, regimens, treatment modalities, and predictive factors of response to treatment in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). METHODS: An expert panel including otolaryngology and head and neck surgery specialists, oncologists, radiotherapists and biologists analyzed the literature providing a synthesis and giving some recommendations. SYNTHESIS: Findings from the main randomized phase III trials highlight that the TPF regimen (docetaxel, cisplatin, fluorouracil) represent a preferential option when induction chemotherapy is indicated in either operable or non-operable patients. Given the potential fragility of patients presenting with SCCHN, treatment modalities in routine use require applying preventive measures and tailored follow-up according to each patient's profile. As regards predictive factors of response to TPF regimen, no factor is currently validated, but ongoing trials should provide better knowledge. CONCLUSION: Progresses in induction chemotherapy have allowed improving the prognosis of patients with locally advanced SCCHN. The TPF regimen represents a major improvement in this indication, and ongoing strategic clinical trials should refine its indications.

[Chemoprevention in head and neck cancer and lung cancer]. / Chimioprévention des cancers des voies aérodigestives supérieures (VADS) et du poumon.

Because of their raised prevalence and mortality, association of secondary tumors and inefficiency of therapeutic conventional (surgery, radio- and chemotherapy), head and neck and lung cancers represent true public health problems. The knowledge of the process of carcinogenesis allowed development of approaches of chemoprevention. The vitamin A and its derivatives showed initially a certain efficacy, but an important toxicity and large trials remained negative. For lung cancers, in the event of continuation of the tobacco, beta-carotene and the vitamin A seem even deleterious. Progress in the biology of cancer should allow innovating new approaches of chemoprevention. Today the most effective strategy stays the stop of the tobacco.

Completed suicide in adults of rural Kerala: rates and determinants.

BACKGROUND: India has witnessed a dramatic increase in suicide rates during the past few decades. The southern state of Kerala has been reporting the highest rates of suicide. Since suicide rates are estimated from death registries, they are likely to be under-reported because the civil registration system is incomplete and suicide deaths are poorly reported. METHODS: A cohort of 132 000 participants (age 35 years and above) in Thiruvananthapuram (erstwhile Trivandrum) district, Kerala was followed up for mortality from 1996 to 2005, after having filled-in a lifestyle questionnaire at baseline. The cause of death was based on verbal autopsy. Suicide methods were recorded and rates were estimated, and suicide risks were calculated according to several socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: During the follow up period, a total of 11 608 deaths, of which 385 were suicides (3.3% of total deaths), were registered. The overall suicide rate was 39.3/100 000 person-years among adults 35-90 years of age (men: 78/ 100000; women: 16.5/100000). The predominant methods of suicide were hanging, followed by poisoning and drowning. The suicide determinants were male gender, middle-age (40-60 years), Hindu, alcohol drinkers and secondary education level (< or = 7 years). Neither low socioeconomic level, living alone, nor being a married woman was associated with suicide risk. CONCLUSION: Suicide rates were consistent with the official rates of Thiruvananthapuram district (37/100 000). However, our study population did not include the 14-34-year-old age-group which represents more than 37% of all suicides and hence it is more likely that the official rates are under-reported. Determinants of suicide were in line with previous studies.

Which socio-demographic factors are associated with participation in oral cancer screening in the developing world? Results from a population-based screening project in India.

BACKGROUND: This study examines socio-demographic determinants of participation in a population-based randomized controlled trial that proved that oral visual inspection was effective in reducing oral cancer mortality in high-risk individuals in India. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to establish socio-demographic characteristics of participants versus non-participants in the intervention arm. Compliance with referral was analysed according to the socio-demographic characteristics of screen-positives. RESULTS: Of 96,517 eligible subjects, 87,655 were screened, 8688 individuals never received the invitation and 174 refused screening. Compared to the non-screened, a higher proportion of screened individuals were women (OR=4.51; CI: 4.28-4.75), lived in better housing (OR=1.35; CI: 1.25-1.41), had television/radio (OR=1.50; CI: 1.43-1.58) and were tobacco and alcohol users (OR=2.75; CI: 2.57-2.95). Being 65 and older decreased the chances of screening (OR=0.39; CI: 0.37-0.42), as well as living in high-size households (OR=0.73; CI: 0.68-0.78). Sixty-three percent of 5143 screen-positives complied with referral. Controlling for all other factors, individuals older than 44, and those with more advanced lesions were more likely to comply with referral (p<0.001). Individuals living in better housing were less likely to comply with referral (OR=0.79; CI: 0.65-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, adequate coverage can be obtained in population-based oral screening in developing countries. The study underscores the important role of patient-provider communication in assuring high compliance with referral.

Angiosarcomas, a heterogeneous group of sarcomas with specific behavior depending on primary site: a retrospective study of 161 cases.

BACKGROUND: Angiosarcomas are rare, heterogeneous and a retrospective study was conducted to describe their natural history. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 161 files of angiosarcoma treated in three institutions of the French Sarcoma Group from 1980 to 2004. Survival and prognostic factors for survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Median age was 52 years. Primary sites were the breast (35%), skin (20%) and soft tissues (13%). At initial diagnosis, 31 (19%) had metastases. Surgery was the first treatment in 121 (75%) patients combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy in 34 and 32, respectively. Ninety (74%) of these 121 patients relapsed, mostly locally (50). With an average time since initial diagnosis of 8.1 years, 123 (76%) patients progressed and 76 (47%) died. Median survival was 3.4 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-5.8], and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 43% (95% CI 33-53). In multivariate analysis, liver primary site [relative risk (RR) = 12.62], performance status (PS) of two or more (RR = 3.83), presence of metastases at diagnosis (RR = 2.50), soft tissue tumor (RR = 0.31) were correlated to OS. PS, liver and soft tissue tumors were identified as independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Angiosarcomas have an overall poor outcome, but with a clearly distinct prognosis depending on the primary site.