Cabazitaxel in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: phase II UNICANCER trial ORL03.

Treatments are limited after platinum Cetuximab or anti-PD1 failure for patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cabazitaxel has increased overall survival in hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer after failure of Docetaxel. Our aim was to detect a signal of activity with Cabazitaxel in patients with head and neck cancer who had failed platinum-, Cetuximab- and taxanes-based chemotherapy. This multicenter phase II trial included progressive patients with an ECOG ≤2. Cabazitaxel was given at 25 mg/m2/3 weeks (maximum of 10 cycles), with growth factors support. Efficacy was centralized and assessed every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was control rate at six-weeks. A Simon's two-stage optimal design (P0=0.10; P1=0.30) required 29 evaluable patients. At the end of trial, at least 6 non-progressions were required to consider the drug worthy of further study. Out of the 31 enrolled patients, 29 were eligible; 42% had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy. For the primary end point, 8 patients (27.6%; 95%CI 12.7%-47.2%) had a stable disease at six weeks. Median progression-free survival was 1.05 months (95%CI 0.69-2.07). All patients were analyzed for toxicity: 6 patients had febrile neutropenia. During the 81 cycles administered, 49 grade 3-5 events were observed concerning 81% of the patients, including 35 severe adverse events of which 15 were related to Cabazitaxel. Although Cabazitaxel met its primary endpoint to deserve further investigations, its toxicity makes it difficult to use in frail patients and new schemes are needed (20 mg/m2 for example) if further investigations are launched.

Multi institutional phase II study of concomitant stereotactic reirradiation and cetuximab for recurrent head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Recurrent head and neck cancer is associated to a poor survival prognosis. A high toxicity rate is demonstrated when surgery and/or radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy are combined. Furthermore, the duration of treatment is often not ethically compatible with the expected survival (median survival<1year). Normal tissues tolerance limits the use of reirradiation and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could offer precise irradiation while sparing healthy tissues. After completion of a feasibility study, results of a multicentric study (Lille, Nancy & Nice) using SBRT with cetuximab are reported. The aim of the study was to deliver non toxic short course SBRT (2weeks) in order to get the same local control as the one demonstrated with longer protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with inoperable recurrent, or new primary tumor in a previously irradiated area, were included (WHO<3). Reirradiation (RT) dose was 36Gy in six fractions of 6Gy to the 85% isodose line covering 95% of the PTV with 5 injections of concomitant cetuximab (CT). All patients had previous radiotherapy, 85% had previous surgery and 48% previous chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between 11/2007 and 08/2010, 60 were included (46 men and 14 women), 56 received CT+RT, 3 were not treated and 1 received only CT. Median age was 60 (42-87)) and all 56 patients had squamous carcinoma and received concomitant cetuximab. Mean time between previous radiotherapy and the start of SBRT was 38months. Cutaneous toxicity was observed for 41 patients. There was one toxic death from hemorrhage and denutrition. Median follow-up was 11.4months. At 3months, response rate was 58.4% (95% CI: 43.2-72.4%) and disease control rate was 91.7% (95% CI: 80.0-97.7%). The one-year OS rate was 47.5% (95% CI: 30.8-62.4). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that short SBRT with cetuximab is an effective salvage treatment with good response rate in this poor prognosis population with previously irradiated HNC. Treatment is feasible and, with appropriate care to limiting critical structure, acute toxicities are acceptable. This combination may be the reference treatment is this population.

Induction chemotherapy followed by either chemoradiotherapy or bioradiotherapy for larynx preservation: the TREMPLIN randomized phase II study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT) for larynx preservation (LP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with stage III to IV larynx/hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma received three cycles of ICT-docetaxel and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) each on day 1 and fluorouracil 750 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 through 5. Poor responders (< 50% response) underwent salvage surgery. Responders (≥ 50% response) were randomly assigned to conventional radiotherapy (RT; 70 Gy) with concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) per day on days 1, 22, and 43 of RT (arm A) or concurrent cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) loading dose and 250 mg/m(2) per week during RT (arm B). Primary end point was LP at 3 months. Secondary end points were larynx function preservation (LFP) and overall survival (OS) at 18 months. RESULTS: Of the 153 enrolled patients, 116 were randomly assigned after ICT (60, arm A; 56, arm B). Overall toxicity of both CRT and BRT was substantial following ICT. However, treatment compliance was higher in the BRT arm. In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in LP at 3 months between arms A and B (95% and 93%, respectively), LFP (87% and 82%, respectively), and OS at 18 months (92% and 89%, respectively). There were fewer local treatment failures in arm A than in arm B; salvage surgery was feasible in arm B only. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that one treatment was superior to the other or could improve the outcome reported with ICT followed by RT alone (French Groupe Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête et Cou [GORTEC] 2000-01 trial [Induction CT by Cisplatin, 5FU With or Without Docetaxel in Patients With T3 and T4 Larynx and Hypopharynx Carcinoma]). The protocol that can best compare with RT alone after ICT is still to be determined.

Salvage stereotactic reirradiation with or without cetuximab for locally recurrent head-and-neck cancer: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Normal tissues tolerance limits the use of reirradiation for recurrent head-and-neck cancers (HNC). Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could offer precise irradiation while sparing healthy tissues. Results of a feasibility study using SBRT with or without cetuximab are reported for reirradiation of recurrent primary HNC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with inoperable recurrent, or new primary tumor, in a previously irradiated area were included. Reirradiation dose was 36 Gy in six fractions of 6 Gy to the 85% isodose line covering 95% of the planning target volume. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma received concomitant cetuximab. RESULTS: Between June 2007 and January 2010, 40 patients were prospectively treated for 43 lesions. Median age was 60 and median tumor size was 29 mm. Fifteen patients received concomitant cetuximab and 1 received concomitant cisplatin. Median follow-up was 25.6 months with 34 patients evaluable for tumor response. Median overall survival was 13.6 months and response rate was 79.4% (15 complete and 12 partial responses). Grade 3 toxicity occurred in 4 patients. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that short SBRT with or without cetuximab is an effective salvage treatment with good response rate in this poor prognosis population with previously irradiated HNC. Treatment is feasible and, with appropriate care to limiting critical structure, acute toxicities are acceptable. A prospective multicenter Phase II trial of SRT and concomitant cetuximab in recurrent HNC squamous cell carcinoma is ongoing.

Cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel in unresectable head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Phase 2 studies suggest that the standard regimen of cisplatin and fluorouracil (PF) plus docetaxel (TPF) improves outcomes in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We compared TPF with PF as induction chemotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced, unresectable disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned eligible patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years who had stage III or stage IV disease and no distant metastases to receive either TPF (docetaxel and cisplatin, day 1; fluorouracil by continuous infusion, days 1 to 5) or PF every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients without progression of disease received radiotherapy within 4 to 7 weeks after completing chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients underwent randomization, with 177 assigned to the TPF group and 181 to the PF group. At a median follow-up of 32.5 months, the median progression-free survival was 11.0 months in the TPF group and 8.2 months in the PF group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the TPF group, 0.72; P=0.007). Treatment with TPF resulted in a reduction in the risk of death of 27% (P=0.02), with a median overall survival of 18.8 months, as compared with 14.5 months in the PF group. There were more grade 3 or 4 events of leukopenia and neutropenia in the TPF group and more grade 3 or 4 events of thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, and hearing loss in the PF group. The rates of death from toxic effects were 2.3% in the TPF group and 5.5% in the PF group. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with the standard regimen of cisplatin and fluorouracil, induction chemotherapy with the addition of docetaxel significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with unresectable squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003888 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Phase I combining a P-glycoprotein inhibitor, MS209, in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and tolerability of MS209, a potent inhibitor of P-glycoprotein, when given in combination with docetaxel and to determine whether MS209 affects docetaxel pharmacokinetics. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid malignancies were eligible for this phase I trial. Docetaxel as 1-hour infusion was given alone during the first cycle. MS209 was introduced as of cycle 2 and given orally 30 minutes after docetaxel infusion. The dose escalation scheme followed a modified Fibonacci model with six steps (docetaxel, 60-100 mg/m2 and MS209, 300-1,200 mg per body). RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were treated at five dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were febrile neutropenia, infection, stomatitis, dysphagia, and fatigue. The maximum tolerated dose was reached at level 5 (docetaxel, 80-MS: 1,200). Pharmacokinetic analysis failed to show a strong pharmacokinetic interaction between the two compounds, but at the highest dose levels, there is a trend to an increase of docetaxel AUC when this agent is given in combination with MS209. CONCLUSION: MS209 can be given in combination with docetaxel, with limited effect on docetaxel toxicity or pharmacokinetics.

Treatment of laryngeal cancer: the permanent challenge.

There are many options to treat larynx cancers. Throughout the 20th century, surgical research has provided many partial surgery techniques (either open surgery or endoscopic CO2 surgery). In parallel, the modification of radiotherapy schedules has notably improved the local control with definitive irradiation. The appearance of active chemotherapy regimens has also modified the concept of treatment for advanced disease, allowing a decrease in the total indications of laryngectomy, although this remains the treatment of choice in some cases. The selection of the most appropriate treatment is based on a multidisciplinary approach. Early diseases may be treated by open surgery, endoscopic laser CO2 surgery or irradiation. Some advanced diseases may be treated by partial surgery, but the majority are theoretically candidates for radical surgery when resectable. In many instances, but not in all, chemotherapy-based larynx-preserving protocols may avoid performing such mutilating surgery. When inoperable, larynx cancers are better treated by combined chemotherapy and irradiation when the performance status of the patient is compatible with such an intensive regimen.