Induction chemotherapy with or without erlotinib in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma amenable for surgical resection.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgery has been utilized widely for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). We evaluated neoadjuvant erlotinib with platinum-docetaxel vs. placebo with platinum-docetaxel in stage III-IVB OSCC patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with newly diagnosed stage III, IVA, IVB (AJCC 7th) OSCC amenable to surgical resection were included. Patients were randomized to receive up to 3 cycles of chemotherapy with concurrent erlotinib or placebo, followed by surgery. The primary endpoint was major pathologic response (MPR) rate, secondary endpoints included safety, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients received at least one cycle of treatment and 47 were evaluable with surgical resection. MPR rate was not different between erlotinib (30%, 7/23) and placebo arms (41.7%, 10/24) (p=0.55). At median follow up of 26.5 months, there was no difference on OS or PFS between groups. Patients who received erlotinib with chemotherapy and achieved MPR (n=7) had no recurrence. The treatment-related adverse event rates were not different between the two groups (96% vs. 96%). However, rash, mostly low grade, was more common in the erlotinib arm (79% vs. 50%). Transcriptomic analysis in the pre-treatment samples indicated that genes in protein glycosylation and Wnt signaling pathways were associated with benefit in those treated with erlotinib plus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of erlotinib to platinum-taxane chemotherapy was well-tolerated but did not induce higher rates of MPR or PFS or OS survival benefit. Patients who received chemotherapy with erlotinib and achieved major pathological responses had excellent clinical outcome.

Pre-clinical animal models are poor predictors of human toxicities in phase 1 oncology clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the correlation between preclinical toxicity found in animal models (mouse, rat, dog and monkey) and clinical toxicity reported in patients participating in Phase 1 oncology clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained from two major early-Phase clinical trial centres, preclinical toxicities from investigational brochures and clinical toxicities from published Phase 1 trials for 108 drugs, including small molecules, biologics and conjugates. Toxicities were categorised according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Human toxicities were also categorised based on their reported clinical grade (severity). Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated to determine the probability that clinical studies would/would not show a particular toxicity category given that it was seen in preclinical toxicology analysis. Statistical analyses also included kappa statistics, and Matthews (MCC) and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Overall, animal toxicity did not show strong correlation with human toxicity, with a median PPV of 0.65 and NPV of 0.50. Similar results were obtained based on kappa statistics and MCC. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to assess more novel approaches to the type and conduct of preclinical toxicity studies in an effort to provide better predictive value for human investigation.

Tumor Genotype Is Shaping Immunophenotype and Responses to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors.

A major breakthrough in cancer treatment was ushered in by the development of immune checkpoint blockade therapy such as anti-CTLA4 antibody and anti-PD-1 and anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 antibodies that are now approved for use in an increasing number of malignancies. Despite the relative success of immune checkpoint inhibitors with certain tumor types, many patients still fail to respond to such therapies, and the field is actively trying to understand the mechanisms of resistance, intrinsic or acquired, to immune checkpoint blockade. Herein, we discuss the roles that somatic genomic mutations in oncogenic pathways play in immune editing, as well as some of the current approaches toward improving response to immunotherapy.