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.

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.

Multifactorial screening design and analysis of SELDI-TOF ProteinChip array optimization experiments.

Surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for rapidly generating protein expression data (peptide and protein profiles) from a large number of samples. However, as with any technology, it must be optimized and reproducible for one to have confidence in the results. Using a classical statistical method called the fractional factorial design of experiments, we assessed the effects of 11 different experimental factors. We also developed several metrics that reflect trace quality and reproducibility. These were used to measure the effect of each individual factor, and the interactions between factors, to determine optimal factor settings and thus ultimately produce the best possible traces. Significant improvements to output traces were seen by simultaneously altering several parameters, either in the sample preparation procedure or during the matrix preparation and application procedure. This has led to the implementation of an improved method that gives a better quality, reproducible, and robust output.

Maximization of signal derived from cDNA microarrays.

Microarray technology is a powerful tool for generating expression data on a large number of genes simultaneously. However, as for any assay, it must be reproducible to give confidence in the results. Using a classical statistical method--the factorial design of experiments--we have assessed the effects of different experimental factors in our system. Significant effects on signal were seen when the standard components were substituted with a different enzyme, fluorescent label, or RNA purification method. This has led to the implementation of an improved procedure that maximizes signal without affecting the variability of the system, thus increasing the signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, we were able to quantify the variability between microarrays and replicates within microarrays.

Microarrays under the microscope.

Microarray technology is a rapidly advancing area, which is gaining popularity in many biological disciplines from drug target identification to predictive toxicology. Over the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of methods and techniques available for carrying out this form of gene expression analysis. The techniques and associated peripherals, such as slide types, deposition methods, robotics, and scanning equipment, are undergoing constant improvement, helping to drive the technology forward in terms of robustness and ease of use. These rapid developments, combined with the number of options available and the associated hyperbole, can prove daunting for the new user. This review aims to guide the researcher through the various steps of conducting microarray experiments, from initial strategy to analysing the data, with critical examination of the benefits and disadvantages along the way.