Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with platinum-refractory head and neck cancer had significantly longer survival with nivolumab treatment than with standard, single-agent therapy. Response rates were also higher and quality of life maintained longer with nivolumab. Squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck is a major cause of cancer-associated illness and death, with more than 600,000 cases diagnosed annually worldwide. 1 Most patients present with locoregionally advanced disease, and more than 50% have recurrence within 3 years. 2 – 4 Patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who have cancer progression within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy administered in the context of primary or recurrent disease have a median survival of 6 months or less. 5 No therapeutic options prolong survival among these patients. 5 , 6 The recurrence and metastasis of squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck are . . .

Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2 per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345682. Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1–9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0–2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5–2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65–0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have few treatment options and poor prognosis. Nivolumab significantly improved survival of this patient population when compared with standard single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in Checkmate 141; here we report the effect of nivolumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). CheckMate 141 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121) of methotrexate (40–60 mg/m2 of body surface area), docetaxel (30–40 mg/m2), or cetuximab (250 mg/m2 after a loading dose of 400 mg/m2) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. On Jan 26, 2016, the independent data monitoring committee reviewed the data at the planned interim analysis and declared overall survival superiority for nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (primary endpoint; described previously). The protocol was amended to allow patients in the investigator's choice group to cross over to nivolumab. All patients not on active therapy are being followed for survival. As an exploratory endpoint, PROs were assessed at baseline, week 9, and every 6 weeks thereafter using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC head and neck cancer-specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35), and the three-level European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Differences within and between treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among patients with baseline and at least one other assessment. All randomised patients were included in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration analyses. Median time to clinically meaningful deterioration was analysed by Kaplan-Meier methods. CheckMate 141 was registered with ClinicalTrials.org, number NCT02105636. Patients were enrolled between May 29, 2014, and July 31, 2015, and subsequently 361 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121). Among them, 129 patients (93 in the nivolumab group and 36 in the investigator's choice group) completed any of the PRO questionnaires at baseline and at least one other assessment. Treatment with nivolumab resulted in adjusted mean changes from baseline to week 15 ranging from −2·1 to 5·4 across functional and symptom domains measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, with no domains indicating clinically meaningful deterioration. By contrast, eight (53%) of the 15 domains in the investigator's choice group showed clinically meaningful deterioration (10 points or more) at week 15 (change from baseline range, −24·5 to 2·4). Similarly, on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, clinically meaningful worsening at week 15 was seen in no domains in the nivolumab group and eight (44%) of 18 domains in the investigator's choice group. Patients in the nivolumab group had a clinically meaningful improvement (according to a difference of 7 points or greater) in adjusted mean change from baseline to week 15 on the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, in contrast to a clinically meaningful deterioration in the investigator's choice group (7·3 vs −7·8). Differences between groups were significant and clinically meaningful at weeks 9 and 15 in favour of nivolumab for role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, and appetite loss on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and pain and sensory problems on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Median time to deterioration was significantly longer with nivolumab versus investigator's choice for 13 (37%) of 35 domains assessed across the three questionnaires. In this exploratory analysis of CheckMate 141, nivolumab stabilised symptoms and functioning from baseline to weeks 9 and 15, whereas investigator's choice led to clinically meaningful deterioration. Nivolumab delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes compared with single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In view of the major unmet need in this population and the importance of maintaining or improving quality of life for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, these data support nivolumab as a new standard-of-care option in this setting. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Induction chemotherapy (IC) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA HNSCC) has been used for decades. However, its role is yet to be clearly defined outside of larynx preservation. Patients with high risk of distant failure might potentially benefit from sequential treatment. It is now widely accepted that TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil) is the standard IC regimen. Essays that have compared this approach with the standard of care, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), are mostly inconclusive. Radiotherapy (RT) can be used in the post-IC setting and be sensitized by chemotherapy or cetuximab. Again, no consensus exists but there seems to be trend in favor of potentiation by cisplatin. Less toxic schemes of IC are tested as toxicity is a major issue with TPF. IC might have an interesting role in human papilloma virus (HPV)-related LA HNSCC and lead to CCRT de-escalation.

Background Patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M-HNSCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in patients with tumor progression < 6 months following first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), but data are missing for patients with progression ≥ 6 months after the last platinum dose. Methods Retrospective analysis (six French centers, 2008–2019) of all consecutive R/M-HNSCC patients. treated first-line with PBC and tumor progression ≥ 6 months after the last platinum dose. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival after second-line therapy (PFS2). Additional endpoints: overall survival from Day 1 of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) therapy. Results R/M-HNSCC patients (n = 144) received cisplatinum (n = 67, 47%) or carboplatinum (n = 77, 53%) first-line. Response after first-line: complete response (CR; n = 16, 11%); partial response (PR; n = 77, 53%); stable disease (n = 22, 15%). Second-line therapy: PBC (n = 95, 66%); platinum-free regimen (PFR) (n = 25, 17%); ICI (n = 24, 17%). Median [95% confidence interval] PFS (months): PBC 5.0 [3.8–6.2]; PFR 4.0 [1–7.0]; ICI 2.0 [0.4–3.6] (p = 0.16). For PBC, PFR, and ICI, respectively: OS1 30, 23, and 29 months (p = 1.02); OS2 14, 10, and 16 months (p = 0.25); PR, 26%, 16%, and 21% patients; CR, 0%, 8%, and 4% patients. For subsequent lines, ICIs were administered for PBC (n = 11, 12%) and PFR (n = 2, 8%). No predictive factor for efficacy (PFS, OS) was identified. Conclusions Our retrospective study suggests similar efficacy regarding OS2 for second-line chemotherapy or ICI in R/M-HNSCC patients with progression ≥ 6 months after the last first-line platinum dose.

BackgroundAlthough the mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) pathway is hyperactive in head and neck cancer (HNC), inhibition of MEK1/2 in HNC patients has not shown clinically meaningful activity. Therefore, we aimed to characterize the effect of MEK1/2 inhibition on the tumor microenvironment (TME) of MAPK-driven HNC, elucidate tumor-host interaction mechanisms facilitating immune escape on treatment, and apply rationale-based therapy combination immunotherapy and MEK1/2 inhibitor to induce tumor clearance.MethodsMouse syngeneic tumors and xenografts experiments were used to analyze tumor growth in vivo. Single-cell cytometry by time of flight, flow cytometry, and tissue stainings were used to profile the TME in response to trametinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor). Co-culture of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) with CD8+ T cells was used to measure immune suppression. Overexpression of colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) in tumor cells was used to show the effect of tumor-derived CSF-1 on sensitivity to trametinib and anti-programmed death- 1 (αPD-1) in mice. In HNC patients, the ratio between CSF-1 and CD8A was measured to test the association with clinical benefit to αPD-1 and αPD-L1 treatment.ResultsUsing preclinical HNC models, we demonstrated that treatment with trametinib delays HNC initiation and progression by reducing tumor cell proliferation and enhancing the antitumor immunity of CD8+ T cells. Activation of CD8+ T cells by supplementation with αPD-1 antibody eliminated tumors and induced an immune memory in the cured mice. Mechanistically, an early response to trametinib treatment sensitized tumors to αPD-1-supplementation by attenuating the expression of tumor-derived CSF-1, which reduced the abundance of two CSF-1R+CD11c+ MDSC populations in the TME. In contrast, prolonged treatment with trametinib abolished the antitumor activity of αPD-1, because tumor cells undergoing the epithelial to mesenchymal transition in response to trametinib restored CSF-1 expression and recreated an immune-suppressive TME.ConclusionOur findings provide the rationale for testing the trametinib/αPD-1 combination in HNC and highlight the importance of sensitizing tumors to αPD-1 by using MEK1/2 to interfere with the tumor–host interaction. Moreover, we describe the concept that treatment of cancer with a targeted therapy transiently induces an immune-active microenvironment, and supplementation of immunotherapy during this time further activates the antitumor machinery to cause tumor elimination.

Head and neck cancer is an immunosuppressive disease, with a high proportion expressing PD-L1. Until recently, options were lacking in second line. Prognosis is poor especially for patients who progress during chemotherapy with survival often inferior to 6 months. Nivolumab is the only anti-PD-1 agent to prolong survival in the second-line setting and is now the standard option since the CheckMate-141 trial. Treatment is generally well tolerated, patients seem to have a better quality of life when compared with chemotherapy. Markers of efficacy are lacking even if some data are emerging. Different combinations of immunotherapy are ongoing. Hyperprogression is a phenomenon associated with poor outcome and might be the consequence of anti-PD-1 treatment but this is yet to be proven.

Background The role of surgery in the management of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in the era of imatinib mesylate (IM) remains debated. We analyzed the outcome of patients with non metastatic locally advanced primary GIST treated with IM within the prospective BFR14 phase III trial. Methods The database of the BFR14 trial was searched for patients with no metastasis at time of inclusion. Patients treated for recurrent disease were excluded. Twenty-five of 434 patients met these criteria. Results Fifteen of 25 patients (60%) had a partial response to IM. Nine of the 25 patients (36%) underwent surgical resection of their primary tumor after a median of 7.3 months of IM treatment (range 3.4-12.0). Per protocol patients received continuous IM treatment in the post resection period, in an adjuvant setting. With a median follow-up of 53.5 months, there was a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients who underwent surgical resection versus those who did not (median not reached vs 23.6 months, p = 0.0318 for PFS and median not reached vs 42.2 months, p = 0.0217 for OS). In the group of patients who underwent resection followed by IM, the 3-year PFS and OS rates were 67% and 89% respectively Conclusions Following neoadjuvant IM for non metastatic locally advanced GIST 9 of 25 patients (36%) were selected for resection of the primary tumor. OS and PFS figures were close to those of localised intermediate or high risk GIST (70% at 5 years) in the subgroup of operated patients, while the outcome of the non-operated subgroup was similar to that of metastatic GIST.

There is no strong and reliable predictive biomarker in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) for EGFR inhibitors. We aimed to identify predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers of efficacy of afatinib, a pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in a window-of-opportunity trial (NCT01415674). Multi-omics analyses were carried out on pre-treatment biopsy and surgical specimen for biological assessment of afatinib activity. Sixty-one treatment-naïve and operable HNSCC patients were randomised to afatinib 40 mg/day for 21–28 days versus no treatment. Afatinib produced a high rate of metabolic response. Responders had a higher expression of pERK1/2 ( P  = 0.02) and lower expressions of pHER4 ( P  = 0.03) and pRB1 ( P  = 0.002) in pre-treatment biopsy compared to non-responders. At the cellular level, responders displayed an enrichment of tumor-infiltrating B cells under afatinib ( P  = 0.02). At the molecular level, NF-kappa B signaling was over-represented among upregulated genes in non-responders ( P  < 0.001; FDR = 0.01). Although exploratory, phosphoproteomics-based biomarkers deserve further investigations as predictors of afatinib efficacy.

Recurrent and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) presents substantial treatment challenges due to its aggressive and heterogeneous nature. While evidence-based guidelines provide useful recommendations, they may not offer sufficient support for real-time clinical decision-making. This Delphi consensus aimed to establish expert agreement on clinical parameters guiding first- and second-line treatment decisions and the management of specific clinical scenarios in R/M SCCHN in France. A two-round Delphi consensus was conducted between December 2023 and June 2024. A scientific committee of six national experts developed consensus statements based on a literature review and supervised the process. An expert panel of 25 oncologists from across France participated in both rounds. All respondents agreed that the need for a rapid therapeutic response and the presence of comorbidities were critical factors influencing first-line treatment choice. Seven major indicators of rapid response were identified: rapidly progressive relapse, partial airway obstruction, respiratory compromise, tumour-related bleeding, uncontrolled symptoms, carotid axis lesions, and pain resistant to third-step analgesics. For patients requiring rapid response, 76% supported using cetuximab with chemotherapy as a first-line option in cases with a combined positive score (CPS) between 1 and 19. Furthermore, 84% recommended immunotherapy (alone or combined with chemotherapy) as first-line treatment for CPS ≥ 20 tumours, while 41% would consider it for CPS 1-19 cases. A strong consensus (80%) held that first-line treatment should not restrict second-line options. Notably, 100% of respondents agreed that all patients should receive immunotherapy, cetuximab, taxanes, and platinum salts within the first two treatment lines. This Delphi consensus offers valuable, expert-based perspectives on the management of R/M SCCHN in France. It highlights a progressive shift from standardized European guideline frameworks toward a more personalized approach that accounts for individual patient profiles and tumour characteristics. The insights generated provide practical guidance for clinical decision-making and lay the groundwork for future research and optimisation of treatment strategies in real-world settings.