Explore the vast range of titles available.

EVADER trial results Scott Bratman (Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada) reported results from the multicentre, single-arm phase 2 EVADER trial in which patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cell carcinoma (OPSCC) received 70 Gy radiotherapy during 7 weeks (if eligible for concurrent cisplatin) or during 6 weeks (if treated with radiotherapy alone). HYPOSIB breast cancer trial The primary analysis of the multicentre, randomised, phase 3 HYPOSIB trial investigating hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) was reported by David Krug (University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany). There was no difference in the incidence of grade 2 or worse late adverse events. 177Lu-Dotatate for refractory meningioma Kenneth Merrell (Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA) presented a single-arm phase 2 study of 177Lu–Dotatate in 20 patients with WHO grade II/II refractory meningioma—a patient population with few treatment options. 177Lu-Dotatate was delivered at a dose of 7·4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks for a total of four administrations.

BACKGROUND. A key objective in managing HPV· oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is reducing radiation therapy (RT) doses without compromising cure rates. A recent phase 1/1! HNOOS trial revealed that clinical factors alone are insufficient to guide safe RT dose de-escalation. Our prior research demonstrated that the genomic adjusted radiation dose (GARD) predicts RT benefit and may inform dose selection. We hypothesize that GARD can guide personalized RT deescalation in HPV· OPSCC patients. METHODS. Gene expression profiles were analyzed in 191 HPV· OPSCC patients enrolled in an international, multi-institutional observational study (AJCC Eighth Edition, stages I-III). Most patients received 70 Gy in 35 fractions or 69.96 Gy in 33 fractions (median dose: 70 Gy; range: 51.0-74.0 ??). Overall survival (OS) was 94.1% at 36 months and 87.3% at 60 months. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed association between GARD and 0S, and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analyses compared GARD with traditional clinical predictors. RESULTS. Despite uniform RT dosing, GARD showed wide heterogeneity, ranging from 15.4 to 71.7. Higher GARD values were significantly associated with improved OS in univariate (HR = 0.941, P = 0.041) and multivariable analyses (HR = 0.943, P = 0.046), while T and ? stages were not. GARD demonstrated superior predictive performance at 36 months (AUC = 78.26) versus clinical variables (AUC = 71.20). Two GARD-based RT de-escalation strategies were identified, offering potential survival benefits while reducing radiation exposure. CONCLUSION. GARD predicts OS and outperforms clinical variables, supporting its integration into the diagnostic workflow for personalized RT in ??\\/· OPSCC. FUNDING. This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute through the Cleveland Clinic/Emory ROBIN center (U54CA274513, project 2), the European Union Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (grant/award 689715), the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC project ID 23573), and the European Research Area Network ERA PerMed JTC2019/Fondazione Regionale per la Ricerca Biomedica project SuPerTreat (Supporting Personalized Treatment Decisions in Head and Neck Cancer through Big Data).

Management of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) when cisplatin is contraindicated is controversial. We aimed to assess whether radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant durvalumab would improve outcomes compared with radiotherapy with cetuximab. NRG-HN004 was designed as an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial with safety lead-in conducted at 89 academic and community medical centres in North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition stage III–IVB p16-negative HNSCC or unfavourable stage I–III p16-positive oropharyngeal or unknown primary carcinoma, who had a contraindication to cisplatin (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status 2, renal or hearing impairment, peripheral neuropathy, aged at least 70 years with moderate or severe comorbidity, or aged younger than 70 years with severe comorbidity). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by permuted block randomisation (multiples of 6) to intravenous durvalumab 1500 mg starting 2 weeks before radiotherapy then every 4 weeks starting week 2 of radiotherapy (seven cycles) or intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m2 1 week before radiotherapy then 250 mg/m2 weekly beginning week 1 of radiotherapy (eight cycles), with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks). Stratification factors were tumour and nodal stage, ECOG performance status and comorbidity, and primary site and p16 status. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. There was one prespecified interim futility analysis at 50% of progression-free survival information. If the observed hazard ratio was 1·0 or more, favouring cetuximab, early stopping would be considered. Extended follow-up analysis was post hoc. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03258554, and is closed to enrolment. Following a ten-patient safety lead-in, the phase 2 trial enrolled 190 patients from March 12, 2019, to July 30, 2021, 186 of whom were randomly assigned (123 to durvalumab and 63 to cetuximab). Median age was 72 years (IQR 64–77), 30 (16%) patients were women and 156 (84%) were men. Phase 2 accrual was suspended in July 30, 2021, following an interim futility analysis, and permanently closed in Sept 1, 2022. The phase 3 part of the trial was not conducted. At a median follow-up of 2·3 years (IQR 1·9–3·1) for the extended follow-up (data cutoff July 31, 2023; post-hoc analysis), 2-year progression-free survival was 50·6% (95% CI 41·5–59·8) in the durvalumab group versus 63·7% (51·3–76·1) in the cetuximab group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·84–2·12]; p=0·89). Adverse events were similar in both groups. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were dysphagia (26 [22%] of 119 patients in the durvalumab group vs 18 [30%] of 61 patients in the cetuximab group), lymphopenia (33 [28%] vs 20 [33%]), and oral mucositis (13 [11%] vs 11 [18%]). Four (3%) patients in the durvalumab group and one (2%) in the cetuximab group died from treatment-related adverse events (death not otherwise specified, laryngeal oedema, lung infection, and respiratory failure in the durvalumab group and sudden death not otherwise specified in the cetuximab group). Our findings suggest that durvalumab did not improve outcomes compared with cetuximab in patients with HNSCC with contraindications to cisplatin. Further trials are needed to define the standard of care for this population. US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca.

The 7th edition of the AJCC staging system (AJCC7E) was nicely suitable in daily routine to stage and categorise the clinical management of the disease even in the prognostically imbalanced p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma group. [...]p16 showed a discordance in Europe of up to 23% (p16-positive but not true HPV-driven), 2 and led to cautious doubts in the head and neck cancer community about whether it is the correct marker. By contrast, pENE still plays an important clinical role in distinguishing between high and low risk, with consequences for postoperative adjuvant therapy decision making in patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma as well. [...]AJCC8E led to some discontent in the worldwide head and neck cancer community. 5 We especially appreciate the re-inclusion of pENE in the AJCC staging system, version 9 (AJCC9V). pENE is long known for its association with poor outcome, 7,8 and therefore triggers intensified postoperative adjuvant treatment to improve outcome. 7,8 We therefore investigated the frequency of pENE in p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, factors associated with pENE in p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, and the effect of surgery followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy on the outcome in p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma with pENE. In our German cohort, AJCC8E failed to address the four Groome's criteria characterising an appropriate staging system: hazard consistency, hazard discrimination, outcome prediction, and balanced distribution of patients among the groups. 9,10 As demonstrated in the study by Ho and colleagues, 1 AJCC8E does not allow for a uniform stratification or proper outcome prognostication for surgically treated patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma.

The incidence of human papillomavirus-positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is rising rapidly and has exceeded cervical cancer to become the most common HPV-induced cancer in developed countries. Since patients with HPV + OPSCC respond very favorably to standard aggressive treatment, the emphasis has changed to reducing treatment intensity. However, recent multi-center clinical trials failed to show non-inferiority of de-escalation strategies on a population basis, highlighting the need to select low-risk patients likely to respond to de-intensified treatments. In contrast, there is a substantial proportion of patients who develop recurrent disease despite aggressive therapy. This supports that HPV + OPSCC is not a homogeneous disease, but comprises distinct subtypes with clinical and biological variations. The overall goal for this review is to identify biomarkers for HPV + OPSCC that may be relevant for patient stratification for personalized treatment. We discuss HPV + OPSCC as a heterogeneous disease from multifaceted perspectives including clinical behavior, tumor morphology, and molecular phenotype. Molecular profiling from bulk tumors as well as single-cell sequencing data are discussed as potential driving factors of heterogeneity between tumor subgroups. Finally, we evaluate key challenges that may impede in-depth investigations of HPV + OPSCC heterogeneity and outline potential future directions, including a section on racial and ethnic differences.

Human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted virus infecting mucosal or cutaneous stratified epithelia, is implicated in the rising of associated cancers worldwide. While HPV infection can be cleared by an adequate immune response, immunocompromised individuals can develop persistent, treatment-refractory, and progressive disease. Primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) associated with HPV-related disease include inborn errors of GATA, EVER1/2, and CXCR4 mutations, resulting in defective cellular function. People living with secondary immunodeficiency (e.g. solid-organ transplants recipients of immunosuppression) and acquired immunodeficiency (e.g. concurrent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection) are also at significant risk of HPV-related disease. Immunocompromised people are highly susceptible to the development of cutaneous and mucosal warts, and cervical, anogenital and oropharyngeal carcinomas. The specific mechanisms underlying high-risk HPV-driven cancer development in immunocompromised hosts are not well understood. Current treatments for HPV-related cancers include surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, with clinical trials underway to investigate the use of anti-PD-1 therapy. In the setting of HIV co-infection, persistent high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia can occur despite suppressive antiretroviral therapy, resulting in an ongoing risk for transformation to overt malignancy. Although therapeutic vaccines against HPV are under development, the efficacy of these in the setting of PID, secondary- or acquired- immunodeficiencies remains unclear. RNA-based therapeutic targeting of the HPV genome or mRNA transcript has become a promising next-generation therapeutic avenue. In this review, we summarise the current understanding of HPV pathogenesis, immune evasion, and malignant transformation, with a focus on key PIDs, secondary immunodeficiencies, and HIV infection. Current management and vaccine regimes are outlined in relation to HPV-driven cancer, and specifically, the need for more effective therapeutic strategies for immunocompromised hosts. The recent advances in RNA-based gene targeting including CRISPR and short interfering RNA (siRNA), and the potential application to HPV infection are of great interest. An increased understanding of both the dysregulated immune responses in immunocompromised hosts and of viral persistence is essential for the design of next-generation therapies to eliminate HPV persistence and cancer development in the most at-risk populations.

Background TNM8 staging for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) surrogates p16 immunohistochemistry for HPV testing. Patients with p16+ OPSCC may lack HPV aetiology. Here, we evaluate the suitability of TNM8 staging for guiding prognosis in such patients. Methods HPV status was ascertained using p16 immunohistochemistry and high-risk HPV RNA and DNA in situ hybridisation. Survival by stage in a cohort of OPSCC patients was evaluated using TNM7/TNM8 staging. Survival of p16+/HPV− patients was compared to p16 status. Results TNM8 staging was found to improve on TNM7 (log rank p  = 0·0190 for TNM8 compared with p  = 0·0530 for TNM7) in p16+ patients. Patients who tested p16+ but were HPV− ( n  = 20) had significantly reduced five-year survival (33%) compared to p16+ patients (77%) but not p16− patients (35%). Cancer stage was reduced in 95% of p16+/HPV− patients despite having a mortality rate twice (HR 2.66 [95% CI: 1.37–5.15]) that of p16+/HPV+ patients under new TNM8 staging criteria. Conclusion Given the significantly poorer survival of p16+/HPV− OPSCCs, these data provide compelling evidence for use of an HPV-specific test for staging classification. This has particular relevance in light of potential treatment de-escalation that could expose these patients to inappropriately reduced treatment intensity as treatment algorithms evolve.