Dataset Information

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

ABSTRACT: Background:In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1) trial, second-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Here, we evaluated association of prespecified biomarkers with efficacy outcomes in LUX-H&N1. Patients and methods:Randomized patients with R/M HNSCC and progression following??2 cycles of platinum therapy received afatinib (40?mg/day) or methotrexate (40?mg/m2/week). Tumor/serum samples were collected at study entry for patients who volunteered for inclusion in biomarker analyses. Tumor biomarkers, including p16 (prespecified subgroup; all tumor subsites), EGFR, HER2, HER3, c-MET and PTEN, were assessed using tissue microarray cores and slides; serum protein was evaluated using the VeriStrat® test. Biomarkers were correlated with efficacy outcomes. Results:Of 483 randomized patients, 326 (67%) were included in the biomarker analyses; baseline characteristics were consistent with the overall study population. Median PFS favored afatinib over methotrexate in patients with p16-negative [2.7 versus 1.6?months; HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.50-0.97)], EGFR-amplified [2.8 versus 1.5?months; HR 0.53 (0.33-0.85)], HER3-low [2.8 versus 1.8?months; HR 0.57 (0.37-0.88)], and PTEN-high [1.6 versus 1.4?months; HR 0.55 (0.29-1.05)] tumors. Afatinib also improved PFS in combined subsets of patients with p16-negative and EGFR-amplified tumors [2.7 versus 1.5?months; HR 0.47 (0.28-0.80)], and patients with p16-negative tumors who were EGFR therapy-naïve [4.0 versus 2.4?months; HR 0.55 (0.31-0.98)]. PFS was improved in afatinib-treated patients who were VeriStrat 'Good' versus 'Poor' [2.7 versus 1.5?months; HR 0.71 (0.49-0.94)], but no treatment interaction was observed. Afatinib improved tumor response versus methotrexate in all subsets analyzed except for those with p16-positive disease (n?=?35). Conclusions:Subgroups of HNSCC patients who may achieve increased benefit from afatinib were identified based on prespecified tumor biomarkers (p16-negative, EGFR-amplified, HER3-low, PTEN-high). Future studies are warranted to validate these findings. Clinical trial registration:NCT01345682.

SUBMITTER: Cohen EEW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5834024 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

Cohen E E W EEW Licitra L F LF Burtness B B Fayette J J Gauler T T Clement P M PM Grau J J JJ Del Campo J M JM Mailliez A A Haddad R I RI Vermorken J B JB Tahara M M Guigay J J Geoffrois L L Merlano M C MC Dupuis N N Krämer N N Cong X J XJ Gibson N N Solca F F Ehrnrooth E E Machiels J-P H JH

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20171001 10

<h4>Background</h4>In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1) trial, second-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Here, we evaluated association of prespecified biomarkers with efficacy outcomes in LUX-H&N1.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Randomized patients with R/M HNSCC and progression following ≥2 cycles of platinum therapy received afatinib (40 mg/day) ...[more]

PMID: 28961833

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and <65 years.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day oral afatinib or 40 mg/m(2)/week intravenous methotrexate. PFS was the primary end point; overall survival (OS) was the key secondary end point. Other end points included: objective response rate (ORR), patient-reported outcomes, tumor shrinkage, and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed.ResultsOf 483 randomized patients, 27% (83 afatinib; 45 methotrexate) were aged ≥65 years (older) and 73% (239 afatinib; 116 methotrexate) <65 years (younger) at study entry. Similar PFS benefit with afatinib versus methotrexate was observed in older {median 2.8 versus 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.03], P = 0.061} and younger patients [2.6 versus 1.6 months, HR = 0.79 (0.62-1.01), P = 0.052]. In older and younger patients, the median OS with afatinib versus methotrexate was 7.3 versus 6.4 months [HR = 0.84 (0.54-1.31)] and 6.7 versus 6.2 months [HR = 0.98 (0.76-1.28)]. ORRs with afatinib versus methotrexate were 10.8% versus 6.7% and 10.0% versus 5.2%; DCRs were 53.0% versus 37.8% and 47.7% versus 38.8% in older and younger patients, respectively. In both subgroups, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were rash/acne (73%-77%) and diarrhea (70%-80%) with afatinib, and stomatitis (43%) and fatigue (31%-34%) with methotrexate. Fewer treatment-related discontinuations were observed with afatinib (each subgroup 7% versus 16%). A trend toward improved time to deterioration of global health status, pain, and swallowing with afatinib was observed in both subgroups.ConclusionsAdvancing age (≥65 years) did not adversely affect clinical outcomes or safety with afatinib versus methotrexate in second-line R/M HNSCC patients.Clinical trial registrationNCT01345682 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) following progression after first-line platinum-based therapy, particularly in Asian countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this randomised, open-label, phase III trial, we enrolled Asian patients aged ?18?years, with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent/metastatic HNSCC following first-line platinum-based therapy who were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1. Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to receive oral afatinib (40?mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40?mg/m2/week), stratified by ECOG performance status and prior EGFR-targeted antibody therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS:A total of 340 patients were randomised (228 afatinib; 112 methotrexate). After a median follow-up of 6.4?months, afatinib significantly decreased the risk of progression/death by 37% versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.82; P?=?0.0005; median 2.9 versus 2.6?months; landmark analysis at 12 and 24?weeks, 58% versus 41%, 21% versus 9%). Improved PFS was complemented by quality of life benefits. Objective response rate was 28% with afatinib and 13% with methotrexate. There was no significant difference in overall survival. The most common grade ?3 drug-related adverse events were rash/acne (4% with afatinib versus 0% with methotrexate), diarrhoea (4% versus 0%), fatigue (1% versus 5%), anaemia (<1% versus 5%) and leukopenia (0% versus 5%). CONCLUSIONS:Consistent with the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial, afatinib significantly improved PFS versus methotrexate, with a manageable safety profile. These results demonstrate the efficacy and feasibility of afatinib as a second-line treatment option for certain patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01856478.

Project description:Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) receiving platinum-based chemotherapy as their first-line treatment have a dismal prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of ~7 months. Methotrexate is sometimes used following platinum failure or in patients not fit enough for platinum therapy, but this agent has not demonstrated any OS improvement. Targeted therapies are a novel approach, with the EGFR-targeting monoclonal antibody cetuximab (plus platinum-based chemotherapy) approved in the US and Europe in the first-line R/M setting, and as monotherapy following platinum failure in the US. However, there is still a high unmet medical need for new treatments that improve outcomes in the second-line R/M setting following failure on first-line platinum-containing regimens. Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, was recently approved for the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Afatinib has also shown clinical activity similar to cetuximab in a Phase II proof-of-concept HNSCC trial. Based on these observations, the Phase III, LUX-Head & Neck 1 study is evaluating afatinib versus methotrexate in R/M HNSCC patients following progression on platinum-based chemotherapy in the R/M setting.Patients with progressive disease after one first-line platinum-based chemotherapy are randomised 2:1 to oral afatinib (starting dose 40 mg once daily) or IV methotrexate (starting dose 40 mg/m(2) once weekly) administered as monotherapy with best supportive care until progression or intolerable adverse events. Efficacy of afatinib versus methotrexate will be assessed in terms of progression-free survival (primary endpoint). Disease progression will be evaluated according to RECIST v1.1 by investigator and independent central review. Secondary endpoints include OS, tumour response and safety. Health-related quality of life and biomarker assessments will also be performed.If the LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial meets its primary endpoint, it will demonstrate the ability of afatinib to elicit an improved treatment benefit versus a commonly used chemotherapy agent in the second-line treatment of R/M HNSCC patients who have failed on first-line platinum-based therapy, confirm the clinical efficacy of afatinib observed in the Phase II proof-of-concept study, and establish a new standard of care for this patient population.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal second-line systemic treatment model for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) remains controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to address this issue with regard to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsBy searching MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, we extracted eligible studies. Efficacy, represented as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and overall toxicity, represented as ≥ grade 3 severe acute events (sAE), were assessed to compare the following 7 treatment models through an NMA: standard-of-care therapy (SoC), single targeted therapy different from SoC (ST), double targeted therapy (DT), targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy (T+C), single immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (SI), double immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (DI) and single chemotherapy different from SoC (SC). Rank probabilities according to the values of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were separately determined for efficacy and toxicity.ResultsIn total, 5285 patients from 24 eligible studies were ultimately screened, with 5184, 4532 and 4026 involved in the NMA of OS, PFS and sAE, respectively. All qualifying studies were absent from first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In terms of OS, SI was superior to the other treatments, followed by DI, ST, T+C, SoC, DT and SC. Other than SI and SC, all treatments tended to be consistent, with hazard ratios (HRs) close to 1 between groups. For PFS, ST ranked first, while DT ranked last. For the toxicity profiles, compared with the other models, SI resulted in the lowest incidences of sAE, with statistical significance over SoC (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.11 to 0.90), ST (OR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.86) and DT (OR 0.11, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.53), while DT was the worst. When the SUCRA values of OS and sAE were combined, a cluster plot illustrated the superiority of SI, which demonstrated the best OS and tolerability toward sAE.ConclusionFor R/M HNSCC patients without immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting, SI may serve as the optimal second-line systemic treatment model, demonstrating the best OS and least sAE.

Project description:BackgroundAfatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated lung cancer. We hypothesized that the agent would have greater antitumor activity compared with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients, whose disease has progressed after platinum-containing therapy.Patients and methodsAn open-label, randomized, phase II trial was conducted in 43 centers; 124 patients were randomized (1 : 1) to either afatinib (50 mg/day) or cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)/week) until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) (stage I), with optional crossover (stage II). The primary end point was tumor shrinkage before crossover assessed by investigator (IR) and independent central review (ICR).ResultsA total of 121 patients were treated (61 afatinib, 60 cetuximab) and 68 crossed over to stage II (32 and 36 respectively). In stage I, mean tumor shrinkage by IR/ICR was 10.4%/16.6% with afatinib and 5.4%/10.1% with cetuximab (P = 0.46/0.30). Objective response rate was 16.1%/8.1% with afatinib and 6.5%/9.7% with cetuximab (IR/ICR). Comparable disease control rates were observed with afatinib (50%) and cetuximab (56.5%) by IR; similar results were seen by ICR. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AEs (DRAEs) were rash/acne (18% versus 8.3%), diarrhea (14.8% versus 0%), and stomatitis/mucositis (11.5% versus 0%) with afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Patients with DRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 23% with afatinib and 5% with cetuximab. In stage II, disease control rate (IR/ICR) was 38.9%/33.3% with afatinib and 18.8%/18.8% with cetuximab.ConclusionAfatinib showed antitumor activity comparable to cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in this exploratory phase II trial, although more patients on afatinib discontinued treatment due to AEs. Sequential EGFR/ErbB treatment with afatinib and cetuximab provided sustained clinical benefit in patients after crossover, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance.

Dataset Information

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

Publications

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets