Dataset Information

Cetuximab combined with paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma progressing after EXTREME.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prognosis of recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains poor. The addition of cetuximab, to platinum and fluorouracil chemotherapy (EXTREME regimen) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes in first-line settings.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study, including HNSCC that progressed after a first line of platinum-based chemotherapy and cetuximab, treated either by paclitaxel + cetuximab (PC) or paclitaxel alone (P), between January 2010 and April 2018. The end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rates (ORR). Patients were matched according to their propensity scores, estimated with a logistic regression model. The secondary objectives were to study the safety profile and to look for prognostic and predictive factors of effectiveness.

Results

Of the 340 identified patients, 262 were included in the analysis, 165 received PC, and 97 received P. In unmatched population, ORR was 16.4% with PC and 6.2% for P. Median PFS was 2.9 months [95% Confidence Interval 2.7-3.0] for PC versus 2.5 months [2.2-2.7] for P, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.770 [0.596-0.996]. Median OS was 5.5 months [4.4-6.9] for PC versus 4.2 months [3.4-4.8] for P, HR = 0.774 [0.590-1.015]. In multivariate analysis, PC was associated with better PFS and OS. These results were consistent in matched-paired population. Previous cetuximab maintenance for more than 3 months was predictive of better OS with PC.

Conclusion

Although the continuation of cetuximab in combination with paclitaxel after EXTREME provides moderate benefit, it could be an interesting option for selected patients.

SUBMITTER: Chevalier T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8209557 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cetuximab remains to date the only targeted therapy approved for the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The EGFR pathway plays a key role in the tumorigenesis and progression of this disease as well as in the resistance to radiotherapy (RT). While several anti-EGFR agents have been tested in HNSCC, cetuximab, an IgG1 subclass monoclonal antibody against EGFR, is the only drug with proven efficacy for the treatment of both locoregionally-advanced (LA) and recurrent/metastatic (R/M) disease. The addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy is a validated treatment option in LA-HNSCC. However, its use has been limited to patients who are considered unfit for standard of care chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with single agent cisplatin given the lack of direct comparison of these two regimens in randomized phase III trials and the inferiority suggested by metanalysis and phase II studies. The current use of cetuximab in HNSCC is about to change given the recent results from randomized prospective clinical trials in both the LA and R/M setting. Two phase III studies evaluating RT-cetuximab vs. CRT in Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-positive LA oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (De-ESCALaTE and RTOG 1016) showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival for RT-cetuximab combination, and therefore CRT with cisplatin remains the standard of care in this disease. In the R/M HNSCC, the EXTREME regimen has been the standard of care as first-line treatment for the past 10 years. However, the results from the KEYNOTE-048 study will likely position the anti-PD-1 agent pembrolizumab as the new first line treatment either alone or in combination with chemotherapy in this setting based on PD-L1 status. Interestingly, cetuximab-mediated immunogenicity through antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity (ADCC) has encouraged the evaluation of combined approaches with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in both LA and R/M-HNSCC settings. This article reviews the accumulated evidence on the role of cetuximab in HNSCC in the past decade, offering an overview of its current impact in the treatment of LA and R/M-HNSCC disease and its potential use in the era of immunotherapy.

Project description:Recurrent/ metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (R/M SCCNH) is still a difficult-to-treat disease with poor clinical outcomes and limited treatment choices. In view of locoregional recurrent versus distant metastatic SCCHN, the therapeutic efficacy of cetuximab-containing regimen and relevant prognostic factors for these two groups may be different. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the treatment outcomes of cetuximab-containing regimen in locoregional recurrent and distant metastatic SCCHN groups, and to identify clinical factors correlated with better survival outcomes. From 2016 to 2020, patients with R/M SCCHN who received cetuximab-containing regimen in our institute were enrolled in this study. Clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were evaluated in both locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis groups. Exploratory analysis were conducted to investigate major clinical features associated with better outcomes. A total of 107 patients with locoregional recurrent SCCHN (N = 66) and distant metastatic SCCNH (N = 41) who received cetuximab-containing regimen were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients with oral cavity cancer and patients with disease recurrence within 6 months after radiation therapy were significantly increased in locoregional recurrence group. The median OS (15.6 vs. 9.7 months, P = 0.004) and PFS (5.8 months vs. 4.2 months, P = 0.008) were longer in locoregional recurrence group than in distant metastasis group. In multivariate analysis of clinical features, locoregional recurrence was still an important risk factor associated with better OS (Hazzard ratio (HR) 0.64, p = 0.06) and PFS (HR 0.67, p = 0.075). In addition, a trend of favorable disease control rate (DCR; 62.5% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.056) was noted in locoregional recurrence group. In locoregional recurrence group, prior salvage surgery was associated with longer OS (HR = 0.24, P = 0.008) and PFS (HR = 0.30, P = 0.005). SCCHN with locoregional recurrence is associated with better disease control and survival outcomes comparing to distant metastatic SCCHN when treated with cetuximab-containing regimen. Salvage surgery for locoregional recurrence may further improves clinical outcome.

Project description:BackgroundMET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC.MethodsIn total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional.ResultsThe response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed.ConclusionsCombined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.

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.