Evolving multidisciplinary treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in India✰

In this article, we highlight the evolution of a multimodal approach in the overall management of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in India; present advances in technology (newer surgical techniques), novel medical and radiotherapy (RT) approaches; review their roles for an integrated approach for treating SCCHN and discuss the current role of immunotherapy in SCCHN. For locally advanced (LA) SCCHN, the multidisciplinary approach includes surgery followed by RT, with or without chemotherapy (CT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Improved surgical techniques of reconstruction and voice-preservation are being implemented. Advanced forms of high-precision conformal techniques like intensity-modulated radiotherapy are used to deliver highly conformal doses to tumors, sparing the surrounding normal tissue. Compared with RT alone, novel CT regimens and targeted therapeutic agents have the potential to improve locoregional control and survival and reduce treatment-induced toxicities. Several clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy, safety, and quality of life benefits of adding cetuximab to RT regimens in LASCCHN. Studies have also suggested a cetuximab-related laryngeal preservation benefit. At progression, platinum-based CT combined with cetuximab (a monoclonal anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody) is the only validated option available as the first-line therapy. Thus, an integrated multidisciplinary approach plays a key role in maximizing patient outcomes, reduction in treatment related morbidities that consequently impact quality of life of survivors.

Systemic therapy in the curative treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence and make recommendations regarding use of systemically administered drugs in combination or in sequence with radiation (RT) and/or surgery for cure and/or organ preservation in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic (Stage III to IVB) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN).

METHOD

Recognizing the Meta-analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) group reports have de facto guided practice since 2000, we searched for systematic reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published from January 2000 to February 2015 in reference to 4 research questions. A search was also conducted for randomized trials (RCTs) up to February 2015 not included in the meta-analyses.

RESULT

The MACH-NC reports, 5 additional meta-analyses, and 30 RCTs not included by MACH-NC were identified. For chemotherapy, MACH-NC findings showing improved overall survival with concomitant chemoRT did not require modification. High-dose cisplatin was most commonly studied. We confirmed this benefit with cisplatin monotherapy in patients treated with with postoperative concurrent chemoRT. Other than cetuximab, no targeted agents and radiosensitizers studied in RCTs were shown effective. TPF induction chemotherapy was superior to PF for tumor response and larynx preservation but not survival. Larynx preservation was reported with both CRT and induction chemotherapy approaches.

CONCLUSION

ChemoRT with cisplatin at least 40 mg/m2 per week given as radical or postoperative adjuvant remains a standard treatment approach for LASCCHN that improves overall survival but increases toxicity. 5-FU plus platinum is supported by less data but may be a reasonable alternative for patients unsuitable for cisplatin. Of note, stratification of outcomes by HPV-status was not available but outcomes for oropharynx cancer appeared similar to other subsites in chemoRT RCTs. No RCTs have yet demonstrated superiority or non-inferiority of cetuximab-RT to CRT. In view of this, cetuximab-RT is suggested only for patients not candidates for CRT. Taxane-based triplet induction chemotherapy is superior to doublets for rapid tumour downsizing and for larynx preservation, but does not improve overall survival and should be used with primary G-CSF prophylaxis. Further investigation of induction approaches for larynx preservation may be warranted.

Molecular pathways in head and neck cancer: EGFR, PI3K, and more

The treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is set to undergo rapid changes, as novel treatment targets informed by genomic profiling and novel molecularly targeted therapies continue to make strides. In this review we provide an overview of the latest developments regarding (1) EGFR targeting for HNSCC, (2) PI3K as a novel treatment target, and (3) newly described key genetic events in HNSCC such as NOTCH1 mutations and emerging candidate targets including ALK1 and hedgehog. The first molecular targeting strategy to demonstrate a survival advantage for patients with HNSCC has emerged in the context of EGFR biology. Cetuximab remains the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved targeted therapy available for HNSCC, but EGFR as a target has not been individualized in this disease. The PI3K-AKT pathway is downstream of EGFR and is emerging as potentially one of the most important pathways in HNSCC. PIK3CA is the most frequently mutated oncogene for HNSCC (approximately 20%) and may play a role for both HPV-negative and HPV-positive tumors. Multiple therapeutic strategies targeting PI3K are being explored, and multiple agents either alone or in combination are in development. NOTCH1 is a key tumor suppressor gene and its genetic alterations lead to abnormal pathway activation. ALK1 is a novel target involved in angiogenesis, and efficacy in patients with HNSCC was documented in an early inhibitor trial. The hedgehog pathway modulates EGFR dependence and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), a key invasion and drug-resistance mechanism in HNSCC.

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: targeted therapy and immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cancers are the sixth most common cancer worldwide, yet the prognosis following a diagnosis of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers remains poor, with approximately 50% survival at five years. Despite a sharp increase in research into molecularly targeted therapies and a rapid expansion in the number of clinical trials assessing new targeted therapies, their value for treating oral cancers is unclear. Therefore, it is important to summarise the evidence to determine the efficacy and toxicity of targeted therapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of these cancers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in addition to standard therapies, for the treatment of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 3 February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 3 February 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 3 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference abstracts and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials protocols for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared targeted therapy or immunotherapy, plus standard therapy, with standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where necessary. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models when there were at least four studies and fixed-effect models when fewer than four studies. We obtained or calculated a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes where possible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials (2488 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the included trials, 12% of participants (298 participants) had tumours of the oral cavity and 59% (1468 participants) had oropharyngeal tumours. The remaining 29% had tumours of the larynx or hypopharynx and less than 1% had tumours at other sites.No included trial was at low risk of bias; seven had an unclear risk of bias, and five had a high risk of bias. We grouped trials by intervention type into three main comparisons: standard therapy plus epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (EGFR mAb) therapy (follow-up period 24 to 70 months); standard therapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (follow-up period 40 to 60 months) and standard therapy plus immunotherapy (follow-up period 24 to 70 months), all versus standard therapy alone.Moderate quality evidence showed that EGFR mAb therapy may result in 18% fewer deaths when added to standard therapy (HR of mortality 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 1421 participants, three studies, 67% oropharyngeal tumours, 2% oral cavity tumours).There was also moderate quality evidence that EGFR mAb may result in 32% fewer locoregional failures when added to radiotherapy (RT) (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours).A subgroup analysis separating studies by type of standard therapy (radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) showed some evidence that adding EGFR mAb therapy to RT may result in a 30% reduction in the number of people whose disease progresses (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours, unclear risk of bias). For the subgroup comparing EGFR mAb plus CRT with CRT alone there was insufficient evidence to determine whether adding EGFR mAb therapy to CRT impacts on progression-free survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.32; 891 participants, one study, 70% oropharyngeal tumours, high risk of bias). The high subgroup heterogeneity meant that we were unable to pool these subgroups.There was evidence that adding cetuximab to standard therapy may result in increased skin toxicity and rash (RR 6.56; 95% CI 5.35 to 8.03; 1311 participants, two studies), but insufficient evidence to determine any difference in skin toxicity and rash in the case of nimotuzumab (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; 92 participants, one study).There was insufficient evidence to determine whether TKIs added to standard therapy impacts on overall survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.57; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), locoregional control (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), disease-free survival (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.61 to 3.71; 60 participants, one study; very low quality evidence) or progression-free survival (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.28; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence). We did find evidence of an increase in skin rash (erlotinib: RR 6.57; 95% CI 3.60 to 12.00; 191 participants, one study; lapatinib: RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.32; 67 participants, one study) and gastrointestinal complaints (lapatinib: RR 15.53; 95% CI 2.18 to 110.55; 67 participants, one study).We found very low quality evidence from one small trial that adding recombinant interleukin (rIL-2) to surgery may increase overall survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 201 participants, 62% oral cavity tumours, 38% oropharyngeal tumours) and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rIL-2 impacts on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence that adding EGFR mAb to standard therapy may increase overall survival, progression-free survival and locoregional control, while resulting in an increase in skin toxicity for some mAb (cetuximab).There is insufficient evidence to determine whether adding TKIs to standard therapies changes any of our primary outcomes.Very low quality evidence from a single study suggests that rIL-2 combined with surgery may increase overall survival compared with surgery alone.

De-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas are a distinct subgroup of tumours that may have a better prognosis than traditional tobacco/alcohol-related disease. Iatrogenic complications, associated with conventional practice, are estimated to cause mortality of approximately 2% and high morbidity. As a result, clinicians are actively investigating the de-escalation of treatment protocols for disease with a proven viral aetiology.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the available evidence regarding de-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associated, locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 25 June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials investigating de-escalation treatment protocols for human papillomavirus-associated, locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Specific de-escalation categories were: 1) bioradiotherapy (experimental) versus chemoradiotherapy (control); 2) radiotherapy (experimental) versus chemoradiotherapy (control); and 3) low-dose (experimental) versus standard-dose radiotherapy (control). The outcomes of interest were overall and disease-specific survival, treatment-related morbidity, quality of life and cost.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently selected studies from the search results and extracted data. We planned to use the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any completed randomised controlled trials that could be included in the current version of this systematic review. We did, however, identify seven ongoing trials that will meet our inclusion criteria. These studies will report from 2014 onwards. We excluded 30 studies on methodological grounds (seven randomised trials with post hoc analysis by human papillomavirus status, 11 prospective trials and 12 ongoing studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence for, or against, de-escalation of treatment for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal carcinoma. Future trials should be multicentre to ensure adequate power. Adverse events, morbidity associated with treatment, quality of life outcomes and cost analyses should be reported in a standard format to facilitate comparison with other studies.

Induction chemotherapy with cetuximab, carboplatin and paclitaxel for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Although controversy exists in the management of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN), clinicians often use induction chemotherapy for treatment of the most advanced cases. One promising regimen combines weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2) with carboplatin (AUC of 2) and paclitaxel (90 mg/m2). We retrospectively evaluated patients treated with this regimen prior to definitive chemoradiation or surgery between May 2008 and December 2011. The primary endpoint used for this retrospective analysis was feasibility. Thirty consecutive, unselected patients were included. Median follow-up was 13.7 months (range, 5.0-38.7 months). All but one patient had stage IV SCCHN. Dose intensity was high for carboplatin (92%), paclitaxel (93%) and cetuximab (85%). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in <7% of the study population and were limited to rash, neutropenia and infusion reactions. Response rate (RR) to induction chemotherapy was 97% (30% complete response, 67% partial response). All patients completed subsequent chemoradiotherapy or surgery. Nineteen patients (63%) demonstrated a complete response and 11 patients (37%) demonstrated a partial response. Median overall survival and progression-free survival data are not yet mature. The RR to therapy in our off-protocol experience is at least comparable to that observed in the two phase II studies of this regimen and appears superior to that observed with docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF).

Is the combination of Cetuximab with chemo-radiotherapy regimens worthwhile in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer? A review of current evidence

The administration of Cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy and chemotherapy has shown clear survival improvements within the locally advanced and the relapsed/metastatic settings respectively. These results have provided the clinical rational for the inclusion of Cetuximab into chemo-radiation regimens. Trials assessing the combination of Cetuximab with induction chemotherapy, concomitant chemo-radiotherapy or both are reviewed. Taken together, their results suggest that the addition of Cetuximab is promising in trials of induction chemotherapy, showing almost uniformly response rates higher than historical controls. In combination with concomitant hyperfractionated radiotherapy and Cisplatin the results of the RTOG 0522 trial do not suggest any benefit. However a positive effect cannot be excluded with other schedules. Although feasibility has been universally suggested, adding Cetuximab implies some toxicity enhancement. Single local and systemic toxicities are more frequent and supposedly the overall treatment intensity is increased. Moreover the drug-specific toxicities are potentially severe and deserve timely recognition and management.

New aspects of induction chemotherapy for head and neck cancer: POSTASCO 2011

Treatment options of patients with advanced head and neck cancer developed in the last years. Surgical approaches with or without radiotherapy used to be the standard therapy for a long time. Calls for organ preservation, poor overall survival and unsatisfactory quality of life made changes in this therapy regime necessary. Systemical approaches were evaluated, first concepts of platinum-based chemotherapy paired with 5-fluorouracil (PF) made up the basis of induction chemotherapy (ICT). Hypothesized advantage of this regime was improvement in local and distant tumor responsiveness with an acceptable toxicity profile. Further investigations proved the addition of docetaxel (TPF) superior to PF, which presents the gold standard of current induction chemotherapy regimes. Long-term results underlining well-known aspects of this regime as well as new approaches of induction chemotherapy were published at ASCO 2011, including the addition of bioimmunotherapy to radiotherapy, adding nanoparticle-bound albumin to chemotherapy and investigations in toxicity reduction. Further investigations are still made not only to increase survival outcomes and local control but also to improve quality of life by reducing acute and late toxicities.