Randomized Phase II Study of Cabazitaxel Versus Methotrexate in Patients With Recurrent and/or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Therapy

Comparison of Second-Line Treatments for Patients with Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Which second-line treatment is the optimal choice for patients with platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma remains unclear. To inform clinical decisions, we performed a network meta-analysis and systematic review to assess the relative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for patients with platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. By synthesizing all available controlled trial evidence, PD-1 inhibitors significantly improved the overall survival, objective response rate, and treatment tolerance compared to the standard of care (docetaxel, methotrexate, or cetuximab). Afatinib presented a better progression-free survival and objective response rate than the standard of care. Compared with afatinib, PD-1 inhibitors had a better overall survival but a worse progress-free survival.

Abstract

Several new drugs and combination strategies can be used to treat patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the second-line treatment. Questions regarding the relative efficacy and safety of any two of the multiple second-line treatment strategies have emerged. This study aims to compare second-line treatments for patients with platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify relevant articles. Direct and indirect evidence in terms of the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 (grade ≥ 3 trAE) were analyzed in this Bayesian network meta-analysis. A total of twenty-three trials involving 5039 patients were included. These studies compared 20 different treatments, including the standard of care (SOC: docetaxel, methotrexate, or cetuximab), PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab or pembrolizumab), durvalumab, tremelimumab, durvalumab + tremelimumab, palbociclib + SOC, tivantinib + SOC, sorafenib + SOC, EMD1201081 + SOC, vandetanib + SOC, PX-866 + SOC, 5-fluorouracil + SOC, cixutumumab + SOC, gefitinib + SOC, cabazitaxel, nolatrexed, duligotuzumab, zalutumumab, gefitinib, and afatinib. Among the currently available treatment options, compared to the standard of care (SOC: docetaxel, methotrexate, or cetuximab), the PD inhibitor significantly improved OS, ORR, and grade ≥ 3 trAE. Afatinib presented a better PFS and ORR than the SOC. Compared with afatinib, the PD-1 inhibitor had a better OS but a worse PFS. In conclusion, compared to the SOC, the PD-1 inhibitor significantly improved the OS, ORR, and grade ≥ 3 trAE. Afatinib presented a better PFS and ORR than the SOC. Compared with afatinib, the PD-1 inhibitor had a better OS but a worse PFS.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

The Optimal Second-Line Systemic Treatment Model for Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

The 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.

Methods

By 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

For 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.

Suppressed mitochondrial respiration via NOX5-mediated redox imbalance contributes to the antitumor activity of anlotinib in oral squamous cell carcinoma

Anlotinib, a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has shown promising results in the management of various carcinomas. This study aimed to investigate the antitumor activity of anlotinib in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and the underlying molecular mechanism. A retrospective clinical study revealed that anlotinib improved the median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) of patients with recurrent and metastatic (R/M) OSCC, respectively. Functional studies revealed that anlotinib markedly inhibited in vitro proliferation of OSCC cells and impeded in vivo tumor growth of OSCC patient-derived xenograft models. Mechanistically, RNA-sequencing identified that oxidative stress, oxidative phosphorylation and AKT/mTOR signaling were involved in anlotinib-treated OSCC cells. Anlotinib upregulated NADPH oxidase 5 (NOX5) expression, elevated reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, impaired mitochondrial respiration, and promoted apoptosis. Moreover, anlotinb also inhibited phospho-Akt (p-AKT) expression and elevated p-eIF2α expression in OSCC cells. NOX5 knockdown attenuated these inhibitory effects and cytotoxicity in anlotinib-treated OSCC cells. Collectively, we demonstrated that anlotinib monotherapy demonstrated favorable anticancer activity and manageable toxicities in patients with R/M OSCC. The antitumor activity of anlotinib in OSCC may be mainly involved in the suppression of mitochondrial respiration via NOX5-mediated redox imbalance and the AKT/eIF2α pathway.

Systemic Therapy in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The most effective regimen is unclear for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (R/M HNSCC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating only systemic therapy for R/M HNSCC.

METHODS

This systematic review followed PRISMA and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rates (ORR).

RESULTS

55 RCTs from 1990-November 2019 qualified for review (n=12132). Only PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors increased OS in R/M HNSCC platinum-resistant disease against their control (HR = 0·79, 95%CI 0·70-0.90, p<0·001), especially for PD-L1 ≥ 1% expressing tumours (HR = 0·72, 95%CI 0·60-0·86, p<0·001). PFS was prolonged for anti-EGFR agents against methotrexate when used in a second line setting (HR = 0·74, 95 %CI 0·62-0·87, p=0·001), and when cetuximab (HR = 0·60, 95%CI 0·49-0·72, p<0·0001) and panitumumab (HR = 0·76, 95%CI 0·65-0·89, p=0·001) were introduced to platinum-based regimens for first-line treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may represent the future of R/M HNSCC treatment. However, EGFR inhibitors may still play improve clinical outcomes.

Methotrexate plus or minus cetuximab as first-line treatment in a recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma population of the head and neck (SCCHN), unfit for cisplatin combination treatment, a phase Ib-randomized phase II study Commence

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) has limited progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. We hypothesized that adding cetuximab to methotrexate improves PFS.

METHODS

In the phase-Ib-study, patients with R/M SCCHN received methotrexate and cetuximab as first-line treatment. The primary objective was feasibility. In the phase-II-study patients were randomized to this combination or methotrexate alone (2:1). The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

In six patients in the phase-Ib-study, no dose limiting toxicities were observed. In the phase II study, 30 patients received the combination and 15 patients methotrexate. In the phase-II-study median PFS was 4.5 months in the combination group vs 2.0 months in the methotrexate group (HR 0.37; P = .002). OS, toxicity, and QoL were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Cetuximab with methotrexate improved PFS without increased toxicity in R/M SCCHN-patients.

Clinical outcomes with therapies for previously treated recurrent/metastatic head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC): A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

A wide range of objective response rates (ORRs: 0-53%) among available treatments in patients with R/M HNSCC with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy (PBT) renders treatment selection a challenge. This systematic literature review (SLR) was intended to aid clinical decision-making by classifying historical studies to accurately characterize the response in second-line (progression on/after platinum-based therapy), and third-line (progression on/after platinum and cetuximab/other drug) settings.

METHODS

SLR was performed to characterize the ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with therapies recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Clinical trials published in English between January 1, 1985, and September 30, 2016 were identified by searching the PubMed (Medline), Cochrane, and Embase databases.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 34 key studies in second-line R/M HNSCC patients, and one of these included a third-line patient cohort. However, several studies did not enrol a strictly second-line population. Response in a true second-line setting was elucidated by categorizing the studies using a novel framework defined according to the extent to which enrolled patients were second-line. Only seven studies were strictly second-line, with an estimated pooled ORR of 4% (95% CI = 2-8%; N = 414) for methotrexate and 11% (95% CI = 7-15%; N = 235) for cetuximab, and a reported ORR of 14% (N = 78) from a single study of paclitaxel. The median DOR was limited with cetuximab (∼4 months) and paclitaxel (∼7 months), and not reported for methotrexate. Median PFS or time to progression (TTP) ranged from 1.7 to 3.5 months, and median OS from 4.3 to 6.7 months. The ORR in the only third-line study was 0% (95% CI = 0-7; N = 53) for the platinum + cetuximab combination.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the historically bleak prognoses in patients with R/M HNSCC following PBT progression. Anti-PD-1 therapies, namely pembrolizumab and nivolumab, represent novel treatment options that may improve clinical outcomes.

Optimizing treatments for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

The majority of patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) will recur. The treatment of patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M HNSCC) is rapidly evolving. Areas covered: This article will comprehensively review the current systemic treatment of R/M HNSCC. Expert commentary: For the time being, the EXTREME regimen (cetuximab in combination with platinum and 5-fluorouracil) still remains standard of care in previously untreated R/M HNSCC patients who are candidates for combination chemotherapy. Single agents with well documented activity in HNSCC include methotrexate, cisplatin, 5-FU, docetaxel, and paclitaxel. The anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody nivolumab can be considered the current standard of care in patients with R/M HNSCC progressing after platinum-based therapy based on the results of CheckMate 141 showing a survival benefit over standard of care drugs, such as single agent weekly cetuximab, methotrexate, or docetaxel. Multiple randomized phase III trials comparing anti-PD(L)-antibodies either as single agent or in combination with chemotherapy or an anti-CTLA-4 with the EXTREME as fist line treatment are ongoing or planned. The outcome of these trials might change the current treatment paradigm in previously untreated R/M HNSCC. Immunotherapeutic agents under active investigation include Toll-like receptor 8 agonists and inhibitors of IDO1.

Chemotherapy and immunotherapy for recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a fatal malignancy with an overall long-term survival of about 50% for all stages. The diagnosis is not rarely delayed, and the majority of patients present with loco-regionally advanced disease. The rate of second primary tumors after a diagnosis of HNC is about 3-7% per year, the highest rate among solid tumors. Currently, a single-modality or a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy (CHT), is the standard treatment for stage III-IV HNC. For the recurrent/metastatic setting, in the last 40 years great efforts have been made in order to develop a more effective CHT regimen, from the use of methotrexate alone, to the combination of cisplatin (CDDP) and 5-fluorouracile (5FU) or paclitaxel. Recently, the introduction of cetuximab, an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody, to the CDDP-5FU doublet (EXTREME regimen) has improved the overall response rate, the progression-free survival and the overall survival (OS) compared to CHT alone. Nowadays, the EXTREME regimen is the standard of care for the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic head and neck carcinoma (RMHNC). In the last years, new promising therapies for RMHNC such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which have demonstrated favorable results in second-line clinical trials, gained special interest. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are the first two ICIs able to prolong OS in the second-, later-line and platinum-refractory setting, with tolerable toxicities. This review summarizes the current state of the art in RMHNC treatment options.

Outcome of recurrent and metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer patients after first line platinum and cetuximab therapy

OBJECTIVES

Second-line chemotherapy in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer (r/mHNSCC) patients showed dismal results with limited tumor response and reduced life expectancy. Outside of clinical trials, data on efficacy of second line treatment after first line anti-EGFR-AB combination therapy are not available.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data regarding r/mHNSCC consecutive pts treated with cetuximab and platinum from 2009 to 2014 at our center were retrospectively collected. The analyses of response, Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS), each evaluated starting from first and second-line treatment, were performed. Survival curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

We identified 117 patients treated with first-line platinum and cetuximab-based therapy. Sixty-four (55%) patients did not receive second-line treatment due to worsening in performance status, 2 were not assessable for response thus 51 patients were included for analysis. Fifty-six percent were smokers/former smokers and 78% were male. Primary tumor sites were oropharynx (39%), oral cavity (31%), larynx/hypopharynx (24%) and others (6%). Regimens used in second-line were mostly monotherapies. Twenty-one % of the patients were treated within a clinical trial. Response rate (PR, CR) was 6% with 45% showing SD as best response. Median PFS was 2.2months (95%CI:1.5-2.8months) and OS 6.1months (95%CI:3.7-7.2months).

CONCLUSIONS

Within our single center experience only half of the patients with r/mHNSCC were able to receive second-line treatment. Response rate was unsatisfactory, but median OS seems higher than previously reported in an anti-EGFR-AB naïve population (Leon 2005).

Cabazitaxel in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: phase II UNICANCER trial ORL03

Treatments are limited after platinum Cetuximab or anti-PD1 failure for patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cabazitaxel has increased overall survival in hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer after failure of Docetaxel. Our aim was to detect a signal of activity with Cabazitaxel in patients with head and neck cancer who had failed platinum-, Cetuximab- and taxanes-based chemotherapy.

This multicenter phase II trial included progressive patients with an ECOG ≤2. Cabazitaxel was given at 25 mg/m²/3 weeks (maximum of 10 cycles), with growth factors support. Efficacy was centralized and assessed every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was control rate at six-weeks. A Simon’s two-stage optimal design (P0=0.10; P1=0.30) required 29 evaluable patients. At the end of trial, at least 6 non-progressions were required to consider the drug worthy of further study.

Out of the 31 enrolled patients, 29 were eligible; 42% had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy. For the primary end point, 8 patients (27.6%; 95%CI 12.7%-47.2%) had a stable disease at six weeks. Median progression-free survival was 1.05 months (95%CI 0.69-2.07). All patients were analyzed for toxicity: 6 patients had febrile neutropenia.

During the 81 cycles administered, 49 grade 3-5 events were observed concerning 81% of the patients, including 35 severe adverse events of which 15 were related to Cabazitaxel.

Although Cabazitaxel met its primary endpoint to deserve further investigations, its toxicity makes it difficult to use in frail patients and new schemes are needed (20 mg/m² for example) if further investigations are launched.