1
|
Jiménez-Labaig P, Rullan A, Braña I, Hernando-Calvo A, Moreno V, Doger B, Bitar G, Ap Dafydd D, Melcher A, Harrington KJ. Intratumoral therapies in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev 2024; 127:102746. [PMID: 38696902 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2024] [Revised: 04/20/2024] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 05/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) presents an ideal scenario for intratumoral therapies (IT), due to its local recurrence pattern and frequent superficial extension. IT therapies aim to effect tumor regression by directly injecting antineoplastic agents into lesions. However, there is a lack of updated evidence regarding IT therapies in HNSCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS A systematic literature search (CRD42023462291) was conducted using WebOfScience, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts from ESMO and ASCO, identifying for IT clinical trials in patients with HNSCC, from database creation to September 12th, 2023. Efficacy as well as safety (grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events[trAEs]) were reported. RESULTS After evaluation of 1180 articles identified by the systematic search, 31 studies treating 948 patients were included. IT injectables were categorized as chemotherapies with or without electroporation (k = 4, N = 268), oncolytic viruses, plasmids, and bacteria-based (k = 16, N = 446), immunotherapies and EGFR-based therapies (k = 5, N = 160), radioenhancer particles (k = 2, N = 68), and calcium electroporation (k = 1, n = 6). EGFR-antisense plasmids, NBTXR3 radioenhancer and immune innate agonists show best overall response rates, at 83 %, 81 % and 44 % respectively. Eleven (35 %) studies added systemic therapy or radiotherapy to the IT injections. No study used predictive biomarkers to guide patient selection. 97 % studies were phase I-II. Safety-wise, electroporation and epinephrine-based injectable trials had significant local symptoms such as necrosis, fistula formation and post-injection dysphagia. Treatment-related tumor haemorrhages of various grades were described in several trials. Grade ≥ 3 trAEs attributable to the other therapies mainly comprised general symptoms such as fatigue. There were 3 injectable-related deaths across the systematic review. CONCLUSION This is the first review to summarize all available evidence of IT in HNSCC. As of today, IT therapies lack sufficient evidence to recommend their use in clinical practice. Continuing research on potential molecules, patient selection, safe administration of injections and controlled randomized trials are needed to assess their added benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pablo Jiménez-Labaig
- Head and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; The Institute of Cancer Research, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Antonio Rullan
- Head and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; The Institute of Cancer Research, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Irene Braña
- Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain; Lung and Head & Neck Tumors Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Alberto Hernando-Calvo
- Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain; Early Phase Clinical Trials Unit (UITM), Department of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Victor Moreno
- START Madrid-FDJ, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain
| | - Bernard Doger
- START Madrid-FDJ, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain
| | - George Bitar
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Derfel Ap Dafydd
- Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alan Melcher
- The Institute of Cancer Research, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin J Harrington
- Head and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; The Institute of Cancer Research, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Stratigos AJ, Garbe C, Dessinioti C, Lebbe C, van Akkooi A, Bataille V, Bastholt L, Dreno B, Dummer R, Fargnoli MC, Forsea AM, Harwood CA, Hauschild A, Hoeller C, Kandolf-Sekulovic L, Kaufmann R, Kelleners-Smeets NW, Lallas A, Leiter U, Malvehy J, Del Marmol V, Moreno-Ramirez D, Pellacani G, Peris K, Saiag P, Tagliaferri L, Trakatelli M, Ioannides D, Vieira R, Zalaudek I, Arenberger P, Eggermont AMM, Röcken M, Grob JJ, Lorigan P. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Part 2. Treatment-Update 2023. Eur J Cancer 2023; 193:113252. [PMID: 37708630 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 09/16/2023]
Abstract
In order to update recommendations on treatment, supportive care, education, and follow-up of patients with invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), a multidisciplinary panel of experts from the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was formed. Recommendations were based on an evidence-based literature review, guidelines, and expert consensus. Treatment recommendations are presented for common primary cSCC (low risk, high risk), locally advanced cSCC, regional metastatic cSCC (operable or inoperable), and distant metastatic cSCC. For common primary cSCC, the first-line treatment is surgical excision with postoperative margin assessment or micrographically controlled surgery. Achieving clear surgical margins is the most important treatment consideration for patients with cSCCs amenable to surgery. Regarding adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with high-risk localised cSCC with clear surgical margins, current evidence has not shown significant benefit for those with at least one high-risk factor. Radiotherapy should be considered as the primary treatment for non-surgical candidates/tumours. For cSCC with cytologically or histologically confirmed regional nodal metastasis, lymph node dissection is recommended. For patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 agents are the first-line systemic treatment, with cemiplimab being the first approved systemic agent for advanced cSCC by the Food and Drugs Administration/European Medicines Agency. Second-line systemic treatments for advanced cSCC, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab) combined with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary board decisions are mandatory for all patients with advanced cSCC, considering the risks of toxicity, the age and frailty of patients, and co-morbidities, including immunosuppression. Patients should be engaged in informed, shared decision-making on management and be provided with the best supportive care to improve symptom management and quality of life. The frequency of follow-up visits and investigations for subsequent new cSCC depends on underlying risk characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander J Stratigos
- First Department of Dermatology-Venereology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Andreas Sygros Hospital, Athens, Greece.
| | - Claus Garbe
- Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Clio Dessinioti
- First Department of Dermatology-Venereology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Andreas Sygros Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Celeste Lebbe
- Université Paris Cite, Dermato-Oncology AP-HP Hôpital Saint Louis, Cancer Institute APHP. Nord-Université Paris Cite, INSERM U976, Paris, France
| | - Alexander van Akkooi
- Department of Melanoma and Surgical Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Lars Bastholt
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Brigitte Dreno
- Nantes Université, INSERM, CNRS, Immunology and New Concepts in ImmunoTherapy, INCIT, UMR 1302/EMR6001, Nantes, France
| | - Reinhard Dummer
- Skin Cancer Centre at University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Maria Concetta Fargnoli
- Dermatology Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Ana Maria Forsea
- Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Department of Oncologic Dermatology, Elias University Hospital Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Catherine A Harwood
- Centre for Cell Biology and Cutaneous Research, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Axel Hauschild
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital (UKSH), Kiel, Germany
| | - Christoph Hoeller
- Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Roland Kaufmann
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Frankfurt University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Nicole Wj Kelleners-Smeets
- GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Dermatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Aimilios Lallas
- First Department of Dermatology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Ulrike Leiter
- Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Josep Malvehy
- Dermatology Department of Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBER de enfermedades raras, Instituto Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Veronique Del Marmol
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - David Moreno-Ramirez
- Department of Medical and Surgical Dermatology Service, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain
| | | | - Ketty Peris
- UOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche Addominali ed Endocrino Metaboliche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Dermatologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Philippe Saiag
- Department of General and Oncologic Dermatology, Ambroise-Paré hospital, APHP, and EA 4340 'Biomarkers in Cancerology and Hemato-oncology', UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| | - Luca Tagliaferri
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A, Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Myrto Trakatelli
- Department of Dermatology, Papageorgiou Hospital, Aristotle University Department of Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | | | - Ricardo Vieira
- Department of Dermatology, Coimbra Hospital and University Centre, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Iris Zalaudek
- Department of Dermatology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
| | - Petr Arenberger
- Department of Dermatovenereology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alexander M M Eggermont
- University Medical Center Utrecht and Princess Máxima Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, Technical University Munich and Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
| | - Martin Röcken
- Centre for Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | | | - Paul Lorigan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Department of Medical Oncology, Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Firmino F, Villela-Castro D, Santos VLCDG. Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose Versus Calcium Alginate in Controlling Bleeding From Malignant Wounds: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cancer Nurs 2023:00002820-990000000-00136. [PMID: 37058598 DOI: 10.1097/ncc.0000000000001235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no consensus on the best intervention for topical management of bleeding in malignant wounds. Although surgical hemostatic dressings are recommended, the use of calcium alginate (CA) is frequent among practitioners. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy of oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC) and CA dressing in the management of bleeding from malignant wounds resulting from breast cancer. METHODS This was a randomized open clinical trial. The outcomes measured were total time to hemostasis and the number of hemostatic products used. RESULTS Sixty-one patients were potentially eligible for the study, 1 did not consent, and 32 were assessed to be ineligible, resulting in a sample of 28 who were randomized to 2 study groups. Total time to hemostasis was 93.8 seconds in the ORC group, with an average of 30.1 seconds (95% confidence interval, 18.6-189 seconds), and 67 seconds in the CA group, with an average of 30.4 seconds (confidence interval, 21.7 seconds to imprecise upper limit). The main difference was 26.8 seconds. Kaplan-Meier log-rank test, and Cox model showed no statistical significance (P = 0.894). A total of 18 hemostatic products were used in the CA group and 34 in the ORC group. No adverse effects were identified. CONCLUSIONS Although no significant differences were identified in terms of time, more hemostatic products were used in the ORC group, highlighting the effectiveness of CA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Calcium alginate may be the first choice in the management of bleeding in malignant wounds, favoring nursing in the most immediate hemostatic actions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Flávia Firmino
- Author affiliations: Palliative Care Unit, National Cancer Institute of Brazil-INCA, Rio de Janeiro (Dr Firmino); and Nursing Department, Continuing Education, AC Camargo Cancer Centre (Dr Villela-Castro); Medical Surgical Department, Nursing School of the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; and WCET Education Committee (Dr Santos)
| | | | | |
Collapse
|