Hearing Outcomes in Cisplatin or Cetuximab Combined with Radiation for Patients with HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer in NRG/RTOG 1016

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

NRG/RTOG 1016 was a noninferiority phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of radiation with either cisplatin (RT+Cisp) or cetuximab (RT+Cetux) for patients with HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Perceived hearing handicap was included as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) secondary endpoint. The primary hypothesis was that perceived hearing handicap would be greater for patients receiving RT+Cisp compared to RT+Cetux.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Perceived hearing handicap was measured at baseline, end of treatment, 3, 6, and 12-months post-treatment using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults Screening Version (HHIA-S), a 10-item self-assessment questionnaire designed to measure patients' reactions to their hearing loss. Total HHIA-S scores range from 0 to 40; higher total score indicates more severe perceived hearing handicap. Hearing handicap categories (none, mild/moderate, and severe) were also analyzed. Mixed ordinal logistic models were used to analyze the raw HHIA-S scores and handicap categories (2-sided alpha 0.05).

RESULTS

Participation in the PRO assessments was optional, with 368 patients participating in the hearing PRO. No significant differences in patient/tumor characteristics were found between PRO participants/non-participants. Pre-treatment (mean [SD]) HHIA-S scores were not different for RT+Cisp (3.23 [6.28]) and RT+Cetux (4.77 [8.14]) groups. Post-treatment HHIA-S scores increased for RT+Cisp, and remained stable at the later follow-up time points. RT+Cetux scores remained stable from baseline. Change score from pre- to post-treatment was higher for RT+Cisp (4.32, 95% CI = [2.57, 6.07]) than RT+Cetux (0.08, 95% CI = [-1.15, 1.31]; p < 0.001). For hearing handicap category, post-treatment RT+Cisp had a significantly higher percentage of mild/moderate and severe cases (32%) compared to RT+Cetux (20%). From pre- to post-treatment, worsening of hearing handicap category from normal to mild/moderate or severe was greater for RT+Cisp (24%) than for RT+Cetux (9%). The conditional odds of being in a higher self-perceived hearing handicap category in the RT+Cisp arm were 3.57 (95% CI [2.04, 6.25]) times that in the RT+Cetux arm. Averaging over patients, the marginal odds ratio was 2.46 (95% CI [1.65, 3.66]).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving concurrent RT+Cisp for HPV-associated OPC have significantly higher odds of worsening self-perceived hearing handicap after treatment than with RT+Cetux. This was consistent across time through one-year post-treatment. These findings inform hearing-related outcomes for patients with HPV-associated OPC.

The KRAS-Variant and Cetuximab in HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer in NRG/RTOG 1016

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

NRG/RTOG 1016 was a non-inferiority phase III trial comparing radiation with cisplatin versus cetuximab monotherapy for patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The trial did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (OS) and had significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) and locoregional failure (LRF) in patients treated with cetuximab. Based on prior evidence that HNSCC patients with a germ-line mutation in KRAS (the KRAS-variant) had a positive response to radiation with cisplatin plus cetuximab without increased toxicity, samples from RTOG 1016 were used to test the protocol-specified hypothesis that KRAS-variant patients will have better outcomes when receiving IMRT + cetuximab monotherapy compared to IMRT + cisplatin.

MATERIALS/METHODS

The KRAS-variant was tested in 562 samples at MiraDx, a CLIA-certified laboratory. OS, PFS, LRF, and distant metastases (DM) were as defined per the RTOG 1016 protocol, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by (cause-specific) Cox models. Negative binomial regression was used to model the number of treatment-related acute and late (≤ and > 180 days from end of treatment, respectively) grade 3-5 adverse events. To assess the predictive role of the KRAS-variant, all models included KRAS, assigned treatment, and their interaction, with the interaction tested at two-sided 0.05. HRs and toxicity ratios are expressed as IMRT + cetuximab / IMRT + cisplatin.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the KRAS-variant was 16% with similar patient and tumor characteristics and well-balanced treatment arms for variant and non-variant patients. Median follow-up was 8.6 years. There was no significant interaction between KRAS and treatment for OS (p = 0.99), PFS (p = 0.56), LRF (p = 0.09), or DM (p = 0.19) (Table 1). In KRAS-variant patients the mean acute and late toxicity ratios were 0.53 (95% CI 0.36, 0.80) and 1.62 (95% CI 0.57, 4.62). In non-variant patients, the mean acute and late toxicity ratios were 0.80 (95% CI 0.67, 0.95) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.35, 0.87), respectively. The interaction of KRAS and treatment was not significant for acute (p = 0.07) or late toxicity (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

While this study does not directly refute prior evidence that KRAS-variant patients benefit from radiation + cisplatin and cetuximab, this study does not support the hypothesis that the KRAS-variant is a predictive biomarker of improved outcome in HPV+ oropharyngeal SCC patients treated with IMRT + cetuximab alone, and suggests that for KRAS-variant patients, potential benefits in LRF and acute toxicity with cetuximab may be offset by worse DM and worse late toxicity.