Search

Objectives: Primary objective was to evaluate the correlation between immune marker expression in baseline tumor biopsies and their respective surgical specimens in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (OCSCC). Secondary objective was to assess the impact of these markers on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)., Materials and Methods: Patients with a histological diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma treated surgically between 2012 and 2020 were included in this retrospective, translational monocentric study. The expression of PD-L1, T-cells markers and an OCSCC-adapted immunoscore were evaluated by multiplex immunohistochemistry., Results: One hundred and four patients (mean: 58 years) were included. Seventy patients had paired samples available. Poor correlation was highlighted for PD-L1-positive surface expression (r = 0.29) and combined positive score (CPS). For CPS ≥ 20 and CPS ≥ 1, correlation coefficient r was 0.24 and 0.46 respectively. T-cells density showed also poor correlation with a r of 0.57 and 0.31 for CD3 and CD8 T-cells, respectively. Univariate survival analyses showed significant better OS and DFS (P < 0.05) for patients with stage III-IV OCSCC with a high compared to a low immunoscore, based on surgical samples only., Conclusion: Our study showed poor correlation in PD-L1 expression, CPS, T-cells density and immunoscore between baseline tumor biopsies and surgical resection specimens. In addition, the immunoscore may emerge as a potential prognostic factor in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. If surgical specimens are available, they may be of interest for clinical practice decision., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JPM reports grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Innate, Merck Serono, Boehringer, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, Incyte, Cue Biopharma, ALX oncology, iTEOS, eTheRNA, NEKTAR, F-star, Seagen, Genmab, Astellas, CureVac, MSD, Gilead, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-040 study, pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in previously treated recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC. We present a post hoc subgroup analysis by disease recurrence pattern: recurrent-only, recurrent and metastatic (recurrent-metastatic), and metastatic-only HNSCC., Materials and Methods: Patients had HNSCC that progressed during or after platinum-containing treatment for R/M disease or had recurrence or progression within 3-6 months of previous platinum-containing definitive therapy for locally advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or investigator's choice of standards of care (SOC): methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab. Outcomes included OS, PFS, ORR, and DOR. The data cutoff was May 15, 2017., Results: There were 125 patients (pembrolizumab, 53; SOC, 72) in the recurrent-only subgroup, 204 in the recurrent-metastatic subgroup (pembrolizumab, 108; SOC, 96), and 166 in the metastatic-only subgroup (pembrolizumab, 86; SOC, 80). The hazard ratio (95% CI) for death for pembrolizumab versus SOC was 0.83 (0.55-1.25) in the recurrent-only, 0.78 (0.58-1.06) in the recurrent-metastatic, and 0.74 (0.52-1.05) in the metastatic-only subgroups. PFS was similar between treatment arms in all subgroups. ORR was 22.6% for pembrolizumab versus 16.7% for SOC in the recurrent-only, 10.2% versus 6.3% in the recurrent-metastatic, and 15.1% versus 8.8% in the metastatic-only subgroups. DOR was numerically longer with pembrolizumab in all subgroups., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab provided numerically longer OS and durable responses in all subgroups compared with SOC, suggesting that patients with previously treated R/M HNSCC benefit from pembrolizumab regardless of recurrence pattern., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KJH reports honoraria from BMS, Merck-Serono, MSD, and Replimune; advisory/consultancy roles with Arch Oncology, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Codiak, Eisai, Inzen, Merck-Serono, MSD, Oncolys, Pfizer, and Replimune; speaker bureau for BMS, Merck-Serono, MSD, and Replimune; and research grant/funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Replimune. EEWC reports advisory/consultancy roles with Axelia, Cel Sci, Eisai, Hoopika, ImmunoSensor, Istari, Janssen, Kahr Medical, Mana Therapeutics, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Nectin Tx, Pangea Therapeutics, and Roche; is a member of the board of directors for Psiouxus Therapeutics, and NCCN; has stock/shares with Kinnate Biopharma and Primmune Therapeutics; and has a leadership role with Ayala, Kura, and Kinnate Biopharma DS reports advisory/consultancy roles with Merck and Adlai-Nortye and research grant/funding from Merck, GSK, Adlai-Nortye, and BMS. JD reports advisory/consultancy role with Roche, PharmaMar, BMS, Merck Serono, and MSD; is a principal investigator for studies from Roche, BI, and MSD; and travel expenses from PharmaMar. LL reports research funding from Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene International, Eisai, Exelixis, Debiopharm International SA, Hoffmann-La Roche ltd, IRX Therapeutics, Medpace, Merck-Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Buran; and occasional fees for participation as a speaker at conferences/congresses or as a scientific consultant for advisory boards from Astrazeneca, Bayer, MSD, Merck-Serono, AccMed, and Neutron Therapeutics, Inc. MJA reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Merck, TAKEDA, ONO, Amgen, YUHAN, and Roche; advisory/consultancy roles with AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Merck, TAKEDA, ONO, Amgen, YUHAN, Roche, and Alpha Pharmaceuticals; and research grant/funding from YUHAN. AS reports honoraria from MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi; and advisory/consultancy roles with MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. JPM reports advisory/consultancy roles with Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Innate, Merck Serono, Boerhinger, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, Incyte, Cue Biopharma, ALX Oncology, iTEOS, eTheRNA, NEKTAR, F-Star, Seagen, Genmab, Astellas, and Psioxius; leadership roles with the EORTC head and neck group (Chair); travel/accommodation/expenses from Amgen, BMS, Pfizer, MSD, and Gilead; and non-remunerated activities with MSD (Advisory board). NM reports being a co-founder and shareholder MaxiVAX, a personalized cancer immunotherapy biotech, with ongoing Phase IIa in patients with advanced Head & Neck cancer; and being the Chief Medical Officer at MaxiVAX. RM reports advisor/consultancy role for Janssen, AstraZeneca (uncompensated), Coherus and Rakuten Medical; and research funding from Merck. BB reports advisory/consultancy roles with Genentech, Glaxo Smith Kline, Nektar, Debio, Merck KgA, Astra Zeneca,Vaccinex, Exelexis, Cue BioPharma, Fusion, Arvinas, Coherus, ALX Oncology, Hookipa Kura, Astra Zeneca/Medimmune, Nektar, and Roche; and research grant/funding from Cue Biopharma, Merck, Gilead, Exelexis, and Vaccinex. RFS reports employment at the time of the study at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; current employment at Carisma Therapeutics. JL reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. JG reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. NL reports employment at Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock ownership in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. CLT reports honoraria from MSD, BMS, Merck Serono, Celgene, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics, Maxivax, Seagen, and Roche; research grant/funding from MSD; and travel/accommodation/expenses from MSD, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca, and BMS., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) can experience severe symptom burden and/or difficulty swallowing, leading to problems with treatment adherence/administration. In LUX-Head and Neck 1 (LH&N1; NCT01345682), second-line afatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. We report adherence and safety across pre-specified and additional subgroups potentially linked to afatinib PFS benefit in LH&N1 (p16 status, smoking history), and afatinib adherence, safety and efficacy by administration (oral versus feeding tube; post-hoc analysis)., Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1) to afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m 2 /week)., Results: Among 320 afatinib-treated and 160 methotrexate-treated patients, 83-92% and 76-92% (of patients with data available) across all subgroups took ≥80% of treatment. Across p16 status and smoking history subgroups, the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (70-91%), rash/acne (72-84%), stomatitis (34-73%) with afatinib; and included stomatitis (39-100%), fatigue (22-50%), nausea (19-36%) with methotrexate. Dose reduction decreased AE incidence/severity. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between oral/feeding tube (n = 276/n = 46) groups. 89%/89% (of patients with data available) took ≥80% of assigned afatinib. Median PFS was 2.6 versus 2.7 months (hazard ratio: 0.997; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.38). The most common afatinib-related AEs were: rash/acne (74% versus 74%), diarrhea (73% versus 65%), stomatitis (40% versus 30%)., Conclusion: Subgroup analyses of LH&N1 demonstrate that afatinib has predictable and manageable safety across patient subgroups, with high treatment adherence, and is effective via oral and feeding tube administration., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Distant metastases from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), though rare at initial presentation, remain an important manifestation of cancer recurrence and mortality. Although generally considered incurable with a dismal prognosis despite palliative therapy, highly selected patients with distant metastases may have a long term survival benefit from aggressive surgery or radiotherapy. Advances in systemic treatments also may improve patient survival. This article reviews the current state of management of HNSCC patients with distant metastases., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The detection of distant metastases is critical for prognostication and for the choice of treatment in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Pretreatment screening for distant metastases should be conducted particularly for patients with high risk factors, prior to locoregional treatment decisions. Different diagnostic techniques are discussed. Unfortunately, most studies lack sufficient follow-up to reliably assess false-negative results. Moreover, the designs of most studies vary substantially with regard to homogeneity of groups (tumor types and stages), timing (pretreatment, follow-up) and definition of risk factors (patient selection). Therefore, only a few studies are comparable. The combination of F-18 fluoro-d-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and a dedicated CT (at least of the chest) is the most important imaging protocol at the present time. Eventually, whole-body-MRI (WB-MRI) may possibly replace PET-CT for screening patients for distant metastases., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CRT) has become standard treatment for many patients with advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This has led to controversy concerning the role of neck dissection (ND) in this setting. The current debate is focused on N2-N3 disease and the ability of a clinical complete response to predict the absence of viable cells in the ND specimen. Proponents of a systematic planned ND argue that it improves regional control and possibly disease-specific survival. They assert that a clinical response does not predict the pathologic response, and that in the event of recurrence in the neck, a surgical salvage procedure is unlikely to succeed. Conversely, there are many arguments in favor of performing ND only for patients who have evidence of residual neck disease because of the very low probability of isolated neck recurrence following a complete response. Proponents argue that for complete responders, planned ND is associated with no survival benefit. As planned surgery will only benefit patients with residual disease in the neck alone, there is a high rate of unnecessary ND with its associated morbidity. Another question concerns the appropriate type of ND to be performed. Even if required after chemoradiation, selective ND is oncologically feasible with minimal morbidity. Lastly, robust data from a randomized trial demonstrating the superiority of one approach vs. the other are lacking. After conducting a review of recent literature on the subject, the authors conclude that planned ND is not necessary for patients with complete response because of the availability of improved diagnostic follow up modalities, and the increased sensitivity to CRT of HNSCC, particularly HPV associated tumors., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)