Search

Background: Current standard treatment concepts in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are based on former studies using 2D and 3D treatment plans. However, modern radiation techniques allow for a more precise and individual dose application. Therefore, in a clearly defined patient population, de-intensified risk-adapted radiation is investigated., Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed HNSCC after surgery (with resection margins ≥1 mm and cM0) with the following tumor stages (TNM 7th Edition) were eligible for the study: oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx: pT1-3, pN0-pN2b; hypopharynx: pT1-2, pN1. The patients should have either a low risk of local recurrence [≤pT2, resection margin ≥5 mm, no peritumoral lymphangiosis (L0), and no perineural invasion] or contralateral lymph node metastasis (≤3 ipsilateral lymph node metastases, in case of well-lateralized oropharyngeal or oral cavity cancer contralateral cN0, otherwise pN0). Patients were assigned to three different treatment regimes with reduction of the treated volume, radiation dose, or both, according to tumor stage and results of surgery performed. The primary objective was to show an LRR of <10% after 2 years., Findings: A total of 150 patients were enrolled. Tumor localizations were as follows: n = 53 (35.3%), oral cavity; n = 94 (62.7%), oropharynx (82% HPV-positive); n = 2 (1.3%), hypopharynx; and n = 1 (0.7%), larynx. A total of 61 patients (41.0%) were stage IVA, 81 (54.0%) were stage III, and 8 (5.3%) were stage II. Median follow-up was 36 months. Cumulative incidence of 2y-LRR was 5.6% (95% CI: 1.7%-9.2%) in the whole study population and 14.1% (95% CI: 3.8%-23.2%) in patients with oral cavity cancer. Cumulative incidence of 2y-LRR in non-irradiated or dose-reduced regions was 3.5% (95% CI: 0.4%-6.5%). After 2 years, disease-free survival was 92% (95% CI: 87%-96%) and overall survival was 94% (95% CI: 90%-98%) for the complete study cohort. Acute III° toxicity was as follows: dysphagia, 30%; xerostomia, 7%; mucositis, 19%; and dermatitis, 4%. Dysphagia and xerostomia decrease over time. After 27 months, late dysphagia III° and xerostomia II° were 1% and 9%, respectively., Interpretation: The study met its primary objective. De-intensification of postoperative radiotherapy irrespective of HPV status in a predefined patient population is associated with a favorable toxicity profile without compromising LRR. In an unplanned subgroup analysis, a significantly increased risk of LRR was observed in patients with oral cavity cancer. In these patients, de-intensified radiotherapy should be applied with caution., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Haderlein, von der Grün, Balermpas, Rödel, Hautmann, Steger, Bohr, Hehr, Stromberger, Budach, Schymalla, Engenhart-Cabillic, Kocik, Geinitz, Nestle, Klautke, Scherl, Gall, Frey, Schubert, Semrau, Ott, Kesting, Iro, Mueller and Fietkau.)

Purpose: Individual prediction of treatment response is crucial for personalized treatment in multimodal approaches against head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). So far, no reliable predictive parameters for treatment schemes containing immunotherapy have been identified. This study aims to predict treatment response to induction chemo-immunotherapy based on the peripheral blood immune status in patients with locally advanced HNSCC., Methods: The peripheral blood immune phenotype was assessed in whole blood samples in patients treated in the phase II CheckRad-CD8 trial as part of the pre-planned translational research program. Blood samples were analyzed by multicolor flow cytometry before (T1) and after (T2) induction chemo-immunotherapy with cisplatin/docetaxel/durvalumab/tremelimumab. Machine Learning techniques were used to predict pathological complete response (pCR) after induction therapy., Results: The tested classifier methods (LDA, SVM, LR, RF, DT, and XGBoost) allowed a distinct prediction of pCR. Highest accuracy was achieved with a low number of features represented as principal components. Immune parameters obtained from the absolute difference (lT2-T1l) allowed the best prediction of pCR. In general, less than 30 parameters and at most 10 principal components were needed for highly accurate predictions. Across several datasets, cells of the innate immune system such as polymorphonuclear cells, monocytes, and plasmacytoid dendritic cells are most prominent., Conclusions: Our analyses imply that alterations of the innate immune cell distribution in the peripheral blood following induction chemo-immuno-therapy is highly predictive for pCR in HNSCC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M.H. conflict of interest with Merck Serono (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, research funding); MSD (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, research funding); AstraZeneca (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, research funding); Novartis (research funding); BMS (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, research funding); Teva (travel expenses); Sanofi (advisory role, honoraria). M.E. conflict of interest with Diaceutics (employment, honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, travel expenses); Cepheid (research funding, advisory role); AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, travel expenses); Roche (honoraria, travel expenses); MSD (honoraria, speakers’ bureau); GenomicHealth (honoraria, advisory role, speakers bureau, travel expenses); Astellas (honoraria, speakers’ bureau); Janssen-Cilag (honoraria, advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Stratifyer (research funding, patents). G.K. conflict of interest with BMS (advisory role); Lilly (advisory role); Roche (advisory role) S.L. conflict of interest with AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role); BMS (honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau); MSD (honoraria, advisory role); Merck Serono (honoraria, speakers’ bureau); ISA-Pharmaceuticals (research funding) M.G.H. conflict of interest with Roche (stock); Varian (stock); Sanofi (stock); AstraZeneca (honoraria); BMS (honoraria, advisory role); MSD (honoraria, advisory role); Merck Serono (honoraria); Celgene (honoraria). B.T. conflict of interest with BMS (advisory role, honoraria); Merck Serono (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria); MSD (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria); Sanofi (advisory role, honoraria). A.Hi. conflict of interest with Roche (honoraria). A.H. conflict of interest with BMS (honoraria, advisory role); MSD (honoraria, advisory role); Roche (honoraria, advisory role, research funding); AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role, research funding); Boehringer Ingelheim (honoraria); Abbvie (honoraria); Cepheid (advisory role, research funding); Quiagen (advisory role); Janssen-Cilag (honoraria, advisory role, research funding); Ipsen (honoraria, advisory role); NanoString Technologies (advisory role, research funding, expert testimony); Illumina (advisory role); 3DHistech (advisory role); Diaceutics (advisory role); BioNTech (research funding). W.B. conflict of interest with BMS (advisory role); MSD (advisory role); Merck Serono (advisory role); Pfitzer (advisory role); AstraZeneca (advisory role). U.S.G. conflict of interest with AstraZeneca (advisory role, research funding); BMS (advisory role); MSD (research funding); MedUpdate (literature research and presentation activities), Dr. Sennewald Medizintechnik (travel expenses and advisory role), Merck (presentation activities). R.F. conflict of interest with MSD (honoraria, advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Fresenius (honoraria); BrainLab (honoraria); AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Merck Serono (advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Novocure (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, research funding); Sennewald (speakers’ bureau, travel expenses). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. All other not listed authors do not have a conflict of Interest, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Updated report about the randomized comparison of the effect of radiotherapy on painful osteoarthritis (OA) applying a standard dose vs. a very low dose regime after a follow-up of 1 year., Patients and Methods: Patients presenting with OA of the hand/finger and knee joints were included. After randomization (every joint region was randomized separately) the following protocols were applied: (a) standard arm: total dose 3.0 Gy, single fractions of 0.5 Gy twice a week; (b) experimental arm: total dose 0.3 Gy, single fractions of 0.05 Gy twice a week. The dosage was blinded for the patients. For evaluation the scores after 1‑year visual analog scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Short Form (KOOS-PS), Short Form Score for the Assessment and Quantification of Chronic Rheumatic Affections of the Hands (SF-SACRAH) and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) were used (for further details: see [1])., Results: The standard dose was applied to 77 hands and 33 knees, the experimental dose was given to 81 hands and 30 knees. After 12 months, the data of 128 hands and 45 knees were available for evaluation. Even after this long time, we observed a favorable response of pain to radiotherapy in both trial arms; however, there were no reasonable statistically significant differences between both arms concerning pain, functional, and quality of life scores. Side effects did not occur. The only prognostic factor was the pain level before radiotherapy., Conclusions: We found a favorable pain relief and a limited response in the functional and quality of life scores in both treatment arms. The possible effect of low doses such as 0.3 Gy on pain is widely unknown., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Most of the patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are diagnosed with locally advanced disease. Standards of care for curative-intent treatment of this patient group are either surgery and adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy (aRCT) or definitive chemoradiation. Despite these treatments, especially pathologically intermediate and high-risk HNSCC often recur. The ADRISK trial investigates in locally advanced HNSCC and intermediate and high risk after up-front surgery if the addition of pembrolizumab to aRCT with cisplatin improves event-free sur-vival compared to aRCT alone. ADRISK is a prospective, randomized controlled investiga-tor-initiated (IIT)-phase II multicenter trial within the German Interdisciplinary Study Group of German Cancer Society (IAG-KHT). Patients with primary resectable stage III and IV HNSCC of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx with pathologic high (R1, extracapsular nodal extension) or intermediate risk (R0 <5 mm; N≥2) after surgery will be eligible. Two hun-dred forty patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to either standard aRCT with cisplatin (standard arm) or aRCT with cisplatin + pembrolizumab (200 mg iv, in 3-week cycle, max. 12 months) (interventional arm). Endpoints are event-free and overall survival. Recruitment started in August 2018 and is ongoing., Competing Interests: SW declares remuneration for scientific presentations or participation on Advisory Boards for MSD, BMS, Merck Serono, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, GSK. FL reports grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Gilead paid to his institution. Consulting fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Servier; payment or honoraria for educational lectures and seminars from Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Elsevier, Incyte, Lilly, Medscape, Medupdate GmbH, Merck KGaA, Merck Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Roche, Servier, Springer-Nature, and Streamedup! Support for attending meetings or travel from Roche and Bristol Myers Squibb. PB was participant in Advisory Boards for BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca and Amgen, received honoraria for lectures from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca and Novartis and research support from BMS. GM: Honoraria for lectures from AMGEN, Gilead, Merck-Serono and Janssen-Cilag. Member of Guideline Writing Committees: German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology, German Cancer Society. GH reports honoraria from MSD advisory role, BMS advisory role, Roche advisory role. BT reports honoraria from BMS advisory role. Merck Serono advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria. MSD advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria. Sanofi advisory role. AD reports remuneration for scientific presentations and participation on Advisory Boards for Merck Serono, Roche, Astra Zeneca, MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Norgine, Nanobiotix and GSK and research support from Roche, Merck Serono and MSD. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wiegand, Wichmann, Vogt, Vogel, Franke, Kuhnt, Lordick, Scheuble, Hambsch, Brossart, Bauernfeind, Kaftan, Maschmeyer, Paland, Münter, Lewitzki, Rotter, Stromberger, Beck, Dommerich, Gauler, Hapke, Guntinas-Lichius, Schröder, Görner, Hautmann, Steger, Tamaskovics, Schmiedeknecht and Dietz.)

Aim: In the CheckRad-CD8 trial patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer are treated with a single cycle of induction chemo-immunotherapy (ICIT). Patients with pathological complete response (pCR) in the re-biopsy enter radioimmunotherapy. Our goal was to study the value of F-18-FDG PET/CT in the prediction of pCR after induction therapy., Methods: Patients treated within the CheckRad-CD8 trial that additionally received FDG- PET/CT imaging at the following two time points were included: 3-14 days before (pre-ICIT) and 21-28 days after (post-ICIT) receiving ICIT. Tracer uptake in primary tumors (PT) and suspicious cervical lymph nodes (LN +) was measured using different quantitative parameters on EANM Research Ltd (EARL) accredited PET reconstructions. In addition, mean FDG uptake levels in lymphatic and hematopoietic organs were examined. Percent decrease (Δ) in FDG uptake was calculated for all parameters. Biopsy of the PT post-ICIT acquired after FDG-PET/CT served as reference. The cohort was divided in patients with pCR and residual tumor (ReTu)., Results: Thirty-one patients were included. In ROC analysis, ΔSUVmax PT performed best (AUC = 0.89) in predicting pCR (n = 17), with a decline of at least 60% (sensitivity, 0.77; specificity, 0.93). Residual SUVmax PT post-ICIT performed best in predicting ReTu (n = 14), at a cutpoint of 6.0 (AUC = 0.91; sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.88). Combining two quantitative parameters (ΔSUVmax ≥ 50% and SUVmax PT post-ICIT ≤ 6.0) conferred a sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.93 for determining pCR. Background activity in lymphatic organs or uptake in suspected cervical lymph node metastases lacked significant predictive value., Conclusion: FDG-PET/CT can identify patients with pCR after ICIT via residual FDG uptake levels in primary tumors and the related changes compared to baseline. FDG-uptake in LN + had no predictive value., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03426657., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Randomized comparison of the effect of radiotherapy on painful osteoarthritis (OA) applying a standard-dose vs. a very-low-dose regime PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with OA of the hand and knee joints were included. Further inclusion criteria: symptoms for more than 3 months, favorable general health status, age above 40 years. Patients with prior local radiotherapy, trauma, rheumatoid arthritis, or vascular diseases were excluded. After randomization (every joint was randomized separately), the following protocols were applied: standard arm: total dose 3.0 Gy, single fractions of 0.5 Gy twice weekly; experimental arm: total dose 0.3 Gy, single fractions of 0.05 Gy twice weekly. The dosage was not known to the patients. The patients were examined 3 and 12 months after radiotherapy. Scores like VAS (visual analogue scale), KOOS-SF (the knee injugy and osteoarthritis outcome score), SF-SACRAH (short form score for the assessment and quantification of chronic rheumatic affections of the hands), and SF-12 (short form 12) were used., Results: A total of 64 knees and 172 hands were randomized. 3.0 Gy was applied to 87 hands and 34 knees, 0.3 Gy was given to 85 hands and 30 knees. After 3 months, we observed good pain relief after 3 Gy and after 0.3 Gy, there was no statistically significant difference. Side effects were not recorded. The trial was closed prematurely due to slow recruitment., Conclusion: We found favorable pain relief and a limited response in the functional and quality of life scores in both arms. The effect of low doses such as 0.3 Gy on pain is widely unknown. Further trials are necessary to compare a conventional dose to placebo and to further explore the effect of low doses on inflammatory disorders., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The first aim of the trial is to study feasibility of combined programmed death protein ligand 1/cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibition concomitant to radiotherapy. In addition, efficacy of the entire treatment scheme consisting of induction chemoimmunotherapy followed by chemotherapy-free radioimmunotherapy (RIT) after intratumoral CD8 +immune cell-based patient selection will be analyzed., Methods: Patients with stage III-IVB head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were eligible for this multicenter phase II trial. Treatment consisted of a single cycle of cisplatin 30 mg/m² days 1-3, docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1, durvalumab 1500 mg fix dose day 5 and tremelimumab 75 mg fix dose day 5. Patients with increased intratumoral CD8 +immune cell density or pathological complete response (pCR) in the rebiopsy entered RIT up to a total dose of 70 Gy. Patients received further three cycles of durvalumab/tremelimumab followed by eight cycles of durvalumab mono (every 4 weeks). The intended treatment for patients not meeting these criteria was standard radiochemotherapy outside the trial. Primary endpoint was a feasibility rate of patients entering RIT to receive treatment until at least cycle 6 of immunotherapy of ≥80%., Results: Between September 2018 and May 2020, 80 patients were enrolled (one excluded). Out of these, 23 patients had human papilloma virus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Median follow-up was 17.2 months. After induction chemoimmunotherapy 41 patients had pCR and 31 had increased intratumoral CD8 +immune cells. Of 60 patients entering RIT (primary endpoint cohort), 10 experienced imiting toxic (mainly hepatitis) and four discontinued for other reasons, resulting in a feasibility rate of 82%. The RIT cohort (n=60) had a progression-free survival (PFS) rate at one and 2 years of 78% and 72%, respectively, and an overall survival rate at one and 2 years of 90% and 84%, respectively. Patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers had greater benefit from RIT with a 2-year PFS rate of 94% compared with 64% for HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers and other locations. In the entire study cohort (n=79) the 2-year PFS rate was 68% (91% for HPV-positive oropharynx vs 59% for others). Toxicity grade 3-4 mainly consisted of dysphagia (53%), leukopenia (52%) and infections (32%)., Conclusions: The trial met the primary endpoint feasibility of RIT. Induction chemo-immunotherapy followed by chemotherapy-free RIT after intratumoral CD8 +immune cell-based patient selection has promising PFS., Trial Registration Number: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03426657). The trial was conducted as investigator-sponsored trial (IST)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MH conflict of interest with Merck Serono (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, research funding); MSD (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, honoraria, travel expenses, research funding); AstraZeneca (research funding); Novartis (research funding); BMS (advisory role, honoraria, speakers’ bureau); Teva (travel expenses). ME conflict of interest with Diaceutics (employment, honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, travel expenses); Cepheid (research funding, advisory role); AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, travel expenses); Roche (honoraria, travel expenses); MSD (honoraria, speakers’ bureau); GenomicHealth (honoraria, advisory role, speakers bureau, travel expenses); Astellas (honoraria, speakers’ bureau); Janssen-Cilag (honoraria, advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Stratifyer (research funding, patents). SR conflict of interest with AstraZeneca (research funding); MSD (research funding). GK conflict of interest with BMS (advisory role); Lilly (advisory role); Roche (advisory role). SL conflict of interest with AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role); BMS (honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau); MSD (honoraria, advisory role); Merck Serono (honoraria, speakers’ bureau); ISA-Pharmaceuticals (research funding). MGH conflict of interest with Roche (stock); Varian (stock); Sanofi (stock); AstraZeneca (honoraria); BMS (honoraria, advisory role); MSD (honoraria, advisory role); Merck Serono (honoraria); Celgene (honoraria). AHi conflict of interest with Roche (honoraria). SS conflict of interest with Strycker (stock); Varian (stock); Abbot (stock); Crispr Techn. (stock); Pfitzer (stock); Merck Serono (stock); Symrise (stock); Ortho (honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, research funding, travel expenses); PharmaMar (speakers’ bureau, travel expenses); Haema (speakers’ bureau). AHa. conflict of interest with BMS (honoraria, advisory role); MSD (honoraria, advisory role); Roche (honoraria, advisory role, research funding); AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role, research funding); Boehringer Ingelheim (honoraria); Abbvie (honoraria); Cepheid (advisory role, research funding); Quiagen (advisory role); Janssen-Cilag (honoraria, advisory role, research funding); Ipsen (honoraria, advisory role); NanoString Technologies (advisory role, research funding, expert testimony); Illumina (advisory role); 3DHistech (advisory role); Diaceutics (advisory role); BioNTech (research funding). WB conflict of interest with BMS (advisory role); MSD (advisory role); Merck Serono (advisory role); Pfitzer (advisory role); AstraZeneca (advisory role). UG conflict of interest with AstraZeneca (advisory role, research funding); BMS (advisory role); MSD (research funding); Sennewald Medizintechnik (advisory role, travel expenses). RF conflict of interest with MSD (honoraria, advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Fresenius (honoraria); BrainLab (honoraria); AstraZeneca (honoraria, advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Merck Serono (advisory role, research funding, travel expenses); Novocure (advisory role, speakers’ bureau, research funding); Sennewald (speakers’ bureau, travel expenses). The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)