Search

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.)

Background: To determine safety and efficacy of single cycle induction treatment with cisplatin/docetaxel and durvalumab/tremelimumab in stage III-IVB head and neck cancer., Methods: Patients received a single cycle of cisplatin 30 mg/m² on days 1-3 and docetaxel 75 mg/m² on day 1 combined with durvalumab 1500 mg fix dose on day 5 and tremelimumab 75 mg fix dose on day 5. Patients with pathologic complete response (pCR) in the rebiopsy after induction treatment or at least 20% increase of intratumoral CD8+ cell density in the rebiopsy compared with baseline entered radioimmunotherapy with concomitant durvalumab/tremelimumab. The objective of this interim analysis was to analyze safety and efficacy of the chemoimmunotherapy-induction treatment before radioimmunotherapy., Results: A total of 57 patients were enrolled, 56 were treated. Median pretreatment intratumoral CD8+ cell density was 342 cells/mm². After induction treatment, 27 patients (48%) had a pCR in the rebiopsy and further 25 patients (45%) had a relevant increase of intratumoral CD8+ cells (median increase by a factor of 3.0). Adverse event (AE) grade 3-4 appeared in 38 patients (68%) and mainly consisted of leukopenia (43%) and infections (29%). Six patients (11%) developed grade 3-4 immune-related AE. Univariate analysis computed p16 positivity, programmed death ligand 1 immune cell area and intratumoral CD8+ cell density as predictors of pCR. On multivariable analysis, intratumoral CD8+ cell density predicted pCR independently (OR 1.0012 per cell/mm², 95% CI 1.0001 to 1.0022, p=0.016). In peripheral blood CD8+ cells, the coexpression of programmed death protein 1 significantly increased especially in patients with pCR., Conclusions: Single cycle induction treatment with cisplatin/docetaxel and durvalumab/tremelimumab is feasible and achieves a high biopsy-proven pCR rate., 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, 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); 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). 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). 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). A Hinke conflict of interest with Roche (honoraria). SS conflict of interest with Strycker (stock); Varian (stock); Abbot (stock); Crispr Techn. (stock); Pfizer (stock); Merck Serono (stock); Symrise (stock); Ortho (honoraria, advisory role, speakers’ bureau, research funding, travel expenses); PharmaMar (speakers’ bureau, travel expenses); Haema (speakers’ bureau). A Hartmann 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). USG conflict of interest with AstraZeneca (advisory role, research funding); BMS (advisory role); MSD (research funding); Sennewald Medizintechnik (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)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The response to induction chemotherapy (IC) predicts local control after conservative treatment of laryngeal, meso- and hypopharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and can thus help to avoid surgery. Single-cycle induction chemotherapy may help to maintain a low local recurrence rate while keeping the overall toxicity manageable. However, long-term data on single-cycle IC response by tumor location is lacking., Methods: N = 102 patients with functionally inoperable primary HNSCC of the larynx (n = 43), hypopharynx (n = 42) or mesopharynx/tongue (n = 17) received one cycle of docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 , d1) plus cisplatin (30 mg/m 2 , d1-3) or carboplatin (AUC 1.5, d1-3) and a response evaluation 3 weeks later. Responders (≥ 30% tumor size reduction and ≥ 20% SUVmax decrease in 18 F-FDG PET/CT) were recommended chemoradiotherapy (CRT), and non-responders surgery., Results: The overall response rate was 72.5%. All 74 responders and 10 non-responders received primary CRT, and 18 patients received primary surgery after single-cycle IC. Overall 10-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was 73.7%. Three-year LRFS was 88.2% (mesopharynx/tongue), 88.2% (larynx), and 73.3% (hypopharynx); p = 0.17. 3-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was 94.1% (mesopharynx/tongue), 88.0% (larynx) and 76.4% (hypopharynx); p > 0.05. This influenced the 3-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) for larynx (91.2%) vs. hypopharynx tumors (60.8%); p = 0.003, but CSS was not different to tumors in the mesopharynx/tongue (81.4%); p > 0.05., Conclusions: A single-cycle induction chemotherapy for HNSCC enables surgery plus adjuvant therapy as well as chemoradiotherapy. The long-term local and distant disease control was good but varied between tumors in the larynx and mesopharynx/tongue vs. hypopharynx.

Purpose: The aim was to evaluate the outcome of treatment-naive patients with synchronous metastatic rectal cancer after chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI followed by local therapeutic procedures of all tumor lesions as complete as possible., Methods: We reviewed data of 30 patients with synchronous distant metastatic rectal cancer who underwent chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI and subsequent local therapy in our institution., Results: Median follow-up was 28 months (range: 8; 74). Cumulative overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 93.3, 76.9, 55.6% and 46.2, 29.7, 29.7% after 1, 2, 4 years. Non-response to chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI was associated with a highly significant decreased OS (p < 0.0001). The consistent use of local ablative procedures led to a statistically significant increase in OS (p < 0.0001), but not in PFS (p = 0.635). Patients with ≤ 4 distant metastases showed a better OS (p = 0.033)., Conclusions: Response to intensified first-line chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI, treatment of the primary rectal tumor, and repeated thorough local ablative procedures in patients with synchronous metastasized rectal cancer may lead to long-term survival, even in a subset of patients with unresectable disease at initial diagnosis.

Clearance of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide depends on kidney function and dosages should be adjusted in patients with renal impairment. However, there is still limited data on the adherence of physicians to dosing recommendations for these drugs in cancer patients with renal impairment. Three thousand four hundred forty-eight prescriptions to 369 patients, treated in the Comprehensive Cancer Center of a German university hospital, were retrospectively evaluated. The administered relative doses of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide were compared with relative doses recommended at the time of prescription according to the patients' creatinine clearance. Cisplatin is contraindicated according to two German summary of product characteristics (SmPC) in patients with a creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min. Nevertheless, 37 cisplatin prescriptions were made for this group of patients (i.e., 2.0% of all cisplatin prescriptions). According to one German SmPC (valid in the year of data analysis), etoposide dosage should be reduced in patients with a creatinine clearance from 15 to 50 mL/min, while it is contraindicated below 15 mL/min. Thirteen etoposide prescriptions were without dose reduction in patients with creatinine clearance from 15 to 50 mL/min (1.5% of all etoposide prescriptions); one patient received etoposide with creatinine clearance below 15 mL/min. In 8.9% of ifosfamide prescriptions, patients did not receive a reduced dose in spite of respective recommendations. Dosages of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide are not always adjusted as recommended in patients with renal impairment. Consistent international dosing recommendations (e.g., in SmPCs), preferentially included in clinical decision support systems, should be developed to tackle this problem.

Aim: To evaluate the influence of clinical, treatment- and dose-dependent factors on posttreatment swallowing function after induction chemotherapy and definitive chemoradiotherapy in a group of homogeneously treated laryngopharyngeal cancer patients., Methods: From 28 May 2008 to 15 February 2013, 45 patients with borderline inoperable laryngopharyngeal cancer that had responded well to induction chemotherapy were treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Median follow-up was 22 months. Swallowing function and clinical data were prospectively analyzed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Swallowing structures were retrospectively delineated on the original treatment planning CT. Dose-volume histograms were calculated for swallowing structures and Dmean, Dmax and V50-V64 values (in 2 Gy increments) were determined for each patient. Tumor volume and infiltration of the swallowing apparatus was defined by CT before induction chemotherapy., Results: Of the 45 patients, 26 (57.8 %) fully regained swallowing function after chemoradiotherapy. A further 12 patients (26.7 %) were able to manage soft, pureed and/or liquid foods; the remaining 7 (15.6 %) were completely dependent on percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Posttreatment swallowing function was significantly influenced by Dmean to the superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM, p = 0.041). Correlations between late dysphagia and dose-volume relationships in the superior PCM and soft palate were also observed, which were significant from V60 (p = 0.043) and V58 for the soft palate and superior PCM, respectively. Of the evaluated clinical and tumor-related factors, only alcohol abuse (p = 0.024) had an influence on posttreatment swallowing function., Conclusion: Almost 50 % of patients had deterioration of swallowing function after definitive chemoradiotherapy for laryngopharyngeal cancer. The dose to anatomical structures responsible for swallowing function appears to play a role. Therefore, in selected patients, target volume delineation for radiotherapy of laryngopharyngeal cancer should be optimized on an individual basis to spare the swallowing apparatus.

Purpose: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is standard treatment for advanced head and neck cancer. Whether short induction chemotherapy (ICT) provides additional benefit or, in particular, predictive benefit for the response to chemoradiotherapy is an open question. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of induction with docetaxel and platinum salt (TP) and subsequent CRT., Patients and Methods: A total of 25 patients with functionally inoperable cancer of the base of the tongue, hypopharynx, or larynx received 1 cycle of docetaxel (75 mg/m², day 1) combined with either cisplatin (30 mg/m², days 1-3; n = 23) or carboplatin (AUC 1.5 days 1-3; n = 2). Responders (n = 22, >30% tumor reduction, graded by endoscopy) and 1 non-responder received CRT (target dose: 69-72 Gy) with cisplatin/paclitaxel, carboplatin/paclitaxel, or cisplatin/docetaxel., Results: All patients completed ICT with acceptable toxicity (leukocytopenia grade 4: 8%). The remission rate of the primary tumor was 88% (22/25 patients). There was no need to delay CRT due to toxicity in any case. Each patient received the full radiation dose. Of the patients, 56% received >80% of the chemotherapy. The acute toxicity of CRT was moderate, no grade 4 toxicities occurred, while grade 3 toxicities included the following: infection (39%), dermatitis (13%), leukocytopenia (30%), and thrombocytopenia (4%). The local control rate was 84.6% ± 8.5% and the survival rate was 89.6% ± 7.2% at 12 months. Organ preservation was possible in 22/23 (95%) cases., Conclusion: Short induction with a TP regimen and subsequent CRT with a taxan is feasible and associated with an encouraging local control rate.

Background and Purpose: Although poor-risk patients represent no minority in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is little experience with concurrent radiochemotherapy (RCT) in this group. Here, the authors report on the feasibility and efficacy of RCT with vinorelbine plus carboplatin or cisplatin in NSCLC patients with comorbidities and poor general health or advanced age., Patients and Methods: A total of 66 patients (ten women, 56 men, median age 68 years) with inoperable NSCLC and an increased risk of treatment side effects (WHO performance score of 2-3; cardiac, pulmonary or renal failure or extensive weight loss before treatment, or an age of 71-78 years) were treated with vinorelbine 12.5 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, 29, 36, and 43 in combination with either carboplatin 70 mg/m(2) (n = 59) or cisplatin 20 mg/m(2) (n = 7) on days 1-5 and 29-33 in addition to receiving conventional fractionated radiotherapy with doses of up to 63 Gy (90% isodose)., Results: 62 of 66 patients (94%) reached the 90% level of the prescribed radiation dose, and 41/66 patient (62%) received at least two cycles of the platinum compound and four cycles of vinorelbine. The following hematologic side effects (CTC classification [Common Toxicity Criteria]) were observed: grade 3 (12%) and grade 4 (15%) thrombocytopenia, grade 3 (38%) and grade 4 (4%) leukocytopenia, and anemia requiring transfusion (26%). Other side effects (CTC) included grade 3 (3%) and grade 4 (2%) esophagitis and grade 3 pneumonitis (3%). The response rates were as follows: complete remission 18%, partial remission 56%, stable disease 21%, and progressive disease 5%. The cumulative survival rates were 53%, 24%, and 8% at 12 months, 24 months, and 5 years, respectively., Conclusion: After including a larger group of patients than in 2003 and following the patients for several years, the authors determine that concurrent RCT consisting of vinorelbine plus a platinum compound and conventional fractionated radiotherapy can be carried out with manageable toxicity, even in this negatively selected population of patients. Their survival rates were comparable to those achieved in other studies with simultaneous RCT.

Introduction: Early radiotherapy concurrent with chemotherapy appears to have prognostic benefits in patients with limited disease SCLC. Irinotecan/cisplatin have been shown to be superior to a standard treatment with etoposide/cisplatin in extensive disease SCLC. The present phase I study aims to assess the feasibility of irinotecan/cisplatin administered concurrently with radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: Twelve patients were treated concurrently with conventional fractionated radiotherapy (1.8-45 Gy + 9 Gy (RP)) and two cycles of irinotecan (40/50/60 mg/m2, Day 1/8/15, 29/36/43) and cisplatin (20 mg/m2, Days 1-3, 29-31), and four cycles of consolidation chemotherapy (CT). In addition, patients in complete remission (CR) received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as any case grade III/IV non-hematological toxicity (esophagitis grade IV), grade IV leukopenia or grades III/IV thrombopenia (CTC) during RCT., Results: No DLT was observed; an irinotecan dose of 60 mg/m2 is recommended. 3/12 patients developed grade III leukopenia, one grade II pneumonitis. The predominant toxicity was esophagitis, grade II in 7/12 patients, grade III in 5/12. After RCT 7/12 patients were in CR, systemic progression was not observed during RCT., Conclusion: Concurrent RCT with irinotecan (60 mg/m2) and cisplatin followed by four cycles of CT can be safely administered.

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy has improved survival in inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase I trial was performed in order to establish a dose recommendation for oral vinorelbine in combination with cisplatin and simultaneous radiotherapy., Patients and Methods: Previously untreated patients with stage IIIB NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiotherapy with 66 Gy and 2 cycles of cisplatin and oral vinorelbine which was administered at 3 different levels (40, 50 and 60 mg/m2). This was to be followed by 2 cycles of cisplatin/ vinorelbine oral consolidation chemotherapy. The study goal was to determine the maximal recommended dose of oral vinorelbine during concurrent treatment., Results: 11 stage IIIB patients were entered into the study. The median radiotherapy dose was 66 Gy. Grade 3-4 toxicity included neutropenia, esophagitis, gastritis and febrile neutropenia. The dose-limiting toxicity for concurrent chemoradiotherapy was esophagitis. 9 patients received consolidation chemotherapy, with neutropenia and anemia/thrombocytopenia grade 3 being the only toxicities. The overall response was 73%., Conclusion: Oral vinorelbine 50 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15 over 4 weeks) in combination with cisplatin 20 mg/m2 (days 1-4) is the recommended dose in combination with radiotherapy (66 Gy) and will be used for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in a forthcoming phase III trial testing the efficacy of consolidation chemotherapy in patients not progressing after chemoradiotherapy.