Search

ObjectivesInduction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by definitive treatment is an accepted non-surgical approach for locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). However, ICT remains a challenge for cisplatin-unfit patients. We evaluated paclitaxel and cetuximab (P-C) as ICT in a cohort of LA-HNSCC patients unfit for cisplatin. Materials and MethodsThis is a retrospective analysis of patients with newly diagnosed LA-HNSCC considered unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (age >70 and/or ECOG >= 2 and/or comorbidities) treated with weekly P-C followed by definitive radiotherapy and cetuximab (RT-C) between 2010 and 2017. Toxicity and objective response rate (ORR) to ICT and RT-C were collected. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine baseline predictors of OS and PFS. ResultsA total of 57 patients were included. Grade 3-4 toxicity rate to ICT was 54.4%, and there was a death deemed treatment-related (G5). P-C achieved an ORR of 66.7%, including 12.3% of complete responses (CR). After P-C, 45 patients (78.9%) continued with concomitant RT-C. Twenty-six patients (45.6%) achieved a CR after definitive treatment. With a median follow-up of 21.7 months (range 1.2-94.6), median OS and PFS were 22.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. The estimated 2-year OS and PFS rates were 48.9% and 33.7%, respectively. Disease stage had a negative impact on OS (stage IVb vs. III-IVa: HR = 2.55 [1.08-6.04], p = 0.03), with a trend towards worse PFS (HR = 1.92 [0.91-4.05], p = 0.09). Primary tumor in the larynx was associated with improved PFS but not OS (HR = 0.45 [0.22-0.92], p = 0.03, and HR = 0.69 [0.32-1.54], p = 0.37, respectively). ConclusionP-C was a well-tolerated and active ICT regimen in this cohort of LA-HNSCC patients unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy. P-C might represent a valid ICT option for unfit patients and may aid patient selection for definitive treatment.

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is distinct from other cancers of the head and neck in biology, epidemiology, histology, natural history, and response to treatment. Radiotherapy (RT) is the cornerstone of locoregional treatment of non-disseminated disease and the association of chemotherapy improves the rates of survival. In the case of metastatic disease stages, treatment requires platinum/gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and patients may achieve a long survival time.

Background The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. Methods In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. Findings As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47.4%] were women and 1822 [52.6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57-77]). 2033 (58.5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31.0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10.5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33.3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48.7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16.6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2.3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.32 [95% CI 0.19-0.61) and 28 days (0.34 [0.16-0.79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0.26 [0.17-0.46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0.17 [0.09-0.32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0.22 [0.15-0.34]) and oxygen therapy (0.24 [0.14-0.43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Interpretation Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Copyright (C) 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The clinical and biological heterogeneity of head and neck cancer (HNC) is paralleled by a plethora of different symptoms that affect the patient's quality of life. These symptoms include, for instance, pain, fatigue, nutritional issues, airways obstruction, voice alterations and psychological distress. In addition, patients with HNC are prone to a high risk of infection, and may also suffer from acute complications, such as hypercalcemia, spine compression by bone metastasis or bleeding. Prolonging survival is also an inherent expectation for all patients. Addressing the above needs is crucial in all patients with HNC, and especially in those with recurrent and/or metastatic (RM) disease. However, research on how to address patients' needs in RM-HNC remains scarce. This paper defines patients' needs for RM HNC and presents an Expert Opinion on how to address them, proposing also some lines of research.

Background Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14.0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting. Methods This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m(2) on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m(2) weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m(2) was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m(2) on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m(2) weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m(2) cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695. Findings Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34.4 months (IQR 26.6-44.8) in the TPEx group and 30.2 months (25.5-45.3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14.5 months [95% CI 12.5-15.7] in the TPEx group and 13.4 months [12.2-15.4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.74-1.08]; p=0.23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p

The SARS-Cov-2 pandemic significantly impacted on oncology practice across the globe. There is uncertainty as to the contribution of patients' demographics and oncological features on severity and mortality from Covid-19 and little guidance as to the role of anti-cancer and anti-Covid-19 therapy in this population. In a multi-center study of 890 cancer patients with confirmed Covid-19 we demonstrated a worsening gradient of mortality from breast cancer to haematological malignancies and showed that male gender, older age, and number of co-morbidities identifies a subset of patients with significantly worse mortality rates from Covid-19. Provision of chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy did not worsen mortality. Exposure to antimalarials was associated with improved mortality rates independent of baseline prognostic factors. This study highlights the clinical utility of demographic factors for individualized risk-stratification of patients and support further research into emerging anti-Covid-19 therapeutics in SARS-Cov-2 infected cancer patients.

Background Overcoming resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in patients with KRAS wildtype (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) could help meet the needs of patients with limited treatment options. Methods In this phase 1b study, patients with N/KRAS WT, MET-positive mCRC who had progressed following anti-EGFR mAb treatment received escalating oral doses of capmatinib (150, 300, and 400 mg) twice daily plus weekly intravenous cetuximab (at the approved dose). The primary objective was to establish a recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of capmatinib in combination with cetuximab. Safety, preliminary activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were also explored. Results Thirteen patients were enrolled. No patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity at investigated doses; the RDE was established as capmatinib 400 mg twice daily plus cetuximab. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs) suspected to be related to the study treatment. Five patients (38.5%) reported study-drug-related AEs of grade 3/4 in severity. No patients achieved a complete or partial response according to RECIST v1.1; however, tumor shrinkage of 29-44% was observed in 4 patients. Conclusions Capmatinib plus cetuximab was well tolerated. Preliminary signs of activity were observed. Further investigation is warranted to obtain efficacy data and refine predictive biomarkers of response. Clinical trial registration NCT02205398.

Background: Pembrolizumab is active in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression associated with improved response. Methods: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031. Findings: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45–0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64–0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71–1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63–0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45–0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53–0·80], p

Homologous recombination (HR) is a DNA repair pathway that is deficient in 50% of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOC). Deficient HR (DHR) constitutes a therapeutic opportunity for these patients, thanks to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi; olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib are already commercialized). Although initially, PARPi were developed for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, robust clinical data have shown their benefit in a broader population without DHR. This breakthrough in daily practice has raised several questions that necessitate further research: How can populations that will most benefit from PARPi be selected? At which stage of ovarian cancer should PARPi be used? Which strategies are reasonable to overcome PARPi resistance? In this paper, we present a summary of the literature and discuss the present clinical research involving PARPi (after reviewing ClinicalTrials.gov) from a translational perspective. Research into the functional biomarkers of DHR and clinical trials testing PARPi benefits as first-line setting or rechallenge are currently ongoing. Additionally, in the clinical setting, only secondary restoring mutations of BRCA1/2 have been identified as events inducing resistance to PARPi. The clinical frequency of this and other mechanisms that have been described in preclinics is unknown. It is of great importance to study mechanisms of resistance to PARPi to guide the clinical development of drug combinations.