cetuximab

Expert says Nivolumab Poised to Change Standard of Care in SCCHN

Source: www.onclive.com
Author: Laura Panjwani

Robert-Ferris

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is a game-changing agent for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), according to Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD.

“Recent findings have shown us that this agent is really the new standard-of-care option for all platinum-refractory patients with head and neck cancer,” says Ferris, vice chair for Clinical Operations, associate director for Translational Research, and co-leader of the Cancer Immunology Program at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. “This is regardless of whether patients are PD-L1–positive or negative or whether they are HPV-positive or negative.”

The PD-L1 inhibitor received a priority review designation by the FDA in July 2016 based on the CheckMate-141 study, which demonstrated a median overall survival (OS) with nivolumab of 7.5 months compared with 5.1 months with investigator’s choice of therapy (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P = .0101) in patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 13.3% with nivolumab and 5.8% for investigator’s choice. The FDA is scheduled to make a decision on the application for the PD-1 inhibitor by November 11, 2016, as part of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

Ferris was the lead author on an analysis that further evaluated preliminary data from CheckMate-141, which was presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting. In an interview with OncLive, he discusses the findings of this study, potential biomarkers for nivolumab, and questions that remain regarding the use of the immunotherapy in SCCHN.

OncLive: What were the updated findings from CheckMate-141 presented at ASCO?

Ferris: The data that were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting were further evaluations and follow-up on some preliminary data—originally presented at the 2016 AACR Annual Meeting—that listed the OS results.

At ASCO, we recapped the primary endpoint of OS as an important endpoint for immunotherapies because response rate and progression-free survival may not be as accurate. Ultimately, the FDA and people at large want OS. In this study, OS was 36% at 1 year in the nivolumab-treated arm and 16.6% in the comparator arm, which was investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy, consisting of methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab. In this phase III randomized trial, nivolumab was given in a 2:1 randomization: 240 patients received nivolumab and 120 received investigator’s choice.

Also at ASCO, we presented further evaluations consisting of what the regimens are in the comparator arm. There was about 20% each of docetaxel and methotrexate and 12% of cetuximab. Approximately 60% of the patients had prior cetuximab exposure and we stratified by cetuximab as a prior therapy. We also demonstrated the ORR, which was 13.3% in the nivolumab-treated arm versus 5.8% in the investigator’s choice arm.

Therefore, there was an improvement in overall response, but the difference seemed more modest than the OS benefit—which was a doubling—with 20% more patients alive at 1 year. This reinforces the concept that perhaps response rate may not be the best endpoint. Progression-free survival (PFS) was double at 6 months, with about 20% in the nivolumab arm versus about 9.9% in the investigator’s choice arm. The median PFS was not different, but the 6-month PFS was twice as high. The time to response was about 2 months in each arm at the first assessment.

Your analysis also looked at biomarkers. Can you discuss these findings and their significance?

The p16 or HPV-positive group had a better hazard ratio for OS than the overall study population. The hazard ratio was .73 for the overall population, using a preplanned interim analysis. With the HPV-positive group, we had a hazard ratio of .55 and the HPV-negative group had a hazard ratio of .99. It is still favoring the nivolumab-treated patients but, with the curves separated earlier in the HPV-positive group, one could see the improvement with nivolumab at about 1 to 2 months. It took 7 or 8 months with the HPV-negative group to show a separation of the curves in favor of nivolumab.

We looked at PD-L1 levels, and PD-L1—using a 1% or above level—had an improvement in the PD-L1–positive patients in favor of nivolumab in terms of OS and ORR. When we looked at 5% and 10% thresholds of PD-L1, the OS did not seem to improve. Therefore, in all levels above 1%, the OS was similarly beneficial over the PD-L1 less-than-1% group. However, essentially all levels of PD-L1–positivity and PD-L1–negativity still favored nivolumab, but the benefit was more when its levels were greater than 1%.

We could combine HPV status with PD-L1 status and look at subsets; however, essentially every subset benefited, whether it was PD-L1–negative or positive. This indicates that, in this group of patients, who progress within 6 months of platinum-based therapy, that no current systemic therapeutic options benefit patients as well as nivolumab.

With regard to these findings, what are you most excited about?

Head and neck cancer is a difficult disease. Until recently, we didn’t know the impact of this enrichment for HPV-positive virus-induced subsets and we didn’t know if this was an immune responsive cancer. Clearly, it is. We have all of the hallmarks that we have seen for a bright future—based on the melanoma data—and a series of other cancers indicating response rates in the 15% to 20% range, suggesting that we now have a platform of the PD-1 pathway to combine with other checkpoints and to integrate earlier in disease with radiation and chemotherapy.

We have a demonstration of head and neck cancer as an immune-responsive cancer. We are beginning to get an idea of the biomarkers and starting to be able to segment patients who will benefit. Now, we have a large comparative trial with an OS endpoint and tissue to look at biomarkers to try and understand what the best future combinations will be.

What are some questions that you still hope to answer regarding nivolumab in head and neck cancer?

We have to get down deeper into the nonresponders. We should acknowledge that the majority of patients neither had a response nor benefited. Understanding who is more likely to benefit is useful, but we also need to understand the levels of alternative checkpoint receptors or other biomarkers of resistance.

We have sequential lymphocyte specimens from the peripheral blood, tissues, and serum so those are intensively under evaluation. There are interferon gamma signatures that have risen from the melanoma checkpoint field that will certainty be applied, as well.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

August, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Nivolumab Improved Survival For Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Source: www.aacr.org
Author: AACR Newsroom Staff
 

NEW ORLEANS — Treatment with the immunotherapeutic nivolumab (Opdivo) improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma that progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the investigator’s choice, according to results from the CheckMate-141 phase III clinical trial presented here at the AACR Annual Meeting 2016, April 16-20.Maura Gillison

“Recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma that is not responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy progresses very rapidly, and patients have a very poor prognosis,” said Maura L. Gillison, MD, PhD, a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute. “Treatment usually involves single-agent chemotherapy. However, no therapy has been shown to improve survival for this patient population. New treatment options are desperately needed.

“This study is the first randomized clinical trial to clearly demonstrate improved overall survival for patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” continued Gillison. “We hope that the results will establish nivolumab as a new standard of care option for this patient population and thereby fulfill a huge unmet need.”

CheckMate-141 was a randomized, phase III clinical trial designed to determine whether the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab could extend overall survival for patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma compared with treatment of the investigator’s choice, which was any of the commonly used therapeutics docetaxel, methotrexate, or cetuximab.

Of the 361 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, 240 were randomly assigned to nivolumab and 121 to single-agent chemotherapy of investigator’s choice.

At the interim analysis, which was conducted after 218 events, patients assigned to nivolumab were found to have a 30 percent reduction in risk of death compared with those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice. Median overall survival was 7.5 months for those assigned nivolumab versus 5.1 months for those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice. At 12 months, 36 percent of the patients treated with nivolumab were alive compared with 17 percent of those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice.

Because certain types of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, particularly those arising in the oropharynx (back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils), have been linked with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the investigators also evaluated the data based on the HPV status of the patients’ tumors.

The effect of nivolumab on overall survival was seen for both patients with HPV-positive disease and those with HPV-negative disease. Among patients with HPV-positive disease, median overall survival was 9.1 months for those assigned nivolumab versus 4.4 months for those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice, and among patients with HPV-negative disease, median overall survival was 7.5 months for those assigned nivolumab versus 5.8 months for those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice.

A survival benefit in patients treated with nivolumab was observed for the overall study population. Exploratory analysis suggested that the benefit was greater for patients treated with nivolumab whose tumors had PD-L1 expression (of 1 percent or greater) or were HPV-positive.

“Overall, our data are extremely exciting. This clinical trial has established head and neck squamous cell carcinoma as responsive to immunotherapy. We are hopeful that this represents the tip of the iceberg with regard to future benefit of immunotherapy for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” added Gillison.

This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Gillison’s role in the study was funded in part by the Oral Cancer Foundation. Gillison has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, and Merck in the past year.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

 

Immunotherapy Continues to Advance in Head and Neck Cancer

Source: www.onclive.com
Author: Megan Garlapow, PhD
 

Concomitant administration of motolimod with cetuximab (Erbitux) increases the innate and adaptive immune response in the blood and the tumor microenvironment in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), overcoming negative prognostic biomarkers of cetuximab therapy alone, according to the biomarker data from a recent phase Ib clinical trial that was presented at the 2016 Head and Neck Cancer Symposium. The trial was recently amended to add nivolumab to the combination of cetuximab and motolimod.

Robert-FerrisDr. Robert Ferris, MD PhD

 

“We know that PD-1 and PD-L1 are overexpressed in head and neck cancer, and so it was somewhat irresistible to combine our baseline treatment of cetuximab and motolimod with the PD-L1 inhibition pathway. EGFR itself drives PD-L1, so combining cetuximab with anti-PD-1 inhibitor makes sense. So, we’ve amended this trial. We’re now accruing to treatment with cetuximab, motolimod, and the anti–PD-L1 nivolumab in this trial,” said lead author Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, professor, Departments of Otolaryngology, Radiation Oncology, and Immunology, Cancer Immunology Program, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

According to the authors of the phase Ib data presented at the symposium, the rationale for combining cetuximab with motolimod (VTX2337) as neoadjuvant therapy was that cetuximab induces cellular immunity that correlates with neoadjuvant clinical response. The phase I dose-escalation and safety of the combination had been established (NCT 01334177).

This study of neoadjuvant cetuximab and motolimod had accrued 14 patients with HNSCC that was stage II-IV, resectable, and located in the oropharynx, oral cavity, hypopharynx, or larynx. These patients were biopsied, treated with cetuximab and motolimod for 4 weeks, and then underwent surgery. The endpoints of the trial were the modulation of immune biomarkers.

Interferon-inducible cytokine IP-10 increased after the patients were administered neoadjuvant cetuximab and motolimod (P = .0001). After the neoadjuvant treatment, the peripheral blood lymphocytes had an increased frequency of EGFR-specific CD8 T cells. After the neoadjuvant treatment, regulatory T cells had decreased suppressive receptors and transforming growth factor-β, which induces Foxp3. Also, after the neoadjuvant treatment, circulating MDSCs had decreased PD-L1 (P <.07) and macrophages had increased CD16 expression (P <.07).

After the neoadjuvant treatment with cetuximab and motolimod, genotyping of T-cell receptors showed increased clonality in peripheral blood lymphocytes (P = .003 by Wilcox signed rank test) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P = .081 by Wilcox signed rank test). Most patients are more oligoclonal than healthy individuals, and some are very clonal with highly prominent expanded clones. Genotyping of T-cell receptors found that clonality was increased by the combination of cetuximab and motolimod compared with treatment with cetuximab alone.

Recent studies have indicated that the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is upregulated in the HNSCC microenvironment, and that EGFR blockade prevents interferon-γ-mediated upregulation of PD-L1. Thus, this study has been amended to add nivolumab to the adjuvant treatment with cetuximab and motolimod. The endpoints are still the modulation of immune biomarkers.

The aim is to target the tumor microenvironment, such that tumor immune escape is reversed and T cells eliminate HNSCC. Antitumor T cells are reprogrammed to reverse inhibitory signals. Combining the toll-like receptor agonist, motolimod, with cetuximab and with PD-1 pathway inhibitors, such as nivolumab, may enhance the priming and activity of T cells.

“Targeting the tumor microenvironment requires understanding as well as reversal of immune escape mechanisms in the cellular compartment. Reprogramming antitumor T cells to reverse inhibitory signals can be done by directly disrupting those inhibitory signals, the so-called checkpoint receptor field, and can be done potentially by combining proinflammatory signals, such as toll-like receptor agonists, to chemo-attract cells into the microenvironment and to create good inflammation to overcome suppressive factors,” said Ferris.

Recent findings have shown tremendous promise for nivolumab in head and neck cancer. Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) announced in January 2016 that nivolumab improved overall survival versus investigator’s choice of therapy for patients with platinum-refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the phase III CheckMate-141 trial. Findings from the study are being discussed with the FDA and other health authorities, according to BMS.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.
February, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Immunotherapies gaining traction in head and neck cancers

Source: www.targetedonc.com
Author: Greg Kennelty

An explosion of immunotherapies is on the horizon for patients with metastatic head and neck cancer, specifically as phase III trials begin to report findings for PD-1 inhibitors. This upcoming wave of new therapies places importance on understanding optimal treatment settings and adverse events associated with these therapies.

In late January, the phase III CheckMate-141 trial investigating the anti–PD-1 agent nivolumab was stopped early, due to a substantial improvement in the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS). The drug was put up against the investigator’s choice of cetuximab (Erbitux), methotrexate, or docetaxel following progression on a platinum-based therapy.

At this time, data from the study have not yet been released but are being prepared for future presentation. Findings from the study are being discussed with the FDA and other health authorities.

In addition to nivolumab, the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda) demonstrated encouraging activity in patients with with advanced PD-L1–positive esophageal carcinoma during the phase Ib KEYNOTE-028 study. Additionally, the agent was effective for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the phase I KEYNOTE-012 study.

In the head and neck cancer population, the objective response rate with pembrolizumab was 24.8% in 117 evaluable patients. Tumor shrinkage was experienced by 56% of patients and another 25% had stable disease. The response rate seen with pembrolizumab was similar, regardless of HPV infection status. In those with HPV-positive disease, the ORR was 20.6% compared with 27.2% in the negative group.

To gain further insight, Targeted Oncology spoke with head and neck cancer expert Barbara Burtness, MD, professor of Medicine (Medical Oncology), Clinical Research Program Leader, Head and Neck Cancers Program, co-director, Developmental Therapeutics Research Program, Yale Cancer Center.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: Can you give us an overview of where immunotherapy is currently in head and neck cancer?

BURTNESS: The first trials for immunotherapy in head and neck cancer began two or three years ago and we now have sufficient reason to believe that these therapies are going to be active in the cancer. For example, there is the KEYNOTE-012 trial, which was a trial of pembrolizumab given to an expansion cohort of either HPV-positive or HPV-negative head and neck cancer. The response rate there was about 25%.

There is some reason to believe that if either PD-L1 or PD-L2 are expressed, that that would predict for a higher response rate. There are now phase III trials going forward for both platinum-refractory disease and for first-line patients looking at pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy.

There are also data with MEDI4736, which if a patient is expressing PD-L1, appears to have a pretty high response rate of about 50% in a small group of patients. There are currently ongoing trials looking at the combination of MEDI4736 with tremelimumab, though we don’t have any data on that just yet.

Then there are novel strategies people have for trying integrate immunotherapy with standard treatment. We have some reason to believe that when head and neck cancer is treated with radiation there is upregulation in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-L1. There are trials now moving forward that are integrating immune checkpoint inhibitors together with chemoradiation, or taking patients who have completed their chemoradiation but have persistent disease and exposing them to pembrolizumab in that setting.

The last thing is there is some evidence that siltuximab can upregulate a co-stimulatory molecule, CD137. There are some trials looking at co-targeting EGFR and CD137.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What are the side effects in immunotherapy?

BURTNESS: The one thing community oncologists should be aware of is toxicities. As these drugs roll out, these toxicities that will be present are a lot different to manage than the usual cytotoxic agent toxicities. There are a lot of unusual or unexpected side effects that are autoimmune in nature.

The most common toxicity is fatigue. Across all the patients with head and neck cancer who received pembrolizumab, about 17% of them had grade 3 or 4 toxicities. This is a lot easier to tolerate than chemotherapy or chemoradiation. The other things that you might look for are pneumonitis, nephritis, pancreatitis with diabetic symptoms, thyroiditis, and a variety of unusual autoimmune side effects.

TARGETED ONCOLOGY: What do you see as the overall potential for immunotherapy in head and neck cancer?

BURTNESS: Everybody with biomarker expression of either the ligands or the targets in this pathway is likely to be exposed to these drugs in the future. The challenge for us is going to be to figure out, for those patients who are not PD-L1 expressing or who don’t have tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, other ways that we can prime patients for immunotherapy with our standard treatments. It’s speculative – it’s not something that people are doing in clinics now, but the first trials of those approaches are starting.

There is also ADXS11-001 that is fused to the E7 oncogene from HPV. The idea is that that would increase antigenic presentation and then the immune checkpoint inhibitor could potentially be more effective. That treatment is still in phase I.

February, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Nivolumab Could Change Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Paradigm

Source: www.Targetedonc.com
Author: Laura Panjwani
 

“To have an anti–PD-1 agent be proven to improve survival in head and neck cancer in a randomized phase III trial, and the potential for a new FDA approval in the near future is a game changer.” – Robert Ferris, MD, PhD

With the phase III CheckMate-141 trial being stopped early due to the anti–PD-1 agent nivolumab having met its primary endpoint of overall survival improvement in head and neck cancer, Robert Ferris, MD, PhD, couldn’t be more elated.

“This is what I’ve devoted my career to, and it is gratifying to see that really come to pass,” said Ferris, professor and chief, Division of Head and Neck Surgery, vice chair for Clinical Operations, associate director for Translational Research, and coleader of the Cancer Immunology Program at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, in an exclusive interview with Targeted Oncology.

“To have an anti–PD-1 agent be proven to improve survival in head and neck cancer in a randomized phase III trial, and the potential for a new FDA approval in the near future is a game changer. There is now hope for a lot of patients and physicians who have been frustrated by this difficult-to-treat disease. This opens up a whole new class of therapies for this population.”

Ferris, who acted as cochair/coprimary investigator for the trial alongside Maura Gillison, MD, PhD, Ohio State University, said the trial pitted nivolumab against the investigator’s choice of cetuximab (Erbitux), methotrexate, or docetaxel in patients with platinum-refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).

Eligible patients who are still enrolled in the study are now able to continue their current treatment regimen, or switch over to nivolumab. Ferris says the prospect of having a new drug available for SCCHN is exciting, especially considering the last FDA approval for the disease type came in 2006.

“It was 2006 when cetuximab was approved and that was a relatively modest advance, although it was the first targeted therapy. We have a population without any other therapeutic options and a very rapid progression,” he said.

“Anti–PD-1 agents have had promising data in melanoma and squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Squamous NSCLC genomically resembles HPV-negative head and neck cancer in its behavior regarding carcinogen exposure. Therefore, we felt it might respond well to anti–PD-1 agents, too. We designed the study to hopefully create something new and effective for an essentially hopeless palliative group of patients.”

The phase III data have not yet been released from the trial, though early discontinuation has generated significant excitement in the field. The trial was scheduled to run until October 2016, has generated significant excitement in the field, says Ferris, who is a primary author on the abstract submitted for presentation at the ASCO Annual Meeting.

Ferris says the study was designed reflect the idea that there are different standards of care for SCCHN throughout the world, which is why cetuximab, methotrexate, or docetaxel were chosen for the control arms.

“We still don’t have public data for what all of the standard of care selections were, but we do know that cetuximab tends to be used more in North America. Meanwhile, the other 2 agents are more likely to be used in Europe and other countries because cetuximab is not approved there,” he said.

“The benefits are really very modest with those single-agent treatments and they are toxic. There is very much a need for a new treatment. We are very interested in the toxicity profile of nivolumab, as it has proven to be well tolerated in other cancers.”

Ferris adds that the excitement generated in the field stems from the revelation of efficacy for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting, saying the data from both pembrolizumab and nivolumab “appear to be very similar.”

“There was a suspicion that nivolumab would be promising in head and neck cancer, as well. There is a great deal of buzz from medical oncology leaders all over the country regarding this. People have really been waiting with bated breath for something for our patients. This is a real win for the community and for a population of patients with a devastating disease in a very important area of the body,” he said.

“This disease can disrupt speaking, drinking, swallowing, and has catastrophic consequences. I expect enthusiasm and support from the community regarding this.”

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

February, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Cetuximab plus RT linked with high toxicity in head and neck cancer

Source: www.cancernetwork.com
Author: Anna Azvolinsky, PhD

The combination of radiation therapy plus the EGFR inhibitor cetuximab had higher rates of acute toxicity among patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) compared with radiation therapy plus the chemotherapy cisplatin, according to results of a phase II trial based in Italy. Efficacy was similar with both combination therapies.

According to Stefano Maria Magrini, MD, professor of radiotherapy at the Università degli Studi di Brescia in Italy, and colleagues, this is the first clinical trial to directly compare radiation therapy plus cetuximab to a chemoradiation regimen for SCCHN.

The results of the randomized trial are published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Cetuximab was approved in combination with radiation therapy by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 for the treatment of unresectable SCCHN.

Despite a goal of recruiting 130 patients, only 70 patients were recruited between 2011 and 2014.

The 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 75% and 68% in the cetuximab arm compared with 78% in the cisplatin arm. The 1- and 2-year local control rates were 64% and 53% in the cetuximab arm and 84% and 80% in the cisplatin arm, yet the differences between arms were not statistically significant (P = .073), reflecting the inadequate statistical power of the relatively small trial.

Compliance in both treatment arms was relatively low. Only 28% of patients in the cetuximab arm and 20% of patients in the cisplatin arm received at least 7 cycles of therapy.

Patients in the radiation therapy plus cetuximab arm experienced more serious adverse events including severe cutaneous toxicity of grade 3 or higher. Four patients in the cetuximab arm developed infectious complications that led to septic shock and three of the patients died after the end of treatment. An additional patient died from respiratory failure caused by aspiration pneumonia.

Patients in the cisplatin arm had more frequent hematologic toxicities compared to patients in the cetuximab arm and one patient died from adverse events possibly related to treatment.

“The incidence of both the infusion reactions and of the other severe adverse events does not allow to consider cetuximab a safer and easy-to-use alternative to standard chemotherapy regimens,” wrote the study authors.

Based on the study results, larger prospective trials are needed to understand which SCCNH patients would best benefit from radiation therapy plus cetuximab regimen.

In an accompanying editorial, Roy H. Decker, MD, PhD, associate professor of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues highlighted the limitations of the current trial but look forward to results from ongoing studies to clarify the role of cetuximab in the treatment of SCCHN.

“We continue to selectively consider the use of cetuximab-based radiation therapy in patients with otherwise-favorable, low-risk disease—p16-positive, T1–T3 N0–N2b with a smoking history of less than 10 pack-years,” wrote the editorial authors.

December, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Follow-up by advance practice nurses improves care for patients with head, neck cancer

Source: www.healio.com
Author: Anthony SanFilippo

The launch of an advance practice nurse outpatient follow-up clinic improved symptom management for high-risk patients with head and neck cancer following radiation therapy, according to findings from a study conducted at Cleveland Clinic. This initiative led to fewer ED visits and hospital admissions, results showed.

“These results are significant as they suggest more intensive follow up in high-risk head and neck patients can improve patient outcomes,” Bridgett Harr, CNP, of the department of radiation oncology at Cleveland Clinic, told HemOnc Today. “This intensive symptom management is an important role [advance practice nurses (APNs)] can fill in this and other patient groups by providing consistent, proactive management of symptoms during recovery from treatment. Our study suggests this will lead to improved patient experience, in addition to a reduction in cost to both the patient and health care system as a whole.”

Patients with head and neck cancer often undergo radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and many experience debilitating side effects that require ED management or admission to the hospital. In 2014, an APN-led clinic was launched to focus on the acute rehabilitation of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing these therapies.

Harr and colleagues sought to evaluate the outcomes and incidence of adverse events among patients treated at an APN clinic compared with historical outcomes.

The analysis included data from 25 high-risk patients with head and neck cancer who received care post-treatment at an APN clinic and 24 patients who received standard follow-up care identified using a database. Clinic patients were seen 2 to 4 weeks after treatment and then every 2 to 4 weeks thereafter until their symptoms stabilized. Standard follow-up patients were seen on average between 4 to 6 weeks after treatment and then not again until 3 months post-treatment.

Patients were considered high risk if they had limited social support (35%), resided in a nursing home (16%), required multiple hydrations during treatment (18%), underwent stereotactic body re-irradiation (15%) and/or required a feeding tube (16%).

Ninety percent of patients had stage IV or recurrent cancer. Primary tumor sites included oropharynx (47%), oral cavity (16%), larynx/hypopharynx (12%) and other (25%).

All patients underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Fifty-five percent of the patients received chemoradiotherapy with either a cisplatin-based regimen (81%) or cetuximab (19%), and 45% of the patients received radiation therapy alone.

Patients in the APN clinic were seen almost twice as often as those in the standard follow-up group (median, 2 vs. 1.2 visits).

Eighteen patients experienced 26 adverse events that required either a visit to the ED or hospital admission. Six of those patients (33%) were seen in the APN clinic, whereas 12 patients (67%) were from the standard follow-up cohort.

“Not only is there greater patient satisfaction when being managed in an outpatient setting, it is more cost-effective to avoid emergency room or hospital admissions,” Harr said in a press release.

The benefits of the APN clinic appeared more substantial among patients who received radiation alone. Significantly fewer patients treated only with radiation who received their follow-up care at the APN clinic experienced an adverse event in the 90 days immediately after radiation compared with patients who received standard follow-up (60% vs. 16.7%; P = .01).

Researchers observed no difference between the arms for patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy because standard follow-up is also intensive, according to the researchers.

“This study illustrates an important role for APNs in radiation oncology,” Harr said. “APNs are in a unique position to provide more intensive follow-up care, allowing them to better manage the post-treatment symptoms of high-risk head and neck cancer patients.”

November, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Keytruda doubles efficacy of only targeted therapy for head and neck cancer

Source: www.curetoday.com
Author: Lauren M. Green

The immunotherapy Keytruda (pembrolizumab), in a recent study, proved twice as effective for the treatment of head and neck cancer as Erbitux (cetuximab), the only targeted therapy indicated as a therapy for the disease.

The multisite study offers the largest experience to date of how immunotherapy can be deployed in patients with head and neck cancer, and could change the way the disease is treated. The findings were announced May 29 during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a gathering of nearly 30,000 oncology professionals taking place in Chicago.

Keytruda is an antibody designed to disable the protein PD-1 so it cannot do its job of keeping the immune system in check; this allows T cells to become more active in recognizing and fighting cancer cells. In the study, investigators found that the drug produced broad and durable responses in patients with advanced head and neck cancer.

Fifty-six percent of patients in the study experienced some tumor shrinkage with Keytruda, and 86 percent of those patients continued to respond to treatment at data cutoff on March 23, 2015. Keytruda produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 25 percent, and it proved active in both HPV (human papillomavirus)-positive and HPV-negative patients.

“The efficacy was remarkable — pembrolizumab seems to be roughly twice as effective, when measured by response, as our only targeted therapy, cetuximab,” said Tanguy Seiwart, an assistant professor of medicine and associate leader of the head and neck cancer program at the University of Chicago, who presented the results in a press briefing during the ASCO meeting. “We have high hopes that immunotherapy will change the way we treat head and neck cancer.”

Recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has a poor prognosis with a median overall survival (OS) of 13 months in patients treated in the first-line setting, and six months in previously treated patients. Previously treated patients made up the majority of the population of the study, which built on earlier findings from the KEYNOTE-012 study (NCT01848834). In that study, Keytruda — administered at 10 mg/kg every two weeks — had a 20 percent response rate in patients with advanced HNSCC whose tumors were positive for the protein PD-L1.

The findings reported May 29 were based on results from an expansion of that first trial, which involved 132 patients with advanced HNSCC who were recruited regardless of their PD-L1 or HPV status. Importantly, said Seiwert, patients in this cohort received a fixed dose of Keytruda (200 mg every three weeks), representing “a very convenient dosing schedule.”

Eligible patients had measureable disease based on RECIST 1.1 response evaluation criteria and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. The majority of enrollees were male (83 percent), and 56.8 percent had received two or more lines of therapy for disease recurrence. Radiographic imaging was used to assess tumor response every eight weeks. Patients were treated as long as they didn’t show progression of disease or as long as they demonstrated clinical improvement, Seiwert explained.

Of 117 evaluable patients, 29 (24.8 percent; [95 percent confidence interval (CI), 17.3–33.6]) responded to treatment with Keytruda. For patients with HPV-positive HNSCC, the ORR was 20.6 percent, and in the HPV-negative cohort, ORR was 27.2 percent.

“In addition to the 25 percent response rate,” said Seiwert, “about 25 percent also had stable disease, so when we take these together, we have a disease control rate of about 50 percent, which is remarkable in this disease, especially in a heavily pretreated population.”

Moreover, he said, about two-thirds of patients had received two or more prior lines of therapy, which generally is an indicator of a very poor prognosis.

For the 56 percent of patients whose tumors decreased in size, Seiwert said the responses often occurred early at eight or 16 weeks, although there were a few outliers with late responses.

“Importantly, those patients who did respond oftentimes continued to have responses — 86 percent of patients had durable responses in this cohort,” he continued, adding that not only are responders remaining on the therapy, but so are many patients who have stable disease, with a total of 40 patients staying on the drug.

“Overall, and in keeping with what we already know about pembrolizumab, this was a very well-tolerated agent,” said Seiwert, “certainly better tolerated than what we usually see in head and neck cancer with aggressive chemotherapy and radiotherapy.”

Serious side effects were reported in fewer than 10 percent of patients. The most common side effects were fatigue (15.2 percent of patients), hypothyroidism (9.1 percent), and decreased appetite and rash, each occurring in 7.6 percent of patients. Four patients discontinued treatment due to immune-related side effects: two due to grade 2 interstitial lung disease and grade 3 colitis, respectively, and two patients for grade 3 pneumonitis.

Analysis of the findings based on biomarker status is ongoing, and Seiwert is hopeful that with the emergence of new potential biomarkers, researchers will be able to pinpoint which patients with HNSCC are most likely to benefit from the immunotherapy.

For example, another related study that Seiwert and colleagues are reporting at ASCO (abstract 6017) has shown that the expression of the gene signature interferon-gamma in head and neck tumors had a very strong negative predictive value of response to Keytruda. “In the future, these results may help us, if validated, to determine which patients should or should not [be given] pembrolizumab,” Seiwert said.

Pembrolizumab versus standard treatment for HNSCC also is being evaluated in two phase 3 trials that are currently recruiting participants (NCT02252042 and NCT02358031).

Source:
Seiwert TY, Haddad RI, Gupta S, et al. Antitumor activity of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab in biomarker-unselected patients with R/M head and neck cancer: preliminary results from the KEYNOTE-012 expansion cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2015;(suppl; abstr LBA6008) – See more at: http://www.curetoday.com/articles/keytruda-doubles-efficacy-of-only-targeted-therapy-for-head-and-neck-cancer/2#sthash.44VvpPH4.dpuf

Merck immunotherapy appears effective in head and neck cancer – study | Reuters

Source: www.firstpress.com
Author: Bill Berkrot

 

A Merck & Co drug that helps the immune system fight cancer was about twice as effective as the current standard therapy for patients with recurrent or advanced head and neck cancers, according to study data released on Friday.

A quarter of the 132 patients who received the drug, Keytruda (pembrolizumab), saw their tumors shrink by at least 30 percent. Fifty-six percent of patients experienced at least some tumor shrinkage in the ongoing single drug Phase I study dubbed Keynote-012, researchers reported.

“This is remarkable because we don’t usually see this level of activity with new agents. We have a track record of failure,” said Dr. Tanguy Seiwert, lead investigator of the study from the University of Chicago.

Advanced head and neck cancer is currently treated with Eli Lilly’s Erbitux, known chemically as cetuximab, which typically has a response rate of 10 percent to 13 percent.

“The only thing that works is cetuximab and this looks at least twice as good,” said Seiwert, who was presenting the Keytruda data at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Chicago.

ADVERTISING

Merck shares rose more than 1 percent to $60.43 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Keytruda and Opdivo from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co are at the forefront of a promising new class of drugs called PD-1 inhibitors that block a mechanism tumors use to evade the immune system. Keytruda is approved to treat advanced melanoma and awaits a decision for use in lung cancer. It is being tested against 30 types of cancer alone and in various combinations.

While overall survival data was not yet available, Keytruda and Opdivo have extended survival for some patients in other cancers.

“Response rate doesn’t do this justice,” Seiwert said. “A fraction of those patients will probably have long term survival. It can really make a difference for some patients who have incurable metastatic disease.”

The drug appeared to work as well for patients whose cancer tested positive for human papillomavirus as those who were HPV negative. Some older treatments may be less effective in HPV positive patients, researchers said.

Keytruda was well tolerated with few side effects, Seiwert said. Serious immune-related side effects, such as inflammation of the lungs or colon, were reported in a very small number of patients in the study.

Head and neck cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer are usually expected to live about 10 to 12 months.

Reporting by Bill Berkrot in New York; Editing by Diane Craft.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

AACR says that new drug may assist therapy for Head and Neck Cancer

Source: hcplive.com
Author: 
 

THURSDAY, Sept. 18, 2014 (HealthDay News) — The investigational drug alpelisib (previously known as BYL719) appears to inhibit activation of the pathway that leads to resistance to cetuximab, an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agent used in the treatment of head and neck cancer. These findings were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research’s special conference “Targeting the PI3K-mTOR Network in Cancer,” held from Sept. 14 to 17 in Philadelphia.

Pamela Munster, MD, of the University of California in San Francisco, and colleagues tested the combination of BYL719 and cetuximab in vivo in a cetuximab-sensitive and a cetuximab-resistant xenograft model of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. In a phase Ib study, BYL719 was administered in combination with cetuximab in adults with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck that was resistant or intolerant to platinum-based chemotherapy; prior cetuximab therapy was allowed.

The researchers found that the addition of BYL719 to cetuximab showed an additive effect in the cetuximab-sensitive model. BYL719 restored sensitivity to cetuximab in the cetuximab-resistant model. In the phase Ib study, as of March 10, 2014, 37 patients have received BYL719 and cetuximab, and the overall response rate is 11%. Based on the data from preclinical studies and the phase Ib study, the combination of alpelisib and cetuximab for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck is being explored in a phase II study.

“Treatment resistance is often conveyed through activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, and alpelisib is an inhibitor of this pathway,” Munster said in a statement.

The study was funded by Novartis, the developer of alpelisib (BYL719).

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.
 
September, 2014|Oral Cancer News|