6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Nivolumab and Lirilumab in Patients with Recurrent, Resectable Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose:

          Surgery often represents the best chance for disease control in locoregionally recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We investigated dual immune-checkpoint inhibition [anti–PD-1, nivolumab (N), and anti-KIR, lirilumab (L)] before and after salvage surgery to improve disease-free survival (DFS).

          Patients and Methods:

          In this phase II study, patients received N (240 mg) + L (240 mg) 7 to 21 days before surgery, followed by six cycles of adjuvant N + L. Primary endpoint was 1-year DFS; secondary endpoints were safety, pre-op radiologic response, and overall survival (OS). Correlatives included tumor sequencing, PD-L1 scoring, and immunoprofiling.

          Results:

          Among 28 patients, the median age was 66, 86% were smokers; primary site: 9 oral cavity, 9 oropharynx, and 10 larynx/hypopharynx; 96% had prior radiation. There were no delays to surgery. Grade 3+ adverse events: 11%. At the time of surgery, 96% had stable disease radiologically, one had progression. Pathologic response to N + L was observed in 43% (12/28): 4/28 (14%) major (tumor viability, TV ≤ 10%) and 8/28 (29%) partial (TV ≤ 50%). PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) at surgery was similar regardless of pathologic response ( P = 0.71). Thirteen (46%) recurred (loco-regional = 10, distant = 3). Five of 28 (18%) had positive margins, 4 later recurred. At median follow-up of 22.8 months, 1-year DFS was 55.2% (95% CI, 34.8–71.7) and 1-year OS was 85.7% (95% CI, 66.3–94.4). Two-year DFS and OS were 64% and 80% among pathologic responders.

          Conclusions:

          (Neo)adjuvant N + L was well tolerated, with a 43% pathologic response rate. We observed favorable DFS and excellent 2-year OS among high-risk, previously treated patients exhibiting a pathologic response. Further evaluation of this strategy is warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

            Background Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, was assessed as treatment for this condition. Methods In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 361 patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck whose disease had progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or standard, single-agent systemic therapy (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). The primary end point was overall survival. Additional end points included progression-free survival, rate of objective response, safety, and patient-reported quality of life. Results The median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 9.1) in the nivolumab group versus 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.0) in the group that received standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab than with standard therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 97.73% CI, 0.51 to 0.96; P=0.01), and the estimates of the 1-year survival rate were approximately 19 percentage points higher with nivolumab than with standard therapy (36.0% vs. 16.6%). The median progression-free survival was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.1) with nivolumab versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1) with standard therapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.13; P=0.32). The rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 19.7% with nivolumab versus 9.9% with standard therapy. The response rate was 13.3% in the nivolumab group versus 5.8% in the standard-therapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 13.1% of the patients in the nivolumab group versus 35.1% of those in the standard-therapy group. Physical, role, and social functioning was stable in the nivolumab group, whereas it was meaningfully worse in the standard-therapy group. Conclusions Among patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, treatment with nivolumab resulted in longer overall survival than treatment with standard, single-agent therapy. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 141 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105636 .).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

              Pembrolizumab is active in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression associated with improved response.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clinical Cancer Research
                American Association for Cancer Research
                1078-0432
                1557-3265
                01 February 2022
                19 October 2021
                : 28
                : 3
                : 468-478
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [2 ]Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [3 ]Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [4 ]Belfer Center for Applied Cancer Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [5 ]Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [6 ]Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, Massachusetts.
                [7 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [8 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [9 ]Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
                Author notes
                [#]

                Ravindra Uppaluri and Robert I. Haddad contributed equally as senior authors.

                Poster presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, Abstract # 6053 (June 4, 2021).

                [* ] Corresponding Author: Glenn J. Hanna, Department of Medical Oncology, Center for Head and Neck Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Avenue, Dana Building, Room 2-140, Boston, MA 02215. Phone: 617-632-3090; Fax: 617-632-4448; E-mail: glenn_hanna@ 123456dfci.harvard.edu

                Clin Cancer Res 2022;28:468–78

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9969-2523
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9510-0036
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4715-0087
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5119-0401
                Article
                CCR-21-2635
                10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2635
                9401515
                34667025
                17eec9fa-a1a2-43ed-8fe9-a55b27458d67
                ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research

                This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

                History
                : 20 July 2021
                : 30 August 2021
                : 13 October 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                Funded by: Bristol Myers Squibb, DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100001009;
                Categories
                Clinical Trials: Immunotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content315

                Cited by35

                Most referenced authors1,409