Home > Article > Head and Neck Cancer Highlights of ESMO Congress 2014
Head and Neck Cancer, Radiology, Radiotherapy
Read Time: 4 mins

Head and Neck Cancer Highlights of ESMO Congress 2014

Published Online: December 29th 2014 European Oncology & Haematology, 2014;10(2):96–7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/EOH.2014.10.2.96
Authors: Panagiota Economopoulou, Giannis Kotsantis, George Kavourakis, Amanda Psyrri
Quick Links:
Abstract
Article
Article Information
Abstract:
Overview

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is a challenging cancer to treat and cure. A great proportion of patients present with advanced disease and appropriate treatment options include surgical resection with adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), radical concurrent CRT or RT with monoclonal antibody cetuximab. Despite improved outcomes with CRT, overall prognosis is still unsatisfactory and treatment-related toxicity is a matter of major importance. To obtain improved outcomes and mitigate disease recurrence, current research is focused on novel molecular targeted agents, immunotherapy and discovery of predictive markers. Herein, we summarise recent advances in treatment of head and neck cancer, as presented in European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2014.

Keywords

Head and neck cancer, afatinib, immunotherapy, ESMO highlights

Article:

Despite advances in multimodality treatment, the 5-year survival rate of patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) does not exceed 40–50% and survival rates for recurrent or metastatic disease (R/M) remain dismal.1,2 Low survival rates in combination with significant toxicities caused by current treatment strategies used in HNSCC emphasise the necessity for new treatment options.

For patients with recurrent or metastatic disease, recommended treatment is cisplatin-based chemotherapy ± cetuximab for fit patients and single agent chemotherapy (methotrexate) or cetuximab for patients with poor performance status (PS), albeit with limited efficacy.3 In this setting, strategies to improve outcome include the introduction of novel therapeutic strategies and molecular targets, as well as intensification of treatment. The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor belonging to the HER/ErbB family, is a long-standing challenging target in HNSCC, as it is overexpressed in up to 90 % of cases;4 overexpression of EGFR also correlates with poor clinical outcomes.5 Cetuximab, a chimeric immunoglobulin G1– human monoclonal antibody against the extracellular domain of EGFR, has emerged as a powerful tool in the treatment of R/M head and neck cancer. In the Erbitux in First Line Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer (EXTREME) study, the addition of cetixumab to platinum-based chemotherapy with fluorouracil was shown to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates.6 However, cetuximab has demonstrated modest response rates when used as monotherapy.7 Afatinib, an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker that inhibits all kinase-active members (EGFR, HER2 and HER4), which is currently approved for the treatment of EGFR mutated non-small-cell lung cancer,8 has been shown similar antitumour effects compared with cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in a phase II trial.9

Based on these results, the phase III LUX-Head and Neck 1 clinical trial presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2014 assessed the efficacy of afatinib as monotherapy compared with single agent methotrexate as second-line treatment in HNSCC.10 Patients were stratified according to PS and prior use of cetuximab. The study met its primary endpoint showing an increase in PFS of 0.9 months with afatinib compared with methotrexate (2.6 versus 1.7 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.8; p=0.03). In addition, it showed improvement in tumour shrinkage and response rate in favour of afatinib.10 The difference in PFS of 0.9 months is of unclear significance and unlikely to lead to drug approval. However, this study is important, as it is the second study since the EXTREME trial that showed benefit of a novel agent in HNSCC and the first study to demonstrate an active oral targeted agent in HNSCC. Of note, subgroup analysis showed a benefit primary seen in EGFR-naïve patients, suggesting a degree of cross-resistance that was not seen in phase II studies.9 Ongoing studies evaluating adjuvant afatinib in locally advanced HNSCC after chemoradiotherapy (LUX-Head and Neck-2) will hopefully clarify the effectiveness of afatinib;11 until then, active search of predictive biomarkers might lead to identification of specific groups of patients with greater benefit.

Another rationale for improvement of treatment strategies in HNSCC is to overcome resistance to cetuximab, which might lead to tumour progression after initial clinical response. One proposed mechanism of de novo or acquired resistance in HNSCC is HER3 activation.12 MEHD7945A is a monoclonal antibody that simultaneously blocks ligand binding to EGFR and HER3 and inhibits signalling by all major liganddependent HER family members.13 It has shown superior preclinical activity compared with mono-specific HER antibodies, particularly in HNSCC and has displayed activity in cetuximab-resistant models.13

Furthermore, HER3 ligand neuregulin 1 (NRG1) is overexpressed in HNSCC and may select for benefit in dual inhibition of EGFR/HER3.14 In a phase II clinical trial presented in ESMO 2014, MEHD7945A was compared with single agent cetuximab as second- or further-line therapy in patients with R/M HNSCC not suitable for local therapy.15 The study demonstrated a comparable, albeit not superior, efficacy of MEHD7945A compared with cetuximab, with similar response rates and PFS. Unfortunately, NRG1 was not confirmed as a biomarker, as high NRG1 expression did not correlate with MEHD7945A efficacy. Toxicity was similar between the two groups, with higher gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity observed in the MEHD7945A group, consistent with other regimens targeting multiple HER receptors.15

On the other hand, there is a great body of evidence supporting that the immune system plays an important role in cancer development, as tumour cells exploit inhibitory checkpoint pathways that suppress antitumour T-cell responses.16 In this setting, the programmed cell death (PD-1) pathway blocks the immune response by downregulating T-cell effector functions. Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL-1) is overexpressed in tumour cells, including HNSCC, and activates the PD-1 checkpoint pathway by binding to the PD-1 receptor, resulting in inhibition of antitumour T-cell responses.17 Two anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies, MEDI4736 and MK3475, have been evaluated in recent phase I trials.18,19 MEDI4736 has been shown to have an overall response rate (ORR) in approximately 11 % of patients, with a manageable safety profile (grade ≥3 adverse events [AEs] in 7 % of patients).18 MK3475 has demonstrated response rates as high as 20 % albeit with greater toxicity (grade ≥3 AEs in 17 % of patients).19 Of note, some responses are durable, but specific biomarkers are lacking.

It is important to emphasise that HNSCC is currently divided into two distinct entities in terms of aetiology and clinical behaviour. Tobacco/ alcohol consumption-associated HNSCC is described as human papilloma virus (HPV) negative (HPV-) subset and is usually p16 negative. Infection with high-risk HPVs is linked to a growing proportion of oropharyngeal cancers (HPV positive [HPV+] HNSCC). HPV+ HNSCC is associated with a better prognosis and might require different treatments.20 In addition, HPV status has prognostic significance in recurrent/metastatic setting as well.21,22 As a result, current clinical trials attempt to assess benefit of investigational agents separately in HPV- and HPV+ HNSCC. In the LUX-Head and Neck 1 study, HPV- patients were found to have greater benefit from afatinib therapy.10 The Study of Panitumumab Efficacy in Patients With Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer (SPECTRUM) also showed that the benefit from the addition of the fully human anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy was restricted to p16-negative patients23 while the analysis of the EXTREME study showed that both HPV+ and HPVpatients derive benefit from the addition of cetuximab to platinum/5- FU chemotherapy.6 Anti-PDL-1 antibodies had conflicting results, with MEDI4736 showing greater benefit in HPV- tumours18 while MK3475 demonstrated equal efficacy in both.19

Finally, intensification of chemotherapy treatment protocols is another rationale for potential improvement of outcomes in HNSCC. However, treatment-related toxicity in HNSCC remains a matter of major importance. Final analysis of the AIO trial has shown that addition of docetaxel to EXTREME regimen of cisplatin, 5-FU and cetuximab not only does not improve outcome compared with EXTREME regimen but also increases GI toxicity and infections.6,24

In conclusion, the prognosis of patients with R/M HNSCC remains dismal. As intensification of chemotherapy protocols carries the risk of unacceptable toxicity: the future lies on the introduction of novel molecular-targeted agents. Identification of predictive biomarkers for patient selection for targeted therapies including immunotherapy is essential. Importantly, future studies should focus on assessing effectiveness of investigational treatments according to HPV status.

Article Information:
Disclosure

Panagiota Economopoulou, Giannis Kotsantis, George Kavourakis and Amanda Psyrri have no conflicts of interest to declare. No funding was received in the
publication of this article.

Correspondence

Amanda Psyrri, 1st Rimini St, 12462, Haidari, Athens, Greece E: [email protected]

Received

2014-12-05T00:00:00

References

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al., Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008, Int J Cancer, 2010;127:2893–917. 2. Baxi S, Fury M, Ganly I, et al., Ten years of progress in head and neck cancers, J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 2012;10:806–10. 3. Gregoire V, Lefebvre JL, Licitra L, Felip E, Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, Ann Oncol, 2010;21 Suppl. 5:v184–6. 4. Kalyankrishna S, Grandis JR, Epidermal growth factor receptor biology in head and neck cancer, J Clin Oncol, 2006;24:2666–72. 5. Gold KA, Lee HY, Kim ES, Targeted therapies in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, Cancer, 2009;115:922–35. 6. Vermorken JB, Mesia R, Rivera F, et al., Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer, N Engl J Med, 2008;359:1116–27. 7. Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al., Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/ or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy, J Clin Oncol, 2007;25:2171–7. 8. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, et al., Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, J Clin Oncol, 2013;31:3327–34. 9. Seiwert TY, Fayette J, Cupissol D, et al., A randomized, phase II study of afatinib versus cetuximab in metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, Ann Oncol, 2014;25:1813–20. 10. Machiels J, Fayette J, Licitra L, et al., Afatinib versus methotrexate (MTX) as second-line treatment for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) who progressed after platinum-based therapy: primary efficacy results of LUX-Head & Neck 1, a phase III trial, Ann Oncol, 2014;25:1–41. 11. LUX-Head and Neck 2: A phase III trial of afatinib (BIBW 2992) versus placebo for the treatment of head and neck squamous cell cancer after treatment with chemo-radiotherapy. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01345669 (accessed 5 December 2014). 12. Wilson TR, Lee DY, Berry L, et al., Neuregulin-1-mediated autocrine signaling underlies sensitivity to HER2 kinase inhibitors in a subset of human cancers, Cancer Cell, 2011;20:158–72. 13. Schaefer G, Haber L, Crocker LM, et al., A two-in-one antibody against HER3 and EGFR has superior inhibitory activity compared with monospecific antibodies, Cancer Cell, 2011;20:472–86. 14. Shames DS, Carbon J, Walter K, et al., High heregulin expression is associated with activated HER3 and may define an actionable biomarker in patients with squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, PLoS One, 2013;8:e56765. 15. Fayette J, Oprean C, Hitt H, et al., Randomized phase II study of MEHD7945A (MEHD) vs cetuximab (Cet) in >= 2nd-line recurrent/metastatic squamous cell Carcinoma of the head & neck (RMSCCHN) progressive on/after platinum-based chemotherapy (PtCT), Ann Oncol, 2014;25(Suppl. 4): iv340– iv356. 16. Zou W, Chen L, Inhibitory B7-family molecules in the tumour microenvironment, Nat Rev Immunol, 2008;8:467–77. 17. Hamanishi J, Mandai M, Iwasaki M, et al., Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes are prognostic factors of human ovarian cancer, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2007;104:3360–5. 18. Fury M, Balmanoukian AS, Hansen A, et al., Clinical activity and safety of MEDI4736, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with head and neck cancer, Ann Oncol, 2014;25(Suppl_4):iv340–iv356. 19. Chow LQ, Weiss J, Berger R, et al., A phase Ib study of pembrolizumab (Pembro; MK-3475) in patients (Pts) with human papiilloma virus (HPV)-positive and negative head and neck cancer, Ann Oncol, 2014;25:1–41. 20. Psyrri A, Rampias T, Vermorken JB, The current and future impact of human papillomavirus on treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, Ann Oncol, 2014;25:2101–15. 21. Vermorken JB, Psyrri A, Mesia R, et al., Impact of tumor HPV status on outcome in patients with recurrent and/ or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck receiving chemotherapy with or without cetuximab: retrospective analysis of the phase III EXTREME trial, Ann Oncol, 2014;25:801–7. 22. Argiris A, Li S, Ghebremichael M, et al., Prognostic significance of human papillomavirus in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer: an analysis of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trials, Ann Oncol, 2014;25:1410–6. 23. Vermorken JB, Stohlmacher-Williams J, Davidenko I, et al., Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial, Lancet Oncol, 2013;14:697–710. 24. Knoedler M, Dietz A, Grünwald V, et al., Cetuximab (C), fluorouracil (F) and cisplatin (P) alone or with docetaxel (D) for recurrent/metastatic (RM) head and neck cancer (HNSCC). Final analysis of the AIO trial, Ann Oncol, 2014;(Suppl. 4): iv340–iv356.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Radiotherapy
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-blueavatarcalendarchevron-down crosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmenumore_dots padlock person play_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar