Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

ATLANTA – For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas positive for human papillomavirus type 16, neoadjuvant therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with high response rates and a lower toxicity profile compared with the current standard of care, results of a phase 1/1b study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

All of five patients treated with SBRT doses of 8 Gy per day for 5 days (40 Gy total) had pathologic complete responses (pCR), as did four of five patients treated at a deescalated SBRT dose of 8 Gy on alternating days for 3 days (24 Gy total), reported Rom S. Leidner, MD, of Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore.

“We’ve met the primary endpoint. This approach certainly was safe as far as not preventing definitive surgery. The potency was much greater than expected, with a pCR rate of 90% and a major response in 100% of patients,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Leidner and colleagues are investigating therapies for locally advanced HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that are as effective as but less toxic than the current standard of care: definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

They enrolled 10 patients, all men, with a mean age of 64.5 years. Seven patients had HPV16-positive oropharyngeal HNSCC, and three had unknown primary HNSCC (HPV-positive lymph nodes in the neck without an identifiable mucosal primary site). All patients had clinical indications for adjuvant radiotherapy or upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) but were ineligible because of tumor size.

The patients were assigned to one of two dose-finding cohorts in groups of five each to receive nivolumab (Opdivo) 240 mg intravenously every other week for three cycles prior to surgery, with SBRT to gross tumor volume plus 3 mm delivered between the first and second doses of nivolumab.

One cohort of patients received SBRT 8 Gy daily for 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday), and the other received deescalated SBRT 8 Gy delivered on alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Patients underwent surgery 5 weeks after SBRT, and 4 weeks after surgery were started on adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for three cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of fewer than one-third of patients having an unplanned surgical delay. None of the 10 patients required a surgical delay, in fact.

Although all patients had radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, there were no complete responses according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Seven patients had a partial response (PR), and three had stable disease.

Dr. Leidner noted that when a patient with stable disease according to RECIST went to surgery “we found a [pCR] in the primary site, and residual cancer in the neck nodes with less than 10% viable tumor cells and evidence of immune eradication.”

As noted, all five patients in the 40-Gy dose group had complete pathologic responses, as did four of the five patients in the deescalated dose group. The remaining patient in this group had a major pathologic response, with less than 10% residual tumor.

“The secondary tissue endpoint far exceeded our expectations on this trial,” Dr. Leidner said.

There were no reports of acute toxicity in the neoadjuvant phase, but delayed mucositis (grade 1 or 2) and immune-related grade 1 dermatologic and rhinitis events were seen. Mucositis resolved by week 4 in all patients, at least 2 weeks before surgery.

Postoperative delayed toxicities up to grade 3 were seen, with delays in mucosal healing in patients who underwent mucosal resections; there were no cases of delayed healing among patients who underwent neck dissection only.

Grade 3 oropharyngeal pain requiring opiates for more than 4 weeks after surgery was seen in both cohorts, but lasted longer among patients in the 8-Gy-times-5 cohort.

Half of all patients were found to have adrenal insufficiency, a rate higher than that previously reported with the use of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in HNSCC, Dr. Leidner said.

“Clinically we’re seeing, as one might expect, substantially reduced xerostomia and ageusia, but that was not formally measured,” he said.

Based on the study findings, investigations are proceeding at the deescalated dose.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Christine H. Chung, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, did not appear to share Dr. Leidner’s enthusiasm for the approach, saying that “overall, path CR in already resectable patients with an extremely high cure rate may not be clinically meaningful.”

She said that the role of adjuvant nivolumab following neoadjuvant nivolumab, radiotherapy, and surgery in HPV-positive patients is unclear, and that “the approach may be more suitable for HPV-negative patients with poor prognosis and in need of treatment intensification.”

Providence Cancer Center sponsored the study. Dr. Leidner reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chung reported research funding from Lilly Oncology, and advisory board honoraria from BMS, CUE, and Ignyta.

SOURCE: Leidner RS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT182.

ATLANTA – For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas positive for human papillomavirus type 16, neoadjuvant therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with high response rates and a lower toxicity profile compared with the current standard of care, results of a phase 1/1b study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

All of five patients treated with SBRT doses of 8 Gy per day for 5 days (40 Gy total) had pathologic complete responses (pCR), as did four of five patients treated at a deescalated SBRT dose of 8 Gy on alternating days for 3 days (24 Gy total), reported Rom S. Leidner, MD, of Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore.

“We’ve met the primary endpoint. This approach certainly was safe as far as not preventing definitive surgery. The potency was much greater than expected, with a pCR rate of 90% and a major response in 100% of patients,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Leidner and colleagues are investigating therapies for locally advanced HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that are as effective as but less toxic than the current standard of care: definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

They enrolled 10 patients, all men, with a mean age of 64.5 years. Seven patients had HPV16-positive oropharyngeal HNSCC, and three had unknown primary HNSCC (HPV-positive lymph nodes in the neck without an identifiable mucosal primary site). All patients had clinical indications for adjuvant radiotherapy or upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) but were ineligible because of tumor size.

The patients were assigned to one of two dose-finding cohorts in groups of five each to receive nivolumab (Opdivo) 240 mg intravenously every other week for three cycles prior to surgery, with SBRT to gross tumor volume plus 3 mm delivered between the first and second doses of nivolumab.

One cohort of patients received SBRT 8 Gy daily for 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday), and the other received deescalated SBRT 8 Gy delivered on alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Patients underwent surgery 5 weeks after SBRT, and 4 weeks after surgery were started on adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for three cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of fewer than one-third of patients having an unplanned surgical delay. None of the 10 patients required a surgical delay, in fact.

Although all patients had radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, there were no complete responses according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Seven patients had a partial response (PR), and three had stable disease.

Dr. Leidner noted that when a patient with stable disease according to RECIST went to surgery “we found a [pCR] in the primary site, and residual cancer in the neck nodes with less than 10% viable tumor cells and evidence of immune eradication.”

As noted, all five patients in the 40-Gy dose group had complete pathologic responses, as did four of the five patients in the deescalated dose group. The remaining patient in this group had a major pathologic response, with less than 10% residual tumor.

“The secondary tissue endpoint far exceeded our expectations on this trial,” Dr. Leidner said.

There were no reports of acute toxicity in the neoadjuvant phase, but delayed mucositis (grade 1 or 2) and immune-related grade 1 dermatologic and rhinitis events were seen. Mucositis resolved by week 4 in all patients, at least 2 weeks before surgery.

Postoperative delayed toxicities up to grade 3 were seen, with delays in mucosal healing in patients who underwent mucosal resections; there were no cases of delayed healing among patients who underwent neck dissection only.

Grade 3 oropharyngeal pain requiring opiates for more than 4 weeks after surgery was seen in both cohorts, but lasted longer among patients in the 8-Gy-times-5 cohort.

Half of all patients were found to have adrenal insufficiency, a rate higher than that previously reported with the use of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in HNSCC, Dr. Leidner said.

“Clinically we’re seeing, as one might expect, substantially reduced xerostomia and ageusia, but that was not formally measured,” he said.

Based on the study findings, investigations are proceeding at the deescalated dose.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Christine H. Chung, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, did not appear to share Dr. Leidner’s enthusiasm for the approach, saying that “overall, path CR in already resectable patients with an extremely high cure rate may not be clinically meaningful.”

She said that the role of adjuvant nivolumab following neoadjuvant nivolumab, radiotherapy, and surgery in HPV-positive patients is unclear, and that “the approach may be more suitable for HPV-negative patients with poor prognosis and in need of treatment intensification.”

Providence Cancer Center sponsored the study. Dr. Leidner reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chung reported research funding from Lilly Oncology, and advisory board honoraria from BMS, CUE, and Ignyta.

SOURCE: Leidner RS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT182.

ATLANTA – For patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas positive for human papillomavirus type 16, neoadjuvant therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was associated with high response rates and a lower toxicity profile compared with the current standard of care, results of a phase 1/1b study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

All of five patients treated with SBRT doses of 8 Gy per day for 5 days (40 Gy total) had pathologic complete responses (pCR), as did four of five patients treated at a deescalated SBRT dose of 8 Gy on alternating days for 3 days (24 Gy total), reported Rom S. Leidner, MD, of Providence Cancer Center in Portland, Ore.

“We’ve met the primary endpoint. This approach certainly was safe as far as not preventing definitive surgery. The potency was much greater than expected, with a pCR rate of 90% and a major response in 100% of patients,” he said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Dr. Leidner and colleagues are investigating therapies for locally advanced HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) that are as effective as but less toxic than the current standard of care: definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery followed by risk-adapted adjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy.

They enrolled 10 patients, all men, with a mean age of 64.5 years. Seven patients had HPV16-positive oropharyngeal HNSCC, and three had unknown primary HNSCC (HPV-positive lymph nodes in the neck without an identifiable mucosal primary site). All patients had clinical indications for adjuvant radiotherapy or upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) but were ineligible because of tumor size.

The patients were assigned to one of two dose-finding cohorts in groups of five each to receive nivolumab (Opdivo) 240 mg intravenously every other week for three cycles prior to surgery, with SBRT to gross tumor volume plus 3 mm delivered between the first and second doses of nivolumab.

One cohort of patients received SBRT 8 Gy daily for 5 consecutive days (Monday-Friday), and the other received deescalated SBRT 8 Gy delivered on alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Patients underwent surgery 5 weeks after SBRT, and 4 weeks after surgery were started on adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks for three cycles.

The trial met its primary endpoint of fewer than one-third of patients having an unplanned surgical delay. None of the 10 patients required a surgical delay, in fact.

Although all patients had radiologic evidence of tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, there were no complete responses according to Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Seven patients had a partial response (PR), and three had stable disease.

Dr. Leidner noted that when a patient with stable disease according to RECIST went to surgery “we found a [pCR] in the primary site, and residual cancer in the neck nodes with less than 10% viable tumor cells and evidence of immune eradication.”

As noted, all five patients in the 40-Gy dose group had complete pathologic responses, as did four of the five patients in the deescalated dose group. The remaining patient in this group had a major pathologic response, with less than 10% residual tumor.

“The secondary tissue endpoint far exceeded our expectations on this trial,” Dr. Leidner said.

There were no reports of acute toxicity in the neoadjuvant phase, but delayed mucositis (grade 1 or 2) and immune-related grade 1 dermatologic and rhinitis events were seen. Mucositis resolved by week 4 in all patients, at least 2 weeks before surgery.

Postoperative delayed toxicities up to grade 3 were seen, with delays in mucosal healing in patients who underwent mucosal resections; there were no cases of delayed healing among patients who underwent neck dissection only.

Grade 3 oropharyngeal pain requiring opiates for more than 4 weeks after surgery was seen in both cohorts, but lasted longer among patients in the 8-Gy-times-5 cohort.

Half of all patients were found to have adrenal insufficiency, a rate higher than that previously reported with the use of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in HNSCC, Dr. Leidner said.

“Clinically we’re seeing, as one might expect, substantially reduced xerostomia and ageusia, but that was not formally measured,” he said.

Based on the study findings, investigations are proceeding at the deescalated dose.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Invited discussant Christine H. Chung, MD, of H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, did not appear to share Dr. Leidner’s enthusiasm for the approach, saying that “overall, path CR in already resectable patients with an extremely high cure rate may not be clinically meaningful.”

She said that the role of adjuvant nivolumab following neoadjuvant nivolumab, radiotherapy, and surgery in HPV-positive patients is unclear, and that “the approach may be more suitable for HPV-negative patients with poor prognosis and in need of treatment intensification.”

Providence Cancer Center sponsored the study. Dr. Leidner reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chung reported research funding from Lilly Oncology, and advisory board honoraria from BMS, CUE, and Ignyta.

SOURCE: Leidner RS et al. AACR 2019, Abstract CT182.

While many factors can influence cost in head and neck cancer, a simple bundled payments model for the disease can be developed based solely on treatment types, researchers reported.

The number of treatment modalities was the biggest driver of cost in an analysis of 150 head and neck cancer patients. Whether those patients needed single-modality, bimodality, or trimodality treatment was in turn driven by the stage of the disease; by contrast, patient factors had no significant cost impacts, the investigators found.

Based on those findings, they developed a three-tiered cost model in which surgery or radiation was the least costly, chemoradiation or surgery plus radiation was next, and surgery plus chemoradiation was associated with the highest cost.

Basing bundled payments on treatment modality is a “simple but clinically robust model” for payment selection in head and neck cancer patients, wrote senior author Matthew C. Ward, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and coauthors.

“A tiered system driven by treatment complexity will aid providers who seek to stratify financial risk in a simple and meaningful manner,” Dr. Ward and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

As cancer costs rise, bundled payment models seek to “incentivize value and reduce administrative waste” with a single payment per episode of care, shared by all providers contributing to that episode, they wrote. However, there have been few cancer-specific bundled payment programs described to date.

The tiered approach was based on an analysis of 150 patients with stage 0 to IVB head and neck cancer, excluding those with recurrent or metastatic disease and those treated with palliative intent. Most (58%) had stage IVA disease and the oropharynx was the tumor subsite in 48%.

Direct costs could not be published because of institutional policy, according to Dr. Ward and coauthors, who instead reported overall costs of treatment as relative median costs, or the ratio of the cost of a specific treatment versus the cost of surgery alone.

Specifically, surgery plus chemoradiation was the most costly versus surgery alone, with a relative median cost of 3.13 (P less than .001), followed by chemoradiation at 2.18 (P less than .001) surgery and radiation at 1.98 (P less than .001), and radiation alone at 1.66 (P = .013).

The treatment modalities used were driven by groups of stages, the investigators wrote. Compared with stages 0 to I, stages II to IVA were 33% more expensive, while stage IVB was 60% more expensive. Patient factors such as age, smoking, or comorbidities were not associated with cost.

Previous reported studies of cancer-specific bundled payment models have shown decreased costs and favorable outcomes, according to the researchers. Among those is an University of Texas MD Anderson Center report showing that a four-tiered model, based on treatments received and stratified by comorbidities, was feasible in a 1-year pilot study.

The current report validates those previous findings, with some differences, Dr. Ward and coauthors wrote. In particular, the three-tiered model was not stratified by Charlson comorbidity index, which did not correlate with cost in the present analysis, and it included less common disease sites than in the MD Anderson model.

“We felt it important to be inclusive of all patients seen by our multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team to keep the proposed bundled payments model as practical and simple as possible,” they wrote.

Dr. Ward reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca. Study coauthors provided disclosures related to Blue Earth Diagnostics, Merck, Varian Medical Systems, UpToDate, Gerson Lehrman Group, Osler, AlignRT, Chrysalis Biotherapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Tom MC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00665.

While many factors can influence cost in head and neck cancer, a simple bundled payments model for the disease can be developed based solely on treatment types, researchers reported.

The number of treatment modalities was the biggest driver of cost in an analysis of 150 head and neck cancer patients. Whether those patients needed single-modality, bimodality, or trimodality treatment was in turn driven by the stage of the disease; by contrast, patient factors had no significant cost impacts, the investigators found.

Based on those findings, they developed a three-tiered cost model in which surgery or radiation was the least costly, chemoradiation or surgery plus radiation was next, and surgery plus chemoradiation was associated with the highest cost.

Basing bundled payments on treatment modality is a “simple but clinically robust model” for payment selection in head and neck cancer patients, wrote senior author Matthew C. Ward, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and coauthors.

“A tiered system driven by treatment complexity will aid providers who seek to stratify financial risk in a simple and meaningful manner,” Dr. Ward and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

As cancer costs rise, bundled payment models seek to “incentivize value and reduce administrative waste” with a single payment per episode of care, shared by all providers contributing to that episode, they wrote. However, there have been few cancer-specific bundled payment programs described to date.

The tiered approach was based on an analysis of 150 patients with stage 0 to IVB head and neck cancer, excluding those with recurrent or metastatic disease and those treated with palliative intent. Most (58%) had stage IVA disease and the oropharynx was the tumor subsite in 48%.

Direct costs could not be published because of institutional policy, according to Dr. Ward and coauthors, who instead reported overall costs of treatment as relative median costs, or the ratio of the cost of a specific treatment versus the cost of surgery alone.

Specifically, surgery plus chemoradiation was the most costly versus surgery alone, with a relative median cost of 3.13 (P less than .001), followed by chemoradiation at 2.18 (P less than .001) surgery and radiation at 1.98 (P less than .001), and radiation alone at 1.66 (P = .013).

The treatment modalities used were driven by groups of stages, the investigators wrote. Compared with stages 0 to I, stages II to IVA were 33% more expensive, while stage IVB was 60% more expensive. Patient factors such as age, smoking, or comorbidities were not associated with cost.

Previous reported studies of cancer-specific bundled payment models have shown decreased costs and favorable outcomes, according to the researchers. Among those is an University of Texas MD Anderson Center report showing that a four-tiered model, based on treatments received and stratified by comorbidities, was feasible in a 1-year pilot study.

The current report validates those previous findings, with some differences, Dr. Ward and coauthors wrote. In particular, the three-tiered model was not stratified by Charlson comorbidity index, which did not correlate with cost in the present analysis, and it included less common disease sites than in the MD Anderson model.

“We felt it important to be inclusive of all patients seen by our multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team to keep the proposed bundled payments model as practical and simple as possible,” they wrote.

Dr. Ward reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca. Study coauthors provided disclosures related to Blue Earth Diagnostics, Merck, Varian Medical Systems, UpToDate, Gerson Lehrman Group, Osler, AlignRT, Chrysalis Biotherapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Tom MC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00665.

While many factors can influence cost in head and neck cancer, a simple bundled payments model for the disease can be developed based solely on treatment types, researchers reported.

The number of treatment modalities was the biggest driver of cost in an analysis of 150 head and neck cancer patients. Whether those patients needed single-modality, bimodality, or trimodality treatment was in turn driven by the stage of the disease; by contrast, patient factors had no significant cost impacts, the investigators found.

Based on those findings, they developed a three-tiered cost model in which surgery or radiation was the least costly, chemoradiation or surgery plus radiation was next, and surgery plus chemoradiation was associated with the highest cost.

Basing bundled payments on treatment modality is a “simple but clinically robust model” for payment selection in head and neck cancer patients, wrote senior author Matthew C. Ward, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and coauthors.

“A tiered system driven by treatment complexity will aid providers who seek to stratify financial risk in a simple and meaningful manner,” Dr. Ward and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

As cancer costs rise, bundled payment models seek to “incentivize value and reduce administrative waste” with a single payment per episode of care, shared by all providers contributing to that episode, they wrote. However, there have been few cancer-specific bundled payment programs described to date.

The tiered approach was based on an analysis of 150 patients with stage 0 to IVB head and neck cancer, excluding those with recurrent or metastatic disease and those treated with palliative intent. Most (58%) had stage IVA disease and the oropharynx was the tumor subsite in 48%.

Direct costs could not be published because of institutional policy, according to Dr. Ward and coauthors, who instead reported overall costs of treatment as relative median costs, or the ratio of the cost of a specific treatment versus the cost of surgery alone.

Specifically, surgery plus chemoradiation was the most costly versus surgery alone, with a relative median cost of 3.13 (P less than .001), followed by chemoradiation at 2.18 (P less than .001) surgery and radiation at 1.98 (P less than .001), and radiation alone at 1.66 (P = .013).

The treatment modalities used were driven by groups of stages, the investigators wrote. Compared with stages 0 to I, stages II to IVA were 33% more expensive, while stage IVB was 60% more expensive. Patient factors such as age, smoking, or comorbidities were not associated with cost.

Previous reported studies of cancer-specific bundled payment models have shown decreased costs and favorable outcomes, according to the researchers. Among those is an University of Texas MD Anderson Center report showing that a four-tiered model, based on treatments received and stratified by comorbidities, was feasible in a 1-year pilot study.

The current report validates those previous findings, with some differences, Dr. Ward and coauthors wrote. In particular, the three-tiered model was not stratified by Charlson comorbidity index, which did not correlate with cost in the present analysis, and it included less common disease sites than in the MD Anderson model.

“We felt it important to be inclusive of all patients seen by our multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team to keep the proposed bundled payments model as practical and simple as possible,” they wrote.

Dr. Ward reported a consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca. Study coauthors provided disclosures related to Blue Earth Diagnostics, Merck, Varian Medical Systems, UpToDate, Gerson Lehrman Group, Osler, AlignRT, Chrysalis Biotherapeutics, and others.

SOURCE: Tom MC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00665.

For patients with head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNCSCC), the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) tumor classification system is better at predicting metastases and death than the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), based on a study involving 459 patients.

Using the AJCC 8 system, twice as many tumors were considered to be in a high tumor class, compared with the BWH system, reported lead author Emily Stamell Ruiz, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and her colleagues. Using the BWH system could minimize the number of patients undergoing intensive monitoring and possibly therapy without missing those at high risk for poor outcomes.

“Identification of … tumors with significant risk of recurrence, progression to unresectability, or death is challenging owing to lack of accurate [cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma] risk stratification,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Although AJCC 7 offered a method of classifying such tumors, validation and refinement have been challenging because of a lack of relevant data in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. A previous study showed that the BWH system outperformed AJCC 7; however, until now, no study has compared the BWH system with AJCC 8, which was released in January 2018 with updated HNCSCC classifications. The BWH has four possible classifications defined by number of high-risk factors and presence or absence of bone invasion: T1, T2a, T2b, and T3. In comparison, the AJCC 8 has five possible classifications defined by tumor size and level of invasion: T1, T2, T3, T4a, and T4b.

The present study involved 459 patients with 680 HNCSCCs. The patients were staged by both BWH and AJCC 8 systems, then compared for accuracy of predicting poor outcomes, including nodal metastases, local recurrence, disease specific death, and overall survival.

The analysis showed that the BWH system had a specificity of 93% for predicting metastases or death, compared with 85% for the AJCC 8 (P less than .001). Sensitivity was not statistically significant between the two groups; however, the BWH system had a better positive predictive value, at 30%, compared with 17% from the AJCC 8. Of note, the AJCC 8 system grouped almost one-quarter of patients (23%) into the T2 and T3 groups, which led to poorer risk prediction, according to the investigators. These patients had a 13% risk of nodal metastasis and an 8% risk of disease-specific death. In contrast, the BWH system confined most poor outcomes into the T2b and T3 groups, which included just 9% of patients, raising risk of disease-specific death to 17% and risk of nodal metastasis to 24%, the latter of which aligns with previously published data.

“One reason for the equivalent outcomes in AJCC 8 T2 and T3 is that poor differentiation is not a risk factor,” the investigators explained. “Approximately 50% of nodal metastasis and overall death in AJCC 8 T2 occurred in patients with poorly differentiated tumors, increasing the risk of poor outcomes in this group. The risk of poor outcomes was lower in AJCC 8 T3, compared with BWH T2b because AJCC 8 T3 tumors are only required to have one of four risk factors whereas two risk factors are required for BWH T2b tumor class.”

The investigators concluded by highlighting the real-world benefits of the BWH system. “Use of BWH tumor classification may minimize the number of patients recommended for radiologic evaluation, close surveillance, and possible adjuvant therapy while still identifying most patients at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ruiz ES et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0032.

For patients with head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNCSCC), the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) tumor classification system is better at predicting metastases and death than the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), based on a study involving 459 patients.

Using the AJCC 8 system, twice as many tumors were considered to be in a high tumor class, compared with the BWH system, reported lead author Emily Stamell Ruiz, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and her colleagues. Using the BWH system could minimize the number of patients undergoing intensive monitoring and possibly therapy without missing those at high risk for poor outcomes.

“Identification of … tumors with significant risk of recurrence, progression to unresectability, or death is challenging owing to lack of accurate [cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma] risk stratification,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Although AJCC 7 offered a method of classifying such tumors, validation and refinement have been challenging because of a lack of relevant data in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. A previous study showed that the BWH system outperformed AJCC 7; however, until now, no study has compared the BWH system with AJCC 8, which was released in January 2018 with updated HNCSCC classifications. The BWH has four possible classifications defined by number of high-risk factors and presence or absence of bone invasion: T1, T2a, T2b, and T3. In comparison, the AJCC 8 has five possible classifications defined by tumor size and level of invasion: T1, T2, T3, T4a, and T4b.

The present study involved 459 patients with 680 HNCSCCs. The patients were staged by both BWH and AJCC 8 systems, then compared for accuracy of predicting poor outcomes, including nodal metastases, local recurrence, disease specific death, and overall survival.

The analysis showed that the BWH system had a specificity of 93% for predicting metastases or death, compared with 85% for the AJCC 8 (P less than .001). Sensitivity was not statistically significant between the two groups; however, the BWH system had a better positive predictive value, at 30%, compared with 17% from the AJCC 8. Of note, the AJCC 8 system grouped almost one-quarter of patients (23%) into the T2 and T3 groups, which led to poorer risk prediction, according to the investigators. These patients had a 13% risk of nodal metastasis and an 8% risk of disease-specific death. In contrast, the BWH system confined most poor outcomes into the T2b and T3 groups, which included just 9% of patients, raising risk of disease-specific death to 17% and risk of nodal metastasis to 24%, the latter of which aligns with previously published data.

“One reason for the equivalent outcomes in AJCC 8 T2 and T3 is that poor differentiation is not a risk factor,” the investigators explained. “Approximately 50% of nodal metastasis and overall death in AJCC 8 T2 occurred in patients with poorly differentiated tumors, increasing the risk of poor outcomes in this group. The risk of poor outcomes was lower in AJCC 8 T3, compared with BWH T2b because AJCC 8 T3 tumors are only required to have one of four risk factors whereas two risk factors are required for BWH T2b tumor class.”

The investigators concluded by highlighting the real-world benefits of the BWH system. “Use of BWH tumor classification may minimize the number of patients recommended for radiologic evaluation, close surveillance, and possible adjuvant therapy while still identifying most patients at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ruiz ES et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0032.

For patients with head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNCSCC), the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) tumor classification system is better at predicting metastases and death than the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), based on a study involving 459 patients.

Using the AJCC 8 system, twice as many tumors were considered to be in a high tumor class, compared with the BWH system, reported lead author Emily Stamell Ruiz, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and her colleagues. Using the BWH system could minimize the number of patients undergoing intensive monitoring and possibly therapy without missing those at high risk for poor outcomes.

“Identification of … tumors with significant risk of recurrence, progression to unresectability, or death is challenging owing to lack of accurate [cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma] risk stratification,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Although AJCC 7 offered a method of classifying such tumors, validation and refinement have been challenging because of a lack of relevant data in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. A previous study showed that the BWH system outperformed AJCC 7; however, until now, no study has compared the BWH system with AJCC 8, which was released in January 2018 with updated HNCSCC classifications. The BWH has four possible classifications defined by number of high-risk factors and presence or absence of bone invasion: T1, T2a, T2b, and T3. In comparison, the AJCC 8 has five possible classifications defined by tumor size and level of invasion: T1, T2, T3, T4a, and T4b.

The present study involved 459 patients with 680 HNCSCCs. The patients were staged by both BWH and AJCC 8 systems, then compared for accuracy of predicting poor outcomes, including nodal metastases, local recurrence, disease specific death, and overall survival.

The analysis showed that the BWH system had a specificity of 93% for predicting metastases or death, compared with 85% for the AJCC 8 (P less than .001). Sensitivity was not statistically significant between the two groups; however, the BWH system had a better positive predictive value, at 30%, compared with 17% from the AJCC 8. Of note, the AJCC 8 system grouped almost one-quarter of patients (23%) into the T2 and T3 groups, which led to poorer risk prediction, according to the investigators. These patients had a 13% risk of nodal metastasis and an 8% risk of disease-specific death. In contrast, the BWH system confined most poor outcomes into the T2b and T3 groups, which included just 9% of patients, raising risk of disease-specific death to 17% and risk of nodal metastasis to 24%, the latter of which aligns with previously published data.

“One reason for the equivalent outcomes in AJCC 8 T2 and T3 is that poor differentiation is not a risk factor,” the investigators explained. “Approximately 50% of nodal metastasis and overall death in AJCC 8 T2 occurred in patients with poorly differentiated tumors, increasing the risk of poor outcomes in this group. The risk of poor outcomes was lower in AJCC 8 T3, compared with BWH T2b because AJCC 8 T3 tumors are only required to have one of four risk factors whereas two risk factors are required for BWH T2b tumor class.”

The investigators concluded by highlighting the real-world benefits of the BWH system. “Use of BWH tumor classification may minimize the number of patients recommended for radiologic evaluation, close surveillance, and possible adjuvant therapy while still identifying most patients at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ruiz ES et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0032.

Patients who have recurrence of cutaneous squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (cSCC-HN) tend to have poor outcomes regardless of immune status, according to investigators.

Patients with surgically unsalvageable recurrent disease had the worst outcomes, reported lead author Lillian Sun, of the Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues.

These findings support more intensive upfront therapy for patients with cSCC-HN, the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. They noted that most patients with cSCC have good outcomes, with less than 5% experiencing recurrence or distant metastasis; however, “there is a subset of patients with adverse pathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course,” the investigators pointed out, “with substantially higher rates of locoregional recurrence (13%-41%) and distant metastasis (7%-16%) after surgical resection.”

According to the investigators, previous research has identified several patient factors that predict poor outcomes, such as invasiveness and differentiation, as well as chronic immunosuppression. To build on these data, and, in particular, to determine if immune suppression was linked with poor outcomes, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 205 patients with cSCC-HN.

From this cohort, 72 patients had disease recurrence after surgery and radiotherapy. The average age of the patients was 71 years. About half were immunosuppressed (55.6%). On average, disease recurrence occurred slightly earlier in immunosuppressed patients (9.1 months) than in immunocompetent patients (10.1 months). Most patients had locoregional recurrence first, at rates of 65.6% and 77.5% among immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, respectively. Irrespective of immune status, median overall survival was 8.4 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 43.2%. In contrast with previous findings, immune status was not statistically associated with median overall survival; immunocompetent patients did tend to live longer (12.9 months) than immunosuppressed patients (8.0 months), but this difference carried a P value of .90.

The investigators found that surgical candidacy after recurrence had the strongest impact on survival. Patients with surgically salvageable disease had a median overall survival of 26.1 months, compared with just 4.7 months for those who were not amenable to surgical salvage (P = .01). Among patients with unsalvageable disease, again, immune status did not have a significant impact on outcome.

“This study demonstrates that survival in this population is poor,” the investigators concluded. “Although we hypothesized that immunosuppressed status would be a significant contributor to outcomes in these patients, similar to findings in the upfront treatment setting, the current study suggests that this is not the case.”

The investigators reported clinical trial support from Genentech, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Sun et al. JAMA Derm. 27 Feb 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5453.

Patients who have recurrence of cutaneous squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (cSCC-HN) tend to have poor outcomes regardless of immune status, according to investigators.

Patients with surgically unsalvageable recurrent disease had the worst outcomes, reported lead author Lillian Sun, of the Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues.

These findings support more intensive upfront therapy for patients with cSCC-HN, the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. They noted that most patients with cSCC have good outcomes, with less than 5% experiencing recurrence or distant metastasis; however, “there is a subset of patients with adverse pathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course,” the investigators pointed out, “with substantially higher rates of locoregional recurrence (13%-41%) and distant metastasis (7%-16%) after surgical resection.”

According to the investigators, previous research has identified several patient factors that predict poor outcomes, such as invasiveness and differentiation, as well as chronic immunosuppression. To build on these data, and, in particular, to determine if immune suppression was linked with poor outcomes, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 205 patients with cSCC-HN.

From this cohort, 72 patients had disease recurrence after surgery and radiotherapy. The average age of the patients was 71 years. About half were immunosuppressed (55.6%). On average, disease recurrence occurred slightly earlier in immunosuppressed patients (9.1 months) than in immunocompetent patients (10.1 months). Most patients had locoregional recurrence first, at rates of 65.6% and 77.5% among immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, respectively. Irrespective of immune status, median overall survival was 8.4 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 43.2%. In contrast with previous findings, immune status was not statistically associated with median overall survival; immunocompetent patients did tend to live longer (12.9 months) than immunosuppressed patients (8.0 months), but this difference carried a P value of .90.

The investigators found that surgical candidacy after recurrence had the strongest impact on survival. Patients with surgically salvageable disease had a median overall survival of 26.1 months, compared with just 4.7 months for those who were not amenable to surgical salvage (P = .01). Among patients with unsalvageable disease, again, immune status did not have a significant impact on outcome.

“This study demonstrates that survival in this population is poor,” the investigators concluded. “Although we hypothesized that immunosuppressed status would be a significant contributor to outcomes in these patients, similar to findings in the upfront treatment setting, the current study suggests that this is not the case.”

The investigators reported clinical trial support from Genentech, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Sun et al. JAMA Derm. 27 Feb 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5453.

Patients who have recurrence of cutaneous squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (cSCC-HN) tend to have poor outcomes regardless of immune status, according to investigators.

Patients with surgically unsalvageable recurrent disease had the worst outcomes, reported lead author Lillian Sun, of the Cleveland Clinic, and her colleagues.

These findings support more intensive upfront therapy for patients with cSCC-HN, the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. They noted that most patients with cSCC have good outcomes, with less than 5% experiencing recurrence or distant metastasis; however, “there is a subset of patients with adverse pathologic features and a more aggressive clinical course,” the investigators pointed out, “with substantially higher rates of locoregional recurrence (13%-41%) and distant metastasis (7%-16%) after surgical resection.”

According to the investigators, previous research has identified several patient factors that predict poor outcomes, such as invasiveness and differentiation, as well as chronic immunosuppression. To build on these data, and, in particular, to determine if immune suppression was linked with poor outcomes, the investigators conducted a retrospective analysis of 205 patients with cSCC-HN.

From this cohort, 72 patients had disease recurrence after surgery and radiotherapy. The average age of the patients was 71 years. About half were immunosuppressed (55.6%). On average, disease recurrence occurred slightly earlier in immunosuppressed patients (9.1 months) than in immunocompetent patients (10.1 months). Most patients had locoregional recurrence first, at rates of 65.6% and 77.5% among immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, respectively. Irrespective of immune status, median overall survival was 8.4 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 43.2%. In contrast with previous findings, immune status was not statistically associated with median overall survival; immunocompetent patients did tend to live longer (12.9 months) than immunosuppressed patients (8.0 months), but this difference carried a P value of .90.

The investigators found that surgical candidacy after recurrence had the strongest impact on survival. Patients with surgically salvageable disease had a median overall survival of 26.1 months, compared with just 4.7 months for those who were not amenable to surgical salvage (P = .01). Among patients with unsalvageable disease, again, immune status did not have a significant impact on outcome.

“This study demonstrates that survival in this population is poor,” the investigators concluded. “Although we hypothesized that immunosuppressed status would be a significant contributor to outcomes in these patients, similar to findings in the upfront treatment setting, the current study suggests that this is not the case.”

The investigators reported clinical trial support from Genentech, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

SOURCE: Sun et al. JAMA Derm. 27 Feb 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5453.

Doxepin mouthwash and diphenhydramine/lidocaine/antacid (DLA) mouthwash can offer 4 hours of pain relief for cancer patients with oral mucositis, according to investigators.

Although these agents led to statistical improvements in pain, neither met predetermined clinical efficacy thresholds, reported lead author Terence T. Sio, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix and his colleagues, who suggested that more safety and efficacy research is needed.

“Few pharmacological agents or interventions have been shown to effectively reduce the severity of radiotherapy-related oral mucositis and its associated pain,” the investigators wrote in JAMA.

They noted that this knowledge gap affects everyday practice since “more than 80% of patients develop oral mucositis during radiotherapy, and mouthwashes and systemic analgesic agents are frequently used to treat the condition.”

Small studies have shown that doxepin, a tricyclic antidepressant, could be an effective agent for oral mucositis, while a variety of DLA mouthwashes are commonly prescribed, despite a dearth of relevant Cochrane reviews or randomized placebo-controlled trials.

This background led to the present study, which included 275 patients who had developed oral mucositis while undergoing head and neck radiotherapy for cancer. The patients were randomized evenly into three mouthwash groups: placebo (2.5 mL Ora-Sweet SF oral solution and 2.5 mL of water), doxepin (25 mg in 5 mL solution), or diphenhydramine (12.5 mg in 5 mL alcohol-free solution), lidocaine (2% viscous solution), and antacid (20 mg of simethicone, 200 mg of magnesium hydroxide, and 200 mg of aluminum hydroxide in 355 mL solution). The study was divided into two cycles; in the first, patients used their assigned mouthwash once, whereas in the second cycle, which was optional, patients used their assigned treatment every 4 hours for up to 7 days.

The primary endpoint was oral mucositis pain. Multiple secondary endpoints were assessed, including patient preference for continued therapy and various adverse effects, such as drowsiness and taste. Responses were assessed using a combination of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire and the Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire–Head and Neck Cancer. This modified questionnaire was conducted prior to treatment, then after treatment at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Pain improvements were compared by area under the curve after adjustment for baseline score. Clinical improvement was defined as a 3.5 point difference in pain score, compared with placebo.

Data analysis showed that pain in the first 4 hours decreased the most in the DLA group (11.7 points), slightly less in the doxepin group (11.6 points), and least in the placebo group (8.7 points). Compared with placebo, both treatments offered statistical improvements. DLA patients responded the most (3.0 points; P = .004), while, again, the average doxepin response was similar, albeit with a slightly higher P value. (2.9 points; P = .02). The investigators discouraged direct comparisons between the two agents because the study was not designed for this purpose.

Neither intervention met the predetermined 3.5-point threshold for clinical improvement, although the investigators suggested that some patients may have had meaningful responses.

“There is some suggestion in post hoc analyses that the findings may have been clinically relevant for some patients,” the investigators wrote, noting that responder analysis favored treatment with DLA versus placebo, but not doxepin versus placebo. “However,” they noted, “the overall clinical importance of the statistically significant primary findings remains uncertain.”

Compared with placebo, doxepin mouthwash was associated with stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, drowsiness, and fatigue. Of note, fatigue only occurred in the doxepin group, at a rate of 6%. Both treatment groups had a maximum grade 3 adverse event rate of 4%, while the placebo arm had an adverse event rate of 2%.

“Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic Symptom Intervention Program. One investigator reported a nonfinancial support from CutisPharma. The other investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sio TT et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3504.

Doxepin mouthwash and diphenhydramine/lidocaine/antacid (DLA) mouthwash can offer 4 hours of pain relief for cancer patients with oral mucositis, according to investigators.

Although these agents led to statistical improvements in pain, neither met predetermined clinical efficacy thresholds, reported lead author Terence T. Sio, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix and his colleagues, who suggested that more safety and efficacy research is needed.

“Few pharmacological agents or interventions have been shown to effectively reduce the severity of radiotherapy-related oral mucositis and its associated pain,” the investigators wrote in JAMA.

They noted that this knowledge gap affects everyday practice since “more than 80% of patients develop oral mucositis during radiotherapy, and mouthwashes and systemic analgesic agents are frequently used to treat the condition.”

Small studies have shown that doxepin, a tricyclic antidepressant, could be an effective agent for oral mucositis, while a variety of DLA mouthwashes are commonly prescribed, despite a dearth of relevant Cochrane reviews or randomized placebo-controlled trials.

This background led to the present study, which included 275 patients who had developed oral mucositis while undergoing head and neck radiotherapy for cancer. The patients were randomized evenly into three mouthwash groups: placebo (2.5 mL Ora-Sweet SF oral solution and 2.5 mL of water), doxepin (25 mg in 5 mL solution), or diphenhydramine (12.5 mg in 5 mL alcohol-free solution), lidocaine (2% viscous solution), and antacid (20 mg of simethicone, 200 mg of magnesium hydroxide, and 200 mg of aluminum hydroxide in 355 mL solution). The study was divided into two cycles; in the first, patients used their assigned mouthwash once, whereas in the second cycle, which was optional, patients used their assigned treatment every 4 hours for up to 7 days.

The primary endpoint was oral mucositis pain. Multiple secondary endpoints were assessed, including patient preference for continued therapy and various adverse effects, such as drowsiness and taste. Responses were assessed using a combination of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire and the Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire–Head and Neck Cancer. This modified questionnaire was conducted prior to treatment, then after treatment at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Pain improvements were compared by area under the curve after adjustment for baseline score. Clinical improvement was defined as a 3.5 point difference in pain score, compared with placebo.

Data analysis showed that pain in the first 4 hours decreased the most in the DLA group (11.7 points), slightly less in the doxepin group (11.6 points), and least in the placebo group (8.7 points). Compared with placebo, both treatments offered statistical improvements. DLA patients responded the most (3.0 points; P = .004), while, again, the average doxepin response was similar, albeit with a slightly higher P value. (2.9 points; P = .02). The investigators discouraged direct comparisons between the two agents because the study was not designed for this purpose.

Neither intervention met the predetermined 3.5-point threshold for clinical improvement, although the investigators suggested that some patients may have had meaningful responses.

“There is some suggestion in post hoc analyses that the findings may have been clinically relevant for some patients,” the investigators wrote, noting that responder analysis favored treatment with DLA versus placebo, but not doxepin versus placebo. “However,” they noted, “the overall clinical importance of the statistically significant primary findings remains uncertain.”

Compared with placebo, doxepin mouthwash was associated with stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, drowsiness, and fatigue. Of note, fatigue only occurred in the doxepin group, at a rate of 6%. Both treatment groups had a maximum grade 3 adverse event rate of 4%, while the placebo arm had an adverse event rate of 2%.

“Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic Symptom Intervention Program. One investigator reported a nonfinancial support from CutisPharma. The other investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sio TT et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3504.

Doxepin mouthwash and diphenhydramine/lidocaine/antacid (DLA) mouthwash can offer 4 hours of pain relief for cancer patients with oral mucositis, according to investigators.

Although these agents led to statistical improvements in pain, neither met predetermined clinical efficacy thresholds, reported lead author Terence T. Sio, MD, of the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix and his colleagues, who suggested that more safety and efficacy research is needed.

“Few pharmacological agents or interventions have been shown to effectively reduce the severity of radiotherapy-related oral mucositis and its associated pain,” the investigators wrote in JAMA.

They noted that this knowledge gap affects everyday practice since “more than 80% of patients develop oral mucositis during radiotherapy, and mouthwashes and systemic analgesic agents are frequently used to treat the condition.”

Small studies have shown that doxepin, a tricyclic antidepressant, could be an effective agent for oral mucositis, while a variety of DLA mouthwashes are commonly prescribed, despite a dearth of relevant Cochrane reviews or randomized placebo-controlled trials.

This background led to the present study, which included 275 patients who had developed oral mucositis while undergoing head and neck radiotherapy for cancer. The patients were randomized evenly into three mouthwash groups: placebo (2.5 mL Ora-Sweet SF oral solution and 2.5 mL of water), doxepin (25 mg in 5 mL solution), or diphenhydramine (12.5 mg in 5 mL alcohol-free solution), lidocaine (2% viscous solution), and antacid (20 mg of simethicone, 200 mg of magnesium hydroxide, and 200 mg of aluminum hydroxide in 355 mL solution). The study was divided into two cycles; in the first, patients used their assigned mouthwash once, whereas in the second cycle, which was optional, patients used their assigned treatment every 4 hours for up to 7 days.

The primary endpoint was oral mucositis pain. Multiple secondary endpoints were assessed, including patient preference for continued therapy and various adverse effects, such as drowsiness and taste. Responses were assessed using a combination of the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire and the Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire–Head and Neck Cancer. This modified questionnaire was conducted prior to treatment, then after treatment at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Pain improvements were compared by area under the curve after adjustment for baseline score. Clinical improvement was defined as a 3.5 point difference in pain score, compared with placebo.

Data analysis showed that pain in the first 4 hours decreased the most in the DLA group (11.7 points), slightly less in the doxepin group (11.6 points), and least in the placebo group (8.7 points). Compared with placebo, both treatments offered statistical improvements. DLA patients responded the most (3.0 points; P = .004), while, again, the average doxepin response was similar, albeit with a slightly higher P value. (2.9 points; P = .02). The investigators discouraged direct comparisons between the two agents because the study was not designed for this purpose.

Neither intervention met the predetermined 3.5-point threshold for clinical improvement, although the investigators suggested that some patients may have had meaningful responses.

“There is some suggestion in post hoc analyses that the findings may have been clinically relevant for some patients,” the investigators wrote, noting that responder analysis favored treatment with DLA versus placebo, but not doxepin versus placebo. “However,” they noted, “the overall clinical importance of the statistically significant primary findings remains uncertain.”

Compared with placebo, doxepin mouthwash was associated with stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, drowsiness, and fatigue. Of note, fatigue only occurred in the doxepin group, at a rate of 6%. Both treatment groups had a maximum grade 3 adverse event rate of 4%, while the placebo arm had an adverse event rate of 2%.

“Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic Symptom Intervention Program. One investigator reported a nonfinancial support from CutisPharma. The other investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Sio TT et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3504.

NEW ORLEANS – The 2015 American Thyroid Association risk stratification system for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer performed well in a real-world cohort with a high proportion of high-risk patients, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“The 2015 ATA Risk Stratification System is an excellent predictor of both persisting disease and survival,” wrote Evert F.S. van Velsen, MD, and his colleagues at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in a poster accompanying the presentation.

Among a group of 236 patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors looked at how the ATA high-risk criteria influenced patient response to therapy. By the end of the 14-year study period, initial gross extrathyroidal disease extension meant patients were much less likely to have an excellent response (odds ratio, 0.26; P less than .001), and much more likely to have persistent disease (OR, 2.57; P = .001).

Odds of having an excellent response were reduced by having high postoperative thyroglobulin levels (OR, 0.21; P less than .001), and persistent disease was more likely (OR, 2.39; P = .002).

Other high-risk criteria associated with significantly lower odds of excellent response included distant metastases (OR, 0.36), incomplete resection (OR, 0.51), and having follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC) with extensive vascular invasion (OR, 0.27). All these risk factors also were associated with higher odds of persistent disease.

“Recurrence after no evidence of disease occurred in 14%” of the study population, said Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors, adding, “Clinicians should be aware of the relatively high recurrence risk, even after an excellent response to therapy.”

The study aimed to evaluate the 2015 ATA risk stratification system’s prognostic value in a population that included a relatively large proportion of high-risk DTC patients, to include many FTC patients. This work, they noted, augments previous assessments of the risk stratification system in lower-risk populations.

The authors noted that, in addition to predicting disease recurrence, the risk stratification system also worked as a predictor of disease-specific survival. Patients with structural incomplete response fared the worst, with a survival probability below 0.5 at 200 months on a Kaplan-Meier curve of disease-specific survival. Survival probability remained at 1.0 for patients with excellent response after first therapy and was intermediate for those with indeterminate response and biochemical incomplete response.

Overall mortality was higher in FTC patients. Over the study period, 31 of the 76 FTC patients (41%) died, compared with 39 of the PTC patients (24%; P = .010). In all, 28% of the FTC patients and 18% of the PTC patients died of thyroid cancer, but this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The retrospective study included adults with DTC meeting the 2015 ATA high-risk criteria who were diagnosed and/or treated at Erasmus Medical Center over a 13-year span ending in December 2015.

Overall, the investigators found 236 patients meeting inclusion criteria; 160 had papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), and the remaining 76 had FTC. The latter group were significantly older at baseline than PTC patients (64 versus 53 years), and were significantly less likely to undergo neck dissection (22% versus 55%).

In the full cohort, 96 patients (41%) had one high-risk factor, and an additional 74 (31%) had two risk factors. The remaining patients had three or more risk factors.

There was no between-group difference in the likelihood of receiving radioactive iodine treatment, but those with FTC had a lower cumulative radiation dose (195 versus 298 mCi; P less than .001).

More than half of patients (58%) had persistent disease after completing their first therapy. Of these, 51% had structural incomplete response and 7% had biochemical incomplete response. The response was indeterminate for about a quarter of the cohort, and the remaining 17% had an excellent initial response.

By the end of the study period, 55% of patients had persistent disease, and 51% had structural incomplete response (a more likely result for those with FTC than PTC). Just 4% had a biochemical incomplete response, and the response was indeterminate for 16%. Response was judged excellent for 29% of patients.

Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: van Velsen EFS et al. ENDO 2019, Abstract MON-549.

NEW ORLEANS – The 2015 American Thyroid Association risk stratification system for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer performed well in a real-world cohort with a high proportion of high-risk patients, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“The 2015 ATA Risk Stratification System is an excellent predictor of both persisting disease and survival,” wrote Evert F.S. van Velsen, MD, and his colleagues at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in a poster accompanying the presentation.

Among a group of 236 patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors looked at how the ATA high-risk criteria influenced patient response to therapy. By the end of the 14-year study period, initial gross extrathyroidal disease extension meant patients were much less likely to have an excellent response (odds ratio, 0.26; P less than .001), and much more likely to have persistent disease (OR, 2.57; P = .001).

Odds of having an excellent response were reduced by having high postoperative thyroglobulin levels (OR, 0.21; P less than .001), and persistent disease was more likely (OR, 2.39; P = .002).

Other high-risk criteria associated with significantly lower odds of excellent response included distant metastases (OR, 0.36), incomplete resection (OR, 0.51), and having follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC) with extensive vascular invasion (OR, 0.27). All these risk factors also were associated with higher odds of persistent disease.

“Recurrence after no evidence of disease occurred in 14%” of the study population, said Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors, adding, “Clinicians should be aware of the relatively high recurrence risk, even after an excellent response to therapy.”

The study aimed to evaluate the 2015 ATA risk stratification system’s prognostic value in a population that included a relatively large proportion of high-risk DTC patients, to include many FTC patients. This work, they noted, augments previous assessments of the risk stratification system in lower-risk populations.

The authors noted that, in addition to predicting disease recurrence, the risk stratification system also worked as a predictor of disease-specific survival. Patients with structural incomplete response fared the worst, with a survival probability below 0.5 at 200 months on a Kaplan-Meier curve of disease-specific survival. Survival probability remained at 1.0 for patients with excellent response after first therapy and was intermediate for those with indeterminate response and biochemical incomplete response.

Overall mortality was higher in FTC patients. Over the study period, 31 of the 76 FTC patients (41%) died, compared with 39 of the PTC patients (24%; P = .010). In all, 28% of the FTC patients and 18% of the PTC patients died of thyroid cancer, but this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The retrospective study included adults with DTC meeting the 2015 ATA high-risk criteria who were diagnosed and/or treated at Erasmus Medical Center over a 13-year span ending in December 2015.

Overall, the investigators found 236 patients meeting inclusion criteria; 160 had papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), and the remaining 76 had FTC. The latter group were significantly older at baseline than PTC patients (64 versus 53 years), and were significantly less likely to undergo neck dissection (22% versus 55%).

In the full cohort, 96 patients (41%) had one high-risk factor, and an additional 74 (31%) had two risk factors. The remaining patients had three or more risk factors.

There was no between-group difference in the likelihood of receiving radioactive iodine treatment, but those with FTC had a lower cumulative radiation dose (195 versus 298 mCi; P less than .001).

More than half of patients (58%) had persistent disease after completing their first therapy. Of these, 51% had structural incomplete response and 7% had biochemical incomplete response. The response was indeterminate for about a quarter of the cohort, and the remaining 17% had an excellent initial response.

By the end of the study period, 55% of patients had persistent disease, and 51% had structural incomplete response (a more likely result for those with FTC than PTC). Just 4% had a biochemical incomplete response, and the response was indeterminate for 16%. Response was judged excellent for 29% of patients.

Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: van Velsen EFS et al. ENDO 2019, Abstract MON-549.

NEW ORLEANS – The 2015 American Thyroid Association risk stratification system for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer performed well in a real-world cohort with a high proportion of high-risk patients, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“The 2015 ATA Risk Stratification System is an excellent predictor of both persisting disease and survival,” wrote Evert F.S. van Velsen, MD, and his colleagues at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in a poster accompanying the presentation.

Among a group of 236 patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors looked at how the ATA high-risk criteria influenced patient response to therapy. By the end of the 14-year study period, initial gross extrathyroidal disease extension meant patients were much less likely to have an excellent response (odds ratio, 0.26; P less than .001), and much more likely to have persistent disease (OR, 2.57; P = .001).

Odds of having an excellent response were reduced by having high postoperative thyroglobulin levels (OR, 0.21; P less than .001), and persistent disease was more likely (OR, 2.39; P = .002).

Other high-risk criteria associated with significantly lower odds of excellent response included distant metastases (OR, 0.36), incomplete resection (OR, 0.51), and having follicular thyroid carcinoma (FTC) with extensive vascular invasion (OR, 0.27). All these risk factors also were associated with higher odds of persistent disease.

“Recurrence after no evidence of disease occurred in 14%” of the study population, said Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors, adding, “Clinicians should be aware of the relatively high recurrence risk, even after an excellent response to therapy.”

The study aimed to evaluate the 2015 ATA risk stratification system’s prognostic value in a population that included a relatively large proportion of high-risk DTC patients, to include many FTC patients. This work, they noted, augments previous assessments of the risk stratification system in lower-risk populations.

The authors noted that, in addition to predicting disease recurrence, the risk stratification system also worked as a predictor of disease-specific survival. Patients with structural incomplete response fared the worst, with a survival probability below 0.5 at 200 months on a Kaplan-Meier curve of disease-specific survival. Survival probability remained at 1.0 for patients with excellent response after first therapy and was intermediate for those with indeterminate response and biochemical incomplete response.

Overall mortality was higher in FTC patients. Over the study period, 31 of the 76 FTC patients (41%) died, compared with 39 of the PTC patients (24%; P = .010). In all, 28% of the FTC patients and 18% of the PTC patients died of thyroid cancer, but this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.

The retrospective study included adults with DTC meeting the 2015 ATA high-risk criteria who were diagnosed and/or treated at Erasmus Medical Center over a 13-year span ending in December 2015.

Overall, the investigators found 236 patients meeting inclusion criteria; 160 had papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), and the remaining 76 had FTC. The latter group were significantly older at baseline than PTC patients (64 versus 53 years), and were significantly less likely to undergo neck dissection (22% versus 55%).

In the full cohort, 96 patients (41%) had one high-risk factor, and an additional 74 (31%) had two risk factors. The remaining patients had three or more risk factors.

There was no between-group difference in the likelihood of receiving radioactive iodine treatment, but those with FTC had a lower cumulative radiation dose (195 versus 298 mCi; P less than .001).

More than half of patients (58%) had persistent disease after completing their first therapy. Of these, 51% had structural incomplete response and 7% had biochemical incomplete response. The response was indeterminate for about a quarter of the cohort, and the remaining 17% had an excellent initial response.

By the end of the study period, 55% of patients had persistent disease, and 51% had structural incomplete response (a more likely result for those with FTC than PTC). Just 4% had a biochemical incomplete response, and the response was indeterminate for 16%. Response was judged excellent for 29% of patients.

Dr. van Velsen and his coauthors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: van Velsen EFS et al. ENDO 2019, Abstract MON-549.

SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.

The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.

To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.

The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.

Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.

Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).

In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.

An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.

The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.

SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.

SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.

The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.

To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.

The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.

Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.

Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).

In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.

An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.

The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.

SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.

SAN FRANCISCO – Antibiotic exposure in the month before cancer immunotherapy starts may hamper the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors, investigators caution.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

A prospective study of 196 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for various cancers showed that the 29 patients who received antibiotics within 30 days of starting immunotherapy had significantly worse overall survival than patients without antibiotic exposure; this effect was seen across cancer types, reported David James Pinato, MD, PhD, from Imperial College London.

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use was not significantly associated with overall survival differences, he said at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) – Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): Clinical Immuno-Oncology Symposium.

“I think these data are quite interesting in showing an independent detrimental effect, both on response and survival, in unselected patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice,” Dr. Pinato said.

The data also suggest “the timing of antibiotic exposure is crucial,” he added. Antibiotic treatment concurrent with immunotherapy did not appear to affect prognosis. Alternatively, prior antibiotic therapy appeared to have “a sort of a priming effect towards the immune system.”

Broad-spectrum antibiotics can affect the diversity of the gut microbiome, which influences mucosal immunity, dendritic cell function, and antigen presentation. Alternatively, enrichment of the microbiome with several bacterial species can enhance the potency of checkpoint inhibitors by facilitating the process of tumor rejection, Dr. Pinato explained.

To see whether antibiotic disruption, or “dysbiosis” of the gut microbiome, could hinder responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors regardless of the tumor site and whether there were time-dependent effects of antibiotic exposure on response to checkpoint inhibitors, the investigators conducted a prospective, observational study in 196 patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, and other cancers.

The researchers defined prior antibiotic exposure as more than 30 days before the start of checkpoint inhibitor therapy and concurrent exposure as antibiotics begun on the first day of the first cycle of checkpoint inhibitor dosing.

Of the 196 patients, 29 had previously received antibiotics, and 68 received them concurrently. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were beta-lactam agents given in a single, short course. Other classes of drugs, used in eight or fewer patients each, included quinolones, macrolides, sulfonamides, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, and nitroimidazole.

Median overall survival for the entire cohort, one of two primary outcomes, was 2 months for patients who had received prior antibiotics and 26 months for patients with no prior exposure. This difference was similar for patients with NSCLC (2.5 vs. 26 months), melanoma (3.9 vs. 14 months), and other cancers combined (1.1 vs. 11.0 months; log-rank P less than .01 for all comparisons).

In multivariate analysis, only response to checkpoints inhibitors (complete vs. partial response, stable disease, or progression) and prior antibiotic exposure were significantly associated with survival. The hazard ratio for survival for patients who had not previously received antibiotics was 3.5 (P less than .001).

In contrast, concurrent antibiotic and checkpoint inhibitor use did not have a significant effect on survival.

An analysis of radiologic responses also showed that patients with prior antibiotic exposure had a significantly higher probability of primary disease progression than those without (81% vs. 44%; P less than .001). There were no associations, however, between specific classes of antibiotics or corticosteroid use.

The findings indicate that “certainly, mechanistic studies are required here, not just to investigate the prognostic role of antibiotic-mediated dysbiosis, but perhaps transform this into an actual driver of antitumor immunity,” Dr. Pinato concluded.

The study was internally supported. Dr. Pinato reported receiving grant funding from Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the study, as well as honoraria from ViiV Healthcare.

SOURCE: Pinato DJ et al. ASCO-SITC, Abstract 147.

CORONADO, CALIF. – Head and neck mucinous adenocarcinoma is commonly diagnosed at a low tumor stage with no nodal involvement but with the potential for distant metastases.

The findings come from the largest study of its kind to date, which was presented by Neel R. Sangal at the Triological Society’s Combined Sections Meeting.

“Mucinous carcinoma was previously classified as colloid carcinoma, which leads to increased confusion in the nomenclature,” said Mr. Sangal, a 4th-year student at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“This changed in the 1980s, which led to difficulty in characterizing the disease over time. This histology is well studied in the GI system, in the lungs, and in the breast, but the head and neck presentation is extremely rare, and it lacks comprehensive study.

“It commonly presents as a slow-growing, painless, nonulcerated nodule. From case reports, it’s typically low-grade and indolent, but it commonly recurs, and it does have metastatic potential,” he said. “Histologically, it’s characterized by nets of aggressive epithelial cells that are accompanied by significant extracellular mucin.”

In an effort to understand the demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment, and survival characteristics of mucinous adenocarcinoma, the researchers evaluated cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database between 1973 and 2014. They selected patients based on their International Classification of Diseases morphological code specific for mucinous adenocarcinoma and ICD primary site code consistent for cancers of the head and neck.

In all, 583 cases met criteria, “which highlights how rare this disease is,” Mr. Sangal said at the meeting, which was jointly sponsored by the Triological Society and the American College of Surgeons.

The mean age at diagnosis was 64.8 years; 55.2% of cases were male, 64.5% were white, 15.4% were black, 8.7% were Hispanic, 6.7% were Asian, and the remaining 5% were from other ethnicities. The four most frequent primary sites were the eyelid (29.8%), followed by skin of the face (22.6%), skin of the scalp and neck (12.2%), and the parotid gland (8.7%). Most of the lesions lacked nodal involvement and metastasis (94.1% and 96.2%, respectively). Histology presented mainly at lower stages. Specifically, 68% had T0-1 disease, 21.5% had T2-3 disease, and 10.5% had T4 disease.

When the researchers stratified treatment frequency by various clinical pathologic characteristics, they found large differences in the type of treatment received by the primary site. “Those on the salivary gland tended to receive radiation at a much higher percentage than those of the skin, which mostly received surgery alone,” Mr. Sangal said. “We also found a linear correlation between T stage and increased use of radiation alongside surgery. Similarly, those with nodal involvement and distant metastasis had increased rates of radiation with surgery.”

Disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were 92.2% and 80.5%, respectively. Advanced age at diagnosis was a significant predictor of survival. In addition, Hispanics had the highest rates of survival, while the white and black patients had similar survival curves. “Tumors of the parotid gland had significantly worse survival outcomes than those of the skin,” Mr. Sangal added. “We also found a linear correlation between T stage and survival. Similarly, those with nodal involvement and distant metastasis also had decreased survival.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the potential for inconsistent coding in the SEER database.

Samer T. Elsamna was lead author on the study. None of the researchers reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Elsamna ST et al. Triological CSM 2019, Abstracts.

CORONADO, CALIF. – Head and neck mucinous adenocarcinoma is commonly diagnosed at a low tumor stage with no nodal involvement but with the potential for distant metastases.

The findings come from the largest study of its kind to date, which was presented by Neel R. Sangal at the Triological Society’s Combined Sections Meeting.

“Mucinous carcinoma was previously classified as colloid carcinoma, which leads to increased confusion in the nomenclature,” said Mr. Sangal, a 4th-year student at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“This changed in the 1980s, which led to difficulty in characterizing the disease over time. This histology is well studied in the GI system, in the lungs, and in the breast, but the head and neck presentation is extremely rare, and it lacks comprehensive study.

“It commonly presents as a slow-growing, painless, nonulcerated nodule. From case reports, it’s typically low-grade and indolent, but it commonly recurs, and it does have metastatic potential,” he said. “Histologically, it’s characterized by nets of aggressive epithelial cells that are accompanied by significant extracellular mucin.”

In an effort to understand the demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment, and survival characteristics of mucinous adenocarcinoma, the researchers evaluated cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database between 1973 and 2014. They selected patients based on their International Classification of Diseases morphological code specific for mucinous adenocarcinoma and ICD primary site code consistent for cancers of the head and neck.

In all, 583 cases met criteria, “which highlights how rare this disease is,” Mr. Sangal said at the meeting, which was jointly sponsored by the Triological Society and the American College of Surgeons.

The mean age at diagnosis was 64.8 years; 55.2% of cases were male, 64.5% were white, 15.4% were black, 8.7% were Hispanic, 6.7% were Asian, and the remaining 5% were from other ethnicities. The four most frequent primary sites were the eyelid (29.8%), followed by skin of the face (22.6%), skin of the scalp and neck (12.2%), and the parotid gland (8.7%). Most of the lesions lacked nodal involvement and metastasis (94.1% and 96.2%, respectively). Histology presented mainly at lower stages. Specifically, 68% had T0-1 disease, 21.5% had T2-3 disease, and 10.5% had T4 disease.

When the researchers stratified treatment frequency by various clinical pathologic characteristics, they found large differences in the type of treatment received by the primary site. “Those on the salivary gland tended to receive radiation at a much higher percentage than those of the skin, which mostly received surgery alone,” Mr. Sangal said. “We also found a linear correlation between T stage and increased use of radiation alongside surgery. Similarly, those with nodal involvement and distant metastasis had increased rates of radiation with surgery.”

Disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were 92.2% and 80.5%, respectively. Advanced age at diagnosis was a significant predictor of survival. In addition, Hispanics had the highest rates of survival, while the white and black patients had similar survival curves. “Tumors of the parotid gland had significantly worse survival outcomes than those of the skin,” Mr. Sangal added. “We also found a linear correlation between T stage and survival. Similarly, those with nodal involvement and distant metastasis also had decreased survival.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the potential for inconsistent coding in the SEER database.

Samer T. Elsamna was lead author on the study. None of the researchers reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Elsamna ST et al. Triological CSM 2019, Abstracts.

CORONADO, CALIF. – Head and neck mucinous adenocarcinoma is commonly diagnosed at a low tumor stage with no nodal involvement but with the potential for distant metastases.

The findings come from the largest study of its kind to date, which was presented by Neel R. Sangal at the Triological Society’s Combined Sections Meeting.

“Mucinous carcinoma was previously classified as colloid carcinoma, which leads to increased confusion in the nomenclature,” said Mr. Sangal, a 4th-year student at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“This changed in the 1980s, which led to difficulty in characterizing the disease over time. This histology is well studied in the GI system, in the lungs, and in the breast, but the head and neck presentation is extremely rare, and it lacks comprehensive study.

“It commonly presents as a slow-growing, painless, nonulcerated nodule. From case reports, it’s typically low-grade and indolent, but it commonly recurs, and it does have metastatic potential,” he said. “Histologically, it’s characterized by nets of aggressive epithelial cells that are accompanied by significant extracellular mucin.”

In an effort to understand the demographic, clinicopathologic, treatment, and survival characteristics of mucinous adenocarcinoma, the researchers evaluated cases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database between 1973 and 2014. They selected patients based on their International Classification of Diseases morphological code specific for mucinous adenocarcinoma and ICD primary site code consistent for cancers of the head and neck.

In all, 583 cases met criteria, “which highlights how rare this disease is,” Mr. Sangal said at the meeting, which was jointly sponsored by the Triological Society and the American College of Surgeons.

The mean age at diagnosis was 64.8 years; 55.2% of cases were male, 64.5% were white, 15.4% were black, 8.7% were Hispanic, 6.7% were Asian, and the remaining 5% were from other ethnicities. The four most frequent primary sites were the eyelid (29.8%), followed by skin of the face (22.6%), skin of the scalp and neck (12.2%), and the parotid gland (8.7%). Most of the lesions lacked nodal involvement and metastasis (94.1% and 96.2%, respectively). Histology presented mainly at lower stages. Specifically, 68% had T0-1 disease, 21.5% had T2-3 disease, and 10.5% had T4 disease.

When the researchers stratified treatment frequency by various clinical pathologic characteristics, they found large differences in the type of treatment received by the primary site. “Those on the salivary gland tended to receive radiation at a much higher percentage than those of the skin, which mostly received surgery alone,” Mr. Sangal said. “We also found a linear correlation between T stage and increased use of radiation alongside surgery. Similarly, those with nodal involvement and distant metastasis had increased rates of radiation with surgery.”

Disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were 92.2% and 80.5%, respectively. Advanced age at diagnosis was a significant predictor of survival. In addition, Hispanics had the highest rates of survival, while the white and black patients had similar survival curves. “Tumors of the parotid gland had significantly worse survival outcomes than those of the skin,” Mr. Sangal added. “We also found a linear correlation between T stage and survival. Similarly, those with nodal involvement and distant metastasis also had decreased survival.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the potential for inconsistent coding in the SEER database.

Samer T. Elsamna was lead author on the study. None of the researchers reported having financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Elsamna ST et al. Triological CSM 2019, Abstracts.

WASHINGTON – Combination enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in select patients with B7-H3-expressing non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and other solid tumors in a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.

Of note, the combination showed activity in patients anticipated to be poorly responsive to checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone, Charu Aggarwal, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

In all, 133 patients were treated weekly with 3, 10 or 15 mg/kg intravenous doses of the investigational anti-B7-H3 monoclonal antibody enoblituzumab plus 2 mg/kg intravenous doses of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (the standard dose at the time) for up to 1 year in the open-label dose-escalation study. Of those, 85% experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and 27.1% experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Dr. Aggarwal said.

These AEs were mostly infusion-related reactions typically seen with the first dose, and they were not usually cumulative, she said, noting that the rates of immune-related adverse events were less than 5%, about 7% of patients discontinued treatment because of a drug-related AE, and 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis occurred.

“No maximum tolerated dose was reached,” she added. “What I want to emphasize is that this is a combination immunotherapy approach, and what we found was that despite a combination approach, the nature, rate, and incidence of immune-related adverse events was not different than what is expected compared to single-agent [therapy] alone.”

Patients were then divided into disease-specific dose-expansion cohorts and the SCCHN and NSCLC cohorts were further stratified based on whether or not they had prior exposure to PD-1 inhibitor therapy.

Antitumor activity was noted in anti-PD-1-naive SCCHN patients, and objective responses were also seen in NSCLC patient with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% and patients with checkpoint inhibitor–refractory urothelial carcinoma.

“We saw a 33.3% response rate in IO [immunotherapy]-naive head and neck cancer patients, and a 35.7% response rate in patients with PD-L1-negative immunotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer patients,” she said.

No objective radiographic responses were seen in the IO-exposed SCCHN patients, but a few were seen in the other tumor cohorts, she noted.

“What was more interesting is this prolonged and high level of stable disease that we found in patients who had been previously treated with IO and had actually experienced significant clinical and radiographic progression then experienced stability with this combination,” she said, noting that “a fair amount of stable disease” was also seen in the IO-naive SCCHN and NSCLC patients.

In the immunotherapy-naive SCCHN patients, responses were seen regardless of human papillomavirus status, and four are still on treatment. One had a confirmed complete response.

“The majority of our patients on our trial and in this cohort were B7-H3-positive, she said, adding that the responses that were seen, including in those with stable disease, were “sustained and durable.”

Responses were similar in the immunotherapy-naive NSCLC patients who were PD-L1 negative, she said.

“Responses were seen irrespective of histology ... and many of these patients are still on treatment,” she added, noting that most were B7-H3-positive, which “seems to select our patients who have an even higher response rate of about 45%.”

The responses in that cohort also occurred early, were durable, and are sustained, and some patients remain on treatment and “are enjoying the clinical benefit afforded by this combination,” she said.

The findings are notable, because B7-H3 is highly expressed in many solid tumors, and monotherapy with enoblituzumab, which targets B7-H3 and is engineered to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, has demonstrated antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with selected solid tumors.

In this study it was combined with pembrolizumab to test the hypothesis that coordinated engagement of both innate and adaptive immunity via the targeting of two distinct members of the B7 family could achieve greater antitumor activity than either agent alone, she explained.

The results “benchmark favorably” versus prior experience with PD-1 agents; pembrolizumab and nivolumab each lead to activity of about 13%-16%, she said.

“We acknowledge that our study has very small numbers. Nevertheless, these are encouraging data ... in this very tough-to-treat population,” Dr. Aggarwal said, adding that “further investigation of enoblituzumab with an anti-PD-1 molecule is warranted in both head and neck and lung cancer patients, perhaps including in combination with chemotherapy.”

Further, given the expression patterns of B7-H3 on a wide variety of solid tumors, further investigation of this combination ... is warranted in other tumor types, including in both checkpoint-naive and -treated populations, she concluded.

This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.

SOURCE: Aggarwal C et al., SITC 2018 Abstract O24.

WASHINGTON – Combination enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in select patients with B7-H3-expressing non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and other solid tumors in a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.

Of note, the combination showed activity in patients anticipated to be poorly responsive to checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone, Charu Aggarwal, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

In all, 133 patients were treated weekly with 3, 10 or 15 mg/kg intravenous doses of the investigational anti-B7-H3 monoclonal antibody enoblituzumab plus 2 mg/kg intravenous doses of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (the standard dose at the time) for up to 1 year in the open-label dose-escalation study. Of those, 85% experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and 27.1% experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Dr. Aggarwal said.

These AEs were mostly infusion-related reactions typically seen with the first dose, and they were not usually cumulative, she said, noting that the rates of immune-related adverse events were less than 5%, about 7% of patients discontinued treatment because of a drug-related AE, and 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis occurred.

“No maximum tolerated dose was reached,” she added. “What I want to emphasize is that this is a combination immunotherapy approach, and what we found was that despite a combination approach, the nature, rate, and incidence of immune-related adverse events was not different than what is expected compared to single-agent [therapy] alone.”

Patients were then divided into disease-specific dose-expansion cohorts and the SCCHN and NSCLC cohorts were further stratified based on whether or not they had prior exposure to PD-1 inhibitor therapy.

Antitumor activity was noted in anti-PD-1-naive SCCHN patients, and objective responses were also seen in NSCLC patient with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% and patients with checkpoint inhibitor–refractory urothelial carcinoma.

“We saw a 33.3% response rate in IO [immunotherapy]-naive head and neck cancer patients, and a 35.7% response rate in patients with PD-L1-negative immunotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer patients,” she said.

No objective radiographic responses were seen in the IO-exposed SCCHN patients, but a few were seen in the other tumor cohorts, she noted.

“What was more interesting is this prolonged and high level of stable disease that we found in patients who had been previously treated with IO and had actually experienced significant clinical and radiographic progression then experienced stability with this combination,” she said, noting that “a fair amount of stable disease” was also seen in the IO-naive SCCHN and NSCLC patients.

In the immunotherapy-naive SCCHN patients, responses were seen regardless of human papillomavirus status, and four are still on treatment. One had a confirmed complete response.

“The majority of our patients on our trial and in this cohort were B7-H3-positive, she said, adding that the responses that were seen, including in those with stable disease, were “sustained and durable.”

Responses were similar in the immunotherapy-naive NSCLC patients who were PD-L1 negative, she said.

“Responses were seen irrespective of histology ... and many of these patients are still on treatment,” she added, noting that most were B7-H3-positive, which “seems to select our patients who have an even higher response rate of about 45%.”

The responses in that cohort also occurred early, were durable, and are sustained, and some patients remain on treatment and “are enjoying the clinical benefit afforded by this combination,” she said.

The findings are notable, because B7-H3 is highly expressed in many solid tumors, and monotherapy with enoblituzumab, which targets B7-H3 and is engineered to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, has demonstrated antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with selected solid tumors.

In this study it was combined with pembrolizumab to test the hypothesis that coordinated engagement of both innate and adaptive immunity via the targeting of two distinct members of the B7 family could achieve greater antitumor activity than either agent alone, she explained.

The results “benchmark favorably” versus prior experience with PD-1 agents; pembrolizumab and nivolumab each lead to activity of about 13%-16%, she said.

“We acknowledge that our study has very small numbers. Nevertheless, these are encouraging data ... in this very tough-to-treat population,” Dr. Aggarwal said, adding that “further investigation of enoblituzumab with an anti-PD-1 molecule is warranted in both head and neck and lung cancer patients, perhaps including in combination with chemotherapy.”

Further, given the expression patterns of B7-H3 on a wide variety of solid tumors, further investigation of this combination ... is warranted in other tumor types, including in both checkpoint-naive and -treated populations, she concluded.

This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.

SOURCE: Aggarwal C et al., SITC 2018 Abstract O24.

WASHINGTON – Combination enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in select patients with B7-H3-expressing non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), and other solid tumors in a phase 1 dose-escalation and expansion study.

Of note, the combination showed activity in patients anticipated to be poorly responsive to checkpoint inhibitor therapy alone, Charu Aggarwal, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

In all, 133 patients were treated weekly with 3, 10 or 15 mg/kg intravenous doses of the investigational anti-B7-H3 monoclonal antibody enoblituzumab plus 2 mg/kg intravenous doses of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab every 3 weeks (the standard dose at the time) for up to 1 year in the open-label dose-escalation study. Of those, 85% experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs), and 27.1% experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Dr. Aggarwal said.

These AEs were mostly infusion-related reactions typically seen with the first dose, and they were not usually cumulative, she said, noting that the rates of immune-related adverse events were less than 5%, about 7% of patients discontinued treatment because of a drug-related AE, and 1 treatment-related death due to pneumonitis occurred.

“No maximum tolerated dose was reached,” she added. “What I want to emphasize is that this is a combination immunotherapy approach, and what we found was that despite a combination approach, the nature, rate, and incidence of immune-related adverse events was not different than what is expected compared to single-agent [therapy] alone.”

Patients were then divided into disease-specific dose-expansion cohorts and the SCCHN and NSCLC cohorts were further stratified based on whether or not they had prior exposure to PD-1 inhibitor therapy.

Antitumor activity was noted in anti-PD-1-naive SCCHN patients, and objective responses were also seen in NSCLC patient with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of less than 1% and patients with checkpoint inhibitor–refractory urothelial carcinoma.

“We saw a 33.3% response rate in IO [immunotherapy]-naive head and neck cancer patients, and a 35.7% response rate in patients with PD-L1-negative immunotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer patients,” she said.

No objective radiographic responses were seen in the IO-exposed SCCHN patients, but a few were seen in the other tumor cohorts, she noted.

“What was more interesting is this prolonged and high level of stable disease that we found in patients who had been previously treated with IO and had actually experienced significant clinical and radiographic progression then experienced stability with this combination,” she said, noting that “a fair amount of stable disease” was also seen in the IO-naive SCCHN and NSCLC patients.

In the immunotherapy-naive SCCHN patients, responses were seen regardless of human papillomavirus status, and four are still on treatment. One had a confirmed complete response.

“The majority of our patients on our trial and in this cohort were B7-H3-positive, she said, adding that the responses that were seen, including in those with stable disease, were “sustained and durable.”

Responses were similar in the immunotherapy-naive NSCLC patients who were PD-L1 negative, she said.

“Responses were seen irrespective of histology ... and many of these patients are still on treatment,” she added, noting that most were B7-H3-positive, which “seems to select our patients who have an even higher response rate of about 45%.”

The responses in that cohort also occurred early, were durable, and are sustained, and some patients remain on treatment and “are enjoying the clinical benefit afforded by this combination,” she said.

The findings are notable, because B7-H3 is highly expressed in many solid tumors, and monotherapy with enoblituzumab, which targets B7-H3 and is engineered to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, has demonstrated antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in patients with selected solid tumors.

In this study it was combined with pembrolizumab to test the hypothesis that coordinated engagement of both innate and adaptive immunity via the targeting of two distinct members of the B7 family could achieve greater antitumor activity than either agent alone, she explained.

The results “benchmark favorably” versus prior experience with PD-1 agents; pembrolizumab and nivolumab each lead to activity of about 13%-16%, she said.

“We acknowledge that our study has very small numbers. Nevertheless, these are encouraging data ... in this very tough-to-treat population,” Dr. Aggarwal said, adding that “further investigation of enoblituzumab with an anti-PD-1 molecule is warranted in both head and neck and lung cancer patients, perhaps including in combination with chemotherapy.”

Further, given the expression patterns of B7-H3 on a wide variety of solid tumors, further investigation of this combination ... is warranted in other tumor types, including in both checkpoint-naive and -treated populations, she concluded.

This study was sponsored by MacroGenics. Dr. Aggarwal reported receiving consulting fees from BMS.

SOURCE: Aggarwal C et al., SITC 2018 Abstract O24.