학술논문

Biomarkers predict enhanced clinical outcomes with afatinib versus methotrexate in patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer
Document Type
article
Source
Annals of Oncology. 28(10)
Subject
Biomedical and Clinical Sciences
Clinical Sciences
Oncology and Carcinogenesis
Clinical Trials and Supportive Activities
Dental/Oral and Craniofacial Disease
Rare Diseases
Cancer
Clinical Research
4.2 Evaluation of markers and technologies
Detection
screening and diagnosis
Evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions
6.1 Pharmaceuticals
Good Health and Well Being
Administration
Intravenous
Administration
Oral
Afatinib
Antimetabolites
Antineoplastic
Biomarkers
Tumor
Biopsy
Carcinoma
Squamous Cell
Disease-Free Survival
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Humans
Methotrexate
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasm Recurrence
Local
Predictive Value of Tests
Quinazolines
Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck
afatinib
methotrexate
HNSCC
biomarker
phase III
EGFR
Oncology & Carcinogenesis
Clinical sciences
Oncology and carcinogenesis
Language
Abstract
BackgroundIn the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1) trial, second-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Here, we evaluated association of prespecified biomarkers with efficacy outcomes in LUX-H&N1.Patients and methodsRandomized patients with R/M HNSCC and progression following ≥2 cycles of platinum therapy received afatinib (40 mg/day) or methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week). Tumor/serum samples were collected at study entry for patients who volunteered for inclusion in biomarker analyses. Tumor biomarkers, including p16 (prespecified subgroup; all tumor subsites), EGFR, HER2, HER3, c-MET and PTEN, were assessed using tissue microarray cores and slides; serum protein was evaluated using the VeriStrat® test. Biomarkers were correlated with efficacy outcomes.ResultsOf 483 randomized patients, 326 (67%) were included in the biomarker analyses; baseline characteristics were consistent with the overall study population. Median PFS favored afatinib over methotrexate in patients with p16-negative [2.7 versus 1.6 months; HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.50-0.97)], EGFR-amplified [2.8 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.53 (0.33-0.85)], HER3-low [2.8 versus 1.8 months; HR 0.57 (0.37-0.88)], and PTEN-high [1.6 versus 1.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.29-1.05)] tumors. Afatinib also improved PFS in combined subsets of patients with p16-negative and EGFR-amplified tumors [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.47 (0.28-0.80)], and patients with p16-negative tumors who were EGFR therapy-naïve [4.0 versus 2.4 months; HR 0.55 (0.31-0.98)]. PFS was improved in afatinib-treated patients who were VeriStrat 'Good' versus 'Poor' [2.7 versus 1.5 months; HR 0.71 (0.49-0.94)], but no treatment interaction was observed. Afatinib improved tumor response versus methotrexate in all subsets analyzed except for those with p16-positive disease (n = 35).ConclusionsSubgroups of HNSCC patients who may achieve increased benefit from afatinib were identified based on prespecified tumor biomarkers (p16-negative, EGFR-amplified, HER3-low, PTEN-high). Future studies are warranted to validate these findings.Clinical trial registrationNCT01345682.