Background

The value of induction chemotherapy (ICT) remains under investigation despite decades of research. New advancements in the field, specifically regarding the induction regimen of choice, have reignited interest in this approach for patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). Sufficient evidence has accumulated regarding the benefits and superiority of TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil) over the chemotherapy doublet cisplatin and fluorouracil. We therefore sought to collate and interpret the available data and further discuss the considerations for delivering ICT safely and optimally selecting suitable post-ICT regimens.

Design

We nonsystematically reviewed published phase III clinical trials on TPF ICT in a variety of LA SCCHN patient populations conducted between 1990 and 2017.

Results

TPF may confer survival and organ preservation benefits in a subgroup of patients with functionally inoperable or poor-prognosis LA SCCHN. Additionally, patients with operable disease or good prognosis (who are not candidates for organ preservation) may benefit from TPF induction in terms of reducing local and distant failure rates and facilitating treatment deintensification in selected populations. The safe administration of TPF requires treatment by a multidisciplinary team at an experienced institution. The management of adverse events associated with TPF and post-ICT radiotherapy-based treatment is crucial. Finally, post-ICT chemotherapy alternatives to cisplatin concurrent with radiotherapy (i.e. cetuximab or carboplatin plus radiotherapy) appear promising and must be investigated further.

Conclusions

TPF is an evidence-based ICT regimen of choice in LA SCCHN and confers benefits in suitable patients when it is administered safely by an experienced multidisciplinary team and paired with the optimal post-ICT regimen, for which, however, no consensus currently exists.

Background

Afatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated lung cancer. We hypothesized that the agent would have greater antitumor activity compared with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients, whose disease has progressed after platinum-containing therapy.

Patients and methods

An open-label, randomized, phase II trial was conducted in 43 centers; 124 patients were randomized (1 : 1) to either afatinib (50 mg/day) or cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)/week) until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) (stage I), with optional crossover (stage II). The primary end point was tumor shrinkage before crossover assessed by investigator (IR) and independent central review (ICR).

Results

A total of 121 patients were treated (61 afatinib, 60 cetuximab) and 68 crossed over to stage II (32 and 36 respectively). In stage I, mean tumor shrinkage by IR/ICR was 10.4%/16.6% with afatinib and 5.4%/10.1% with cetuximab (P = 0.46/0.30). Objective response rate was 16.1%/8.1% with afatinib and 6.5%/9.7% with cetuximab (IR/ICR). Comparable disease control rates were observed with afatinib (50%) and cetuximab (56.5%) by IR; similar results were seen by ICR. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AEs (DRAEs) were rash/acne (18% versus 8.3%), diarrhea (14.8% versus 0%), and stomatitis/mucositis (11.5% versus 0%) with afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Patients with DRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 23% with afatinib and 5% with cetuximab. In stage II, disease control rate (IR/ICR) was 38.9%/33.3% with afatinib and 18.8%/18.8% with cetuximab.

Conclusion

Afatinib showed antitumor activity comparable to cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in this exploratory phase II trial, although more patients on afatinib discontinued treatment due to AEs. Sequential EGFR/ErbB treatment with afatinib and cetuximab provided sustained clinical benefit in patients after crossover, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance.