Advertisement


Nabil F. Saba, MD, on Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Phase II Findings on Pembrolizumab and Cabozantinib

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Nabil F. Saba, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, discusses new data from a trial of pembrolizumab and cabozantinib in patients with recurrent metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The study met its primary endpoint of overall response rate. The regimen was well tolerated and exhibited encouraging clinical activity in this patient population (Abstract 6008).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
This is a phase two single R multicenter clinical trial of the combination of pembrolizumab and cabozantinib. As you very well know, pembrolizumab is approved as first line therapy for patients with recurrent metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma that exhibit biomarker positive disease, namely a CPS score more than one. And historically the response rate to pembrolizumab has been hovering around 18%. And this, if you look at the different studies, basically is 18% up to 20% in patients with high CPS score. So this trial of this combination attempted to look at improvement in overall response rate when we use the combination. And the trial accrued both at Emory University and Moffitt Cancer Center, it screened 50 patients. 36 patients were enrolled and received therapy. And 33 patients at the time of the last analysis were evaluable for response. Out of these 33 patients, we had 18 patients achieve a partial remission, which is a high number, meaning that 54% of patients achieved a partial remission. This number is significantly higher from single agent pembrolizumab. When we look at the numbers, as I said, 18 to 20% has been the percent responders on single agent pembrolizumab. What's also interesting in this study is the fact that patients overall tolerated the treatment well, despite the fact that 17 patients had those reductions of cabozantinib from 40 milligrams to 20 milligrams, those reductions abrogated the side effects. Most of the side effects were related to either of the agents, mostly cabozantinib at 40 milligrams, where patients had symptoms of mucositis, some patients had hand foot syndrome, dysphasia related to mucositis. And most of these essentially were abrogated when we reduced cabozantinib. The interesting finding also is that there were very few early progressors. In other words, we saw three out of the 33 patients who had progression of disease as their best response. Looking at the responders, basically those included HPV positive as well as HPV negative disease. The trial had about 47% of patients as HPV positive oral phalanx cancer, which is what you would expect in a recurrent metastatic trial these days in North America. But there was no signal that the responders were enriched in HPV positive versus HPV negative. They basically included both patient populations. Also looking at the CPS score, even though there was a trend in improved overall survival with the higher CPS score, this trend did not reach statistical significance. What is also very interesting is the data on progression free survival and overall survival. When we look at this data and attempt to use keynote 048 as the comparator, even though the term comparison should not be the case here since they're not head to head comparisons, however, there was no early drop in the progression-free survival like what we would see on with single agent pembrolizumab. Even if you look at the patients on 048 who had a CPS core more than 20, which basically benefited the most from single agent pembro, at six months you had a progression free survival rate of about 30% which compares to about 70% on the combination therapy on this trial. Overall survival was also very good on the study in this patient population with a one year overall survival exceeding 60%. Looking at biomarker positive patients, those patients with CPS core more than 20 had a one year overall survival of about 86%, which is really impressive. We're still looking at other biomarkers. We looked at CDAT cell infiltration in the baseline biopsies, and these seem to be correlating with response. However, more data is needed, of course, to try to decipher what are biomarkers that actually correlate with overall response and clinical benefit. When we looked at clinical biomarkers and correlated them with overall survival, it seems like econ performance status came up as a parameter that correlated with overall survival, significantly. However, none of the other parameters such as primary site of disease or HPV status or CPS core correlated, even though there was some trend favoring higher CPS score. So I think to put it in perspective, this is really a departure from what we are used to seeing with single agent PD1 inhibitors in this disease. This clinical data really is, I think, ushering a new era in the management of recurrent metastatic disease. I think the question is, is this a feature that will be unique to cabozantinib, or is this a feature that encompasses different tyrosine kinase inhibitors. As you know, cabozantinib is a VEGFR inhibitor, but it also affects other parameters and inhibits axl anditam family of receptors. And so it does have immunomodulatory properties besides the fact that it is VEGFR inhibitor. And so do these properties basically contribute to the good results we have seen on this trial and do these properties also contribute to the different side effect profile that cabozantinib may have compared to other tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Because overall, I think this treatment was fairly well tolerated by patients. And when we talk about patients with recurrent metastatic head and neck cancer, we want to make sure that they get a treatment that is well tolerated since they're going to receive it for quite an extensive period of time, hopefully. And let's not forget also that these patients are pretty affected by the traditional treatment we give initially to them, which include radiation, surgery, chemotherapy. And so I think it is very refreshing to see this data, and I'm very hopeful that this will lead to further improvement in the management of this disease.

Related Videos

Breast Cancer

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, on Breast Cancer: Latest Findings on Fulvestrant or Exemestane With or Without Ribociclib

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Kevin Kalinsky, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, discuss phase II findings from the MAINTAIN trial, which showed a benefit in progression-free survival for patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer when they switched to endocrine therapy and received ribociclib after disease progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor (Abstract LBA1004).

Breast Cancer

Etienne Brain, MD, PhD, on Breast Cancer: Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy With or Without Chemotherapy in Older Patients

Etienne Brain, MD, PhD, of the Institut Curie, discusses phase III findings from the Unicancer ASTER 70s trial, in which patients aged 70 or older with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and a high genomic grade index received adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. The data did not find a statistically significant overall survival benefit with this treatment after surgery (Abstract 500).

Breast Cancer

Richard Finn, MD, on Advanced Breast Cancer: New Data on Palbociclib Plus Letrozole From PALOMA-2

Richard Finn, MD, of the Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses analyses from the PALOMA-2 trial on overall survival with first-line palbociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole in women with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The study met its primary endpoint of improving progression-free survival but not the secondary endpoint of overall survival. Although patients receiving palbociclib plus letrozole had numerically longer overall survival than those receiving placebo plus letrozole, the results were not statistically significant (Abstract LBA1003).

Lung Cancer

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, on SCLC: Comparing Quality of Life With Once- and Twice-Daily Thoracic Radiotherapy

Apar Kishor Ganti, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, discusses results from the CALGB 30610 study, which showed a similar clinical benefit for once- and twice-daily radiotherapy administered to patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. While both regimens were well tolerated, patients who received radiotherapy once daily had better quality-of-life scores at week 3 and slightly worse scores at week 12. Patients believed the once-daily regimen was more convenient (Abstract 8504).

Breast Cancer

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, and Véronique Diéras, MD, on the Future of Cytotoxic Therapy: Antibody-Drug Conjugates?

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Véronique Diéras, MD, of the Centre Eugène Marquis, discuss the many challenges posed by next-generation antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). They include side effects such as hematotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicities, and interstitial lung disease; tumor targeting and payload release; drug resistance; and the urgent need to understand ADCs’ mechanisms of action to better sequence and combine drugs.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement