A Retrospective Analysis of a Cohort of Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.
Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)
cytotoxic t-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4)
head and neck neoplasms
immune checkpoint inhibitors
immunotherapy
mouth neoplasms
programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)
squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (HNSCC)
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
19
08
2021
accepted:
03
01
2022
entrez:
14
2
2022
pubmed:
15
2
2022
medline:
15
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The treatment approach of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) has long been similar for all patients. Any difference in treatment strategy was only based on existing comorbidities and on preferences of the patient and the treating oncologist. The recent advance obtained with immune therapy and more specifically immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has been a true game changer. Today, patients and physicians have a choice to omit chemotherapy. In a small subset of patients, ICB induces a very durable disease control. The subgroup of patients in which ICB without chemotherapy would be the preferential approach is still ill-defined. Yet, this evolution marks a major step towards a more personalized medicine in R/M HNSCC. In this paper, we present a retrospective cohort study of a patient population that was treated with ICB in a single center and we analyze potential factors that are associated with outcome and may help to select patients for treatment with ICB. 137 consecutively treated patients were identified. Male gender and metastatic disease appeared to be associated with improved overall survival (OS). There was no correlation observed with age, number of previous treatment lines or immune target. Along with PD-L1 status defined by Combined Positive Score (CPS), clinical parameters such as site of recurrence and gender may help to define the optimal treatment strategy in R/M HNSCC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35155226
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.761428
pmc: PMC8828639
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
761428Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Bila, Van Dessel, Smeets, Vander Poorten, Nuyts, Meulemans and Clement.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Aug;18(8):1104-1115
pubmed: 28651929
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jul;31(7):942-950
pubmed: 32294530
Eur J Cancer. 2001 Sep;37 Suppl 4:S16-22
pubmed: 11597400
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 11;359(11):1116-27
pubmed: 18784101
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 1;10(1):10725
pubmed: 32612211
Lancet. 2019 Nov 23;394(10212):1915-1928
pubmed: 31679945
Oral Oncol. 2018 Jun;81:45-51
pubmed: 29884413
Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2020 Jun;56:79-90
pubmed: 32217357
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):156-167
pubmed: 30509740
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 10;35(14):1542-1549
pubmed: 28328302
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 12;10(11):e0142656
pubmed: 26562534
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;107:142-152
pubmed: 30576970
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 May 15;25(10):2943-2945
pubmed: 30837277
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1856-1867
pubmed: 27718784
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Nov;121:123-129
pubmed: 31574417
Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 03;10:608772
pubmed: 33614492
Ann Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;29(11):2247-2253
pubmed: 30219915