Background: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w  4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. Results: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n ¼ 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n ¼ 247), or SoC (n ¼ 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72e1.08; P ¼ 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85e1.26; P ¼ 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9e43.1), 30.4% (24.7e36.3), and 30.5% (24.7 e36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade !3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

IMPORTANCE Dual blockade of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) may overcome immune checkpoint inhibition. It is unknown whether dual blockade can potentiate antitumor activity without compromising safety in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression. OBJECTIVE To assess safety and objective response rate of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The CONDOR study was a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of Durvalumab, Tremelimumab, and Durvalumab in Combination With Tremelimumab in Patients With R/M HNSCC. Eligibility criteria included PD-L1-low/negative disease that had progressed after 1 platinum-containing regimen in the R/M setting. Patients were randomized (N = 267) from April 15, 2015, to March 16, 2016, at 127 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. INTERVENTIONS Durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) + tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks) for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks), or durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) monotherapy, or tremelimumab (10 mg/kg every 4 weeks for 7 doses then every 12 weeks for 2 doses) monotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Safety and tolerability and efficacy measured by objective response rate. RESULTS Among the 267 patients (220 men [82.4%]), median age (range) of patients was 61.0 (23-82) years. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (15.8%) treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab, 8 (12.3%) treated with durvalumab, and 11 (16.9%) treated with tremelimumab. Grade 3/4 immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 8 patients (6.0%) in the combination arm only. Objective response rate (95% CI) was 7.8% (3.78%-13.79%) in the combination arm (n = 129), 9.2% (3.46%-19.02%) for durvalumab monotherapy (n = 65), and 1.6% (0.04%-8.53%) for tremelimumab monotherapy (n = 63); median overall survival (95% CI) for all patients treated was 7.6 (4.9-10.6), 6.0 (4.0-11.3), and 5.5 (3.9-7.0) months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients with R/M HNSCC and low or no PD-L1 tumor cell expression, all 3 regimens exhibited a manageable toxicity profile. Durvalumab and durvalumab + tremelimumab resulted in clinical benefit, with minimal observed difference between the two. A phase 3 study is under way. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02319044

No abstract

No abstract

As gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), we examined the effect of various co-medications known for their interaction with microbiota, when given at ICI initiation. Patients and methods: We identified patients with advanced cancer treated with ICI between May 2015 and September 2017 in our institution. Co-medications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of ICI were reviewed from medical records. Survival data were analysed with univariable Cox regression, and the combined effect of multiple factors was assessed with factor analysis of mixed data (FAMD). The impact of co-medications on immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurrence was also assessed.

No abstract

BackgroundWe report the clinical activity and safety of bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of the transforming growth factor β (TGF-β)RII receptor (a TGF-β ‘trap’) fused to a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), in patients with heavily pretreated squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).MethodsIn this phase I dose-expansion cohort, patients with advanced SCCHN not amenable to curative therapy that progressed/recurred after platinum therapy in the recurrent/metastatic setting, or <6 months after platinum therapy in the locally advanced setting, received bintrafusp alfa 1200 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed best overall response (BOR; Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1) per independent review committee (IRC); other endpoints included BOR per investigator and safety.ResultsAs of August 24, 2018, 32 patients had received bintrafusp alfa (median follow-up 86.4 weeks; range 2–97). Per IRC, the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 13% (95% CI 4% to 29%; 4 partial responses (PR)); 4 patients had stable disease (SD) (disease control rate 25%; 95% CI 12% to 43%). Per investigator, there were 5 PRs (ORR, 16%), including 2 patients who developed delayed PRs after initial disease increase (total clinical response rate 22%). Responses (ORRs) were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive (12%), PD-L1-negative (17%; 73-10 antibody for immunohistochemistry), human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive (33%) and HPV-negative tumors (5%). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 11 patients (34%), with no grade 4 TRAEs or treatment-related deaths.ConclusionsBintrafusp alfa showed clinical activity across subgroups of PD-L1 expression and in HPV-positive tumors and had a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated advanced SCCHN. Activity in HPV-positive tumors is favorable compared with historical data from PD-L1 inhibitors and is being further investigated in an ongoing study of HPV-associated tumors.Trial registration numberNCT02517398.

PURPOSE CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570 ) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil ≤ six cycles, then cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS Patients without prior systemic therapy for R/M SCCHN were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or EXTREME. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in the all randomly assigned and programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20 populations. Secondary end points included OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 CPS ≥ 1 population, and progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response in the all randomly assigned and CPS ≥ 20 populations. RESULTS Among 947 patients randomly assigned, 38.3% had CPS ≥ 20. There were no statistically significant differences in OS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME in the all randomly assigned (median: 13.9 v 13.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13; P = .4951) and CPS ≥ 20 (median: 17.6 v 14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P = .0469) populations. In patients with CPS ≥ 1, the median OS was 15.7 versus 13.2 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97). Among patients with CPS ≥ 20, the median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) versus 7.0 months (EXTREME), objective response rate was 34.1% versus 36.0%, and median duration of response was 32.6 versus 7.0 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28.2% of patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 70.7% treated with EXTREME. CONCLUSION CheckMate 651 did not meet its primary end points of OS in the all randomly assigned or CPS ≥ 20 populations. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a favorable safety profile compared with EXTREME. There continues to be a need for new therapies in patients with R/M SCCHN.