Anti PD-L1 DUrvalumab combined with Cetuximab and RadiOtherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A phase I/II study (DUCRO)

Abstract

HighlightsHead and neck squamous cell carcinoma is an immune suppressive malignancy.Conventional intensification strategies didn’t provide any incremental benefit.Inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint may synergize with cetuximab and radiotherapy.

Inter‐ and intraobserver agreement of programmed death ligand 1 scoring in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma and breast carcinoma

“…PD‐L1 immunoexpression in TCs and/or ICs is a useful clinical biomarker to select patients who may benefit the most from immune check‐point inhibitors. Evaluation of PD‐L1 IHC has been included as either companion or supplementary tests in multiple anti‐PD1/anti‐PD‐L1 clinical trials of various cancers . Therefore, it becomes increasingly important for practising pathologists to provide reliable and consistent interpretation of PD‐L1 IHC across different tumour types, as it is of paramount importance in determining the eligibility for anti‐PD‐L1/anti‐PD1 therapy and to predict treatment benefits.…”

“…In recent years, PD‐L1 and PD‐1 have emerged as a key check‐point that can be manipulated with inhibitory monoclonal antibodies in various cancer types. Multiple prospective randomised clinical trials have shown promising results of PD‐1/PD‐L1 immune check‐point inhibitors in a variety of cancer types, including a subset of patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC), breast carcinoma (BC) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HSCC), leading to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of several anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 agents …”

“…To date, at least five PD‐L1 antibody clones, 22C3, SP263, SP142, 28‐8 and 73‐10, are commercially available, each marketed as a companion or complementary diagnostic test for a different anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 agent . Each antibody is associated with a different criterion for positivity in different cancer types . Therefore, given the complexity of PD‐L1 interpretation, it is important to determine whether pathologists can provide comparable and consistent PD‐L1 scoring in various clinical settings.…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5] In recent years, PD-L1 and PD-1 have emerged as a key check-point that can be manipulated with inhibitory monoclonal antibodies in various cancer types. Multiple prospective randomised clinical trials have shown promising results of PD-1/PD-L1 immune check-point inhibitors in a variety of cancer types, including a subset of patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC), [5][6][7][8] breast carcinoma (BC) 9,10 and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HSCC), [11][12][13][14] leading to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of several anti-PD-1/ PD-L1 agents. 13,15,16 The implementation of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy, a costly treatment modality with non-negligible side effects, has triggered a search for predictive biomarkers that may aid in the identification of patients most likely to derive clinically meaningful benefit.…”

“…17 Each antibody is associated with a different criterion for positivity in different cancer types. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Therefore, given the complexity of PD-L1 interpretation, it is important to determine whether pathologists can provide comparable and consistent PD-L1 scoring in various clinical settings.…”