The University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Hospital and Health Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Cancer. 2020 May 15;126(10):2146-2152. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32762. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
MET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC.
In total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional.
The response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed.
Combined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.
MET 信号是一种对抗 EGFR 治疗耐药的已有描述的机制,MET 过表达在头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)中很常见。在目前的试验中,作者比较了口服 MET 抑制剂替沃替尼(ARQ197)联合西妥昔单抗(TC 组)与接受西妥昔单抗单药治疗(C 组)的复发/转移性 HNSCC 患者的疗效。
共纳入 78 例西妥昔单抗初治、铂类耐药的 HNSCC 患者,包括 TC 组 40 例和 C 组 38 例(根据人乳头瘤病毒[HPV]状态分层)。患者每日口服替沃替尼 360mg 两次,每两周静脉注射西妥昔单抗 500mg/m2。主要终点是应答率(根据实体瘤反应评价标准 1.1 版),次要终点包括无进展生存期和总生存期。C 组患者进展后,替沃替尼单药治疗为可选方案。
TC 组的应答率为 7.5%(N=3;1 例完全缓解),C 组为 7.9%(N=3;无显著差异[NS])。两组的中位无进展生存期均为 4 个月(NS),中位总生存期均为 8 个月(NS)。两种治疗均耐受良好,TC 组有增加血液学毒性的趋势(12.5%发生 3 级白细胞减少症)。在 31 例 HPV 阳性/p16 阳性患者中,两组的应答率均为 0%,而 HPV 阴性患者的应答率为 12.7%(TC 组 12.5%,C 组 13%)。15 例患者接受替沃替尼单药治疗,未观察到应答。
与西妥昔单抗单药治疗相比,替沃替尼联合西妥昔单抗并未显著提高应答率或总生存期,但在未选择的 HNSCC 人群中增加了毒性。西妥昔单抗的应答似乎仅限于 HPV 阴性的 HNSCC 患者。针对 HNSCC 的 MET 异常靶向治疗和使用更高效力、选择性 MET 抑制剂仍然具有重要意义。