Kürten Cornelius H L, Ferris Robert L
Klinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen.
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Laryngorhinootologie. 2024 May;103(S 01):S167-S187. doi: 10.1055/a-2183-5802. Epub 2024 May 2.
The neoadjuvant immunotherapy approach marks a significant shift in the treatment paradigm of potentially curable HNSCC. Here, current therapies, despite being highly individualized and advanced, often fall short in achieving satisfactory long-term survival rates and are frequently associated with substantial morbidity.The primary advantage of this approach lies in its potential to intensify and enhance treatment regimens, offering a distinct modality that complements the existing triad of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Checkpoint inhibitors have been at the forefront of this evolution. Demonstrating moderate yet significant survival benefits in the recurrent-metastatic setting with a relatively better safety profile compared to conventional treatments, these agents hold promise when considered for earlier stages of HNSCC.On the other hand, a significant potential benefit of introducing immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant phase is the possibility of treatment de-escalation. By reducing the tumor burden before surgery, this strategy could lead to less invasive surgical interventions. The prospect of organ-sparing protocols becomes a realistic and highly valued goal in this context. Further, the early application of immunotherapy might catalyze a more effective and durable immune response. The induction of an immune memory may potentially lead to a more effective surveillance of residual disease, decreasing the rates of local, regional, and distant recurrences, thereby enhancing overall and recurrence-free survival.However, neoadjuvant immunotherapy is not without its challenges. One of the primary concerns is the safety and adverse events profile. While data suggest that adverse events are relatively rare and manageable, the long-term safety profile in the neoadjuvant setting, especially in the context of curative intent, remains a subject for ongoing research. Another unsolved issue lies in the accurate assessment of treatment response. The discrepancy between radiographic assessment using RECIST criteria and histological findings has been noted, indicating a gap in current imaging techniques' ability to accurately reflect the true efficacy of immunotherapy. This gap underscores the necessity for improved imaging methodologies and the development of new radiologic and pathologic criteria tailored to evaluate the response to immunotherapy accurately.Treatment combinations and timing represent another layer of complexity. There is a vast array of possibilities in combining immunotherapy agents with conventional chemotherapy, targeted therapy, radiation, and other experimental treatments. Determining the optimal treatment regimen for individual patients becomes an intricate task, especially when comparing small, single-arm, non-randomized trials with varying regimens and outcome measures.Moreover, one needs to consider the importance of pre- and intraoperative decision-making in the context of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. As experience with this treatment paradigm grows, there is potential for more tailored surgical approaches based on the patient's remaining disease post-neoadjuvant treatment. This consideration is particularly relevant in extensive surgeries, where organ-sparing protocols could be evaluated.In practical terms, the multi-modal nature of this treatment strategy introduces complexities, especially outside clinical trial settings. Patients face challenges in navigating the treatment landscape, which involves coordination across multiple medical disciplines, highlighting the necessity for streamlined care pathways at specialized centers to facilitate effective treatment management if the neoadjuvant approach is introduced to the real-world.These potential harms and open questions underscore the critical need for meticulously designed clinical trials and correlational studies to ensure patient safety and efficacy. Only these can ensure that this new treatment approach is introduced in a safe way and fulfils the promise it theoretically holds.
新辅助免疫治疗方法标志着可治愈性头颈部鳞状细胞癌(HNSCC)治疗模式的重大转变。在此,当前的治疗方法尽管高度个体化且先进,但在实现令人满意的长期生存率方面往往不足,并且常常伴有严重的发病率。这种方法的主要优势在于其强化和优化治疗方案的潜力,提供了一种补充现有手术、放疗和化疗三联疗法的独特模式。检查点抑制剂一直处于这一进展的前沿。这些药物在复发转移情况下显示出适度但显著的生存益处,与传统治疗相比安全性相对更好,在HNSCC早期阶段应用时具有前景。
另一方面,在新辅助阶段引入免疫治疗的一个显著潜在益处是治疗降阶梯的可能性。通过在手术前减轻肿瘤负担,这种策略可能导致侵入性较小的手术干预。在这种情况下,器官保留方案的前景成为一个现实且高度重视的目标。此外,免疫治疗的早期应用可能会激发更有效和持久的免疫反应。免疫记忆的诱导可能会导致对残留疾病更有效的监测,降低局部、区域和远处复发率,从而提高总生存率和无复发生存率。
然而,新辅助免疫治疗并非没有挑战。主要关注的问题之一是安全性和不良事件情况。虽然数据表明不良事件相对罕见且可管理,但新辅助治疗环境下的长期安全性,特别是在根治性治疗意图的背景下,仍然是正在进行研究的课题。另一个未解决的问题在于治疗反应的准确评估。使用RECIST标准的影像学评估与组织学结果之间的差异已被注意到,这表明当前成像技术准确反映免疫治疗真正疗效的能力存在差距。这一差距凸显了改进成像方法以及制定专门用于准确评估免疫治疗反应的新放射学和病理学标准的必要性。
治疗组合和时机代表了另一层复杂性。将免疫治疗药物与传统化疗、靶向治疗、放疗及其他实验性治疗相结合有大量可能性。为个体患者确定最佳治疗方案成为一项复杂的任务,尤其是在比较小型、单臂、非随机试验且治疗方案和结果测量各不相同的情况下。
此外,在新辅助免疫治疗背景下,需要考虑术前和术中决策的重要性。随着这种治疗模式经验的积累,基于患者新辅助治疗后剩余疾病情况,有可能采用更具针对性的手术方法。这一考虑在广泛手术中尤为相关,在这种手术中可以评估器官保留方案。
实际上,这种治疗策略的多模式性质带来了复杂性,尤其是在临床试验环境之外。患者在应对治疗格局时面临挑战,这涉及多个医学学科之间的协调,突出了在专门中心简化护理途径以促进有效治疗管理的必要性,如果将新辅助治疗方法引入现实世界的话。
这些潜在危害和未解决问题凸显了精心设计的临床试验和相关性研究的迫切需求,以确保患者安全和疗效。只有这些才能确保这种新治疗方法以安全的方式引入并实现其理论上的前景。