14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Afatinib versus methotrexate in older patients with second-line recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis of the LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In the LUX-Head & Neck 1 study, older age (≥65 years) did not adversely affect the benefit in patient-reported outcomes and antitumor activity observed with afatinib over methotrexate, which was consistent with findings from the overall population. Safety in older patients was also consistent with the overall population, favoring afatinib in terms of fewer dose reductions and discontinuations.

          Abstract

          Background

          In the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and <65 years.

          Patients and methods

          Patients were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day oral afatinib or 40 mg/m 2/week intravenous methotrexate. PFS was the primary end point; overall survival (OS) was the key secondary end point. Other end points included: objective response rate (ORR), patient-reported outcomes, tumor shrinkage, and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed.

          Results

          Of 483 randomized patients, 27% (83 afatinib; 45 methotrexate) were aged ≥65 years (older) and 73% (239 afatinib; 116 methotrexate) <65 years (younger) at study entry. Similar PFS benefit with afatinib versus methotrexate was observed in older {median 2.8 versus 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–1.03], P = 0.061} and younger patients [2.6 versus 1.6 months, HR = 0.79 (0.62–1.01), P = 0.052]. In older and younger patients, the median OS with afatinib versus methotrexate was 7.3 versus 6.4 months [HR = 0.84 (0.54–1.31)] and 6.7 versus 6.2 months [HR = 0.98 (0.76–1.28)]. ORRs with afatinib versus methotrexate were 10.8% versus 6.7% and 10.0% versus 5.2%; DCRs were 53.0% versus 37.8% and 47.7% versus 38.8% in older and younger patients, respectively. In both subgroups, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were rash/acne (73%–77%) and diarrhea (70%–80%) with afatinib, and stomatitis (43%) and fatigue (31%–34%) with methotrexate. Fewer treatment-related discontinuations were observed with afatinib (each subgroup 7% versus 16%). A trend toward improved time to deterioration of global health status, pain, and swallowing with afatinib was observed in both subgroups.

          Conclusions

          Advancing age (≥65 years) did not adversely affect clinical outcomes or safety with afatinib versus methotrexate in second-line R/M HNSCC patients.

          Clinical trial registration

          NCT01345682 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy.

          To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the epidermal growth factor receptor-directed monoclonal antibody cetuximab administered as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) who experience disease progression on platinum therapy. An open-label multicenter study in which patients with disease progression on two to six cycles of platinum therapy received single-agent cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m2 followed by subsequent weekly doses of 250 mg/m2) for > or = 6 weeks (single-agent phase). Patients who experienced disease progression could receive salvage therapy with cetuximab plus platinum (combination-therapy phase). From June 2001 to December 2002, 103 patients were enrolled and treated with cetuximab, 53 of whom subsequently received combination therapy. In the single-agent phase, response rate was 13%, disease control rate (complete response/partial response/stable disease) was 46%, and median time to progression (TTP) was 70 days. During the combination-therapy phase, the objective response rate was zero, disease control rate was 26%, and TTP was 50 days. Median overall survival was 178 days. Treatment was well tolerated. The most common cetuximab-related adverse events in the single-agent phase were skin reactions, particularly rash (49% of patients, mainly grade 1 or 2). There was one treatment-related death due to an infusion-related reaction. Single-agent cetuximab was active and generally well tolerated in the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN that progressed on platinum therapy. Response was comparable to that seen with cetuximab plus platinum combination regimens in the same setting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A systematic review of barriers to medication adherence in the elderly: looking beyond cost and regimen complexity.

            Medication nonadherence is a common problem among the elderly. To conduct a systematic review of the published literature describing potential nonfinancial barriers to medication adherence among the elderly. The PubMed and PsychINFO databases were searched for articles published in English between January 1998 and January 2010 that (1) described "predictors," "facilitators," or "determinants" of medication adherence or that (2) examined the "relationship" between a specific barrier and adherence for elderly patients (ie, ≥65 years of age) in the United States. A manual search of the reference lists of identified articles and the authors' files and recent review articles was conducted. The search included articles that (1) reviewed specific barriers to medication adherence and did not solely describe nonmodifiable predictors of adherence (eg, demographics, marital status), (2) were not interventions designed to address adherence, (3) defined adherence or compliance and specified its method of measurement, and (4) involved US participants only. Nonsystematic reviews were excluded, as were studies that focused specifically on people who were homeless or substance abusers, or patients with psychotic disorders, tuberculosis, or HIV infection, because of the unique circumstances that surround medication adherence for each of these populations. Nine studies met inclusion criteria for this review. Four studies used pharmacy records or claims data to assess adherence, 2 studies used pill count or electronic monitoring, and 3 studies used other methods to assess adherence. Substantial heterogeneity existed among the populations studied as well as among the measures of adherence, barriers addressed, and significant findings. Some potential barriers (ie, factors associated with nonadherence) were identified from the studies, including patient-related factors such as disease-related knowledge, health literacy, and cognitive function; drug-related factors such as adverse effects and polypharmacy; and other factors including the patient-provider relationship and various logistical barriers to obtaining medications. None of the reviewed studies examined primary nonadherence or nonpersistence. Medication nonadherence in the elderly is not well described in the literature, despite being a major cause of morbidity, and thus it is difficult to draw a systematic conclusion on potential barriers based on the current literature. Future research should focus on standardizing medication adherence measurements among the elderly to gain a better understanding of this important issue. Published by EM Inc USA.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Oncol
                Ann. Oncol
                annonc
                annonc
                Annals of Oncology
                Oxford University Press
                0923-7534
                1569-8041
                August 2016
                15 April 2016
                15 April 2016
                : 27
                : 8
                : 1585-1593
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Oncology, KU Leuven , Leuven
                [2 ]Department of General Medical Oncology, UZ Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [3 ]Department of Medicine (Cancer Research), West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen , Essen, Germany
                [4 ]Institut Roi Albert II, Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc and Institut de Recherche Clinique et Expérimentale (Pole MIRO), Université Catholique de Louvain , Brussels, Belgium
                [5 ]Departmant of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School , Boston, USA
                [6 ]Departmant of Medical Oncology, Léon Bérard Center, University of Lyon , Lyon, France
                [7 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori , Milan, Italy
                [8 ]Head and Neck Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East , Kashiwa, Japan
                [9 ]Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center , La Jolla, USA
                [10 ]Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier Val d'Aurelle , Montpellier, France
                [11 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínic and University of Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain
                [12 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif
                [13 ]Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France
                [14 ]Department of Melanoma, Soft Tissues, Muscolo Scheletal, Head and Neck, Head and Neck Medical Oncology, National Tumor Institute of Naples , Naples, Italy
                [15 ]Oncologia Clinica, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo , São Paulo
                [16 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital de Câncer de Barretos , São Paulo, Brazil
                [17 ]Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center , Berlin, Germany
                [18 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vall D'Hebron , Barcelona, Spain
                [19 ]Biometrics and Data Management, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , Ridgefield, USA
                [20 ]Division of Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim Danmark A/S , Copenhagen, Denmark
                [21 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital , Edegem, Belgium
                Author notes
                [* ] Correspondence to: Dr Paul M. Clement, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium. Tel: +32-16-34-69-03; E-mail: paul.clement@ 123456uzleuven.be
                [†]

                Presented, in part, at the International Conference on Innovative Approaches in Head and Neck Oncology Meeting; 12–14 February 2015, Nice, France. Abstract No. OC-005.

                Article
                mdw151
                10.1093/annonc/mdw151
                4959921
                27084954
                8722803a-b20b-46eb-ac0e-591b5b108d2d
                © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 6 January 2016
                : 15 March 2016
                : 21 March 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Boehringer Ingelheim;
                Categories
                Original Articles
                Head and Neck Tumors

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                afatinib,methotrexate,hnscc,second-line,phase iii,older
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                afatinib, methotrexate, hnscc, second-line, phase iii, older

                Comments

                Comment on this article