Drug Evaluation

Division of Hematology & Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 919 966 3856; Fax: +1 919 966 6735;

Division of Hematology & Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

Published Online:21 Feb 2018https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2017-0628

Abstract

Until recently, palliative options for the treatment of platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) have been cytotoxic chemotherapy and EGFR inhibitors. These agents offer limited efficacy with substantial toxicity. The development of novel immune checkpoint inhibitors has challenged the standard treatment. Pembrolizumab is a potent and highly selective humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks the interaction between PD-1, an immune checkpoint receptor and its ligands PD-L1 and -2. In August 2016, the US FDA approved the use of pembrolizumab in R/M HNSCC following disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. This review highlights the pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability data relevant to the use of pembrolizumab for the treatment of R/M HNSCC. Readers will gain greater insight into the HNSCC tumor microenvironment, available biomarkers, and learn about important clinical considerations associated with the use of pembrolizumab and similar immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Lay abstract

Pembrolizumab is a type of therapy that helps the immune system fight cancer. This agent has been approved to treat head and neck cancers that have either spread to distant areas in the body or returned to previously treated areas after initial treatment with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Since pembrolizumab is a newer treatment, this article helps doctors learn more about how it works.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J. Clin. 67(1), 7–30 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2 Pulte D, Brenner H. Changes in survival in head and neck cancers in the late 20th and early 21st century: a period analysis. Oncologist 15(9), 994–1001 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3 Carvalho AL, Nishimoto IN, Califano JA, Kowalski LP. Trends in incidence and prognosis for head and neck cancer in the United States: a site-specific analysis of the SEER database. Int. J. Cancer 114(5), 806–816 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4 Fakhry C, Westra WH, Li S et al. Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100(4), 261–269 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5 Bol V, Gregoire V. Biological basis for increased sensitivity to radiation therapy in HPV-positive head and neck cancers. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 696028 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6 Seiwert TY, Cohen EE. State-of-the-art management of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Br. J. Cancer 92(8), 1341–1348 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7 Marur S, Forastiere AA. Head and neck cancer: changing epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Mayo Clin. Proc. 83(4), 489–501 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8 Colevas AD. Chemotherapy options for patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J. Clin. Oncol. 24(17), 2644–2652 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9 Vermorken JB, Mesia R, Rivera F et al. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359(11), 1116–1127 (2008). • EXTREME trial that has served as a basis for standard of care for recurrent/metastatic head & neck cancer (R/M HNSCC) since 2008.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10 Hong WK, Bromer R. Chemotherapy in head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 308(2), 75–79 (1983).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11 Schrijvers D, Vermorken JB. Taxanes in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 17(3), 218–224 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12 Grau JJ, Caballero M, Verger E, Monzo M, Blanch JL. Weekly paclitaxel for platin-resistant stage IV head and neck cancer patients. Acta Otolaryngol. 129(11), 1294–1299 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13 Jacobs C, Lyman G, Velez-García E et al. A Phase III randomized study comparing cisplatin and fluorouracil as single agents and in combination for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J. Clin. Oncol. 10(2), 257–263 (1992).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14 Forastiere AA, Leong T, Rowinsky E et al. Phase III comparison of high-dose paclitaxel + cisplatin + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor versus low-dose paclitaxel + cisplatin in advanced head and neck cancer: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E1393. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(4), 1088–1095 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15 Colevas AD. Chemotherapy options for patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J. Clin. Oncol. 24(17), 2644–2652 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16 Gibson MK, Li Y, Murphy B et al. Randomized Phase III evaluation of cisplatin plus fluorouracil versus cisplatin plus paclitaxel in advanced head and neck cancer (E1395): an intergroup trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 23(15), 3562–3567 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17 Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12(4), 252–264 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18 Leach DR, Krummel MF, Allison JP. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science 271(5256), 1734–1736 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19 Ohaegbulam KC, Assal A, Lazar-Molnar E, Yao Y, Zang X. Human cancer immunotherapy with antibodies to the PD-1 and PD-L1 pathway. Trends Mol. Med. 21(1), 24–33 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20 Crespo J, Sun H, Welling TH, Tian Z, Zou W. T cell anergy, exhaustion, senescence and stemness in the tumor microenvironment. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 25(2), 214–221 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
21 Iwai Y, Ishida M, Tanaka Y, Okazaki T, Honjo T, Minato N. Involvement of PD-L1 on tumor cells in the escape from host immune system and tumor immunotherapy by PD-L1 blockade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99(19), 12293–12297 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22 Sui X, Ma J, Han W et al. The anticancer immune response of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and the genetic determinants of response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in cancer patients. Oncotarget 6(23), 19393–19404 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23 Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive genomic characterization of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Nature 517(7536), 576–582 (2015). • Seminal paper for genomic profiling of Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24 Seiwert TY, Zuo Z, Keck MK et al. Integrative and comparative genomic analysis of HPV-positive and HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 21(3), 632–641 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25 Mandal R, Senbabaoglu Y, Desrichard A et al. The head and neck cancer immune landscape and its immunotherapeutic implications. JCI Insight 1(17), e89829 (2016). • Important paper which highlights the immunological differences between human papillomavirus-positive and human papillomavirus-negative HNSCC.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26 Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(19), 1856–1867 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27 Segal NH, Ou S-HI, Balmanoukian AS et al. Safety and efficacy of MEDI4736, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients from a squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) expansion cohort. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(15 Suppl.), 3011 (2015).
Google Scholar
28 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) investigator’s brochure (2017).
Google Scholar
29 Longoria TC, Tewari KS. Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of pembrolizumab in the treatment of melanoma. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 12(10), 1247–1253 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30 Freshwater T, Kondic A, Ahamadi M et al. Evaluation of dosing strategy for pembrolizumab for oncology indications. J. Immunother. Cancer 5, 43 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31 Patnaik A, Kang SP, Rasco D et al. Phase I study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475; anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 21(19), 4286–4293 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32 Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): an open-label, multicentre, Phase IB trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 956–965 (2016). • Results from KEYNOTE-012 which led to US FDA approval of pembrolizumab in R/M HNSCC.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33 Chow LQM, Haddad R, Gupta S et al. Antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in biomarker-unselected patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: results from the Phase IB KEYNOTE-012 expansion cohort. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(32), 3838–3845 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34 Mehra R, Seiwert TY, Mahipal A et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC): pooled analyses after long-term follow-up in KEYNOTE-012. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(15 Suppl.), 6012 (2016).
Google Scholar
35 Bauml J, Seiwert TY, Pfister DG et al. Pembrolizumab for platinum- and cetuximab-refractory head and neck cancer: results from a single-arm, Phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(14), 1542–1549 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36 Cohen EE, Harrington KJ, Le Tourneau C. Pembrolizumab (pembro) vs standard of care (SOC) for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC): Phase III KEYNOTE-040 trial. ESMO 28(Suppl. 5), LBA045 (2017). •• European Society for Medical Oncology abstract for Phase III KEYNOTE-040 trial which was negative study based on primary outcome for pembrolizumab in R/M HNSCC. Will await results of published manuscripts to see full clinical trial details.
Google Scholar
37 Michot JM, Bigenwald C, Champiat S et al. Immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: a comprehensive review. Eur. J. Cancer 54, 139–148 (2016). •• Excellent review discussing immune-related adverse events and managements of immune-related adverse events, which is relevant to practicing oncologist.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38 Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from Phase 1 of the blueprint PD-L1 IHC assay comparison project. J. Thorac. Oncol. 12(2), 208–222 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39 Yearley JH, Gibson C, Yu N et al. PD-L2 expression in human tumors: relevance to Anti-PD-1 therapy in cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(12), 3158–3167 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40 Ayers M, Lunceford J, Nebozhyn M et al. IFN-γ-related mRNA profile predicts clinical response to PD-1 blockade. J. Clin. Invest. 127(8), 2930–2940 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41 Haddad RI, Seiwert TY, Chow LQM et al. Genomic determinants of response to pembrolizumab in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 35(15 Suppl.), 6009 (2017).
Google Scholar
42 Chiou VL, Burotto M. Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(31), 3541–3543 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43 Hodi FS, Hwu W-J, Kefford R et al. Evaluation of immune-related response criteria and RECIST v1.1 in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(13), 1510–1517 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44 Ferris RL, Blumenschein GJ, Fayette J et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(19), 1856–1867 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45 Champiat S, Dercle L, Ammari S et al. Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a new pattern of progression in cancer patients treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(8), 1920–1928 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46 Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A et al. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 18(3), e143–e152 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47 Kato S, Goodman AM, Walavalkar V, Barkauskas DA, Sharabi A, Kurzrock R. Hyper-progressors after immunotherapy: analysis of genomic alterations associated with accelerated growth rate. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(15), 4242–4250 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48 Landre T, Taleb C, Nicolas P, Guetz GD. Is there a clinical benefit of anti-PD-1 in patients older than 75 years with previously treated solid tumour? J. Clin. Oncol. 34(15 Suppl.), 3070 (2016).
Google Scholar
49 Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non–small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(2), 123–135 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50 Saada-Bouzid E, Defaucheux C, Karabajakian A et al. Hyperprogression during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann. Oncol. 28(7), 1605–1611 (2017). • Hyperprogression in HNSCC, which is a new clinical phenomena that is not well understood and likely under reported due to lack of knowledge.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51 Machiels J-PH, Haddad RI, Fayette J et al. Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised Phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(5), 583–594 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52 Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R et al. 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. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(16), 2171–2177 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53 Seiwert TY, Fayette J, Cupissol D et al. A randomized, Phase II study of afatinib versus cetuximab in metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ann. Oncol. 25(9), 1813–1820 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54 Grégoire V, Lefebvre JL, Licitra L, Felip E. Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: EHNS–ESMO–ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 21(Suppl. 5), v184–v186 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 14, No. 16

Metrics

Downloaded 385 times

History

Received 14 November 2017

Accepted 25 January 2018

Published online 21 February 2018

Published in print July 2018

Information

Keywords

Company review

In addition to the peer-review process, with the author’s consent, the manufacturer of the product discussed in this article was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for factual accuracy. Changes were made by the author at their discretion and based on scientific or editorial merit only. The author maintained full control over the manuscript, including content, wording and conclusion.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

J Weiss has disclosed the following conflict of interest: he has received (institutional) funding from Merck to conduct clinical trials; he has also received funding from AstraZeneca for the conduct of clinical trials using the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab; he serves on two Data and Safety Monitoring Boards related to the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab (EMD Serono); he receives income from consulting activities unrelated to the subject of this manuscript. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Pembrolizumab and its use in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer

Abstract

Lay abstract

References