Review

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: amaury.daste@chu-bordeaux.fr

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5621-812X

Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-André, CHU, Bordeaux, France

Search for more papers by this author

Mathieu Larroquette

Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-André, CHU, Bordeaux, France

IBGC, CNRS, UMR5095, University of Bordeaux, CNRS, IBGC, UMR 5095, Bordeaux, France

Bordeaux University, 351 cours de la Libération CS10004 33405 Talence CEDEX, Bordeaux, France

Search for more papers by this author

Nyere Gibson

Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-André, CHU, Bordeaux, France

Bordeaux University, 351 cours de la Libération CS10004 33405 Talence CEDEX, Bordeaux, France

Search for more papers by this author

Matthieu Lasserre

Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-André, CHU, Bordeaux, France

Bordeaux University, 351 cours de la Libération CS10004 33405 Talence CEDEX, Bordeaux, France

Search for more papers by this author

Charlotte Domblides

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9455-0657

Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-André, CHU, Bordeaux, France

Bordeaux University, 351 cours de la Libération CS10004 33405 Talence CEDEX, Bordeaux, France

ImmunoConcEpt, CNRS UMR 5164, Bordeaux University, Bordeaux, 33076, France

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:21 Dec 2023https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2023-0174

View article

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of several solid cancers, including head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). First approved for second-line settings, ICIs are now used for the first-line treatment of HNSCCs, mainly in combination with standard chemotherapy. This review focuses on the results of the main phase III studies evaluating ICIs in recurrent or metastatic HNSCCs. The efficacy and indications according to the PD-L1 status, the main predictive biomarker, are discussed. The results of trials assessing ICI efficacy for locally advanced disease, including the neoadjuvant setting are also discussed. Finally, therapeutic combinations that are potential treatments for HNSCCs, including ICIs and targeted therapies such as anti-EGFR agents, are presented.

Plain language summary

Head and neck (HN) cancer is common and challenging to treat, especially when it relapses locally (recurrence) or in a different organ (metastatic). Immunotherapy, which strengthens the immune system's ability to target tumor cells, has revolutionized the treatment of several cancers, including metastatic HN cancers. Pembrolizumab, an immunotherapy drug, is now combined with chemotherapy as standard treatment for recurrent or metastatic HN cancers; it has a manageable toxicity profile. However, some patients do not respond to treatment, and the disease may relapse after several injections. Efforts are currently underway to improve the efficacies of these immunotherapy treatments by combining them with other therapies, such as anti-EGFR treatment. Current studies seek biomarkers to identify patients likely to benefit from these treatments and those who may require alternative treatments.

Keywords:

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

References

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J. Clin. 73(1), 17–48 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Chow LQM. Head and neck cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 382(1), 60–72 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Chaturvedi AK, Engels EA, Pfeiffer RM et al. Human papillomavirus and rising oropharyngeal cancer incidence in the United States. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(17), 3081–3088 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Ndon S, Singh A, Ha PK, Aswani J, Chan JY-K, Xu MJ. Human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer: global epidemiology and public policy implications. Cancers 15(16), 4080 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Taberna M, Mena M, Pavón MA, Alemany L, Gillison ML, Mesía R. Human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 28(10), 2386–2398 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(1), 24–35 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Mansfield AS, Aubry MC, Moser JC et al. Temporal and spatial discordance of programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression and lymphocyte tumor infiltration between paired primary lesions and brain metastases in lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 27(10), 1953–1958 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Lala M, Chirovsky D, Cheng JD, Mayawala K. Clinical outcomes with therapies for previously treated recurrent/metastatic head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC): a systematic literature review. Oral Oncol. 84, 108–120 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. 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 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 956–965 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Mehra R, Seiwert TY, Gupta S et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: pooled analyses after long-term follow-up in KEYNOTE-012. Br. J. Cancer 119(2), 153–159 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. 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
12. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Fayette J et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(19), 1856–1867 (2016). •• First study to demonstrate that immune checkpoint inhibitors improved overall survival in the second and third line.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Fayette J et al. Nivolumab vs investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: 2-year long-term survival update of CheckMate 141 with analyses by tumor PD-L1 expression. Oral Oncol. 81, 45–51 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Gillison ML, Blumenschein G, Fayette J et al. Long-term outcomes with nivolumab as first-line treatment in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer: subgroup analysis of CheckMate 141. Oncologist 27(2), e194–e198 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Cohen EEW, Soulières D, Le Tourneau C et al. Pembrolizumab versus methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab for recurrent or metastatic head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-040): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 393(10167), 156–167 (2019). •• First study to demonstrate the efficacy of pembrolizumab.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Ferris RL, Haddad R, Even C et al. Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: EAGLE, a randomized, open-label phase III study. Ann. Oncol. 31(7), 942–950 (2020). • Phase III study evaluating anti-PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in the second or third line.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Zandberg DP, Algazi AP, Jimeno A et al. Durvalumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: results from a single-arm, phase II study in patients with ≥25% tumour cell PD-L1 expression who have progressed on platinum-based chemotherapy. Eur. J. Cancer 107, 142–152 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Siu LL, Even C, Mesía R et al. Safety and efficacy of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with PD-L1-low/negative recurrent or metastatic HNSCC: the phase 2 CONDOR randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 5(2), 195–203 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R et al. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 394(10212), 1915–1928 (2019). •• First study to demonstrate that pembrolizumab improved overall survival in the first line.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Burtness B, Rischin D, Greil R et al. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in KEYNOTE-048: subgroup analysis by programmed death ligand-1 Combined Positive Score. J. Clin. Oncol. 40(21), 2321–2332 (2022). • Subgroup analysis of efficacy of pembrolizumab in the first-line according to PD-L1 status.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Haddad RI, Harrington K, Tahara M et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME regimen as first-line treatment for recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the final results of CheckMate 651. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(12), 2166–2180 (2023). • Evaluation of nivolumab and ipilimumab in the first line.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Harrington KJ, Ferris RL, Gillison M et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the phase 2 CheckMate 714 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 9(6), 779–789 (2023). • Evaluation of the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab in patients refractory to platinum.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Psyrri A, Fayette J, Harrington K et al. Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab versus the EXTREME regimen as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: KESTREL, a randomized, open-label, phase III study. Ann. Oncol. 34(3), 262–274 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Guigay J, Aupérin A, Fayette J et al. Cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin versus platinum, fluorouracil, and cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (GORTEC 2014-01 TPExtreme): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 22(4), 463–475 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Saleh K, Daste A, Martin N et al. Response to salvage chemotherapy after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Eur. J. Cancer 121, 123–129 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Guiard E, Clatot F, Even C et al. Impact of previous nivolumab treatment on the response to taxanes in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur. J. Cancer 159, 125–132 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Tao Y, Biau J, Sun XS et al. Pembrolizumab versus cetuximab concurrent with radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck unfit for cisplatin (GORTEC 2015-01 PembroRad): a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial. Ann. Oncol. 34(1), 101–110 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Bourhis J, Tao Y, Sun X et al. LBA35 avelumab-cetuximab-radiotherapy versus standards of care in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (LA-SCCHN): randomized phase III GORTEC-REACH trial. Ann. Oncol. 32, S1310 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Lee NY, Ferris RL, Psyrri A et al. Avelumab plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 22(4), 450–462 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Machiels J-P, Tao Y, Burtness B et al. LBA5 primary results of the phase III KEYNOTE-412 study: pembrolizumab (pembro) with chemoradiation therapy (CRT) vs placebo plus CRT for locally advanced (LA) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Ann. Oncol. 33, S1399 (2022).
Google Scholar
31. Schumacher TN, Schreiber RD. Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 348(6230), 69–74 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Yarchoan M, Hopkins A, Jaffee EM. Tumor mutational burden and response rate to PD-1 inhibition. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(25), 2500–2501 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Litchfield K, Reading JL, Puttick C et al. Meta-analysis of tumor- and T cell-intrinsic mechanisms of sensitization to checkpoint inhibition. Cell 184(3), 596–614 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Haddad RI, Seiwert TY, Chow LQM et al. Influence of tumor mutational burden, inflammatory gene expression profile, and PD-L1 expression on response to pembrolizumab in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J. Immunother. Cancer 10(2), e003026 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Obradovic A, Graves D, Korrer M et al. Immunostimulatory cancer-associated fibroblast subpopulations can predict immunotherapy response in head and neck cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 28(10), 2094–2109 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Roof L, Yilmaz E. Immunotherapy in HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 24(3), 170–183 (2023).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Patel JJ, Levy DA, Nguyen SA, Knochelmann HM, Day TA. Impact of PD-L1 expression and human papillomavirus status in anti-PD1/PDL1 immunotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma–systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck 42(4), 774–786 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Kwon HR, Cho J, Park S et al. Metabolic parameters on baseline ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT are potential predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Front. Med. 9, 896494 (2022).
Google Scholar
39. Castello A, Rossi S, Mazziotti E, Toschi L, Lopci E. Hyperprogressive disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with checkpoint inhibitors: the role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 61(6), 821–826 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Ito K, Schöder H, Teng R et al. Prognostic value of baseline metabolic tumor volume measured on ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab therapy. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 46(4), 930–939 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Matoba T, Minohara K, Kawakita D et al. Impact of tumor burden on survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 14319 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 386(21), 1973–1985 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 389(6), 491–503 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Provencio M, Nadal E, González-Larriba JL et al. Perioperative nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 389(6), 504–513 (2023).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Cabezas-Camarero S, Pérez-Segura P. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in head and neck cancer: rationale, current evidence and future perspective. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 169, 103569 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
46. Masarwy R, Kampel L, Horowitz G, Gutfeld O, Muhanna N. Neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for resectable head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 147(10), 871–878 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Ferris RL, Spanos WC, Leidner R et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab for patients with resectable HPV-positive and HPV-negative squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck in the CheckMate 358 trial. J. Immunother. Cancer 9(6), e002568 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Zhang Z, Wu B, Peng G et al. Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a single-arm phase 2 clinical trial. Clin. Cancer Res. 28(15), 3268–3276 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Ferrarotto R, Bell D, Rubin ML et al. Checkpoint inhibitors assessment in oropharynx cancer (CIAO): safety and interim results. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(Suppl. 15), 6008 (2019).
Google Scholar
50. Uppaluri R, Campbell KM, Egloff AM et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab in resectable locally advanced, human papillomavirus-unrelated head and neck cancer: a multicenter, phase II trial. Clin. Cancer Res. 26(19), 5140–5152 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Hoffmann-La R. A phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) as adjuvant therapy after definitive local therapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. clinicaltrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03452137
Google Scholar
52. Dzienis MR, Cundom JE, Fuentes CS et al. 651O Pembrolizumab (pembro) + carboplatin (carbo) + paclitaxel (pacli) as first-line (1L) therapy in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): phase VI KEYNOTE-B10 study. Ann. Oncol. 33, S839–S840 (2022).
Google Scholar
53. Fayette J, Cropet C, Gautier J et al. Results of the multicenter phase II FRAIL-IMMUNE trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of durvalumab combined with weekly paclitaxel carboplatin in first-line in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) not eligible for cisplatin-based therapies. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(Suppl. 16), 6003 (2023).
Google Scholar
54. GlaxoSmithKline. GSK provides update on feladilimab, an investigational inducible T cell co-stimulatory (ICOS) agonist (2021). www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-provides-update-on-feladilimab-an-investigational-inducible-t-cell-co-stimulatory-icos-agonist/
Google Scholar
55. Sacco AG, Chen R, Worden FP et al. Pembrolizumab plus cetuximab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an open-label, multi-arm, non-randomised, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 22(6), 883–892 (2021). • Inersting combinaison of anti EGF-R and anti-PD1.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Kao H-F, Liao B-C, Huang Y-L et al. Afatinib and pembrolizumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (ALPHA study): a phase II study with biomarker analysis. Clin. Cancer Res. 28(8), 1560–1571 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Chung CH, Li J, Steuer CE et al. Phase II multi-institutional clinical trial result of concurrent cetuximab and nivolumab in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 28(11), 2329–2338 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Hanna GJ, Kaczmar JM, Zandberg DP et al. Dose expansion results of the bifunctional EGFR/TGFβ inhibitor BCA101 with pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 41(Suppl. 16), 6005 (2023).
Google Scholar
59. Innate Pharma. Innate Pharma annonce une mise à jour sur l'étude de phase 3 Interlink-1 menée par AstraZeneca. www.innate-pharma.com/fr/medias/tous-communiques/innate-pharma-annonce-mise-jour-sur-letude-phase-3-interlink-1-menee-par-astrazeneca
Google Scholar
60. Galot R, Le Tourneau C, Saada-Bouzid E et al. A phase II study of monalizumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the I1 cohort of the EORTC-HNCG-1559 UPSTREAM trial. Eur. J. Cancer 158, 17–26 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Taylor MH, Lee C-H, Makker V et al. Phase IB/II trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, endometrial cancer, and other selected advanced solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 38(11), 1154–1163 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Merck.com Merck and Eisai provide update on phase 3 LEAP-010 trial evaluating KEYTRUDA^® (pembrolizumab) plus LENVIMA^® (lenvatinib) in patients with certain types of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. www.merck.com/news/merck-and-eisai-provide-update-on-phase-3-leap-010-trial-evaluating-keytruda-pembrolizumab-plus-lenvima-lenvatinib-in-patients-with-certain-types-of-recurrent-or-metastatic-head-and-ne/
Google Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 3

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 201 times

History

Received 31 July 2023

Accepted 13 November 2023

Published online 21 December 2023

Published in print February 2024

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/imt-2023-0174

Author contributions

A Daste, M Larroquette, N Gibson and M Lasserre collected data; A Daste and M Larroquette analyzed data; and A Daste, M Larroquette and N Gibson wrote the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no 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. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Competing interests disclosure

A Daste has a consulting or advisory role at Merck, MSD, BMS and Merus and expenses paid by BMS and Merck. C Domblides has a consulting or advisory role at Amgen and AstraZeneca and expenses paid by Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer and Roche. The authors have no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Writing disclosure

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

PDF download

Immunotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: current status and perspectives

Abstract

Plain language summary

References