Pembrolizumab With or Without Chemotherapy in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Updated Results of the Phase III KEYNOTE-048 Study

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy demonstrated efficacy in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in KEYNOTE-048. Post hoc analysis of long-term efficacy and progression-free survival on next-line therapy (PFS2) is presented. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy. Efficacy was evaluated in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20, CPS ≥ 1, and total populations, with no multiplicity or alpha adjustment. RESULTS The median study follow-up was 45.0 months (interquartile range, 41.0-49.2; n = 882). At data cutoff (February 18, 2020), overall survival improved with pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.81) and CPS ≥ 1 populations (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89) and was noninferior in the total population (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97). Overall survival improved with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.84), CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and total (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85) populations. The objective response rate on second-course pembrolizumab was 27.3% (3 of 11). PFS2 improved with pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84) and CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95) populations and with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86), CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.81), and total (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88) populations. PFS2 was similar after pembrolizumab and longer after pembrolizumab-chemotherapy on next-line taxanes and shorter after pembrolizumab and similar after pembrolizumab-chemotherapy on next-line nontaxanes. CONCLUSION With a 4-year follow-up, first-line pembrolizumab and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy continued to demonstrate survival benefit versus cetuximab-chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Patients responded well to subsequent treatment after pembrolizumab-based therapy.

[1]  I. Marschner,et al.  The validity of progression‐free survival 2 as a surrogate trial end point for overall survival , 2022, Cancer.

[2]  C. R. Leemans,et al.  Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma , 2020, Nature Reviews Disease Primers.

[3]  V. Grégoire,et al.  Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2020, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[4]  Y. Nishimura,et al.  Safety and efficacy of cetuximab-containing chemotherapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a single-center retrospective study , 2020, Anti-cancer drugs.

[5]  K. Harrington,et al.  Further clinical interpretation and implications of KEYNOTE-048 findings – Authors' reply , 2020, The Lancet.

[6]  R. Tishler,et al.  Chemotherapy after immune checkpoint blockade in patients with recurrent, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. , 2020, Oral oncology.

[7]  Jason M. Johnson,et al.  Response rates and survival to systemic therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor failure in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. , 2019, Oral oncology.

[8]  Hung-Ming Wang,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 , 2019, The Lancet.

[9]  F. Bidault,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. , 2019, European journal of cancer.

[10]  K. Harrington,et al.  Nivolumab treatment beyond RECIST‐defined progression in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in CheckMate 141: A subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial , 2019, Cancer.

[11]  O. V. Matorin,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 , 2019, The Lancet.

[12]  J. Machiels,et al.  Pembrolizumab for recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC): Post hoc analyses of treatment options from the phase III KEYNOTE-040 trial. , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[13]  Jeremy M G Taylor,et al.  Cigarette use, comorbidities, and prognosis in a prospective head and neck squamous cell carcinoma population , 2016, Head & neck.

[14]  J. Radford Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck , 2016, BDJ.

[15]  K. Ang,et al.  Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  S. Taylor Head and neck cancer. , 1991, Cancer chemotherapy and biological response modifiers.