Price, Katharine A.

6071 Background: Phase III data suggests a benefit of HDC in the adjuvant setting, but the effect of HDC and WC on long term survival and for HPV+ HNSCC is unknown. Methods: Data from a published retrospective study (Geiger Oral Onc 2013) of HDC vs WC in resected HNSCC was updated. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier method for all pts and by HPV status. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess impact of HPV status, smoking, age, HDC vs WC, and cumulative cisplatin dose ( < 200mg/m2 vs ≥200 mg/m2). Results: 51 patients (pts) received HDC and 53 WC. Median follow-up was 8.7 yrs (0.8-13.7). For the whole cohort, HDC had significantly improved OS over WC (p = 0.0095; 5- and 10-yr OS 84% and 80% vs 72% and 60%). No OS benefit for HDC was seen in pts with HPV+HNSCC (5- and 10-yr OS 90% and 87% for HDC and 81% and 81% for WC; p = 0.51). For HPV-negative HNSCC, OS had borderline significance with HDC vs WC (5- and 10-yr OS 73% and 68% vs 65% and 44%; p = 0.06). For the whole cohort, there was no difference in 5- and 10-yr RFS (78% and 74% for HDC vs 72% and 62% for WC; p = 0.32). When analyzed by HPV status, there was no difference in RFS with HDC or WC for either HPV+ (p = 0.43) or HPV-negative HNSCC (p = 0.97). On multivariate analyses of OS for all pts, only HPV status was significant (p = 0.0011; HR 0.27, CI 0.12-0.62). For HPV+ HNSCC, there was no significant predictor of OS. For non-HPV HNSCC, the benefit of HDC approached significance with a decreased risk of death (HR 0.38; p = 0.07). For all pts, those who received ≥200mg/m2 had significantly improved OS (5-yr 90% vs 72% and 10-yr 86% vs 61%; p = 0.004). By HPV status, cumulative dose had no significant effect on OS. Conclusions: OS is better with HDC and with cumulative dose > 200 mg/m2 in unselected patients. The benefit of cisplatin is likely higher for non-HPV HNSCC. A difference in OS with no difference in RFS suggests non cancer-related causes of death in the WC cohort. Ability to receive HDC could be a surrogate marker of comorbidity. [Table: see text]

6020 Background: A subset of salivary gland cancer (SGCs) express the androgen receptor (AR). This phase II trial evaluated the anti-androgen enzalumatide (Astellas) for patients with AR+ SGCs. Methods: Locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic AR+ SGCs were enrolled (AR status was centrally confirmed). Prior therapy with AR-targeted drugs was allowed. Enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily was given (1 cycle= 28 days). The primary endpoint was confirmed response (RR) according to RECIST v1.1 within the first 8 cycles. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. A Simon-Optimal two-stage design was used to detect a 20% RR (vs. 5%) (alpha = 5%; beta = 90%). > 1 response(s) in the first 21 would trigger accrual to 41; > 4 responses would be considered promising. Results: 46 eligible patients (pts) were enrolled (40 M, 6 F; median age 65) in 22 months. In the first 21 pts, we initially had 2 confirmed PRs allowing for full study accrual, though one was later changed to stable disease. Among the 46 pts, 7 had PR as best response, though only 2 were confirmed within the first 8 cycles (4% (95% CI: 0.5-15%). Two other PRs did not count towards the primary endpoint due to 1) development beyond 8 cycles (cycles 12-18) and 2) a confirmatory scan completed <4 weeks apart. The other 3 pts with unconfirmed PR developed progression of disease (PD) after the first PR scan. 24 pts had stable disease; 15 pts PD as best response. Among 11 pts previously treated with AR-targeted therapy, best responses were 1 confirmed PR, 7 SD, 3 PD. With a median follow-up of 11.7 months (mo), OS at 12 mo was 66% (95% CI: 52-83%), PFS at 12 mo was 24% (95% CI: 14-42%), and median PFS was 5.5 mo (95% CI: 3.7-7.3). Conclusions: This is the first prospective trial evaluating an antiandrogen alone for AR+ SGCs. The failure to meet the protocol-defined measure of success was due in part to the lack of durability of initial responses. The clinical activity observed suggests the AR-dependence of AR+ SGCs, even among those previously treated with other hormonal therapies. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Astellas; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02749903.

AbstractBackgroundThere are no proven systemic therapies for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the salivary glands. Pemetrexed use in adenocarcinoma of the salivary glands has not been previously described.MethodsRetrospective case reports and literature review.ResultsTwo patients with metastatic salivary gland adenocarcinoma were treated with single‐agent pemetrexed with marked response and clinical benefit. Case 1 describes a sustained clinical response for 8 months after failing several lines of chemotherapy. Case 2 describes a marked interval response of diffuse metastatic disease at 2 months with resolution of bone pain and sustained response at 8 months.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first report of efficacy of single‐agent pemetrexed for metastatic salivary gland adenocarcinoma. Given the significant and sustained responses in heavily pretreated patients, further investigation of pemetrexed for salivary cancer may be warranted.

AbstractBackgroundPast research established that surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy (S + AR) improves overall survival (OS) in esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB). However, it is unknown if the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) further improves survival. The primary objective of this study was to compare survival among patients treated with S + AR alone to patients who underwent S + AR + AC.MethodsRetrospective review of patient records.ResultsThirty‐eight patients met inclusion criteria for either S + AR or S + AR + AC treatment groups. The S + AR + AC group contained more patients with Kadish stage D disease, dural invasion, and positive histologic margins postsurgery. All S + AR + AC patients received platinum‐based regimens, combined with etoposide in 67%. OS and recurrence‐free survival did not differ between the two groups, even when restricting the analysis to patients with Kadish stages B and C disease.ConclusionPatients who received platinum‐based AC did not exhibit improved survival compared to S + AR alone. Further investigation, preferably prospective, into the optimal use of systemic therapy in ENB is warranted.