Afatinib Versus Methotrexate As Second-Line Treatment in Asian Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck Progressing on or after Platinum-Based Therapy (Lux-Head & Neck 3): an Open-Label, Randomised Phase III Trial

Y. Guo,M-J Ahn,A. Chan,C-H Wang,J-H Kang,S-B Kim,M. Bello,R. S. Arora,Q. Zhang,X. He,P. Li,A. Dechaphunkul,V Kumar,K. Kamble,W. Li,A. Kandil,E. E. W. Cohen,Y. Geng,E. Zografos,P. Z. Tang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz388
IF: 51.769
2019-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) following progression after first-line platinum-based therapy, particularly in Asian countries. Patients and methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase III trial, we enrolled Asian patients aged >= 18 years, with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent/metastatic HNSCC following first-line platinum-based therapy who were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1. Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m(2)/week), stratified by ECOG performance status and prior EGFR-targeted antibody therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to treatment allocation. Results: A total of 340 patients were randomised (228 afatinib; 112 methotrexate). After a median follow-up of 6.4 months, afatinib significantly decreased the risk of progression/death by 37% versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.82; P = 0.0005; median 2.9 versus 2.6 months; landmark analysis at 12 and 24 weeks, 58% versus 41%, 21% versus 9%). Improved PFS was complemented by quality of life benefits. Objective response rate was 28% with afatinib and 13% with methotrexate. There was no significant difference in overall survival. The most common grade >= 3 drug-related adverse events were rash/acne (4% with afatinib versus 0% with methotrexate), diarrhoea (4% versus 0%), fatigue (1% versus 5%), anaemia (<1% versus 5%) and leukopenia (0% versus 5%). Conclusions: Consistent with the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial, afatinib significantly improved PFS versus methotrexate, with a manageable safety profile. These results demonstrate the efficacy and feasibility of afatinib as a second-line treatment option for certain patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?