A better understanding of cancer biology has led to the development of molecular targeted therapy, which has dramatically improved the outcome of some cancer patients, especially when a biomarker of efficacy has been used for patients’ selection. In head and neck oncology, cetuximab that targets epidermal growth factor receptor is the only targeted therapy that demonstrated a survival benefit, both in the recurrent and in the locally advanced settings, yet without prior patients’ selection. We herein review the clinical development of targeted therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in light of the molecular landscape and give insights in on how innovative clinical trial designs may speed up biomarker discovery and deployment of new molecular targeted therapies. Given the recent approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death-1 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, it remains to be determined how targeted therapy will be incorporated into a global drug development strategy that will inevitably incorporate immunotherapy.

Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), and particularly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), are currently some of the major breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionised the treatment of acid-related diseases, but are frequently overused for epigastric pain or heartburn. However, long-term acid suppression from using PPIs may lead to safety concerns, and could have a greater impact in cancer patients undergoing therapy, like bone fractures, renal toxicities, enteric infections, and micronutrient deficiencies (iron and magnesium). Moreover, acid suppression may also affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs (at least during acid suppression) and decrease the absorption of many molecularly-targeted anticancer therapies, which are mostly weak bases with pH-dependent absorption. This type of drug-drug interaction may have detrimental effects on efficacy, with major clinical impacts described for some orally administrated targeted therapies (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib, palbociclib), and conflicting results with many others, including capecitabine. Furthermore, the long-term use of PPIs results in severe alterations to the gut microbiome and recent retrospective analyses have shown that the benefit of using CPIs was suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. These very expensive drugs are of great importance because of their efficacy. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.

Everolimus is an oral drug that inhibits mTOR with immunosuppressive and antiproliferative characteristics. It is commonly used in association with exemestane in hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). The current review summarizes the publications relating to everolimus from clinical research in breast cancer. Everolimus showed treatment efficacy and an acceptable safety tolerance with the prevention of side effects in Phase II/III studies. BOLERO-2 study showed a progression-free survival improvement in patients with HR - positive ABC previously treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) and leading to its acceptance in this indication. The absence of a post-CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i.) study and the arrival of new drugs may raise questions about its current place in the therapeutic strategy. Everolimus is relevant in the management of HR - positive ABC. Because of its efficacy, acceptable tolerability and the absence of drugs that have shown a greater benefit, it remains a second-line treatment option in HR-positive, HER2 negative (score 0) patients without BRCA mutation or visceral crisis and can be discussed with fulvestrant in second line after CDK4-6i. It is likely that within 5 years this treatment will be replaced in second-line HR-positive breast cancer by new emerging treatments: drug-conjugated antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy.

The absorption of pazopanib depends on gastric pH. PPIs are frequently prescribed for cancer patients to modify gastric acidity, decreasing pazopanib absorption. The aim of our study was, retrospectively, to investigate the impact of PPIs on the clinical efficacy and safety of pazopanib in a cohort of patients treated in our health center. Of the 147 patients who were included retrospectively, 79 (54%) did not take PPIs concomitantly with pazopanib (cohort 1), while 68 (46%) patients did take PPIs concomitantly with pazopanib (cohort 2). The efficacy parameters were lower in patients taking pazopanib and PPIs: the i/tumor response was statistically different between the two cohorts (p = 0.008), in particular, with 19% vs. 3% of the objective response and 24% vs. 43% of progression in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively; ii/median overall survival was 17.6 (95% CI: 12.5–32.8) months in cohort 1 and 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.9–18.6) in cohort 2 (HR = 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2–2.5]; p < 0.006); on multivariable analysis, overall survival was associated with performance status, PPI intake, tumor location, hemoglobin, and PMN/lymphocyte ratio. In contrast, the dose reduction for toxicity and severe adverse events were (non-significantly) less frequent in cohort 1. To conclude, our study shows that combining PPIs with pazopanib has an adverse effect on overall survival. The clinical modifications that were observed are in line with a decrease in pazopanib absorption due to PPIs. This co-medication should be avoided.

In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe.

Assessment of treatment-related adverse events is imprecise. An evaluation of placebo-controlled clinical trials involving patients with cancer showed that the incidence of serious adverse events among patients who received placebo was 5.6%; this suggests overestimates of adverse events attributed to drugs.