Background/Aim: In the CheckMate-141 trial regarding head and neck cancer (HNC), nivolumab conferred a survival benefit to patients. However, the best treatment sequence of chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in these cancers is unclear. Patients and Methods: This was an observational study using data collected prospectively from 97 HNC patients treated with nivolumab at our institutions. Twenty-two HNC patients who received paclitaxel-based chemotherapy before (pre-PTX, n=12) and after (post-PTX, n=10) nivolumab were evaluated. Results: The median follow-up time was 15.9 months (range=6.9-35.9 months). There was a significant difference in the overall response rate (ORR) between pre-PTX (17%) and post-PTX (70%) (p=0.027). Similarly, time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer after nivolumab than before nivolumab (post-PTX, 7.4 months; pre-PTX, 4.9 months, p=0.020). Conclusion: Paclitaxel-based chemotherapy had a better ORR and TTP after nivolumab than before nivolumab for HNC. The sequential administration of anti-PD-1 therapy followed by paclitaxel-based chemotherapy could be a better strategy for HNC.

Eyelid squamous cell carcinoma is a major type of rare eyelid cancer, together with basal cell carcinoma and sebaceous gland carcinoma. It is a painless disease that progresses slowly and is often detected by the appearance of nodules or plaques. Risk factors include exposure to ultraviolet light, fair skin, radiation and human papillomavirus infection. The standard treatment is surgical removal, and in cases of orbital invasion, orbital content removal is required. If sentinel node biopsy reveals a high risk of lymph node metastasis, adjuvant radiotherapy may be considered. Local chemotherapy, such as imiquimod and 5-fluorouracil, may be used for eyelid squamous cell carcinoma in situ. When surgery or radiotherapy is not recommended for distant metastases or locally advanced disease, drug therapy is often according to head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in Japan. The treatment often requires a multidisciplinary team to ensure the preservation of function and cosmetic appearance.

Purpose: There have been few reports on the evaluation of cancer cachexia based on skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) in patients with head and neck cancer. Patients and Methods: One hundred and ninety-two head and neck cancer patients were enrolled. In definitive and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy settings, clinical outcomes were compared between cachexia and non-cachexia patients. Results: Forty patients were diagnosed with cachexia (20.8%). In the definitive setting, overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in the cachexia group (3-year OS: 50.0% vs 88.5%; p < 0.01), and multivariate analysis identified UICC stage IV, baseline albumin of < 4 and cachexia as poor prognostic factors. However, cachexia was not significant in the adjuvant setting. Conclusion: Cancer cachexia was negatively associated with prognosis in patients with HNC who received definitive chemoradiotherapy. Nutritional intervention during chemoradiotherapy may improve survival in these patients.

Background: In the CheckMate-141 trial, nivolumab conferred a survival benefit in patients with recurrent or metastatic refractory squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) head and neck cancer (HNC). Here, we examined the efficacy of nivolumab in patients with histological subtypes or primary sites of HNC not included in the CheckMate-141 trial. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively from 97 patients who were treated with nivolumab for recurrent or metastatic HNC at our institution. The patients were assigned to three groups based on HNC primary site: 1) oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx, which were included in CheckMate-141 (n = 68), 2) nasopharynx (excluded in CheckMate-141, n = 7) and 3) other primary sites excluded in CheckMate-141 (n = 22) and assigned to two groups according to histological subtype: 1) SCC (included in CheckMate-141, n = 83) and 2) non-SCC (all sites excluded in CheckMate-141, n = 14). Survival outcomes and nivolumab treatment response were compared between the primary site and histological subgroups. Results: The median number of nivolumab treatments was 7 cycles (range, 1– 53 cycles) and the median follow-up time was 9.1 months (range, 0.66– 33.0 months). There were no significant differences in response rates between the three primary site subgroups (CheckMate-141 sites 22%, nasopharynx 43%, others 18%; p=0) or the two histological subtype subgroups (SCC 25%, non-SCC 7%, p=0). Similarly, overall survival and progression-free survival were comparable for patients stratified by primary site or histological subtype. Conclusion: No significant difference in response rates or survival outcomes was detected between nivolumab-treated HNC patients with primary sites and histological subtypes that were included versus excluded in the CheckMate-141 trial. These data provide a potential rationale for nivolumab therapy for all HNC patients in clinical practice.

Pazopanib with trabectedin and eribulin is widely used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). We have shown that baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may predict the efficacy and patient prognosis of eribulin. Changes in NLR, but not baseline NLR, can predict patient prognosis of trabectedin. However, prognostic factors of pazopanib for STS have not been identified. We present a retrospective analysis of 141 patients treated with pazopanib for recurrent or metastatic non-round cell STS. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the predictive factors of durable clinical benefit (DCB), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival. L-sarcoma histology (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.12–0.79; p = 0.014) and pre-treatment NLR < 3.0 (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.02–6.67; p = 0.045) were independent predictive factors of DCB. Pre-treatment NLR < 3.0 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.36–0.84; p = 0.0057), liposarcoma histology (HR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.09–2.91; p = 0.022), primary extremity site (HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.31–0.75; p = 0.0010), ECOG PS ≥ 1 (HR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.08–2.42; p = 0.019), and CRP < 0.3 (HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.33–0.82; p = 0.0050) were independent predictive factors of OS. These findings indicate that baseline NLR predicts the efficacy and patient prognosis of pazopanib for STS.

Cetuximab could be more effective without prior bevacizumab treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients Yasuyoshi Sato, Satoshi Matsusaka, Mitsukuni Suenaga, Eiji Shinozaki, Nobuyuki Mizunuma Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan Background: Cetuximab and bevacizumab reportedly improve the survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but their most effective sequence of administration is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients with mCRC treated with cetuximab after bevacizumab failure with that of patients with mCRC without previous bevacizumab therapy. Patients and methods: In total, 190 of 323 patients with mCRC treated with cetuximab from March 2006 to July 2013 were enrolled in our hospital for this retrospective study. Forty-seven patients were treated with cetuximab-based second-line therapy, 21 of whom had received prior bevacizumab; 143 patients were treated with cetuximab-based third-line therapy, 109 of whom had received prior bevacizumab. The Kaplan–Meier method with a log-rank test and Cox regression analysis were performed to evaluate the overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of each group of patients. Results: The median follow-up time was 11.8 months in patients who received second-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy and 13.7 months in those who received third-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Univariate analysis revealed that the median PFS was significantly longer in patients without prior bevacizumab therapy than in patients with prior bevacizumab therapy (second line, P=0.048; third line, P=0.0022). Multivariate analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics showed that third-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy with or without prior bevacizumab was significantly associated with PFS (P=0.014). Neither the presence nor the absence of prior bevacizumab administration was associated with overall survival. Conclusion: Cetuximab could be more effective without prior bevacizumab. Prior bevacizumab use may decrease the efficacy of cetuximab. Keywords: cetuximab, bevacizumab, EGFR, VEGF, metastatic colorectal cancer