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

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article peer-review

47 Scopus citations

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/m2/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. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01856478.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1831-1839
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Oncology
Volume30
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 11 2019
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 THE AUTHORS

Keywords

  • Asian
  • HNSCC
  • afatinib
  • methotrexate

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this