This phase II/III trial studies how well radiation therapy works with durvalumab or cetuximab in treating patients with head and neck cancer that has spread to a local and/or regional area of the body who cannot take cisplatin. Radiation therapy uses high energy x-rays to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as durvalumab, may help the body's immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. It is not known if radiation therapy with durvalumab will work better than the usual therapy of radiation therapy with cetuximab in treating patients with head and neck cancer.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: I. To determine the safety of radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent and adjuvant anti-PD-L1 therapy (MEDI4736 \[durvalumab\]) is safe in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) who have a contraindication to cisplatin. (Lead-in) II. To test the hypothesis that concurrent RT and anti-PD-L1 therapy improves progression free survival (PFS) compared to standard therapy (RT with concurrent cetuximab) in patients with locoregionally advanced HNC who have a contraindication to cisplatin. (Phase II) III. To test the hypothesis that concurrent RT and anti-PD-L1 therapy improves overall survival compared to standard therapy (RT with concurrent cetuximab) in patients with locoregionally advanced HNC who have a contraindication to cisplatin. (Phase III) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To compare toxicity using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO)-CTCAE between patients treated with RT + anti-PD-L1 therapy versus RT/cetuximab. II. To test the effect of anti-PD-L1 therapy in the subpopulation of patients with tumors that overexpress PD-L1. III. To compare overall survival, response (at 4-month fludeoxyglucose F-18 \[FDG\]-positron emission tomography \[PET\]-computed tomography \[CT\]), locoregional failure, distant metastasis, and competing mortality in the two arms by known risk factors, including p16 status and omega score. IV. To test the hypothesis that MEDI4736 (durvalumab) therapy arm will have less decline in the physical function domain of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3.0) based on the change in score from baseline to 12 months from end of RT, compared to the cetuximab-RT arm in patients with locoregionally advanced HNC who have a contraindication to cisplatin. V. To test the hypothesis that MEDI4736 (durvalumab) therapy arm at 1 year (from end of RT) will have less decline in swallowing related quality of life (QOL) using the M. D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) total composite score, based on the change in score from baseline to 12 months from end of RT, compared to the cetuximab-RT arm in patients who are medically unfit for cisplatin. VI. To compare swallowing related performance and function short and long term using the Performance Status Scale for Head \& Neck Cancer Patients (PSS-HN). VII. To evaluate gastrostomy tube retention rates between arms. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To test the hypothesis that radiation combined with MEDI4736 (durvalumab) enhances the adaptive immune response using three types of immunophenotyping compared to radiation combined with cetuximab. II. To compare overall QOL short term (end RT-8 months) and long term (12-24 months from end of RT) between arms using the EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3.0/HN35. III. To evaluate swallowing related QOL short term (end RT-8 months) and long term (12-24 months from end of RT) using the EORTC Head and Neck (HN)35 swallowing domain and MDADI (subscales) between arms in patients with locoregionally advanced HNC who have a contraindication to cisplatin. IV. To evaluate patient reported fatigue using the fatigue items in the EORTC QLQ and PRO-CTCAE. V. To compare clinician and patient reported toxicity using CTCAE and PRO CTCAE. VI. To explore health utilities between cetuximab and MEDI4736 (durvalumab) RT using the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensional-5 Level (EQ5D-5L). OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Patients receive cetuximab intravenously (IV) weekly over 60-120 minutes. Treatment repeats every week for up to 8 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Beginning 5-7 days after first cetuximab dose, patients undergo intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) 5 fractions per week for up to 7 weeks. ARM II: Patients receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks. Treatment repeats every 4 weeks for up to 7 cycles in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Beginning week 2, patients undergo IMRT 5 fractions per week for up to 7 weeks. After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up at 1 month, every 4 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, then annually thereafter.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
196
Given IV
Given IV
Undergo IMRT
Correlative studies
Ancillary studies
Ancillary studies
University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Center
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
University of South Alabama Mitchell Cancer Institute
Mobile, Alabama, United States
Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center
Gilbert, Arizona, United States
CTCA at Western Regional Medical Center
Goodyear, Arizona, United States
Banner University Medical Center - Tucson
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Number of Participants With Dose-limiting Toxicity (DLT) [Lead-in Phase]
DLTs were collected to verify the safety of durvalumab with RT in this population. Safety was determined if ≤ 2 of 8 participants in the cohort had any DLT, in which case the study would proceed to phase II with that dose schedule (DS). The probability for the DS to be deemed too toxic, given a true toxicity rate ≥ 45%, is at least 78%. With a true toxicity rate ≤ 20%, the probability for the DS do be deemed safe is 80%. The full DLT definition does not fit here, but includes all grade 5 AEs, grade 3 or 4 AEs definitely or probably related to durvalumab (DPRD) except for specified AEs and situations, and incomplete or \> 2-week delay completing RT due to immune toxicity DPRD. AEs were graded according to National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, which grade severity from 1=mild to 5=death. Two alternate DSs with a delayed 2nd dose (to reduce/avoid doses concurrent with RT) would be tried if the initial DS was too toxic.
Time frame: From start of durvalumab to 4 weeks after radiation therapy, approximately 13 weeks. Weekly during RT, at RT end, prior to adjuvant durvalumab, one month after end of RT.
Progression-free Survival (Percentage of Participants Alive Without Progression) [Phase II Primary]
Progression (failure) is defined as local, regional, or distant disease progression, or death from any cause. Progression was assessed by imaging, clinical assessment, or biopsy. Failure time is defined as time from randomization to failure or last follow-up (censored). Failure rates are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The protocol specifies that the distributions of failure times be compared between the arms, which is reported in the statistical analysis results. Two-year estimates are provided. Analysis was planned to occur after 69 failure events had been reported.
Time frame: From randomization to last follow-up: weekly during RT, after end of RT: every 4 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, then annually. Additionally, every 4 weeks during adjuvant durvalumab. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years.
Overall Survival (Percentage of Participants Alive) [Originally Phase III Primary / Now Phase II Secondary]
Overall survival (OS) time is defined as time from randomization to the date of death from any cause or last known follow-up (censored). Overall survival rates are estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The protocol specifies that the distributions of failure times be compared between the arms, which is reported in the statistical analysis results. Two-year estimates are provided.
Time frame: From randomization to last follow-up: weekly during RT, after end of RT: every 4 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, then annually. Additionally, every 4 weeks during adjuvant durvalumab. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years.
Locoregional Failure (Percentage of Participants With Locoregional Failure)
Locoregional progression is defined as local or regional progression or recurrence, death due to study cancer or unknown causes without documented progression. Progression was assessed by imaging, clinical assessment, or biopsy. Failure time is defined as time from randomization to failure, distant metastasis (competing risk), deaths from other causes (competing risk), or last follow-up (censored). Failure rates are estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The protocol specifies that the distributions of failure times be compared between the arms, which is reported in the statistical analysis results. Two-year estimates are provided.
Time frame: From randomization to last follow-up: weekly during RT, after end of RT: every 4 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, then annually. Additionally, every 4 weeks during adjuvant durvalumab. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years.
Distant Metastasis (Percentage of Participants With Distant Metastasis)
Failure is defined as the occurrence of distant metastasis. Failure time is defined as time from randomization to first occurrence of distant metastasis, local or regional progression or recurrence (competing risk), death (competing risk), or last follow-up (censored). Failure rates are estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The protocol specifies that the distributions of failure times be compared between the arms, which is reported in the statistical analysis results. Two-year estimates are provided.
Time frame: From randomization to last follow-up: weekly during RT, after end of RT: every 4 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, then annually. Additionally, every 4 weeks during adjuvant durvalumab. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years.
Competing Mortality (Percentage of Participants Who Died Due to Causes Other Than Study Cancer)
Failure is defined as Death from second primary, protocol treatment, or "other cause". Failure time is defined as time from randomization to first occurrence of failure, death due to study cancer or unknown cause (competing risk), or last follow-up (censored). Failure rates are estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The protocol specifies that the distributions of failure times be compared between the arms, which is reported in the statistical analysis results. Two-year estimates are provided.
Time frame: From randomization to last follow-up: weekly during RT, after end of RT: every 4 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years, then annually. Additionally, every 4 weeks during adjuvant durvalumab. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
University of Arizona Cancer Center-North Campus
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Kaiser Permanente-Deer Valley Medical Center
Antioch, California, United States
Sutter Cancer Centers Radiation Oncology Services-Auburn
Auburn, California, United States
Alta Bates Summit Medical Center-Herrick Campus
Berkeley, California, United States
City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center
Duarte, California, United States
...and 246 more locations
Percentage of Participants With Complete or Partial Response at 4-month Scan Determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v. 1.1
Fludeoxyglucose F-18 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) scans at baseline and four months after the end of radiation therapy are compared. Per RECIST 1.1: * Complete response: * Disappearance of all lesions and pathologic lymph nodes * Partial response: * ≥ 30% decrease sum of the longest diameters * No new lesions * No progression of non-target lesions
Time frame: Baseline and 4 months after end of RT (approximately 6.5 months)
Number of Participants by Highest Grade Adverse Event Reported
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) grades adverse event severity from 1=mild to 5=death. Summary data is provided in this outcome measure; see Adverse Events Module for specific adverse event data.
Time frame: From randomization to last follow-up: weekly during RT, RT end, from end of RT: months 1, (Cetuximab: 2, 3,) 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, then annually. Additionally, prior to each adjuvant durvalumab cycle. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis= 4.2 yr.
Change in Quality of Life (QOL) Analysis
Assessed using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)/Head-and-Neck module (H\&N35), EuroQol- 5 Dimension (EQ5D), M. D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), patient reported outcomes (PRO)-CTCAE, geriatric screening (G8). The mean summary score of the EORTC QLQ/H\&N35, EQ5D, MDADI, PRO-CTCAE, G8, CCI, and the subscales will be determined. The mean change from baseline at each time point will be summarized using mean and standard deviations for each arm. Mean change from baseline will be compared between the arms using a two sample t test. If data normality assumptions are not met, the Wilcoxon rank sum test will be used to test the hypothesis. Mean change from baseline will be tested using an omnibus F test followed by individual comparisons of change scores at different time points within each treatment group. The same analysis will be conducted for between group comparisons at each time point.
Time frame: Baseline up to 12 months
Change in Swallowing QOL Using Total Composite M. D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) Score
The mean change from baseline at each time point will be summarized using mean and standard deviations for each arm. Mean change from baseline will be compared between the arms using a two sample t test. If data normality assumptions are not met, the Wilcoxon rank sum test will be used to test the hypothesis.
Time frame: Baseline up to 1 year
Progression-free Survival (Percentage of Participants Alive Without Progression) by Baseline PD-L1 (Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1) Expression
Failure for progression-free survival is defined as local, regional, or distant disease progression, or death from any cause. Progression was assessed by imaging, clinical assessment, or biopsy. Failure time is defined as time from randomization to failure or last follow-up (censored). PD-L1 expression is defined by a combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, assessed by masked central analysis of baseline tissue specimens. CPS = \[(number of tumor cells positive for PD-L1) / (number of tumor cells positive for PD-L1 + number of tumor cells negative for PD-L1)\] multiplied by 100, yielding a possible score of 0 to 100. Treatment effect hazard ratios within PD-L1 subgroup were estimated by Cox proportional hazards model and progression-free survival estimates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Analysis was planned to occur after 69 failure events had been reported and tissue specimen analysis was complete.
Time frame: From randomization to date of progression or last follow-up, whichever occurs first. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years. Two-year PFS estimates are reported.
Progression-free Survival (Percentage of Participants Alive Without Progression) by Baseline p16 Status
Failure for progression-free survival is defined as local, regional, or distant disease progression, or death from any cause. Progression was assessed by imaging, clinical assessment, or biopsy. Failure time is defined as time from randomization to failure or last follow-up (censored). Positive p16 status was defined as more than 70% strong nuclear or nuclear and cytoplasmic staining of tumor cells, confirmed by central pathology review. Treatment effect hazard ratios within p16 subgroup were estimated by Cox proportional hazards model and progression-free survival estimates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Analysis was planned to occur after 69 failure events had been reported and tissue specimen analysis was complete.
Time frame: From randomization to date of progression or last follow-up, whichever occurs first. Maximum follow-up at time of analysis was 4.2 years. Two-year PFS estimates are reported.