Background: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w  4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. Results: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n ¼ 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n ¼ 247), or SoC (n ¼ 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72e1.08; P ¼ 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85e1.26; P ¼ 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9e43.1), 30.4% (24.7e36.3), and 30.5% (24.7 e36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade !3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

6012 Background: EAGLE is a phase 3 study evaluating efficacy of D (anti-PD-L1 mAb) monotherapy and D+T (anti-CTLA-4 mAb) vs standard of care (SOC) in pts with R/M HNSCC who progressed following platinum-based therapy (NCT02369874). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to D 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks (Q2W), D+T (D 20 mg/kg IV Q4W + T 1 mg/kg IV Q4W for 4 doses, then D 10 mg/kg IV Q2W), or SOC (investigator’s choice: cetuximab, taxane, methotrexate, or fluoropyrimidine-based regimen). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with dual primary objectives of D+T vs SOC and D vs SOC. Additional endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and adverse events (AEs). Results: 240 pts were randomized to D, 247 to D+T and 249 to SOC. An imbalance for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was seen in favor of the SOC arm (D, PS 0 = 26%, PS 1 = 74%; D+T, PS 0 = 26%, PS 1 = 74%; SOC, PS 0 = 32%, PS 1 = 68%). The risk of death was not statistically significantly different for D compared with SOC (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72–1.08; P = 0.20) or D+T vs SOC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85–1.26; P = 0.76). Efficacy data are provided in the table. Treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 10.1% of pts (regardless of causality Grade ≥3 AEs were 41.4%) in the D arm, 16.3% (51.2%) for D+T, and 24.2% (44.2%) for SOC. Following treatment, 2% of pts in D, 5% in D+T and 15% in SOC received immunotherapy. Conclusions: D and D+T did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in OS compared to standard chemotherapy in pts with R/M HNSCC. Median OS and ORR of D arm were similar to other studies with checkpoint inhibitors. The SOC arm outperformed what has been seen for SOC arms in previous studies; subsequent immunotherapy may have confounded the OS analyses. The safety profile for D and D + T in R/M HNSCC is consistent with previous trials. Clinical trial information: NCT02369874. [Table: see text]

The study objective was to compare the biomechanics of surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion (SARPE) with tooth-borne and bone-borne expanders. Materials include a sample of 54 cone-beam CT of 27 patients who underwent SARPE (bone-borne, n=21; tooth-borne, n=6) before treatment and at expander removal. Expansion efficacy was estimated by interapecal and intercoronal distances between maxillary canines, premolars and first molars as well as Coronal-Apical Index (CAI = coronal expansion (mm)/apical expansion (mm)). CAI varied between 1.5 and 2.0 in the group of patients with bone-borne appliances, and from 2.3 to 2.6 in the tooth-borne appliances group. The maximal amount of vestibular coronal declination was revealed in premolars by the use of tooth-borne appliances. Bone-borne appliances allowed lateralization of maxilla and the most prominent effect of tooth shift in a vestibular direction, which may be seen as the most important factors in a relapse prevention.

No abstract

No abstract