The Optimal Second-Line Systemic Treatment Model for Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe optimal second-line systemic treatment model for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) remains controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to address this issue with regard to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsBy searching MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, we extracted eligible studies. Efficacy, represented as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and overall toxicity, represented as ≥ grade 3 severe acute events (sAE), were assessed to compare the following 7 treatment models through an NMA: standard-of-care therapy (SoC), single targeted therapy different from SoC (ST), double targeted therapy (DT), targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy (T+C), single immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (SI), double immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (DI) and single chemotherapy different from SoC (SC). Rank probabilities according to the values of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were separately determined for efficacy and toxicity.ResultsIn total, 5285 patients from 24 eligible studies were ultimately screened, with 5184, 4532 and 4026 involved in the NMA of OS, PFS and sAE, respectively. All qualifying studies were absent from first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In terms of OS, SI was superior to the other treatments, followed by DI, ST, T+C, SoC, DT and SC. Other than SI and SC, all treatments tended to be consistent, with hazard ratios (HRs) close to 1 between groups. For PFS, ST ranked first, while DT ranked last. For the toxicity profiles, compared with the other models, SI resulted in the lowest incidences of sAE, with statistical significance over SoC (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.11 to 0.90), ST (OR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.86) and DT (OR 0.11, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.53), while DT was the worst. When the SUCRA values of OS and sAE were combined, a cluster plot illustrated the superiority of SI, which demonstrated the best OS and tolerability toward sAE.ConclusionFor R/M HNSCC patients without immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting, SI may serve as the optimal second-line systemic treatment model, demonstrating the best OS and least sAE.

Tracking the Molecular Fingerprint of Head and Neck Cancer for Recurrence Detection in Liquid Biopsies

“…With high rates of recurrent disease, the five-year relative survival of HNSCC has reached 67% [ 8 ]. Treatment of HNSCC, particularly in the relapsed setting, remains challenging [ 86 ]. Both existing and novel treatment modalities will be improved by the ability to make biomarker-led treatment decisions.…”

Comparison of Second-Line Treatments for Patients with Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

“…Another meta-analysis was performed to compare multiple treatments but only pairwise comparisons were used [ 41 ]. A previous network meta-analysis compared seven categories in second-line treatments, including the SOC, single or double targeted therapy, targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy, single or double immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and single chemotherapy [ 13 ]. In our network meta-analysis, the comparisons of any of two detailed regimens were helpful for evaluating the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment options.…”

“…As these new drugs and combination strategies can be used to treat patients with R/M HNSCC, questions regarding the relative efficacy and safety of these second-line treatment strategies have emerged. A previous network meta-analysis demonstrated that the PD-1 inhibitor presented the best OS and the fewest treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 (grade ≥ 3 trAE), which divided second-line treatments into seven models (SOC, single or double targeted therapy, targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy, single or double immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and single chemotherapy) [ 13 ]. These categories may lead to internal heterogeneity because the effectiveness of these pharmaceuticals is different.…”