Second-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: real world data – relevance of M0 versus M1 status.

Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been shown to be effective in recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (rmHNSCC). Therefore, the impact of recurrence and/or metastasis as part of the indication remains unclear. To investigate the relevance of M0/M1 status on the response of rmHNSCC to ICI in second-line therapy, we retrospectively analyzed patients with rmHNSCC who received ICIs.

Material and methods We retrospectively examined clinical data from 20 patients who received second-line therapy with ICI from 2017 to 2021. Objective complete response rate and organ-specific response rate were determined for each lesion according to iRECIST criteria as follows: Response (RP) – complete (CR), partial (PR), none (NRP).

Results 20 patients received second-line ICI therapy – 3 (15%) due to local recurrence (M0) and 17 (85%) due to distant metastasis with/without local recurrence (M1). 6 (30%) patients showed treatment response (3 CR, 3 PR), 14 (63%) were NRP. Considering the M0 versus M1 situation, 2 (66.6%) vs. 1 (6%) patients showed CR and 1 (33.3%) vs. 2 (12%) showed PR. In the M0 vs. M1 comparison, there was a significant difference between RP and NRP – 100% vs. 18%; in patients with CR – 66.6% (2 of 3) vs. 12% (2 of 17). In the responder group, the CPS was as follows: 1x 60, 1x 15, 3 x 0, 1 x not determined.

Conclusion There was a good response rate to second-line therapy in the Real World Data group and there appears to be a positive trend in the response rate to ICI to M0 status. The small numbers of patients in each subgroup warrant investigation in larger patient collectives.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publication History

Article published online:
12 May 2023