The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Response to salvage chemotherapy after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are active in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). Recent data suggest that exposure to ICI improves response to salvage chemotherapy (SCT) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We evaluated response to chemotherapy in patients who had progressed on ICI in patients with R/M SCCHN. PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective study was conducted at 4 French centres. Eligibility criteria were patients who progressed after treatment with ICI for R/M SCCHN and received SCT and for whom efficacy data were available between September 2014 and January 2018. RESULTS Of 232 patients treated with ICI, 82 met eligibility criteria: 84% were male. ICI was given as monotherapy in 45% of patients or as combination in 55%. SCT included taxanes (56.1%), cetuximab in combination with taxanes or platinum (50%), platinum-based regimen (36.6%). The median number of treatment lines before SCT was 2 (range 1-6). The objective response rate (ORR) to SCT was 30%. Three patients (4%) presented complete response and 22 patients (27%) had partial response. Median progression-free survival was 3.6 months and median overall survival was 7.8 months. The age at SCT, initial tumour location, number of prior chemotherapy regimens, type of chemotherapy before ICI, best response to ICI, site of relapse and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group at SCT were not associated with response to SCT on univariate analysis. CONCLUSION In R/M SCCHN, the ORR to SCT was high (30%) suggesting that exposure to ICI may increase tumour sensitivity to chemotherapy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer
Borghaei, H., Paz-Ares, L., Horn, L., Spigel, D. R., Steins, M., Ready, N. E., Chow, L. Q., Vokes, E. E., Felip, E., Holgado, E., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1507643 · Cited by 9,335
Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma
Motzer, R. J., Escudier, B., McDermott, D. F., George, S., Hammers, H. J., Srinivas, S., Tykodi, S. S., Sosman, J. A., Procopio, G., Plimack, E. R., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1510665 · Cited by 5,807
Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
Ferris, R. L., Blumenschein, G., Fayette, J., Guigay, J., Colevas, A. D., Licitra, L., Harrington, K., Kasper, S., Vokes, E. E., Even, C., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1602252 · Cited by 5,101
Self-citationWan, S., Pestka, S., Jubin, R. G., Lyu, Y. L., Tsai, Y.-C., & Liu, L. F. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032542 · Cited by 295
Cited by
Machiels, J.-P., René Leemans, C., Golusinski, W., Grau, C., Licitra, L., & Gregoire, V. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.011 · Cited by 916
Cohen, E. E. W., Bell, R. B., Bifulco, C. B., Burtness, B., Gillison, M. L., Harrington, K. J., Le, Q.-T., Lee, N. Y., Leidner, R., Lewis, R. L., et al. (2019) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1186/s40425-019-0662-5 · Cited by 722
Harrington, K. J., Burtness, B., Greil, R., Soulières, D., Tahara, M., de Castro, G., Psyrri, A., Brana, I., Basté, N., Neupane, P., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.21.02508 · Cited by 522
Metadata
- Authors
- Saleh, K., Daste, A., Martin, N., Pons-Tostivint, E., Auperin, A., Herrera-Gomez, R. G., Baste-Rotllan, N., Bidault, F., Guigay, J., Le Tourneau, C., Saada-Bouzid, E., & Even, C.
- Venue
- European Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-11
- Volume
- 121
- Pages
- 123-129
- ISSN
- 0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2975889253
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 18.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.