Second-line cetuximab plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) versus cetuximab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel following ICI-containing regimen in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).

6046 Background: ICI-containing regimens are the standard first-line therapies for R/M HNSCC. However, the optimal therapeutic regimen after progression on ICI-containing therapies remains uncertain. This study compares outcomes among patients (pts) who received either second-line cetuximab plus ICI (CICI) or cetuximab plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel (CPT). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of R/M HNSCC pts treated at our institution between 2018 and 2025 who received cetuximab combination therapy after progressing on first-line ICI alone or ICI with chemotherapy. Pts with ECOG 0-2 were included. All pts received cetuximab 400 mg/m 2 followed by 250 mg/m 2 weekly as tolerated, concurrently with either pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (carboplatin AUC 1.5 and paclitaxel 45 mg/m 2 weekly). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR; SD+PR+CR), objective response rate (ORR; CR+PR), and rate of treatment modification. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare binary outcomes. Results were deemed significant when p<0.05. Subgroup analyses were considered exploratory. Results: Out of 100 pts included, 31 received CICI, and 69 received CPT. Median age at the start of cetuximab was 65 years (range 34-93), 79% were male, 95% were Caucasian, and 38% had HPV-related disease. Primary tumor sites included oropharynx (47%), oral cavity (26%), and larynx (19%). 9% had CPS 0, 30% had CPS 1-19, and 43% had CPS ≥ 20. For first-line treatment, 41% had received an ICI alone, and 59% had received an ICI with chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7.6 months (range 3.8-13.4) with CICI and 38.8 months (range 4.3-71.5) with CPT. DCR was 77.4% with CICI and 60.6% with CPT (p=0.12). ORR was 51.6% versus 34.8%, respectively (p=0.13). Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-NR) with CICI and 2.7 months (95% CI 2.0-4.4) with CPT (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.82, p<0.01). Median OS was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.1-NA) with CICI and 9.4 months (95% CI 8.2-10.5) with CPT (HR 0.78, p=0.10). Subgroup analyses showed favorable PFS with CICI in select groups: age ≤ 65 (p=0.037), male sex (p=0.009), ECOG 0-1 (p=0.024), and prior ICI plus chemotherapy (p<0.001). No clear differences were found within subgroups with CPS 1-19 or CPS ≥ 20. There was no difference in the rates of treatment modification (p=1.00). Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort of R/M HNSCC pts, CICI was associated with a longer PFS than CPT. This effect remained significant in pts who previously received first-line ICI plus chemotherapy. A longer follow-up is planned to evaluate for differences in OS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.6046
Primary Topic
Head and Neck Cancer Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Second-line cetuximab plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) versus cetuximab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel following ICI-containing regimen in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).

Marcelo Raul Bonomi, David Joseph Konieczkowski, Jennifer Dorcas Hwang, Stephen Kang et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Head and Neck Cancer Studies
article

Second-line cetuximab plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) versus cetuximab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel following ICI-containing regimen in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).

Marcelo Raul Bonomi, David Joseph Konieczkowski, Jennifer Dorcas Hwang, Stephen Kang, Priyanka Bhateja, Gretchen Pardo, Hisham Alsharif, Nolan Seim, John C. Grecula, Kyle VanKoevering, Catherine Haring, Dukagjin Blakaj, Lauren Miller, Emile Gogineni, James William Rocco, Simeng Zhu, Darrion L. Mitchell, Mateus Trinconi Cunha, Molly Russell, Fahad Rind
article en

Abstract

6046 Background: ICI-containing regimens are the standard first-line therapies for R/M HNSCC. However, the optimal therapeutic regimen after progression on ICI-containing therapies remains uncertain. This study compares outcomes among patients (pts) who received either second-line cetuximab plus ICI (CICI) or cetuximab plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel (CPT). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of R/M HNSCC pts treated at our institution between 2018 and 2025 who received cetuximab combination therapy after progressing on first-line ICI alone or ICI with chemotherapy. Pts with ECOG 0-2 were included. All pts received cetuximab 400 mg/m 2 followed by 250 mg/m 2 weekly as tolerated, concurrently with either pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or chemotherapy (carboplatin AUC 1.5 and paclitaxel 45 mg/m 2 weekly). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR; SD+PR+CR), objective response rate (ORR; CR+PR), and rate of treatment modification. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare binary outcomes. Results were deemed significant when p<0.05. Subgroup analyses were considered exploratory. Results: Out of 100 pts included, 31 received CICI, and 69 received CPT. Median age at the start of cetuximab was 65 years (range 34-93), 79% were male, 95% were Caucasian, and 38% had HPV-related disease. Primary tumor sites included oropharynx (47%), oral cavity (26%), and larynx (19%). 9% had CPS 0, 30% had CPS 1-19, and 43% had CPS ≥ 20. For first-line treatment, 41% had received an ICI alone, and 59% had received an ICI with chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7.6 months (range 3.8-13.4) with CICI and 38.8 months (range 4.3-71.5) with CPT. DCR was 77.4% with CICI and 60.6% with CPT (p=0.12). ORR was 51.6% versus 34.8%, respectively (p=0.13). Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-NR) with CICI and 2.7 months (95% CI 2.0-4.4) with CPT (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.82, p<0.01). Median OS was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.1-NA) with CICI and 9.4 months (95% CI 8.2-10.5) with CPT (HR 0.78, p=0.10). Subgroup analyses showed favorable PFS with CICI in select groups: age ≤ 65 (p=0.037), male sex (p=0.009), ECOG 0-1 (p=0.024), and prior ICI plus chemotherapy (p<0.001). No clear differences were found within subgroups with CPS 1-19 or CPS ≥ 20. There was no difference in the rates of treatment modification (p=1.00). Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort of R/M HNSCC pts, CICI was associated with a longer PFS than CPT. This effect remained significant in pts who previously received first-line ICI plus chemotherapy. A longer follow-up is planned to evaluate for differences in OS.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Head and Neck Cancer Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.