AUTHOR=Fayette Jérôme , Wirth Lori , Oprean Cristina , Udrea Anghel , Jimeno Antonio , Rischin Danny , Nutting Christopher , Harari Paul M. , Csoszi Tibor , Cernea Dana , O’Brien Paul , Hanley William D. , Kapp Amy V. , Anderson Maria , Penuel Elicia , McCall Bruce , Pirzkall Andrea , Vermorken Jan B. 

TITLE=Randomized Phase II Study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck (MEHGAN Study)

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology

VOLUME=6

YEAR=2016

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2016.00232

DOI=10.3389/fonc.2016.00232

ISSN=2234-943X

ABSTRACT=<sec id="ST1"><title>Background</title><p>Duligotuzumab, a novel dual-action humanized IgG1 antibody that blocks ligand binding to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3), inhibits signaling from all ligand-dependent HER dimers, and can elicit antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. High tumor-expression of neuregulin 1 (NRG1), a ligand to HER3, may enhance sensitivity to duligotuzumab.</p></sec><sec id="ST2"><title>Methods</title><p>This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II study (MEHGAN) evaluated drug efficacy in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) progressive on/after chemotherapy and among patients with NRG1-high tumors. Patients received duligotuzumab (1100 mg IV, q2w) or cetuximab (400 mg/m<sup>2</sup> load, 250 mg/m<sup>2</sup> IV, q1w) until progression or intolerable toxicity. Tumor samples were assayed for biomarkers [<italic>NRG1, ERBB3</italic>, and human papillomavirus (HPV) status].</p></sec><sec id="ST3"><title>Results</title><p>Patients (<italic>N</italic> = 121) were randomized (duligotuzumab:cetuximab; 59:62), median age 62 years; ECOG 0–2. Both arms (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) showed comparable progression-free survival [4.2 vs. 4.0 months; HR: 1.23 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–1.70)], overall survival [7.2 vs. 8.7 months; HR 1.15 (90% CI: 0.81–1.63)], and objective response rate (12 vs. 14.5%), with no difference between patients with <italic>NRG1</italic>-high tumors or <italic>ERBB3</italic>-low tumors. Responses in both arms were confined to HPV-negative patients. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (duligotuzumab vs. cetuximab, respectively) included infections (22 vs. 11.5%) and GI disorders (17 vs. 7%), contributing to higher rates of serious AEs (41 vs. 29.5%). Metabolic disorders were less frequent with duligotuzumab (10 vs. 16%); any grade rash-related events were less with duligotuzumab (49 vs. 67%).</p></sec><sec id="ST4"><title>Conclusion</title><p>While several lines of preclinical evidence had supported the premise that the blockade of HER3 in addition to that of EGFR may improve outcomes for patients with R/M SCCHN overall or specifically in those patients whose tumors express high levels of <italic>NRG1</italic>, this study provided definitive clinical evidence refuting this hypothesis. Duligotuzumab did not improve patient outcomes in comparison to cetuximab despite frequent expression of <italic>NRG1</italic>. These data indicate that inhibition of EGFR alone is sufficient to block EGFR–HER3 signaling, suggesting that HER2 plays a minimal role in this disease. Extensive biomarker analyses further show that HPV-negative SCCHN but not HPV-positive SCCHN are most likely to respond to EGFR blockage by cetuximab or duligotuzumab.</p></sec>