Abstract
Members of the ErbB receptor tyrosine kinase family (EGFR, HER2, HER3, and HER4), which regulate cell differentiation, proliferation, and survival, are commonly overexpressed and hyperactivated in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). This abnormal expression and activity triggers multiple effector cascades that promote cancer growth, involving signaling through Ras-Raf-ERK1/2, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, JAK1/STAT3, PLC/PKC, and others. Targeting of EGFR remains one of the most common therapies for patients with SCCHN, with newer therapies also targeting additional ErbB family members and ErbB effectors, and exploring combinatorial approaches. In this chapter, we will describe the biology of ErbB family receptors in normal cells and in SCCHN, current and novel therapeutic approaches, and mechanisms underlying resistance to anti-EGFR therapy.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
2.1 Introduction
In the past decade, protein-targeted inhibitors have become valuable tools in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) , also known as avian erythroblastic leukemia viral (v-erb-b) oncogene homolog 1 (ErbB1) or human epidermal receptor (HER1) , was one of the first targetable proteins identified as relevant to SCCHN [1, 2]. Subsequent broadened research and development efforts have expanded the armament to encompass agents that also inhibit EGFR family members ErbB2/HER2 (sometimes designated neu), ErbB3/HER3, and ErbB4, as well as key downstream effectors including RAF and phosphoinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) .
The ErbB family was first identified as cancer-relevant in the 1980s when an aberrant form of the human epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor was found to be encoded by the avian erythroblastosis tumor virus [3]. The four members of the ErbB family are structurally related with each containing a large extracellular N-terminal region, a single hydrophobic transmembrane-spanning domain, an intracellular juxtamembrane region, a tyrosine kinase domain, and C-terminal region [4,5,6]. ErbB3 differs from the other family members in having a kinase domain that was long thought to be a pseudokinase although it has now been shown to have weak autophosphorylation capacity [7] and, through heterodimeric interactions, to serve as an activator of the EGFR kinase domain [8]. Importantly, members of the ErbB family function as homodimers and heterodimers [9, 10]. In normally growing cells, dimer formation and signaling typically involve activating interactions between the extracellular N-terminal domain and small ligands (discussed in Sect. 2.2). Interactions between dimer subunits induce essential phosphorylations within the ErbB C-terminal regions that provide binding sites for partners that interact with effector proteins to initiate downstream signaling cascades and initiate feedback signaling that ultimately restricts ErbB signaling activity. Key effectors that are activated as a result of these phosphorylations include PI3K, PLCγ, GRB2, c-SRC, and JAK. Cyclic, transient activation of ErbB family signaling in normal cells is regulated by a number of factors, including ligand availability, cytoplasmic phosphatases, and the endocytic/degradation machinery (Sect. 2.2).
In human SCCHN, activation of EGFR and its family members occurs by several distinct mechanisms (discussed at length in Sect. 2.3). Elevated expression of EGFR was originally described as characterizing 80–90% of SCCHN [11, 12], and several studies have indicated that overexpression of EGFR correlates with resistance to therapy and reduction of overall survival (OS) [13,14,15]. However, a meta-analysis evaluating EGFR prognostic value has demonstrated that EGFR overexpression correlates with OS, but not disease-free survival (DFS) [16], and additional recent studies suggest a more complicated relationship between overexpression and survival (Sect. 2.3.1). Although EGFR is by far the most commonly overexpressed ErbB family member in SCCHN, the three other members are also overexpressed in a significant number of cases (ErbB2/HER2, 3–29%; ErbB3/HER3, 21%; and ErbB4/HER4, 26%; [17]). Moreover, ligands contributing to the activation of ErbB proteins are overexpressed in some SCCHN tumors (Sect. 2.3) [18]. In addition, mutational activation of some critical effectors, such as PI3K , defines a subset of SCCHN [19]. Finally, the past decade has been marked by a growing appreciation of differences in biology and prognosis associated with the presence or absence of human papillomavirus (HPV) as an oncogenic driver in SCCHN [20, 21], and some evidence suggests that HPV status may influence expression and activity of the ErbB proteins [22, 23].
Activation of the ErbB family of transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) and their downstream effectors is typically associated with rapid cellular growth, as well as activation of the DNA repair machinery induced by DNA-damaging therapies commonly used in treatment of SCCHN, contributing to resistance to cytotoxic therapies such as cisplatin or radiation [14]. Based on abundant evidence, therapeutics targeting the ErbB family and its effectors have appeared to be particularly appropriate for the treatment of SCCHN. Two complementary therapeutic strategies have been developed to target EGFR and its family members. A first strategy involves targeting the extracellular domain of the receptor with monoclonal antibodies , such as cetuximab, panitumumab, zalutumumab, and others that interfere with the processes of dimerization and activation of the intracellular kinase domains [24, 25] (Sect. 2.4.1). A second strategy targets the intracellular domain of the receptor with low-molecular-weight tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs ; e.g., gefitinib and erlotinib; see Sect. 2.4.2) [26]. More recently, therapeutic strategies have expanded to include the use of drugs or drug combinations that target multiple ErbB family members or that combine ErbB-targeting drugs with those targeting critical downstream effectors, such as PI3K or MEK1 (Sect. 2.3.3.2) [27]. The nature of EGFR/ErbB signaling and therapeutic strategies to manage tumors with EGFR/ErbB involvement are addressed in detail in the remainder of this chapter.
2.2 Regulation of EGFR and the ErbB Family in Normal Cells
2.2.1 Ligand Binding and Dimerization: Activation of ErbB Proteins in Normal Cells
The extracellular regions of ErbB family members contain two homologous ligand-binding domains (domains I and III) and two cysteine-rich domains (domains II and IV). The ligands required for dimerization and activation of EGFR, ErbB3, and ErbB4 can be separated into five groups: (1) EGFR-specific ligands such as EGF, amphiregulin (AR), epigen (EPN), and transforming growth factor alpha (TGFα); (2) the ErbB3-specific ligands neuregulin1α (NRG1α), NRG2α, and NRG6; (3) NRG3, NRG4, and NRG5 that specifically bind ErbB4; (4) the bispecific ligands betacellulin (BTC), epiregulin (EPR), and heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor (HBEGF), which bind EGFR and ErbB4 , and NRG1β which binds ErbB3 and ErbB4; and (5) NRG2β, which is a pan-ErbB ligand and binds to EGFR, ErbB3, and ErbB4 [28] (Fig. 2.4). Uniquely, ErbB2 does not depend on ligands for dimerization or activation. Instead, domains I and III interact directly in a configuration that renders the ligand-binding site inaccessible [29,30,31]. To date, no high-affinity soluble ligand has been identified for ErbB2 [29, 32]. It is possible that assignment of ligand specificity is not exact; for example, a recent study has demonstrated that stimulation of ErbB4 with NRG1 activates the transcriptional activator YAP, promoting YAP-dependent cell migration [33].
ErbB proteins can homodimerize or heterodimerize [34]. EGFR-EGFR and ErbB4-ErbB4 homodimers and EGFR-ErbB2, EGFR-ErbB3, ErbB2-ErbB3, and ErbB2-ErbB4 heterodimers are abundant in SCCHN tumors and cell lines [17, 35, 36]. There is also evidence that activation of the catalytic domain of EGFR through homo- or heterodimerization occurs due to its increased accumulation at the plasma membrane and can be enhanced by a common mutation in a leucine (L834R), which suppresses local disorder [37] and is associated with drug resistance in some tumor types [38]. Some similarities of the EGFR kinase domain with Src and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) domains have been observed that support an alternative mechanism for dimerization, in which one EGFR kinase domain interacts asymmetrically with the second domain in a dimer pair, as a cyclin activates a CDK [9].
The configuration changes associated with dimerization lead to transient kinase activation in normal cells. These become constitutive in cancers, in the setting of kinase overexpression. The actual activation process involves an asymmetric interaction between intracellular kinase domains that results in auto- or transphosphorylation of ErbB family members [8, 39, 40]. As ErbB2 is not ligand-responsive, phosphorylation of this kinase can be activated through homodimerization [41, 42] or heterodimerization, frequently with ErbB3 [7, 8]. EGFR and ErbB4 can function independently of other ErbB receptors and autophosphorylate C-terminal tails after binding to activating ligand. These phosphorylations provide binding sites for proteins that transduce activating signals downstream (e.g., STAT5b, GRB2, SHC, GAB1/PI3K(p85), PLCγ), which induce signaling relevant to proliferation, apoptosis resistance, and DNA synthesis [43].
2.2.2 ErbB Trafficking and Other Mechanisms to Limit EGFR Function in Normal Cells
As with most RTKs, duration of ErbB activation is limited by countervailing regulatory processes. Some of the phosphorylations on the C-terminal domains of the ErbB proteins provide binding sites that allow feedback signaling that downregulates the activated ErbB protein through dephosphorylation, ubiquitination, and/or internalization (e.g., SHP1, CBL, CRK). More than one pathway for internalization has been described. In the most studied pathway, binding of the E3 ubiquitin ligase Cbl to phosphorylated Y-1045 of activated EGFR at the plasma membrane triggers clathrin-mediated endocytosis [44]. Multiple additional activation-associated phosphorylations conferred by calmodulin kinase II and p38 enhance the interaction of Cbl with activated EGFR [45, 46].
Subsequently, during EGF-mediated endocytosis , EGFR is either recycled to the plasma membrane or alternatively processed through the late endosome and multivesicular body for proteolytic degradation in the lysosome [47]. An alternative non-clathrin-based endocytotic process has also been described: in this case, the majority of EGFR is targeted for lysosomal destruction [48, 49]. Additional interactions involving the molecular motor dynamin 2 (DYN2) and a scaffolding protein, CIN85, support targeting of EGFR to the lysosome rather than for recycling [50]. As discussed below, reduced phosphorylation of EGFR that limits interaction with Cbl and other internalization proteins often accompanies therapeutic resistance to EGFR inhibitors (EGFRIs). EGFR may also undergo ligand-independent internalization through p38MAPK- and clathrin-mediated, or Src- and caveolin-mediated mechanisms, upon conditions of cell stress [51]. Dutta et al. have recently reported that neuropilin-2 (NRP2) plays an important role as an endocytotic regulator for EGFR, with depletion of NRP2 disrupting normal regulation of endocytic transport of EGFR from the cell surface and leading to the accumulation of active EGFR in endocytic vesicles and abnormal ERK activation [52].
Extending understanding of traffic controls, compartmentalization of the EGFR partner ErbB2 is controlled by a member of the Anks1a adaptor protein family in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) . Within the ER, an ErbB2 complex with another RTK, ephrin A2 (EphA2), allows binding to Anks1a, which in turn regulates EphA2/ErbB2 complex exit. This process is positively associated with tumorigenesis [53]. Once activated, ErbB2 remains at the cell surface, potentially due to an interaction with HSP90 or the plasma membrane calcium ATPase2 (PMCA2) [54, 55]. In breast cancer, inhibition of PMCA2 disrupts binding between ErbB2 and HSP90, leading to ErbB2 internalization and degradation . In MMTV-Neu mice, PMCA2 knockout effectively inhibits tumor formation, suggesting that interaction of ErbB2 and PMCA2 is a potential therapeutic target for this and other cancer types [54] (Fig. 2.1).
2.3 Causes and Consequences of Altered EGFR/ErbB Function in SCCHN
2.3.1 Overexpression of EGFR and Its Ligands
The degree to which EGFR is overexpressed in SCCHN has been reported differently by different groups, reflecting varying approaches used to measure DNA amplification, mRNA overexpression, and protein overexpression, the use of different cutoff values, and (potentially) differences in EGFR expression based on SCCHN sub-site (e.g., oral cavity versus laryngeal). EGFR overexpression in SCCHN is often caused by an increase in the number of gene copies [56] but can also occur at the mRNA or protein level. The original studies reporting overexpression of EGFR in 80–90% of SCCHN [11, 12] were based on analysis of mRNA expression in a limited set of 24 tumor specimens and 10 SCCHN cell lines versus histologically normal mucosa specimens. Follow-up work by Grandis and Tweard found that median EGFR mean optical density (based on IHC analysis using preparations of the EGFR-overexpressing A431 cell line as a positive control) was 54% in a group of 91 patients with SCCHN [57]. In another study, EGFR protein levels in 140 primary laryngeal squamous cell carcinomas were determined using a radioligand receptor assay . The authors established that a cutoff value of 20 fmol mg−1 is an effective prognostic marker, and based on this classification, 28 of 140 patients (20%) had elevated levels of EGFR and lower 5-year survival (25%) in comparison with patients with EGFR levels <20 fmol mg−1 (81% 5-year survival) [58]. Poor prognosis was also associated with an increased copy number of EGFR. EGFR gene copy numbers were analyzed in 134 SCCHN tumors using quantitative PCR, with this study finding aberrant EGFR copy numbers in 24% of tumors, with 17% of tumors having increased copy numbers [59].
Ongkeko et al. used IHC analysis to show that EGFR was highly expressed (38%–43%) in 21 pharyngeal, 16 laryngeal, and 1 floor of mouth carcinoma compared with benign samples [60], based on qualitative rankings from 3 independent pathologists. Using immunohistochemistry (IHC) , Bei et al. found EGFR to be overexpressed in 47% of cases in a group of 38 SCCHN tumor samples in comparison with 24 adjacent normal mucosa specimens [61]. Bernardes et al. analyzed EGFR in a subset of 52 patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) using 3 different methods: IHC, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) , and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) . This study showed that EGFR overexpression rates were 53.8% (28/52) by IHC, 5.8% (3/52) by CISH, and 15.4% (8/52) by FISH [62]. Pectasides and colleagues found that increased gene copy number did not directly correlate with protein expression of EGFR, and elevated protein levels of EGFR determined by IHC better correlated with the poor clinical outcome than did EGFR copy number determined by FISH [63]. Ang et al. demonstrated that EGFR expression varied widely in a group of 155 patients (based on automatic IHC analysis) and that higher EGFR expression in SCCHN samples correlated with reduced OS and DFS (based on the mean optical density data) [15].
The increasing availability of systematic genomic profiling provides additional data points [64], but does not resolve the issue of how to best define EGFR overexpression values. Among the 357 SCCHN specimens analyzed by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Consortium for which genomic data are available, based on default TCGA analysis settings, EGFR amplification occurs in 4% of tumors . Among 520 SCCHN specimens with mRNA expression data collected by the TCGA, upregulation at the mRNA level is seen in 15% of cases. Based on these expression data, upregulation results in shorter overall and disease-free survival (z-score >2.5, OS, 28.32 months, versus 57.42 months; DFS, 30.16 months, versus 71.22 months) (Fig. 2.2) [65, 66]. In contrast, a recent study reporting genetic and molecular profiling by Caris Life Sciences of 123 and 236 patients with advanced SCCHN demonstrated that EGFR was overexpressed in 90% of cases by IHC but only 21% by ISH, respectively [67].
Increased EGFR expression is not only found in SCCHN tumor samples but has also been observed in “healthy” mucosa samples of patients with SCCHN [68] and likely reflects a premalignant event in the tissue adjacent to an incipient SCCHN [11, 12]. Hence, elevated EGFR expression is a potential biomarker for early stages of malignant transformation in addition to being a therapeutic target [69]. Similarly, a study of 155 patients found that EGFR expression did not correlate with disease stage at presentation, or other known clinical prognostic variables, in stage II–IV carcinomas of the oral cavity, oropharynx and supraglottic larynx, tongue base, and hypopharynx, although EGFR expression was an independent prognostic indicator of 5-year OS (40% for EGFR negative and 20% for EGFR positive; p = 0.0006) as well as disease-free survival (DFS) (25% for EGFR negative and 10% for EGFR positive; p = 0.0016) [15]. These findings agreed with an earlier study, based on 140 primary laryngeal squamous cell carcinomas, where the 5-year survival rate was 81% for patients with tumor cells defined as EGFR negative based on biochemical assessment of EGF-binding capacity of membrane fractions prepared from tumors, compared to only 25% for patients with EGFR-positive tumors [58]. This study also reported 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) of 77% for patients with EGFR-negative tumors, compared to 24% for patients with EGFR-positive tumors [58]. Chang et al. have shown that high EGFR expression also correlates with treatment failure in early glottic cancer treated with radiation alone and that EGFR expression is higher in the tumors of patients with recurrent disease than in controls [70]. In one study, using immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis, EGFR distribution within the tumor tissue was related to patient survival, with heterogeneous distribution of EGFR in tumors significantly associated with poorer OS and DFS, in comparison with homogeneous distribution [71].
Additional members of the ErbB receptor family have been detected in SCCHN at increased expression levels [72, 73], although conflicting reports regarding ErbB3 and ErbB4 expression levels have been published [61, 72, 74]. In the TCGA, protein overexpression was observed for ERBB2 in 2.2% of tumors and for ERBB3 in 5% of tumors: this represents too few cases to perform meaningful analyses and determine potential correlation with survival.
Changes in EGFR and ErbB family internalization and degradation mechanisms have also been associated with SCCHN. Changes in these mechanisms associated with cancer lead to membrane accumulation of ErbB, further contributing to the abnormal activation of EGFR/ErbB signaling, which potentially promotes tumor formation and progression [75]. In this regard, a recent study revealed the relationship between the lysosomal enzyme cathepsin S (CTSS) and EGFR signaling regulation, with increased expression of CTSS detected in a number of types of cancer. Inhibition of CTSS limited EGFR degradation and caused EGFR accumulation in the late endosomal and in the perinuclear region, leading to formation of spatial compartments with extended EGFR, STAT3, and AKT signaling. Combined treatment with the EGFR inhibitor gefitinib and the CTSS inhibitor 6r also significantly increased cellular apoptosis [76]. Downregulation of c-CBL, which mediates internalization and degradation of EGFR, has been identified in a significant subset of SCCHN tumors [77]. Reciprocally, upregulation of the HECT-class ubiquitin ligase SMURF2, which ubiquitinates EGFR in a manner that protects it from c-CBL-dependent degradation, has also been suggested to be important in SCCHN [78].
Upstream of EGFR, overexpressions of ligands such as TGFα have been linked to a poor prognosis [68, 79] and have been associated with malignant tumor development at a number of sites in transgenic mice [80,81,82]. Additionally, expression of TGFα [17], AR [83, 84], and HB-EGF [85] has been shown to enhance oncogene-induced carcinogenesis and affect the response of tumor cells to EGFR inhibition [86,87,88,89], with some evidence suggesting other ligands are likely to also be of importance [90]. Elevated expression of mRNAs for EGFR ligands including AREG (amphiregulin), EGF, HB-EGF, and betacellulin (BTC) was associated with reduced patient survival [91]. Some proteins , such as the CBL-interacting protein of 85 kDa (CIN85), which regulates EGFR internalization, have been shown to be overexpressed in some advanced SCCHN and to increase TGFα-dependent signaling in SCCHN tumors [92].
As Brand et al. have reviewed in detail [93], epithelial cancers such as SCCHN are, surprisingly, characterized by a high frequency of nuclear EGFR localization. Mechanistically, to enter the nucleus , EGFR is passaged from clathrin-coated pits to the Golgi and subsequently via retrograde transport in COPI vesicles to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) [94], after which the Sec61 translocon moves EGFR from the inner nuclear membrane to the nucleus [95, 96] (Fig. 2.1). Nuclear EGFR acts as a transcription coactivator for many genes associated with cell proliferation, including BCRP, Aurora-A, cyclin D, Myc, c-Myb, Cox-2, and iNOS, and also binds and supports activity of PCNA and DNAPK to enhance DNA synthesis and repair [97]. Increased expression of nuclear EGFR has been associated with a higher incidence of local recurrence and inferior DFS in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma [98, 99]. Nuclear EGFR expression levels retained their prognostic significance in multivariate analysis adjusting for well-characterized prognostic variables [99]. Saloura et al. have reported that posttranslational methylation of the tyrosine kinase domain of EGFR by methyltransferase WHSC1L1 increased activation of the ERK pathway in the absence of EGF stimulation. Interestingly, this methylation appeared to be important for nuclear EGFR, promoting its interaction with PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen ) in SCCHN cells and enhancing DNA synthesis and cell cycle progression [100]. At present, it is not clear whether this localization is unique to cancer cells or instead represents an extreme case of a signaling process that also exists in normal cells: in general, this phenomenon requires further study.
2.3.2 Alternative Forms of EGFR and Its Effectors Affecting Signaling Activity in SCCHN
It has been suggested that expression of truncated and activated EGFR is associated with advanced tumor and nodal stage [101]. In studies of SCCHN tumors, Hama et al. detected only 5 different EGFR mutations in 6 out of 82 patients [102]. Additional ErbB family members were not identified as commonly mutated in either of these studies. A meta-analysis of multiple studies, including 4122 patients with SCCHN, suggested a 2.8% frequency of mutations affecting the tyrosine kinase domain [102, 118, 119]. Another two studies identified EGFR mutations in only 3 of 127 patients (2.4%) and 17 of 110 (16%), respectively [103, 104]. A fourth study found an in-frame deletion mutation in exon 19 of EGFR (E746_A750del) in 3 of 41 larynx, tongue, and tonsil tumor samples [105].
One EGFR mutation of note reported in SCCHN is EGFR variant III (EGFRvIII) , which results in a truncation of the ligand-binding domain that results in ligand-independent , constitutive signaling, greatly potentiating tumorigenicity. EGFRvIII is the most common form of mutant EGFR and has been described in several types of cancer [106,107,108,109,110,111], including SCCHN [102, 112, 113]. However, the reported frequency of EGFRvIII in head and neck cancer is highly inconsistent. The presence of EGFRvIII in SCCHN ranged from none [102] to 15% [114] to 42% [113] and may vary by specific SCCHN subsite [115]. Sok et al. reported that EGFRvIII-transfected SCCHN cells showed increased proliferation in vitro and increased tumor volumes in vivo compared with vector-transfected cells. Furthermore, EGFRvIII-transfected SCCHN cells showed decreased apoptosis in response to cisplatin and decreased growth inhibition following treatment with cetuximab compared with vector-transfected control cells. However, it was not established if the transfected cells expressed EGFRvIII at levels similar to those observed in actual patient samples, given conflicting results in different studies [113, 116]. The significance of this variant remains unclear.
Stransky et al. performed whole exome sequencing on tumor samples from 92 patients with SCCHN and validated known relevant mutations in TP53, CDKN2A, PTEN, PIK3CA, and HRAS [117]. Agrawal et al. used the same methods to study 32 primary tumors, and 6 of the genes that were mutated in multiple tumors were reassessed in up to 88 additional SCCHN samples . This study identified mutations in FBXW7 and NOTCH1 in addition to previously identified genes [118].
Li et al. compared the genomic data of 39 SCCHN cell lines with genomic findings from 106 SCCHN tumors. Their results indicated that eight genes (PIK3CA, EGFR, CCND2, KDM5A, ERBB2, PMS1, FGFR1, and WHSCIL1) are amplified and five genes (CDKN2A, SMAD4, NOTCH2, NRAS, and TRIM33) are deleted in both SCCHN cell lines and tumors. Among the mutated genes relevant to the ErbB pathway, activating mutations of the catalytic subunit of PI3K (PI3KCA) were shared both in cell lines and in tumors – a result confirmed by a number of other studies [117,118,119,120] – and, importantly, based on the pharmacologic profiling results of eight anticancer agents, these mutations influence drug resistance [121].
2.3.3 Consequences of EGF/ErbB Activation
Dimerization of the ErbB RTKs can result in the constitutive activation of a number of intracellular signaling pathways, each of which contributes to the oncogenic activity of this kinase family in SCCHN. Some of the better-studied and physiologically significant effector pathways are represented in Fig. 2.3 and discussed below.
2.3.3.1 Ras/Raf/MAPK
Increased activity of the Ras/Raf/MAPK pathway initiated by EGFR signaling is strongly linked to tumorigenesis in SCCHN [94]. Following EGFR autophosphorylation, mainly on residues Y1068 and Y1086, the growth factor receptor/bound protein 2 (GRB2) adaptor protein is either directly recruited through binding of its Src homology 2 (SH2) domain to the phosphotyrosine residues of the activated receptor or, alternatively, GRB2 is indirectly recruited to active EGFR by interaction with the Src homolog and collagen homolog (SHC) adaptor protein, which directly binds tyrosine-phosphorylated sites on EGFR, itself is tyrosine phosphorylated, and then binds GRB2 [95]. EGFR-bound GRB2 subsequently recruits and activates guanine nucleotide exchange factor Son of Sevenless (SOS) . Activated SOS increases the pool of active, GTP-bound Ras, inducing a kinase cascade involving c-Raf, MEK1/2, and ERK1/2 (Fig. 2.3). Phosphorylated ERK1/2 translocates into the nucleus and activates transcription factors that induce transcription of many genes promoting cell growth and survival; a residual pool of active cytoplasmic ERK1/2 also phosphorylates cytoskeletal proteins such as actin, which promotes cell motility, and regulators of cell division and cytokinesis , vesicle and organelle movement, and mitochondrial targets such as Bcl2 that render cells resistant to apoptosis (Fig. 2.3) [95, 96].
2.3.3.2 PI3K/Akt/mTOR
Dimerization of EGFR or ErbB2 with ErbB3 is strongly associated with PI3K activation, because of the high prevalence of PI3K-activating docking sites on ErbB3 [97]. PI3K proteins are composed of a catalytic p110 and a regulatory p85 subunit. The p110 subunits catalyze the phosphorylation of phosphatidylinositol 4,5-diphosphate (PIP2) to the second-messenger phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-triphosphate (PIP3), which in turn phosphorylates and activates the protein serine/threonine kinase AKT (also known as protein kinase B), inducing protein synthesis and cell growth through activation of the mTOR effector pathway and limiting the apoptotic machinery [98]. AKT activation may also be induced by the binding of serine protease inhibitor Kazal-type 6 (SPINK6) to the EGFR extracellular domain, which has been shown to occur in and promote metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells [99]. In another study, PIK3CA overexpression in the mouse oral epithelium leads to increased tumor invasiveness and metastasis by inducing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) . This study of PIK3CA-driven SCCHN emphasized the importance of 3-phosphoinositide-dependent protein kinase (PDK1) rather than AKT as a key effector [122]. Bozec and colleagues reported that the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in combination with cetuximab has a synergistic effect in NOD scid gamma (NSG) mice injected with SCCHN cells into the mouth floor. The combination of these two drugs significantly reduced tumor growth by inhibition of both the MAPK and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway [123].
2.3.3.3 STAT
The signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT) proteins were originally identified as downstream effectors of non-tyrosine kinase cytokine receptors, such as IL-6, IL-22, IFN-α/β, and IFN-λ. However, STATs can also be directly activated by EGFR, or by EGFR effectors such as c-Src [124], and constitutive activation of STATs has been reported in SCCHN [125]. Activated STATs migrate from cytoplasm to nucleus and upregulate the expression of many proteins associated with tumorigenesis, including the prosurvival factor NF-κB [126]. STAT family activation contributes to cancer cell survival and protects cells from apoptosis, which makes it a potentially useful therapeutic target [127], although there is some debate, as one study of a group of 102 SCCHN patients found nuclear STAT3 localization was associated with improved survival [128]. Additionally, Wheeler et al. reported that STAT3 activation can promote invasion of head and neck cancer cells bearing EGFRvIII and contributes to cetuximab resistance [129]. In vitro studies have shown that simultaneous inhibition of JAK1-STAT3 with JAK1i inhibitor and EGFR (cetuximab) in combination with radiation has a synergistic effect and leads to radiosensitization of human head and neck cancer cells and apoptosis [130]. Pre-irradiation inhibition of STAT5, STAT6, and MEK1/2 by 573,108, leflunomide , and U0126, respectively, in a panel of SCCHN cells, led to decreased survival following irradiation [131].
2.3.3.4 PLC/PKC
PLC is recruited by phosphorylated EGFR and subsequently activated. Primary tumors express elevated levels of total and phosphorylated PLCγ (one of six isotypes: β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, and η; [132]), and EGFR-stimulated activation of PLCγ promotes invasion of SCCHN [133]. PLCγ inhibition decreases the invasive potential of prostate, breast, and head and neck carcinoma cells [134, 135]. Once activated, PLC hydrolyzes PIP2 to diacylglycerol (DAG) and inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate (IP3) . DAG in turn activates members of the PKC family, which is composed of 12 different isoforms in mammals [18]. Protein kinase Cε [136] has been proposed as a promising prognostic factor for relapse and OS of SCCHN [137]. PKCζ is highly expressed in SCCHN tumors and mediates EGF-induced growth of SCCHN tumor cells by regulating MAPK [138]. A recent study demonstrated that resistance to PIK3CA inhibitors occurs due to the induction of the RTK AXL, which interacts with EGFR and activates PKC and mTOR, leading to cancer cell survival [139].
2.3.3.5 Src
Activation of members of the Src kinase family (Blk, Fgr, Fyn, Hck, Lck, Lyn, Src, Yes, and Yrk; [140]) by EGFR and ErbB2 positively regulates cell proliferation, migration, adhesion, and tumor angiogenesis, with activation seen in many cancer types, including SCCHN [141,142,143]. In SCCHN, Src contributes to EGFR-dependent activation of STAT3 and STAT5, which, as mentioned above, are important for tumor growth [144]. Reciprocally, Src helps to activate EGFR by participating in G protein-coupled receptor-initiated TGFα release [145]. Changes in the interaction between Src and EGFR have been suggested to be involved in resistance to EGFR-targeting antibodies such as cetuximab by increasing translocation of EGFR to the nucleus (Sect. 2.2.2) [143, 146]. Src additionally interacts with other RTKs that are upregulated during acquisition of resistance to EGFRIs, such as IGF-1R (insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor ) and others [147]. In gastric cancer, c-SRC-mediated activation of EGFR was shown to be induced by the receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL)/RANK pathway, promoting resistance to cetuximab [148]: whether this mechanism is relevant to SCCHN remains to be determined, although the fact that RANKL function has recently been found to be important for SCCHN progression is suggestive [149].
2.3.3.6 Nuclear Factor-κB (NF-κB)
High expression and constitutive activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) has been directly linked to tumorigenesis, metastasis, and chemoresistance in many cancers including SCCHN [150,151,152,153,154], with particularly high levels of NF-κB in highly metastatic cells [150, 155]. NF-κB induction of matrix metalloproteinases MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-9, and MMP-14, fibronectin, ß1 integrin, and vascular endothelial growth factor C is strongly associated with tumor progression and metastasis [155]. In SCCHN, NF-κB activation has been described as both independent of and dependent on EGFR signaling [156,157,158]. In the EGFR-dependent activation of NF-κB, phosphorylated EGFR activates PI3K, ERK1/2, and STAT3, all of which are associated with increased NF-κB activity (Fig. 2.3) [156]. Depletion of NF-κB pathway components or pharmacological inhibition of NF-κB significantly increased cell death induced by erlotinib in EGFR-mutant lung cancer cells [159], supporting relevance of this signaling axis [160].
2.3.3.7 Cyclin D1
Cyclically induced expression of the cell cycle regulatory protein cyclin D1 (CCND1) promotes the key G1-to-S phase transition through formation of complexes with CDK4 and CDK6. The CCND1-CDK4/6 complex phosphorylates retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein (Rb), inhibiting its activity and allowing changes in gene expression that promote S phase progression [161]. Analysis of SCCHN cell lines found common CCND1 amplification and/or overexpression, which was associated with resistance to gefitinib [162]. In a group of 103 SCCHN patients’ tumor samples, CCND1 amplification was observed in 30% (31/103) of patients and had a statistically significant association with recurrence, distant metastasis, and survival at 36 months [163]. EGFR expression coupled with CCND1 overexpression was found to be associated with sensitivity to combination therapy with CDK4/6 and ERBB-targeting inhibitors (palbociclib and lapatinib) in HPV(-) SCCHN cell models, while integrated analysis of CDK4/6, CCND1, and EGFR expression refined ability to predict SCCHN prognosis [164].
2.4 EGFR and Targeted Inhibitors
For patients with locally advanced SCCHN, randomized controlled trials have shown that the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy improves 3-year overall survival (51% for chemoradiotherapy compared to 31% for radiation alone) [165] and disease-free survival (37% for radiation plus chemoradiotherapy compared to 23% for radiation alone) [166], albeit at the cost of increased toxicity [167]. Targeting EGFR is now a well-established therapeutic strategy for SCCHN treatment [168], as EGFR inhibition seems to prevent activation of DNA repair mechanisms that enable cancer cells to survive radiation- or chemotherapy-induced DNA damage [169, 170]. However, the monotherapy response rate to cetuximab is only 10% in patients with platinum-refractory SCCHN [171]. It is unknown if this observation is due to cell-mediated immunity; data from R0522 suggests not, as cetuximab benefit did not correlate with FCγ subtype or markers of inflammation [172]. Alternatively, it may reflect the small proportion of cancers that are truly EGFR dependent. Numerous data suggest that high levels of EGFR may accelerate repopulation, a condition of enhanced cellular proliferation after exposure to ionizing radiation, contributing to the radioresistance associated with head and neck cancers [173, 174].
Despite potential secondary mechanisms, preclinical and clinical data support the premise that the inhibition of EGFR activity increases radio- and chemosensitivity of SSCHN tumors [173,174,175]. However, conflicting data regarding the sensitizing potential of EGFR inhibitors (EGFRIs) exist: for example, the RTOG 0522 phase III trial showed that the addition of the EGFRI cetuximab (Sect. 2.4.1.1) does not improve PFS rates to chemoradiation in patients with stage III and IV SCCHN, potentially due to overlapping radiosensitization properties of cisplatin and cetuximab treatment [176]. Newer agents that target EGFR remain under investigation (e.g., NCT02555644, NCT01427478, NCT00588770, and others: see also Table 2.1). Further, the side effect profiles of EGFRIs have been generally favorable compared to standard chemotherapeutics [177,178,179].
2.4.1 Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting EGFR and Other ErbB Proteins
Cetuximab , a monoclonal antibody targeting EGFR, plays a significant role in the treatment of SCCHN. Cetuximab, the pioneer for antibody-based anti-ErbB therapy in SCCHN, was approved for treatment of locally or regionally advanced SCCHN in 2006 [175] and for metastatic SCCHN in 2011 [180]. While cetuximab represents the EGFR inhibitor with the most clinical data and the most significant results in the treatment of SCCHN, multiple additional antibodies targeting ErbB receptors are currently being investigated in clinical trials. Promising results of EGFR-targeting antibodies used in mice were first published in 1984 [181], over two decades before cetuximab was approved for clinical use. This section introduces several relevant antibodies and covers their current status as it pertains to SCCHN, with some additional information found in Table 2.1.
2.4.1.1 Cetuximab
Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody that inhibits EGFR by binding to its extracellular domain (Fig. 2.4). Cetuximab binds to EGFR with a higher affinity than its natural ligands EGF and TGFα [182,183,184]. Once bound to the EGFR extracellular domain, cetuximab occludes the ligand-binding site, thus inhibiting ligand-dependent EGFR signaling [185]. Depletion of the targeted receptors from the cell surface via downregulation is a second mechanism of effective EGFR inhibition [186]. Additionally, binding of cetuximab to EGFR enhances antibody-dependent, cell-mediated cytotoxicity via natural killer cells and macrophages in model systems [187, 188]. Cetuximab has been approved for three indications in patients with SCCHN. These are patients with locally or regionally advanced SCCHN (cetuximab in combination with radiation therapy; [175]), patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory SCCHN (cetuximab monotherapy; [189]), and patients with recurrent locoregional and/or metastatic SCCHN not refractory to platinum-based therapies (cetuximab in combination with platinum chemotherapy and 5-fluorouracil as first-line therapy; [180]).
Phase I studies of cetuximab defined the dose and schedule required to maintain biologically active and tolerable levels [190, 191]. Whether used in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or as monotherapy, cetuximab was found to have nonlinear saturation kinetics. Median serum cetuximab terminal half-life ranged from 14 to 97 h with doses from 5 to 300 mg/m2. Skin reactions increased significantly at doses of 500 mg/m2 or higher. Given the results of these phase I trials, the recommended cetuximab regimen was established as an initial loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2 [190, 191].
The landmark phase III study of cetuximab added to radiation published by Bonner and colleagues led to the approval of cetuximab for the treatment of patients with locally or regionally advanced SCCHN [175]. Four hundred and twenty-four patients undergoing definitive treatment with radiation were randomized to radiotherapy alone or to radiotherapy plus cetuximab. Cetuximab and radiotherapy significantly improved median OS and median progression-free survival (PFS) when compared to radiation alone [175]. Long-term follow-up of the Bonner study showed an absolute survival increase of 9% in the treatment group receiving cetuximab in combination with radiation therapy (5-year survival of 45.6% for cetuximab/radiation vs. 36.4% radiation alone) [192].
In the case of patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, Trigo et al. observed an overall response rate to cetuximab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy of 10% and an overall survival of 183 days in a single-arm study of 96 patients with platinum-refractory recurrent disease [193]. The observed response and survival rate were similar to rates expected with platinum therapy alone in chemotherapy-naïve patients, supporting combination cetuximab and chemotherapy [194].
In a phase III randomized trial, Burtness and investigators from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group compared the impact of cisplatin plus a placebo with the impact of cisplatin plus cetuximab in previously untreated patients with recurrent and metastatic SCCHN. This study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab significantly increased the objective response rate (26% response rate for cisplatin/cetuximab and 10% response rate for cisplatin/placebo; p = 0.03). PFS increased from 2.7 to 4.2 months; this difference was not statistically significant, in a trial which was underpowered because the statistical assumptions underestimated PFS in the control arm. Unexpectedly, Burtness et al. also observed that cetuximab was not active in patients with the highest EGFR staining density and intensity. It was hypothesized that several factors may have contributed to this observation: the small sample size (n = 123), suboptimal cetuximab dosing for cases of high-density EGFR occurrence, stochastic interactions at high EGFR density, or constitutive downstream signaling not accounted for in the study [195]. Indeed, subsequent investigators have identified loss of PTEN expression as predictive of resistance to EGFR inhibition in SCCHN, as will be detailed below.
Vermorken et al. built on these findings to conduct a phase III clinical trial (EXTREME trial) investigating the efficacy and safety of platinum, fluorouracil (5-FU), and cetuximab as first-line treatment of recurrent and metastatic SCCHN in 442 patients. The EXTREME phase III trial randomly assigned patients to receive cisplatin or carboplatin plus 5-FU and cetuximab or platinum plus 5-FU alone. Six cycles of chemotherapy were the limit for both arms of the study; however, cetuximab was continued until disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. The addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly increased median OS (10.1 months in the cetuximab group and 7.4 months in the chemotherapy-alone group; p = 0.04) and PFS (5.6 months in the cetuximab group to 3.3 months in the chemotherapy-alone group; p < 0.001) when compared to standard chemotherapy alone [180]. Importantly, additional analysis of the EXTREME data provided further evidence that, in the case of SCCHN, EGFR expression level is not a clinically useful predictive biomarker [196]. Lei et al. demonstrated that resistance to cetuximab occurs in part through autophagy activation involving NLRX1-TUFM protein complex. Analysis of patients’ tumor specimens also confirmed that cetuximab therapy leads to the increased expression of autophagy SQSTM1/p62 protein, and data analysis from clinical trials showed a positive correlation between cetuximab-induced autophagy and poor prognosis [197].
2.4.1.2 Additional EGFR-Targeting Antibodies
Panitumumab is a fully humanized immunoglobulin IgG2 monoclonal antibody that, like cetuximab, binds to EGFR domain III and, in the process, inhibits EGF and TGFα binding [185] (Fig. 2.4). In contrast to cetuximab [198], panitumumab does not mediate antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and has been shown to have a very low rate of infusion-related hypersensitivity reaction [199]. Another study found that panitumumab effectively inhibits EGFR signaling, but this antibody had a reduced ability to enhance dendritic cell maturation, in comparison with cetuximab, a finding of uncertain clinical significance [200] [201]. The SPECTRUM trial (phase III; NCT00460265) compared cisplatin/5-FU plus panitumumab to cisplatin/5-FU alone in patients with metastatic/recurrent SCCHN. The addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not significantly improve median OS versus chemotherapy alone but did improve median PFS (5.8 vs. 4.6 months) [184, 202]. Another study comparing PFS in patients with locally advanced (LA) SCCHN treated with standard-fractionation RT plus high-dose cisplatin versus accelerated-fractionation RT plus panitumumab demonstrated no difference between these two treatment types [203], providing further evidence that panitumumab has activity in SCCHN.
Zalutumumab is a human IgG1 high-affinity antibody also targeting EGFR domain III, and, just like panitumumab and cetuximab, zalutumumab is thought to block ligand binding, but with exceptional tumor specificity at lower doses [185] (Fig. 2.4). A phase III trial in metastatic or recurrent SCCHN following platinum failure compared zalutumumab to best supportive care, defined to include methotrexate monotherapy. Median overall survival was modestly increased by zalutumumab (hazard ratio [HR] for death, stratified by performance status, was 0.77; unadjusted p = 0.0648). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the zalutumumab group (HR for progression or death was 0.63, 95% CI 0.47–0.84; p = 0.0012). A phase III trial is currently underway (DAHANCA 19; NCT00496652) to determine if the addition of zalutumumab to radiotherapy improves locoregional control. Preliminary results from this trial did not demonstrate beneficial effect from addition of zalutumumab [204].
Nimotuzumab has been approved for SCCHN in several countries, not including the USA. Nimotuzumab is a humanized murine IgG1 monoclonal antibody that also blocks interaction between ligand and receptor by binding to EGFR domain III, but with lesser affinity than some of the other antibodies [205]. The therapeutic implications of this reduced affinity are unclear, but nimotuzumab has been shown to have mild to absent skin toxicity, eliminating a clinically important adverse effect commonly associated with cetuximab [206]. An early pharmacodynamic study showed nimotuzumab plus radiotherapy was tolerated with no evidence of skin rash in patients with unresectable SCCHN [207]. Hence, nimotuzumab may offer an EGFR-targeted therapy with a favorable side effect profile. The possibility of combining high- and low-affinity antibodies to optimize antibody penetration in larger tumors has not been explored clinically.
Matuzumab , another humanized mouse monoclonal antibody, also binds to EGFR domain III, but at a completely different epitope than the previously mentioned antibodies (Fig. 2.4). This was confirmed by experiments in which cetuximab and matuzumab were observed to simultaneously bind to EGFR [208]. When bound to EGFR, matuzumab was determined to predominantly prevent domain II from assuming the configuration, in relation to domain III, necessary for high-affinity ligand binding [185], interrupting EGFR signaling. Matuzumab has not been tested in SCCHN.
XGFR* . In 2014, Schanzer et al. developed a novel one-arm single-chain Fab heterodimeric bispecific IgG (OAscFab-IgG; XGFR*) antibody, which targets both the insulin-like growth factor receptor type I (IGF-1R) and EGFR; importantly, this antibody has only one binding site for each target antigen [209]. It was previously shown that signaling through IGF-1R can overcome resistance to EGFR inhibitors, and EGFR-dependent signaling can confer resistance to IGF-1R inhibitors [210]. In addition, the XGFR* antibody has an afucosylated Fc portion and induces antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) . Thus, inhibition of both these receptors by XGFR* antibody had a significant effect on different cancer types, including lung and pancreatic, in vivo and in vitro [211]. Clinical evaluation of this agent is required.
2.4.1.3 Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Other ErbB Proteins
Given the heterodimerization of EGFR with other ErbB family proteins, and the fact that overexpression of some of these proteins can compensate for EGFR inhibition during development of therapeutic resistance, a natural development has been to explore inhibition of additional EGFR family members in SCCHN [212,213,214].
Pertuzumab binds the ErbB2 dimerization domain and blocks its interaction with all four ErbB family members [215] (Fig. 2.4). Erjala et al. observed that increased expression levels of phosphorylated ErbB2 and total ErbB3 were associated with SCCHN cell line resistance to gefitinib [216]. Confirming the importance of ErbB2 in resistance, when gefitinib was combined with pertuzumab, significant growth inhibition of relatively gefitinib-resistant SCCHN cell lines was observed. Phosphorylated ErbB2 and total ErbB3 were not predictive of resistance to cetuximab [216].
Seribantumab (SAR256212, MM-121), targeting ErbB3, has been shown to be effective by inhibiting ligand-induced ErbB3 signaling [50, 217]. In another study, seribantumab demonstrated antitumor activity in breast cancer cell models [218]. More recently, in a randomized phase II trial of seribantumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel compared with paclitaxel alone, the combination showed no effect in PFS among 140 patients with ovarian cancer [219].
MM-111 is a bispecific single-chain antibody that simultaneously targets ErbB2 and ErbB3. An antitumor effect of MM-111 was shown in several in vivo cancer models [220].
P6-1 . Recently, a new monoclonal antibody that specifically targets neuregulin-1-induced ErbB4 activation was developed. P6-1 was tested on breast cancer cell lines and showed moderate anticancer activity [221].
Trastuzumab . The ErbB2/HER2-targeting antibody trastuzumab is an invaluable drug for breast cancer and other epithelial tumors [222,223,224,225]. In vitro studies have shown that trastuzumab enhances the efficacy of gefitinib [226] and cetuximab [227] in SCCHN cells. Surprisingly, analysis of the mRNA expression of EGFR and ErbB2 indicated lack of correlation with efficacy of the combination therapy [227]. Moreover, an independent study found that a subset of non-ErbB2-amplified SCCHN cells was nevertheless extremely responsive to the small molecule multi-ErbB inhibitor lapatinib, based on activation of a neuregulin-ErbB3 loop [228]. A number of studies have been investigating factors contributing to trastuzumab. Kulkarni and colleagues found that the Ca2+-activated Cl− channel TMEM16A significantly contributes to tumor growth in SCCHN and some other tumors, with levels of TMEM1A increased in trastuzumab-resistant cells. They also found that concurrent treatment of these cells with cetuximab and TMEM16A inhibitor led to cell death, demonstrating a novel role of TMEM16A in regulation of the EGFR and HER2 pathways [229].
Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) blocks ligand binding to EGFR and HER3 and may contribute to antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) in cells overexpressing these proteins. A randomized phase II study (MEHGAN, NCT01577173) evaluated drug efficacy in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) SCCHN, treated with duligotuzumab or cetuximab. In this study, duligotuzumab demonstrated a higher efficacy than cetuximab only in tumors with greater expression of NRG1, a ligand for ERBB3 and ERBB4 [230]. Duligotuzumab in combination with cisplatin/5-fluorouracil or carboplatin/paclitaxel demonstrated a promising effect in patients with recurrent/metastatic SCCHN [231]. An independent study performed in a group of SCCHN and colorectal cancer patients demonstrated similar results, with duligotuzumab as a single agent possessing pronounced antitumor activity [232].
CDX3379 (formerly KTN3379) locks HER3 in an inactive confirmation by docking to its extracellular domain, effectively promoting inhibition of both ligand-dependent or ligand-independent activation of HER3 [233]. CDX3379 was found to be efficient against HPV-positive SCCHN cell lines and PDXs [234]. CDX3379 is currently being evaluated for safety in a phase I clinical trial (NCT02014909).
2.4.2 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs) Targeting EGFR and Other ErbB Proteins
TKIs block EGFR activation by inhibiting the cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase domain and have proven valuable agents in a number of cancer types. First-generation TKIs for EGFR, including gefitinib and erlotinib, reversibly bind the ATP-binding pocket of the kinase domain and are EGFR specific. Second-generation TKIs relevant to SCCHN, including lapatinib, afatinib, and dacomitinib, target multiple ErbB members (in the case of afatinib and dacomitinib, irreversibly) (Table 2.1; Fig. 2.4) [168, 182].
Gefitinib , an orally administered, small-molecule, reversible EGFR TKI, was the first TKI to reach phase III trials; however, overall results have dampened expectations. Early studies suggested a clinical benefit of gefitinib similar to cetuximab [235, 236]; unfortunately, more recent results do not indicate a significant role for gefitinib in the management of SCCHN [168, 237, 238]. In treatment-refractory SCCHN, gefitinib did not improve OS when compared to methotrexate [239]. These findings were consistent when gefitinib was administered orally at 250 or 500 mg daily, despite the fact that single-arm studies had demonstrated favorable response rates when gefitinib was administered at 500 mg/day [235, 239]. The maximum tolerated dose of gefitinib has been established to be 600 mg/day, with dose-limiting toxicity observed at 1000 mg/day [240]. In a phase II study of 44 patients with SCCHN, Perez et al. investigated if doses higher than 500 mg/day would produce increased skin toxicity, which is thought to be associated with improved response to EGFRIs. Patients treated with 750 mg/day had increased incidence of skin toxicity compared with patients receiving 500 mg/day (58 and 9% grade 2 skin toxicity for 750 and 500 mg/day, respectively); however, the higher dose of gefitinib failed to significantly improve outcome [241]. Gefitinib (250 mg/day) in combination with docetaxel (docetaxel/gefitinib vs. docetaxel alone) was evaluated in a phase III trial of patients with metastatic or locally recurrent SCCHN. In this study, Argiris et al. were unable to demonstrate a statistically significant survival benefit for patients receiving the docetaxel/gefitinib combination. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that for patients younger than 65 years of age, the addition of gefitinib to docetaxel did increase survival significantly (median survival of 7.6 vs. 5.2 months; p = 0.04) [242]. In the case of NSCLC, non-smoking patients had a significantly better response to gefitinib treatment and demonstrated prolonged PFS in comparison with smoking patients [243]; this may be related to the fact that smoking induces detoxification enzymes such as cytochromes (CYP2D6, CYP1A2) that contribute to the metabolism of gefitinib and erlotinib [244], limiting their efficacy. It is important to note that gefitinib therapy demonstrates high interpatient variability in plasma levels even in healthy male volunteers, varying up to 15-fold between individuals [245], suggesting the need for further studies to allow more accurate individual dosing with gefitinib and other 4-anilinoquinazolines (including erlotinib and lapatinib).
Erlotinib , the second first-generation TKI, like gefitinib, is an orally administered, small-molecule, reversible TKI. In 115 patients with refractory SCCHN, erlotinib led to disease stabilization in 38.3% of patients for a median duration of 16.1 weeks. The median PFS was 9.6 weeks and the median OS was 6.0 months [246]. Smoking status of lung cancer patients was also found to be an important determinant of the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib during therapy, leading to a 2.8-fold increased Cmax and decreased metabolic clearance of erlotinib in non-smokers to compare with smoking patients [247].
Lapatinib has dual specificity, targeting EGFR and ErbB2 [248] (Fig. 2.4). Surprisingly, in a phase II study focused on recurrent/metastatic SCCHN, lapatinib, as monotherapy, failed to lead to objective responses. On-treatment biopsies were performed: although ErbB2 levels were significantly decreased, EGFR phosphorylation remained unaffected in these specimens [249]. Addition of lapatinib to standard therapy radiation and cisplatin”: standard therapy with radiation and cisplatin was found not to extend DFS [250]. Another clinical trial focusing on the combination of lapatinib with capecitabine in patients with metastatic SCCHN (NCT01044433) is still in process. Additional phase II trials are investigating the effect of lapatinib in combination with definitive chemoradiation followed by 1 year of lapatinib maintenance for locally advanced (LA) SCCHN (NCT00387127) and definitive radiation for the patients who had low tolerance to CRT (NCT00490061) [251].
Afatinib , also a multi-specific TKI, irreversibly targets three of the four ErbB family members: EGFR, ErbB2, and ErbB4 [252]. In a comparison to cetuximab, afatinib showed similar antitumor activity in patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN after failing platinum therapy. Median PFS was 15.9 weeks with afatinib and 15.1 weeks with cetuximab [253]. In another clinical trial, 2 weeks of pretreatment of newly diagnosed SCCHN patients with afatinib led to a better metabolic FDG-PET profile than seen in patients receiving no treatment (NCT01538381) [254]. Based on the results from a group of R/M SCCHN patients, Cohen et al. established potential biomarkers of afatinib clinical outcome. Prolonged PFS after afatinib treatment was associated with amplified EGFR, negative p16 status, high expression of PTEN, and low expression of HER3 [255]. According to the most recent data, afatinib treatment of 411 SCCHN patients with complete response to chemoradiation did not demonstrate any improvement in disease-free survival to compare with placebo group (NCT01345669) [256].
Dacomitinib , like afatinib, is an irreversible inhibitor of EGFR, ErB2, and ErbB4 [257]. Dacomitinib is a potent inhibitor of wild-type EGFR as well as EGFR with activating mutations. Furthermore, dacomitinib appears to be active against the T790 M secondary EGFR mutation, which generally renders cancer cells resistant to erlotinib and gefitinib, in NSCLC [258]. Dacomitinib reduced the viability of SCCHN cells and in combination with ionizing radiation (IR) more effectively delayed tumor growth in vivo in a dose-dependent manner [259]. A phase I clinical trial investigating the efficacy of dacomitinib plus chemotherapy in treating SCCHN was completed (NCT01737008), but the results are not yet published. In another study (NCT01484847), dacomitinib was administered via gastrostomy feeding tube (GT) to evaluate the efficacy of this method. The results have demonstrated that the pharmacokinetics of dacomitinib administered by GT are significantly decreased to compare with the oral administration [260]. In a completed phase II trial (NCT00768664) of 69 patients with recurrent/metastatic SCCHN treated with dacomitinib, pretreatment tumor and normal tissue specimens were analyzed. No biomarkers of dacomitinib treatment efficacy were identified. Nevertheless, dacomitinib treatment was associated with increased OS in HPV-driven cancers [261].
CUDC-101 is a multi-targeted hybrid anticancer drug candidate with a complex mode of action. CUDC101 effectively inhibits EGFR, HER2, and histone deacetylase (HDAC) and has shown impressive activity in in vitro as well as in vivo cancer models [262, 263]. This hybrid inhibitor has been investigated in combination with cisplatin and radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer as part of a phase I drug escalation trial (NCT01384799). The results of this study established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CUDC-101 in combination with cisplatin and radiation. Further analysis of tumor biopsies demonstrated inhibition of EGFR [264].
TX1-121-1 . ErbB3 plays an important role in the EGFR signaling through activation of EGF receptor [9]. The small-molecule agent TX1-85-1 covalently binds the unique ErbB3 ATP-binding site (Cys721). However, this compound showed no activity against ErbB3-dependent signaling and growth [265].
2.4.3 Targeting Critical EGFR/ErbB Effectors
A classic means by which cancer cells overcome resistance to inhibition of upstream activating oncogenes is to upregulate or activate one or more essential effectors operating downstream. A reactive therapeutic approach is to inhibit these downstream effectors, sometimes in combination with agents targeting the upstream oncogenic driver. In SCCHN, resistance to inhibitors of ErbB proteins has been associated with upregulation or activation of a number of downstream or lateral signaling effectors, including PI3K, MEK, ALK, and others. Some recent studies have evaluated inhibition of these targets in SCCHN.
Using xenograft experiments , Mizrachi et al. found that the inhibitor BYL719, which targets PI3Kα (p110α subunit of PI3K), is effective against SCCHN. Furthermore, they demonstrated that encapsulation of BYL719 into P-selectin-targeted nanoparticles leads to an accumulation of BYL719 in tumors, which promotes more effective inhibition of tumor growth and ameliorates side effects associated with BYL719 treatment [266]. Several isoform-specific PI3K inhibitors are under development and in clinical trials [267]. In preclinical studies, the specific PI3KCA inhibitor GDC-0032 was effective in controlling SCCHN in vitro and in vivo [267]. Co-targeting of EGFR and PI3K with erlotinib and BKM20, respectively, had synergistic antitumor effects and apoptosis induction in a panel of SCCHN cell lines and xenograft models of SCCHN.
There is some evidence that, in several types of cancer, including breast, non-small cell lung, and glioblastoma, inhibition of PI3K or mTOR can abrogate cell resistance to anticancer therapy [268]. Apitolisib (GDC-0980) is a dual inhibitor of class I PI3Ks and mTOR kinases. A phase I clinical trial of apitolisib indicated durable antitumor activity in a group of patients with solid tumors, including SCCHN [269]. This may predominantly reflect inhibitory activity against PI3K, as treatment of recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus showed no response to the therapy [270] [271]. However, other studies have concluded that concurrent targeting of EGFR and PI3K is synergistic specifically because of inhibition of both axes of the AKT-mTOR pathway, coupled with translational regulation of anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 proteins [271].
Activation of ErbB kinases signals through RAS and RAF to activate downstream MEK/ERK kinases; RAS, PI3K, and other ErbB effectors activate AKT. Cetuximab inhibits ERK and AKT phosphorylation in cetuximab-sensitive SCCHN cells, whereas the level of AKT phosphorylation is unmodified in cetuximab-resistant cells [272]. Mohan et al. demonstrated that inhibition of MEK by PD-0325901 overcame resistance to the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor PF-5212384 and had a potential antitumor effect in SCCHN [273]. Increased activity of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) was observed in late-stage human OSCC tumors and invasive OSCC cell lines. Both in vitro and in xenografts, concurrent inhibition of ALK (using the TAE684 inhibitor) and EGFR (with gefitinib) significantly reduced OSCC cell proliferation and tumor volume in comparison with ALK inhibition alone. Dual inhibition was associated with complete abolishment of AKT activation, whereas separate inhibition of EGFR or ALK only reduced it [274].
A study of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma showed that tumor cells treated with afatinib and erlotinib become rapidly resistant due to reactivation of the MEK/ERK pathway. This can be delayed by initial dual treatment with the MEK inhibitor trametinib used in combination with an EGFR inhibitor, which decreased tumor cell proliferation and survival [275]. Such strategies may be useful for SCCHN. The same study also noted the potential utility of combining CDK4/6 inhibitors with EGFR inhibitors in EGFR-amplified tumors [275]. At present, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib is in a phase I clinical trial in a complex with cetuximab for SCCHN patients. Preliminary results have demonstrated the safety of palbociclib with cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic SCCHN. Encouragingly, tumor responses were observed, even in cetuximab- or platinum-resistant disease [276].
Checkpoint kinases 1 and 2 (Chk1/2) are critical regulators of the DNA damage response and important for regulation of cell cycle arrest in S phase to allow repair. In preclinical studies, simultaneous treatment with the Chk1/2 inhibitor prexasertib, cetuximab, and irradiation significantly decreased cell proliferation and survival of SCCHN cells both in vitro and in vivo. A clinical trial to test this treatment for patients with SCCHN is ongoing (NCT02555644) [277]. Huang et al. have performed whole-genome sequencing of cisplatin-resistant SCCHN tumors to find potential predictive biomarkers of dacomitinib resistance and identified a “platinum” mutational signature, involving a number of genes, including REV3L, which encodes the catalytic subunit of DNA polymerase ζ. Further investigations have demonstrated that depletion of REV3L dramatically enhanced the sensitivity of SCCHN cells to the ErbB2 inhibitor dacomitinib through translesion synthesis and homologous recombination [278].
FGFR1 was identified as a prognostic marker of SCCHN, and shown to be highly expressed in 82% (36/44) of HPV(+) and 75% (294/392) of HPV(-) SCCHN samples, and associated with poor OS and DFS in samples with HPV(-) status. Mechanisms of resistance to the FGFR inhibitor AZD4547 occur due to compensatory EGFR signaling [279], suggesting potential synergy in combining EGFR- and FGFR-targeting agents.
2.4.4 EGFR/ErbB2 and Immunotherapy/Immune Response
The past 5 years have seen the emergence of several distinct classes of immunotherapies as potent anticancer treatments. Some immunotherapies can be used to potentiate natural killer (NK) cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) against antibody-coated tumor cells, enhancing the antitumor activity of monoclonal antibodies [280]. Of specific relevance to EGFR inhibition, therapy with cetuximab mediates NK cell/dendritic cell (DC) cross talk by cross-linking FcγRIIIa. NK cells activated by cetuximab can upregulate the costimulatory receptor CD137 (4-1BB), which enhances NK cell activity upon treatment with urelumab (CB137 agonist). In a phase Ib trial, concurrent treatment of SCCHN patients with cetuximab and urelumab showed modulation of immune biomarkers and better survival of activated NK cells taking part in antitumor cell immunity [281]. Another group showed that NK cell-mediated ADCC increases upon stimulation with IL-12 in the presence of cetuximab-treated SCCHN cell lines. Combination IL-12 and cetuximab also significantly reduced tumor volume in a group of mice injected with a squamous cell carcinoma of tongue cell line (Cal-27). These results suggest that concurrent treatment with cytokines and cetuximab might have a beneficial effect in SCCHN therapy [282]. Kumai et al. have exploited the fact that HER3 expression is significantly increased upon EGFR inhibition therapy in SCCHN. They have used a HER3 peptide analog as a helper epitope for antigen presentation and found this induces cytolytic activity of CD4 T cells against tumor cells in vitro [283].
Conversely, cetuximab treatment has been linked to suppression of ADCC by increasing activity of regulatory T cells (Tregs), expressing CTLA-4, CD39, and TGFβ. Levels of Tregs correlated with poor clinical outcome in patient cohorts treated with cetuximab. Inhibition of CTLA-4(+) Treg by the CTLA-4-targeting antibody ipilimumab restored NK cell-mediated ADCC, resulting in better response to cetuximab treatment in vitro [284]. Finally, programmed death 1 (PD-1) /programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors are emerging as potent therapeutic agents. PD-1/PD-L1 limit T lymphocyte activation and promote immune resistance in SCCHN [285, 286]. In a cohort of 134 SCCHN specimens, PD-L1 levels were elevated and notably higher in HPV+ samples. This elevation was also positively correlated with EGFR and JAK2 levels; moreover, EGFR was identified as a mediator for activation of PD-L1 in a JAK2- and/or STAT1-dependent manner. In vitro studies using coculturing of tumor and NK cells showed that JAK2 inhibition using BMS-911543 in combination with cetuximab resulted in prevention of PD-L1 upregulation and increase of immunogenicity in tumor cells [287]. The rapid growth of the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor armamentarium and the large number of agents moving to clinical trial suggest that this field will expand enormously in the next several years.
2.5 Mechanisms of Resistance to Anti-EGFR Therapies
Patients initially responsive to anti-EGFR therapy often develop resistance during the course of treatment [18]. A number of specific factors associated with resistance have been identified [288]. These include altered ubiquitination and trafficking (Sect. 2.5.1) [289,290,291], overexpression and amplification of ErbB2 (Sect. 2.5.2) [216], altered expression levels of VEGF (Sect. 2.5.3) [292], altered expression levels of STAT3 (Sect. 2.5.4) [293], KRAS mutations (Sect. 2.5.5) [294, 295], changes in the tumor microenvironment (Sect. 2.5.6) [296], epigenetic compensation (Sect. 2.5.7) [297], and several other factors (Sect. 2.5.8).
2.5.1 EGFR-Intrinsic Resistance
Altered EGFR ubiquitination represents a mechanism of acquired resistance to cetuximab [289,290,291]. In vitro resistance to cetuximab was established by exposing cells to subeffective doses of cetuximab [291] or by prolonged exposure to escalating doses [290]. Lu et al. found that the cetuximab-resistant colorectal cancer cell line DiFi5 (rendered resistant through prolonged exposure to cetuximab) had markedly lower levels of EGFR. However, DiFi5 cells had enhanced associations between EGFR and the E3 ubiquitin ligase Cbl, as well as increased levels of ubiquitinated EGFR. DiFi5 also had significantly higher levels of active, Y16-phosphorylated Src, both at baseline and post-EGF stimulation, with inhibition of Src with the nonselective kinase inhibitor PP2 reversing cetuximab resistance. In addition, DiFi5 cells responded to EGF stimulation with more robust phosphorylation of EGFR at Y845 and strong phosphorylation of AKT and other extracellular EGFR signal-regulated kinases. These observations suggest that colorectal cancer cells may develop resistance to cetuximab by reducing EGFR levels via increased ubiquitination and degradation and via increased Src kinase-mediated cell signaling to bypass dependency on EGFR for cell growth and survival [291].
On the other hand, Wheeler et al. reported increased EGFR expression levels associated with deregulation of EGFR internalization and degradation in several resistant clones of NSCLC cell lines [289]. Loss of c-Cbl association with EGFR was reported to significantly lessen EGFR ubiquitination after EGF stimulation in the cetuximab-resistant cells compared to the nonresistant parent cells. These findings suggest that acquired resistance to cetuximab is accompanied by deregulation of EGFR internalization/degradation and subsequent EGFR-dependent activation of ErbB3 [289]. Further supporting the role of decreased EGFR ubiquitination in treatment resistance, Ahsan et al. found that cisplatin-resistant head and neck cancer cell lines undergo minimal EGFR phosphorylation at the Y1045 site and minimal ubiquitination [298].
Genetic variance in patient populations can affect response to EGFR inhibitors. For example, in >40% of patients with SCCHN, a single nucleotide variant polymorphism of EGFR (EGFR R521K) is present [299, 300]. This polymorphism has been linked to primary resistance to cetuximab in SCCHN in vitro and in vivo models and suggested as a potential marker for response to therapy. Cetuximab has a lower affinity to EGFR bearing a lysine residue at aa 521, affecting some patient populations. However, a next-generation EGFR antibody, GT-MAB 5.2-GEX with an Fc optimized by glycosylation [301, 302] to bind with higher affinity to the FcγRIIIa on immune effector cells and promote enhanced ADCC activity , targets EGFRK521 more efficiently [303].
2.5.2 Elevated Expression of ErbB Family Members
Ritter et al. demonstrated elevated levels of phosphorylated EGFR, EGFR/ErbB2 heterodimers, TGFα, hairpin-binding EGF, and heregulin RNA in trastuzumab-resistant human breast cancer cells. These findings suggest that enhanced EGFR-mediated activation of ErbB2 may be a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to trastuzumab [304]. A study by Yonesaka et al. (2011) identified a new mechanism of de novo and acquired resistance to cetuximab via increased signaling through ErbB2. Yonesaka et al. have shown that amplification of ErbB2 or upregulation of heregulin (ErbB3/ErbB4 ligand) is present in cetuximab-resistant colorectal cancer patients. This study suggests that ErbB2 inhibitors, in combination with cetuximab, represent a rational therapeutic strategy that should be assessed in patients with cetuximab-resistant SCCHN [212]. The same was demonstrated for ErbB3. In vitro experiments with SCCHN cell lines showed that treatment with cetuximab caused HER3 activation and HER2/HER3 dimerization. However, combined treatment with cetuximab and MM-121/seribantumab significantly decreased cell growth and downregulated the PI3K/AKT and ERK pathways, in comparison with each antibody alone. A similar effect was found in cetuximab-resistant xenografts and PDX models [305]. It is possible that such synergies may be achievable using a single therapeutic agent. A recent study in non-small cell lung cancer, using the novel Pan-HER inhibitor from Symphogen A/S (Ballerup, Denmark), which is an antibody mixture targeting EGFR, HER2, and HER3, effectively overcame resistance to cetuximab [214].
2.5.3 VEGF Expression
Enhanced angiogenesis is a fundamental step in the transition of tumors from a dormant state to a malignant one and correlates with tumor progression and metastasis [306]. Angiogenesis is elevated in various human tumors, including SCCHN, and VEGF has been demonstrated to be a major angiogenic factor [307]. Preclinical and early clinical data imply a central role of angiogenesis in SCCHN: up to 90% of SCCHNs express vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the respective receptors (VEGFRs) [308].
Multiple studies support the prognostic implications of angiogenic markers in SCCHN and functional connections between angiogenic and EGFR signaling [309]. One recent study has identified angiopoietin-like 4 (ANGPTL4) as a regulator of EGF-induced cancer metastasis. The authors suggested that expression and autocrine production of ANGPTL4 mediated by EGF promotes SCCHN metastasis through the expression of metalloprotease-1 (MMP-1) [310]. Another study used immunofluorescence and single-cell segmentation to analyze expression and localization of EGFR in relation to the endogenous hypoxia marker CA IX and the intratumoral diffusion distance of EGFR+ cells from microvessels. Analysis was done using 58 human SCCHNs and a set of normal versus cancer-adjacent tissues [311]. This study found that the resistance to cetuximab was associated with downregulation of membrane EGFR expression in the hypoxic tissue [311]. Bossi et al. analyzed a group of recurrent-metastatic SCCHN patients pretreated with cetuximab and platinum chemotherapy, using whole transcriptome screening to find potential unique signatures of resistance. They found a connection between prolonged PFS and enriched expression of genes associated with active EGFR pathway signaling and hypoxic differentiation. In contrast, short PFS was associated with elevated RAS (but not EGFR) signaling, implying compensatory activation of downstream signaling [312].
EGFR activation and the overexpression of the three major ErbB-associated ligands trigger upregulation of multiple VEGF members and may induce resistance to anti-EGFR agents in vitro [292]. Riedel et al. showed that an EGFR antisense oligonucleotide treatment resulted in a significant reduction of VEGF protein expression, and addition of conditioned medium from EGFR antisense-treated tumor cells resulted in decreased endothelial cell migration [313]. The combination of bevacizumab (a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody targeting VEGF) with erlotinib was well-tolerated and had a response rate of 15% [314], which, in a cross-trial comparison, was higher than the response rate for erlotinib alone (5%) [315] or the VEGFR inhibitors SU5416 alone (5%) [316] or sorafenib (an inhibitor of VEGFR, PDGFR, Raf kinase, and others) alone (3–4%) [317]. A phase II clinical trial of sorafenib in combination with cetuximab demonstrated no clinical benefit in a group of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) SCCHN [318]. Argiris et al. demonstrated that the combination of bevacizumab and cetuximab enhanced growth inhibition both in vivo and in vitro in preclinical models and resulted in a SCCHN disease control rate of 46% [319]. However, a phase II trial showed that radiotherapy and cetuximab with the addition of bevacizumab led to no improvement in treatment efficacy compared with radiation/cetuximab alone, showing no clinical benefits of dual targeting of VEGF and EGFR for a group of previously untreated stage III–IVB SCCHN patients [320]. Chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab is being investigated in a phase III trial with patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (NCT00588770).
A novel fully humanized dual-targeting IgG (DT-IgG) antibody that simultaneously targets VEGF and EGFR has been designed to optimize tumor targeting and maximize potential clinical benefits [321]. Hurwitz et al. tested DT-IgG on SCCHN, lung adenocarcinoma, and colon cancer xenograft models and discovered that DT-IgG had a lower in vivo IC50 than bevacizumab (VEGF-targeting antibody) and cetuximab ; however, a higher dose of DT-IgG was needed to produce efficacy similar to that observed with combined bevacizumab and cetuximab treatment [321].
Zhang et al. showed in SCCHN in vitro studies that DT-IgG neutralizes VEGF as effectively as bevacizumab and inhibits EGFR activation and cell proliferation as effectively as cetuximab [322]. One obvious benefit of DT-IgG therapy would be avoidance of dosing complications associated with drug combinations [321, 322]. Lecaros et al., using human SCCHN xenograft models, have found that delivery of siRNA against VEGF-A using lipid-calcium-phosphate nanoparticles (LCP NPs) in combination with photodynamic therapy promotes apoptosis and controls tumor growth [323]; this may be useful in conjunction with EGFR-targeting therapies.
2.5.4 STAT3 Expression
Sen et al. found that increased STAT3 may contribute to cetuximab resistance in SCCHN [293]. STAT3 inhibition in cetuximab-resistant SCCHN cells using a STAT3 decoy oligonucleotide to inhibit STAT3-mediated transcription reduced cellular viability and the expression of STAT3 target genes. STAT3 decoy treatment also successfully decreased tumor growth in vivo [293]. In SCCHN cells, activation of the JAK2/STAT3 pathway was associated with EMT and metastasis through induction of the chemokine CCL19 and its receptor CCR7, which was previously found to play an important role in chemotaxis and migration of immune cells, such as leukocytes. In a panel of 78 human SCCHN specimens, phosphorylation of CCR7 and STAT3 positively correlated with lymph node metastasis [324].
2.5.5 KRASand PI3K Mutation
KRAS mutations are fairly rare in SCCHN compared to other types of cancer [325]. Mutational activation of KRAS only occurred in 2.6% of 115 clinical specimens of SCCHN, although copy number amplification of KRAS was found in 10 samples (8.7%) in the same study [326]. Chau et al., using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in a group of 213 SCCHN patients, demonstrated that oncogenic RAS mutations are associated with poorer PFS. In another study, KRAS mutations were found in 4 out of 29 patients with SCCHN, and the presence of the G12 V KRAS mutation was associated with an absence of response to cetuximab and radiotherapy [327]. Monitoring of RAS mutations as well as mutations in the cetuximab-interacting ectodomain of the EGFR may be a good predictive marker for cetuximab resistance [328, 329]. KRAS mutation has been associated with HPV status. In a cohort of 179 SCCHN, KRAS mutations occurred more frequently in HPV(+) tumors (6%) versus 1% for HPV(-) tumors [330]. Finally, as noted above, PIK3CA is one of the most frequently amplified or mutated oncogenes in SCCHN tumors [67, 119, 121], with mutation associated with activation of the AKT signaling pathway [331]. Additionally, phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) acts as a tumor suppressor and an important negative regulator of the PI3K/AKT pathway. Low expression of PTEN (44.4% with low vs. 71.7% with high) and pAKT (75.2% with low vs. 52.5% with high) were shown to be important for prolonged 2-year overall survival in a group of 49 patients with SCCHN previously treated with cetuximab-based induction chemotherapy (a combination of cetuximab, docetaxel, and cisplatin) [332]. Burtness et al. demonstrated that loss of PTEN (PTEN null) was observed in 23 of 67 (34%) SCCHN patient samples analyzed by AQUA and that treatment of these patients with cetuximab or placebo leads to better PFS in comparison with patients with tumors expressing PTEN (4.2 months for cetuximab vs. 2.9 months for placebo for patients expressing PTEN and 4.6 months for cetuximab vs. 3.5 months for placebo for PTEN null) [333].
2.5.6 Microenvironment
A growing body of evidence suggests that components of the tumor microenvironment may also contribute to tumorigenesis in cancers of epithelial origin and may modulate the treatment sensitivity of tumor cells [334]. Johansson et al. reported that cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) offer protection from cetuximab treatment and negate cetuximab-induced growth inhibition [296]. They further described that SCCHN cell lines cocultured with CAFs from patients with SCCHN result in elevated expression of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) in both the tumor cells and the CAFs. MMP inhibitors can partly abolish CAF-induced resistance; however, siRNA knockdown of MMP-1 in CAFs did not abolish resistance, suggesting that other MMP family members may be involved (Johansson et al. 2012). The mechanism of MMP-associated cetuximab resistance is not clear, and further investigation is warranted. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of 31 tumor-adjacent tissues, 94 SCCHN tumors, and 10 tonsillectomy noncancerous specimens has revealed that expression of metalloproteins (MT) MT1A and MT2A is significantly higher in the tumors and correlates with a higher tumor grade. Expression of MT was also observed in tonsillectomy samples, gradually increasing in adjacent tissues and tumors, possibly in response to the oxidative stress . The authors suggested that MT accumulation in adjacent tissue occurs as a response to the tumor cells [335].
2.5.7 Epigenetic Changes
Emerging evidence has indicated connections between epigenetic changes, such as DNA methylation at CpG islands, and development of resistance to multiple cancer therapeutics [336,337,338,339]. Ogawa et al. tested a panel of 56 genes (including death-associated protein kinase (DAPK) , MGMT, and SRBC, commonly known to be regulated through promoter methylation, using array-based methylation analysis of two parental NSCLC and SCCHN cell lines and progeny rendered resistant to either erlotinib or cetuximab. The study found that DAPK was hypermethylated in NSCLC and SCCHN drug-resistant cells. Subsequent demethylation of DAPK in the resistant NSCLC cells restored sensitivity to both erlotinib and cetuximab. siRNA-mediated knockdown of DAPK validated the array-based findings by inducing erlotinib and cetuximab resistance in cells normally sensitive to either agent [297].
2.5.8 Other Factors
Transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) has recently been shown to be a key molecular determinant of de novo and acquired resistance of cancers to EGFR-targeted antibodies [340]. Bedi et al. found that treatment of mice bearing xenografts of human SCCHN cells with cetuximab resulted in emergence of resistant tumor cells that expressed relatively higher levels of TGFβ compared to the control group. Also, treatment with cetuximab alone induced an apparent natural selection of TGFβ-overexpressing tumor cells in nonregressing tumors. Combinatorial treatment with cetuximab and a TGFβ-blocking antibody prevented the emergence of resistant tumor cells and induced complete tumor regression [340].
Coexpression of elevated levels of Aurora-A and EGFR was an adverse prognostic factor with poor disease-free and overall survival in a cohort of 180 patients [341]. In vitro studies showed that simultaneous targeting of Aurora kinase and EGFR using cetuximab and a pan-Aurora kinase inhibitor (R763) was more effective than mono-EGFR or mono-Aurora kinase inhibition. Interestingly, growth inhibitory effects were noticeable with the addition of R763 to cell lines with no or very moderate response to mono-EGFR-targeted treatment and/or with very low EGFR expression [341]. Independent studies have shown efficacy of combination of a specific Aurora-A inhibitor with erlotinib and cetuximab in an EGFR-dependent cancer cell line [342]. These findings suggest that Aurora kinase inhibitors may help overcome cetuximab resistance in the treatment of SCCHN; however, more work is needed.
Recent studies have revealed a connection between a fibroblast growth factor receptor 3-transforming acidic coiled-coil-containing protein 3 (FGFR3-TACC3) fusion protein and drug resistance. This fusion gene has been detected in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, SCCHN, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and lung cancer. In vitro studies have identified that FGFR3-TACC3 fusion gene promotes survival of cancer cells [343]. In a murine SCCHN xenograft model, simultaneous targeting of both EGFR and ERBB3 leads to decreased tumor progression. However, it results in the outgrowth of resistant cells. Daly et al. revealed that in these tumors levels of FGFR3-TACC3 fusion protein are significantly elevated. Further investigation demonstrated that FGFR3-TACC3 overexpression promotes cancer cell resistance through the blockade of EGFR/RAS/ERK signaling, but not through ERBB3/PI3K/AKT signaling [344].
2.6 Toxicity and Tolerance
EGFR is widely expressed at the basal level of the epidermis [293, 294], and EGFR-directed antibodies have predictable dermatologic side effects including follicular eruption, scaling, paronychia, and skin fissures. Although a significant difference in high-grade in field skin toxicity was not reported by Bonner et al. [175], subsequent studies have demonstrated increased high-grade radiation dermatitis and mucositis [176]. Initial management of skin toxicity is with topical steroids; antibiotics may be indicated in the case of superinfection, and systemic steroids are reserved for desquamation or very high proportion of body surface involved [345]. Skin toxicity is associated with benefit from cetuximab in both SCCHN and colon cancer [193, 295]. Interestingly, there is some evidence that intrinsic germline genetic variation of EGFR(rs2227983), KRAS (rs61764370), and FCGR2A (rs180127) can be used as predictive markers of reduced skin toxicity in SCCHN patients treated with a cetuximab-based therapy [346]. Allergic and anaphylactoid reactions can be observed in patients treated with cetuximab and, less often, with panitumumab; however, both of these monoclonal antibodies have fewer nonspecific and hematopoietic side effects compared to other chemotherapeutics [347, 348]. Electrolyte abnormities, specifically hypomagnesemia , are also commonly observed and should be monitored during treatment with EGFRIs [195].
2.7 Conclusions and New Frontiers in Drug Discovery
As study of EGFR and the ErbB family advances, several themes emerge for future investigation.
First, major, ongoing investments in personalized medicine, involving in part studies of exceptional responders for targeted therapy, and growth of large databases integrating sequence and clinical data, will help provide a panel of predictive response biomarkers. However, based on data summarized above, interpreting these data will be a challenge. It is likely that there will be multiple potential mechanisms for resistance, each operative in small subsets of patients: further, given that targeted therapies are typically administered in combinations, and many combinations are under evaluation, it will be challenging to develop statistically robust datasets to predict response to drug combinations. Systems biology may be able to help guide the integration of this information [349]. In complementary work, high-throughput screening may identify new targets relevant to specific subtypes of SCCHN. In another example, recent studies applying whole exome sequencing to nasopharyngeal cancers identified specific mutational signatures in this disease subclass, some of which are potentially druggable and may provide patient-tailored options [350] that can augment classic EGFR-ErbB-targeted therapeutics.
Second, existing EGFR-/ErbB-targeting agents may find new uses in the fields of SCCHN prevention, while efforts continue to develop new therapeutic strategies for EGFR and ErbB. In some intriguing recent work, and echoing the fact that some studies have found elevated EGFR in noncancerous premalignant tissue [11, 12, 351], cetuximab treatment of patients with high-risk premalignancy of the upper aerodigestive tract was demonstrated as a potentially effective treatment of moderate to severe dysplasia in a subset of patients [352]. However, a conceptually related study using erlotinib was not effective [351], and more work is required. In terms of developing new approaches to targeting EGFR, a number of studies support the idea that EGFR forms higher-order oligomers, such as tetramers, during signaling [353,354,355]. Ramirez et al. used a virtual docking model of extracellular tetrameric EGFR configuration coupled with functional screening to identify compounds that affect internalization of adaptor responsive to EGFR activation Grb2 . This work indicates it may be possible to develop new classes of EGFR-targeting agents, based on targeting epitopes formed by functional, higher-order oligomers [356].
Third, the rapid rise of immunotherapies, with results from major trials expected in the next several years, is likely to transform the use of EGFR-/ErbB-targeting therapies. As effective immunotherapies have only recently been developed, much effort will be needed to understand how these agents interact with EGFR- or ErbB-targeting agents and cytotoxic therapies, develop appropriate dosing regimens that maximize effectiveness and minimize toxicities, establish genomic signatures and clinical profiles that are best suited for their use, and many other considerations. It is to be hoped that successful integration of these new approaches with EGFR-targeting agents will ultimately result in better patient outcomes.
References
Cowley GP, Smith JA, Gusterson BA. Increased EGF receptors on human squamous carcinoma cell lines. Br J Cancer. 1986;53(2):223–9.
Stanton P, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor expression by human squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, cell lines and xenografts. Br J Cancer. 1994;70(3):427–33.
Bassiri M, Privalsky ML. Mutagenesis of the avian erythroblastosis virus erbB coding region: an intact extracellular domain is not required for oncogenic transformation. J Virol. 1986;59(2):525–30.
Bouyain S, et al. The extracellular region of ErbB4 adopts a tethered conformation in the absence of ligand. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102(42):15024–9.
Cho HS. Structure of the extracellular region of HER3 reveals an interdomain tether. Science. 2002;297(5585):1330–3.
Franklin MC, et al, Insights into ErbB signaling from the structure of the ErbB2-pertuzumab complex. 2004, Protein Data Bank, Rutgers University.
Shi F, et al. ErbB3/HER3 intracellular domain is competent to bind ATP and catalyze autophosphorylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(17):7692–7.
Jura N, et al. Catalytic control in the EGF receptor and its connection to general kinase regulatory mechanisms. Mol Cell. 2011;42(1):9–22.
Zhang X, et al. An allosteric mechanism for activation of the kinase domain of epidermal growth factor receptor. Cell. 2006;125(6):1137–49.
Jura N, et al. Structural analysis of the catalytically inactive kinase domain of the human EGF receptor 3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(51):21608–13.
Grandis JR, Tweardy DJ. TGF-α and EGFR in head and neck cancer. J Cell Biochem. 1993;53(S17F):188–91.
Grandis JR, Tweardy DJ. Elevated levels of transforming growth factor alpha and epidermal growth factor receptor messenger RNA are early markers of carcinogenesis in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res. 1993;53(15):3579–84.
Hitt R, et al. Prognostic value of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGRF) and p53 in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with induction chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(3):453–60.
Liccardi G, Hartley JA, Hochhauser D. EGFR nuclear translocation modulates DNA repair following cisplatin and ionizing radiation treatment. Cancer Res. 2011;71(3):1103–14.
Ang KK, et al. Impact of epidermal growth factor receptor expression on survival and pattern of relapse in patients with advanced head and neck carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2002;62(24):7350–6.
Keren S, et al. Role of EGFR as a prognostic factor for survival in head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(3):2285–95.
Kalyankrishna S, Grandis JR. Epidermal growth factor receptor biology in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(17):2666–72.
Mehra R, et al. Protein-intrinsic and signaling network-based sources of resistance to EGFR- and ErbB family-targeted therapies in head and neck cancer. Drug Resist Updat. 2011;14(6):260–79.
Lui VW, et al. Frequent mutation of the PI3K pathway in head and neck cancer defines predictive biomarkers. Cancer Discov. 2013;3(7):761–9.
O’Rorke MA, et al. Human papillomavirus related head and neck cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(12):1191–201.
Husain H, et al. Nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor and p16 expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(12):2762–8.
Kim SH, et al. Human papillomavirus 16 E5 up-regulates the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor through the activation of epidermal growth factor receptor, MEK/ ERK1,2 and PI3K/Akt. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006;63(7–8):930–8.
Straight SW, Herman B, McCance DJ. The E5 oncoprotein of human papillomavirus type 16 inhibits the acidification of endosomes in human keratinocytes. J Virol. 1995;69(5):3185–92.
Weiner LM, Surana R, Wang S. Monoclonal antibodies: versatile platforms for cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10(5):317–27.
Rabinowits G, Haddad RI. Overcoming resistance to EGFR inhibitor in head and neck cancer: a review of the literature. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(11):1085–9.
Zhang J, Yang PL, Gray NS. Targeting cancer with small molecule kinase inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(1):28–39.
Mancini M, et al. Combining three antibodies nullifies feedback-mediated resistance to erlotinib in lung cancer. Sci Signal. 2015;8(379):ra53.
Wilson KJ, et al. Functional selectivity of EGF family peptide growth factors: implications for cancer. Pharmacol Ther. 2009;122(1):1–8.
Burgess AW, et al. An open-and-shut case? Recent insights into the activation of EGF/ErbB receptors. Mol Cell. 2003;12(3):541–52.
Ferguson KM, et al. EGF activates its receptor by removing interactions that autoinhibit ectodomain dimerization. Mol Cell. 2003;11(2):507–17.
Cho H-S, et al. Structure of the extracellular region of HER2 alone and in complex with the Herceptin fab. Nature. 2003;421(6924):756–60.
Garrett TPJ, et al. Crystal structure of a truncated epidermal growth factor receptor extracellular domain bound to transforming growth factor α. Cell. 2002;110(6):763–73.
Haskins JW, Nguyen DX, Stern DF. Neuregulin 1-activated ERBB4 interacts with YAP to induce hippo pathway target genes and promote cell migration. Sci Signal. 2014;7(355):ra116.
Schlessinger J. Ligand-induced, receptor-mediated dimerization and activation of EGF receptor. Cell. 2002;110(6):669–72.
Rogers SJ, et al. Biological significance of c-erbB family oncogenes in head and neck cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2005;24(1):47–69.
Bragin PE, et al. HER2 transmembrane domain dimerization coupled with self-association of membrane-embedded cytoplasmic juxtamembrane regions. J Mol Biol. 2016;428(1):52–61.
Shan Y, et al. Oncogenic mutations counteract intrinsic disorder in the EGFR kinase and promote receptor dimerization. Cell. 2012;149(4):860–70.
Red Brewer M, et al. Mechanism for activation of mutated epidermal growth factor receptors in lung cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(38):E3595–604.
Endres NF, et al. Regulation of the catalytic activity of the EGF receptor. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2011;21(6):777–84.
Alvarado D, Klein DE, Lemmon MA. Structural basis for negative cooperativity in growth factor binding to an EGF receptor. Cell. 2010;142(4):568–79.
Ghosh R, et al. Trastuzumab has preferential activity against breast cancers driven by HER2 homodimers. Cancer Res. 2011;71(5):1871–82.
Landgraf R. HER2 therapy. HER2 (ERBB2): functional diversity from structurally conserved building blocks. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(1):202.
Wieduwilt MJ, Moasser MM. The epidermal growth factor receptor family: biology driving targeted therapeutics. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2008;65(10):1566–84.
Oksvold MP, et al. Serine mutations that abrogate ligand-induced ubiquitination and internalization of the EGF receptor do not affect c-Cbl association with the receptor. Oncogene. 2003;22(52):8509–18.
Oksvold MP, et al. UV-radiation-induced internalization of the epidermal growth factor receptor requires distinct serine and tyrosine residues in the cytoplasmic carboxy-terminal domain. Radiat Res. 2004;161(6):685–91.
Tong J, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor phosphorylation sites Ser991 and Tyr998 are implicated in the regulation of receptor endocytosis and phosphorylations at Ser1039 and Thr1041. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2009;8(9):2131–44.
Sousa LP, et al. Suppression of EGFR endocytosis by dynamin depletion reveals that EGFR signaling occurs primarily at the plasma membrane. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(12):4419–24.
Orth JD, et al. A novel endocytic mechanism of epidermal growth factor receptor sequestration and internalization. Cancer Res. 2006;66(7):3603–10.
Sigismund S, et al. Clathrin-mediated internalization is essential for sustained EGFR signaling but dispensable for degradation. Dev Cell. 2008;15(2):209–19.
Schoeberl B, et al. An ErbB3 antibody, MM-121, is active in cancers with ligand-dependent activation. Cancer Res. 2010;70(6):2485–94.
Tan X, et al. Stress-induced EGFR trafficking: mechanisms, functions, and therapeutic implications. Trends Cell Biol. 2016;26(5):352–66.
Dutta S, et al. Neuropilin-2 regulates endosome maturation and EGFR trafficking to support Cancer cell pathobiology. Cancer Res. 2016;76(2):418–28.
Lee H, et al. Anks1a regulates COPII-mediated anterograde transport of receptor tyrosine kinases critical for tumorigenesis. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12799.
Jeong J, et al. PMCA2 regulates HER2 protein kinase localization and signaling and promotes HER2-mediated breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(3):E282–90.
Lang SA, et al. Inhibition of heat shock protein 90 impairs epidermal growth factor-mediated signaling in gastric cancer cells and reduces tumor growth and vascularization in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6(3):1123–32.
Chung CH, et al. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number is associated with poor prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(25):4170–6.
Grandis JR, et al. Levels of TGF- and EGFR protein in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and patient survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(11):824–32.
Maurizi M, et al. Prognostic significance of epidermal growth factor receptor in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1996;74(8):1253–7.
Temam S, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor copy number alterations correlate with poor clinical outcome in patients with head and neck squamous cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(16):2164–70.
Ongkeko WM, et al. Expression of protein tyrosine kinases in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124(1):71–6.
Bei R, et al. Frequent overexpression of multiple ErbB receptors by head and neck squamous cell carcinoma contrasts with rare antibody immunity in patients. J Pathol. 2004;204(3):317–25.
Bernardes VF, et al. EGFR status in oral squamous cell carcinoma: comparing immunohistochemistry, FISH and CISH detection in a case series study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e002077.
Pectasides E, et al. Comparative prognostic value of epidermal growth factor quantitative protein expression compared with FISH for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(9):2947–54.
Beck TN, Golemis EA. Genomic insights into head and neck cancer. Cancers of the Head & Neck. 2016;1(1):1.
Gao J, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013;6(269):pl1.
Cerami E, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(5):401–4.
Feldman R, et al. Molecular profiling of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2015;38(S1):E1625–38.
Rubin Grandis J, et al. Quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of transforming growth factor-alpha and epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer. 1996;78(6):1284–92.
Shin DM, et al. Dysregulation of epidermal growth factor receptor expression in premalignant lesions during head and neck tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 1994;54(12):3153–9.
Chang AR, et al. Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor and cyclin D1 in pretreatment biopsies as a predictive factor of radiotherapy efficacy in early glottic cancer. Head Neck. 2008;30(7):852–7.
Alterio D, et al. Role of EGFR as prognostic factor in head and neck cancer patients treated with surgery and postoperative radiotherapy: proposal of a new approach behind the EGFR overexpression. Med Oncol. 2017;34(6):107.
Morgan S, Grandis JR. ErbB receptors in the biology and pathology of the aerodigestive tract. Exp Cell Res. 2009;315(4):572–82.
Bei R, et al. Co-localization of multiple ErbB receptors in stratified epithelium of oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Pathol. 2001;195(3):343–8.
Ekberg T, et al. Expression of EGFR, HER2, HER3, and HER4 in metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity and base of tongue. Int J Oncol. 2005;26(5):1177–85.
Roepstorff K, et al. Endocytic downregulation of ErbB receptors: mechanisms and relevance in cancer. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008;129(5):563–78.
Huang C-C, et al. Cathepsin S attenuates endosomal EGFR signalling: a mechanical rationale for the combination of cathepsin S and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29256.
Rolle CE, et al. Expression and mutational analysis of c-CBL and its relationship to the MET receptor in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017 Mar 21;8(12):18726–18734.
Ray D, et al. Regulation of EGFR protein stability by the HECT-type ubiquitin ligase SMURF2. Neoplasia. 2011;13(7):570–8.
Rajput A, et al. A novel mechanism of resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor antagonism in vivo. Cancer Res. 2007;67(2):665–73.
Jhappan C, et al. TGFα overexpression in transgenic mice induces liver neoplasia and abnormal development of the mammary gland and pancreas. Cell. 1990;61(6):1137–46.
Matsui Y, et al. Development of mammary hyperplasia and neoplasia in MMTV-TGFα transgenic mice. Cell. 1990;61(6):1147–55.
Sandgren EP, et al. Overexpression of TGFα in transgenic mice: induction of epithelial hyperplasia, pancreatic metaplasia, and carcinoma of the breast. Cell. 1990;61(6):1121–35.
Tinhofer I, et al. Expression of Amphiregulin and EGFRvIII affect outcome of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck receiving Cetuximab-docetaxel treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(15):5197–204.
Yonesaka K, et al. Autocrine production of Amphiregulin predicts sensitivity to both Gefitinib and Cetuximab in EGFR wild-type cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(21):6963–73.
Hatakeyama H, et al. Regulation of heparin-binding EGF-like growth factor by miR-212 and acquired Cetuximab-resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2010;5(9):e12702.
Murakami H, et al. Transgenic mouse model for synergistic effects of nuclear oncogenes and growth factors in tumorigenesis: interaction of c-myc and transforming growth factor alpha in hepatic oncogenesis. Cancer Res. 1993;53(8):1719–23.
Sandgren EP, et al. Transforming growth factor alpha dramatically enhances oncogene-induced carcinogenesis in transgenic mouse pancreas and liver. Mol Cell Biol. 1993;13(1):320–30.
Sandgren EP, et al. Inhibition of mammary gland involution is associated with transforming growth factor alpha but not c-myc-induced tumorigenesis in transgenic mice. Cancer Res. 1995;55(17):3915–27.
Oshima G, et al. Autocrine epidermal growth factor receptor ligand production and cetuximab response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012;138(3):491–9.
O-Charoenrat P, Rhys-Evans P, Eccles S. Expression and regulation of c-erbB ligands in human head and neck squamous carcinoma cells. Int J Cancer. 2000;88(5):759–65.
Gao J, Ulekleiv CH, Halstensen TS. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor-ligand based molecular staging predicts prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma partly due to deregulated EGF-induced amphiregulin expression. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2016;35(1):151.
Wakasaki T, et al. A critical role of c-Cbl-interacting protein of 85 kDa in the development and progression of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas through the ras-ERK pathway. Neoplasia. 2010;12(10):789–96.
Brand TM, et al. The nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor signaling network and its role in cancer. Discov Med. 2011;12(66):419–32.
Matta A, Ralhan R. Overview of current and future biologically based targeted therapies in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck Oncol. 2009;1(1):6.
Roskoski R. ERK1/2 MAP kinases: structure, function, and regulation. Pharmacol Res. 2012;66(2):105–43.
Wortzel I, Seger R. The ERK Cascade: distinct functions within various subcellular organelles. Genes Cancer. 2011;2(3):195–209.
Lurje G, Lenz H-J. EGFR signaling and drug discovery. Oncology. 2009;77(6):400–10.
Faivre S, Kroemer G, Raymond E. Current development of mTOR inhibitors as anticancer agents. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(8):671–88.
Zheng LS, et al. SPINK6 promotes metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma via binding and activation of epithelial growth factor receptor. Cancer Res. 2017;77(2):579–89.
Saloura V, et al. WHSC1L1-mediated EGFR mono-methylation enhances the cytoplasmic and nuclear oncogenic activity of EGFR in head and neck cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40664.
Keller J, et al. Combination of phosphorylated and truncated EGFR correlates with higher tumor and nodal stage in head and neck cancer. Cancer Investig. 2010;28(10):1054–62.
Hama T, et al. Prognostic significance of epidermal growth factor receptor phosphorylation and mutation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncologist. 2009;14(9):900–8.
Schwentner I, et al. Identification of the rare EGFR mutation p.G796S as somatic and germline mutation in white patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck. 2008;30(8):1040–4.
Na II, et al. EGFR mutations and human papillomavirus in squamous cell carcinoma of tongue and tonsil. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(3):520–6.
Lee JW. Somatic mutations of EGFR gene in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(8):2879–82.
Diedrich U, et al. Distribution of epidermal growth factor receptor gene amplification in brain tumours and correlation to prognosis. J Neurol. 1995;242(10):683–8.
Garcia de Palazzo IE, et al. Expression of mutated epidermal growth factor receptor by non-small cell lung carcinomas. Cancer Res. 1993;53(14):3217–20.
Ge H, Gong X, Tang CK. Evidence of high incidence of EGFRvIII expression and coexpression with EGFR in human invasive breast cancer by laser capture microdissection and immunohistochemical analysis. Int J Cancer. 2002;98(3):357–61.
Moscatello DK, et al. Frequent expression of a mutant epidermal growth factor receptor in multiple human tumors. Cancer Res. 1995;55(23):5536–9.
Nishikawa R, et al. A mutant epidermal growth factor receptor common in human glioma confers enhanced tumorigenicity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1994;91(16):7727–31.
Okamoto I, et al. Expression of constitutively activated EGFRvlll in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Sci. 2003;94(1):50–6.
Chau NG, et al. The association between EGFR variant III, HPV, p16, c-MET, EGFR gene copy number and response to EGFR inhibitors in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck Oncol. 2011;3(1):11.
Sok JC. Mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRvIII) contributes to head and neck Cancer growth and resistance to EGFR targeting. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(17):5064–73.
Yang B, et al. Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in laryngeal carcinoma tissues. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2009;36(6):682–7.
McIntyre JB, et al. Specific and sensitive hydrolysis probe-based real-time PCR detection of epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in oral squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31723.
Melchers LJ, et al. Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas do not express EGFRvIII. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(2):454–62.
Stransky N, et al. The mutational landscape of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Science. 2011;333(6046):1157–60.
Agrawal N, et al. Exome sequencing of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma reveals inactivating mutations in NOTCH1. Science. 2011;333(6046):1154–7.
Chau NG, et al. Incorporation of next-generation sequencing into routine clinical care to direct treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(12):2939–49.
The Cancer Genome Atlas, N. Comprehensive genomic characterization of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Nature. 2015;517(7536):576–82.
Li H, et al. Genomic analysis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines and human tumors: a rational approach to preclinical model selection. Mol Cancer Res. 2014;12(4):571–82.
Du L, et al. Overexpression of PIK3CA in murine head and neck epithelium drives tumor invasion and metastasis through PDK1 and enhanced TGFbeta signaling. Oncogene. 2016;35(35):4641–52.
Bozec A, et al. Combination of mTOR and EGFR targeting in an orthotopic xenograft model of head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(4):E156–63.
Lai SY, Johnson FM. Defining the role of the JAK-STAT pathway in head and neck and thoracic malignancies: implications for future therapeutic approaches. Drug Resist Updat. 2010;13(3):67–78.
Quesnelle KM, Boehm AL, Grandis JR. STAT-mediated EGFR signaling in cancer. J Cell Biochem. 2007;102(2):311–9.
Yu H, Pardoll D, Jove R. STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(11):798–809.
Mali SB. Review of STAT3 (signal transducers and activators of transcription) in head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(6):565–9.
Pectasides E, et al. Nuclear localization of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is associated with a better prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(8):2427–34.
Wheeler SE, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor variant III mediates head and neck cancer cell invasion via STAT3 activation. Oncogene. 2010;29(37):5135–45.
Bonner JA, et al. Enhancement of cetuximab-induced radiosensitization by JAK-1 inhibition. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:673.
Stegeman H, et al. Combining radiotherapy with MEK1/2, STAT5 or STAT6 inhibition reduces survival of head and neck cancer lines. Mol Cancer. 2013;12(1):133.
Hwang J-I, et al. Molecular cloning and characterization of a novel phospholipase C, PLC-η. Biochem J. 2005;389(1):181–6.
Thomas SM, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor-stimulated activation of phospholipase Cgamma-1 promotes invasion of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003;63(17):5629–35.
Kassis J, et al. A role for phospholipase C-gamma-mediated signaling in tumor cell invasion. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5(8):2251–60.
Nozawa H, et al. Combined inhibition of PLC-1 and c-Src abrogates epidermal growth factor receptor-mediated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma invasion. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(13):4336–44.
Rosse C, et al. PKC and the control of localized signal dynamics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11(2):103–12.
Martínez-Gimeno C, et al. Alterations in levels of different protein kinase C isotypes and their influence on behavior of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: ɛPKC, a novel prognostic factor for relapse and survival. Head Neck. 1995;17(6):516–25.
Cohen EEW. Protein kinase C mediates epidermal growth factor-induced growth of head and neck tumor cells by regulating mitogen-activated protein kinase. Cancer Res. 2006;66(12):6296–303.
Elkabets M, et al. AXL mediates resistance to PI3Kalpha inhibition by activating the EGFR/PKC/mTOR axis in head and neck and esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Cell. 2015;27(4):533–46.
Parsons SJ, Parsons JT. Src family kinases, key regulators of signal transduction. Oncogene. 2004;23(48):7906–9.
Koppikar P, et al. Combined inhibition of c-Src and epidermal growth factor receptor abrogates growth and invasion of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(13):4284–91.
Egloff AM, Grandis JR. Improving response rates to EGFR-targeted therapies for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: candidate predictive biomarkers and combination treatment with Src inhibitors. J Oncol. 2009;2009:1–12.
Wheeler DL, Iida M, Dunn EF. The role of Src in solid tumors. Oncologist. 2009;14(7):667–78.
Xi S, et al. Src kinases mediate STAT growth pathways in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(34):31574–83.
Zhang Q. Src family kinases mediate epidermal growth factor receptor ligand cleavage, proliferation, and invasion of head and neck Cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2004;64(17):6166–73.
Li C, et al. Nuclear EGFR contributes to acquired resistance to cetuximab. Oncogene. 2009;28(43):3801–13.
Yeatman TJ. A renaissance for SRC. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(6):470–80.
Zhang X, et al. RANKL/RANK pathway abrogates cetuximab sensitivity in gastric cancer cells via activation of EGFR and c-Src. OncoTargets and Therapy. 2017;10:73–83.
Yamada T, et al. Receptor activator of NF-kappaB ligand induces cell adhesion and integrin alpha2 expression via NF-kappaB in head and neck cancers. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23545.
Yan M, et al. Correlation of NF-kappaB signal pathway with tumor metastasis of human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:437.
Ferris RL, Grandis JR. NF-B gene signatures and p53 mutations in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(19):5663–4.
Nakayama H, et al. High expression levels of nuclear factor κB, IκB kinase α and Akt kinase in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Cancer. 2001;92(12):3037–44.
Yan B, et al. Genome-wide identification of novel expression signatures reveal distinct patterns and prevalence of binding motifs for p53, nuclear factor-κB and other signal transcription factors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Genome Biol. 2007;8(5):R78.
Arun P, et al. Nuclear NF-κB p65 phosphorylation at serine 276 by protein kinase A contributes to the malignant phenotype of head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(19):5974–84.
Tanaka T, et al. Selective inhibition of nuclear factor-κB by nuclear factor-κB essential modulator-binding domain peptide suppresses the metastasis of highly metastatic oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2012;103(3):455–63.
Aravindan N, et al. Irreversible EGFR inhibitor EKB-569 targets low-LET γ-radiation-triggered Rel orchestration and potentiates cell death in squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e29705.
Wilken R, et al. Curcumin: a review of anti-cancer properties and therapeutic activity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Mol Cancer. 2011;10(1):12.
Lee TL, et al. A signal network involving coactivated NF-κB and STAT3 and altered p53 modulates BAX/BCL-XL expression and promotes cell survival of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 2008;122(9):1987–98.
Bivona TG, et al. FAS and NF-κB signalling modulate dependence of lung cancers on mutant EGFR. Nature. 2011;471(7339):523–6.
Li Z, et al. A positive feedback loop involving EGFR/Akt/mTORC1 and IKK/NF-kB regulates head and neck squamous cell carcinoma proliferation. Oncotarget. 2016;7(22):31892–906.
Kang H, Kiess A, Chung CH. Emerging biomarkers in head and neck cancer in the era of genomics. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12(1):11–26.
Kalish LH, et al. Deregulated cyclin D1 expression is associated with decreased efficacy of the selective epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(22):7764–74.
Namazie A, et al. Cyclin D1 amplification and p16(MTS1/CDK4I) deletion correlate with poor prognosis in head and neck tumors. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(3):472–81.
Beck TN, et al. EGFR and RB1 as dual biomarkers in HPV-negative head and neck Cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(10):2486.
Calais G, et al. Randomized trial of radiation therapy versus concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for advanced-stage oropharynx carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(24):2081–6.
Adelstein DJ, et al. An intergroup phase III comparison of standard radiation therapy and two schedules of concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in patients with Unresectable squamous cell head and neck Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(1):92–8.
Trotti A, et al. TAME: development of a new method for summarising adverse events of cancer treatment by the radiation therapy oncology group. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(7):613–24.
Agulnik M. New approaches to EGFR inhibition for locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Med Oncol. 2012;29(4):2481–91.
Dittmann K, et al. Radiation-induced epidermal growth factor receptor nuclear import is linked to activation of DNA-dependent protein kinase. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(35):31182–9.
Mendelsohn J, Baselga J. Status of epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists in the biology and treatment of Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(14):2787–99.
Vermorken JB, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of Cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(16):2171–7.
Ferris RL, et al. Correlation of fc gamma receptor (fcγR) IIa and IIIa polymorphisms with clinical outcome in patients treated with Cetuximab-based Chemoradiation in the RTOG 0522 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(2):467.
Dent P, et al. Radiation-induced release of transforming growth factor alpha activates the epidermal growth factor receptor and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway in carcinoma cells, leading to increased proliferation and protection from radiation-induced cell death. Mol Biol Cell. 1999;10(8):2493–506.
Schmidt-Ullrich RK, et al. Altered expression of epidermal growth factor receptor and estrogen receptor in MCF-7 cells after single and repeated radiation exposures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;29(4):813–9.
Bonner JA, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(6):567–78.
Ang KK, et al. Randomized phase III trial of concurrent accelerated radiation plus cisplatin with or without cetuximab for stage III to IV head and neck carcinoma: RTOG 0522. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):2940–50.
Fakih M, Vincent M. Adverse events associated with anti-EGFR therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 1):S18–30.
Moon C, Chae YK, Lee J. Targeting epidermal growth factor receptor in head and neck cancer: lessons learned from cetuximab. Exp Biol Med. 2010;235(8):907–20.
Sipples R. Common side effects of anti-EGFR therapy: Acneform rash. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2006;22:28–34.
Vermorken JB, et al. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus Cetuximab in head and neck Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(11):1116–27.
Masui H, et al. Growth inhibition of human tumor cells in athymic mice by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res. 1984;44(3):1002–7.
Wheeler DL, Dunn EF, Harari PM. Understanding resistance to EGFR inhibitors—impact on future treatment strategies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(9):493–507.
Mendelsohn J. Blockade of receptors for growth factors: an anticancer therapy—the fourth annual Joseph H Burchenal American Association of Cancer Research Clinical Research Award Lecture. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(3):747–53.
Specenier P, Vermorken JB. Biologic therapy in head and neck Cancer: a road with hurdles. ISRN Oncology. 2012;2012:1–15.
Schmitz KR, Ferguson KM. Interaction of antibodies with ErbB receptor extracellular regions. Exp Cell Res. 2009;315(4):659–70.
Marshall J. Clinical implications of the mechanism of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Cancer. 2006;107(6):1207–18.
Kurai J, et al. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity mediated by Cetuximab against lung Cancer cell lines. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(5):1552–61.
Mehra R, Cohen RB, Burtness BA. The role of cetuximab for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2008;6(10):742–50.
Trigo J, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy is active in patients (pts) with platinum-refractory recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN): results of a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(14_suppl): 5502–5502.
Baselga J, et al. Phase I studies of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor chimeric antibody C225 alone and in combination with cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(4):904–14.
Robert F, et al. Phase I study of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody Cetuximab in combination with radiation therapy in patients with advanced head and neck Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(13):3234–43.
Bonner JA, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):21–8.
Baselga J, et al. Phase II multicenter study of the antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory metastatic and/or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5568–77.
Merlano M, Occelli M. Review of cetuximab in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007;3(5):871–6.
Burtness B, et al. Phase III randomized trial of cisplatin plus placebo compared with cisplatin plus Cetuximab in metastatic/recurrent head and neck Cancer: an eastern cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8646–54.
Licitra L, et al. Predictive value of epidermal growth factor receptor expression for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with head and neck and colorectal cancer: analysis of data from the EXTREME and CRYSTAL studies. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1161–8.
Lei Y, et al. EGFR-targeted mAb therapy modulates autophagy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma through NLRX1-TUFM protein complex. Oncogene. 2016;35(36):4698–707.
Srivastava RM, et al. Cetuximab-activated natural killer and dendritic cells collaborate to trigger tumor antigen-specific T-cell immunity in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(7):1858–72.
Nielsen DL, Pfeiffer P Jensen BV, Six cases of treatment with panitumumab in patients with severe hypersensitivity reactions to cetuximab. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(4):798–798.
Trivedi S, et al. Anti-EGFR targeted monoclonal antibody isotype influences antitumor cellular immunity in head and neck Cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(21):5229–37.
Wirth LJ, et al. Phase I dose-finding study of paclitaxel with panitumumab, carboplatin and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Ann Oncol. 2009;21(2):342–7.
Vermorken JB, et al. Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(8):697–710.
Siu LL, et al. Effect of standard radiotherapy with cisplatin vs accelerated radiotherapy with panitumumab in locoregionally advanced squamous cell head and neck carcinoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(2):220–6.
Eriksen JG, et al. OC-009: update of the randomised phase III trial DAHANCA 19: primary C-RT or RT and zalutumumab for squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:10.
Mateo C, et al. Humanization of a mouse monoclonal antibody that blocks the epidermal growth factor receptor: recovery of antagonistic activity. Immunotechnology. 1997;3(1):71–81.
Rivera F, et al. Current situation of Panitumumab, Matuzumab, Nimotuzumab and Zalutumumab. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(1):9–19.
Rojo F, et al. Pharmacodynamic trial of Nimotuzumab in Unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a SENDO foundation study. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(8):2474–82.
Schmiedel J, et al. Matuzumab binding to EGFR prevents the conformational rearrangement required for dimerization. Cancer Cell. 2008;13(4):365–73.
Schanzer JM, et al. A novel glycoengineered bispecific antibody format for targeted inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and insulin-like growth factor receptor type I (IGF-1R) demonstrating unique molecular properties. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(27):18693–706.
Jones HE, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I receptor signalling and acquired resistance to gefitinib (ZD1839; Iressa) in human breast and prostate cancer cells. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2004;11(4):793–814.
Schanzer JM, et al. XGFR*, a novel affinity-matured bispecific antibody targeting IGF-1R and EGFR with combined signaling inhibition and enhanced immune activation for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. MAbs. 2016;8(4):811–27.
Yonesaka K, et al. Activation of ERBB2 signaling causes resistance to the EGFR-directed therapeutic antibody Cetuximab. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(99):99ra86–99ra86.
Gutiérrez VF, et al. Genetic profile of second primary tumors and recurrences in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Head Neck. 2011;34(6):830–9.
Iida M, et al. Targeting the HER family with pan-HER effectively overcomes resistance to Cetuximab. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(9):2175–86.
Adams CW, et al. Humanization of a recombinant monoclonal antibody to produce a therapeutic HER dimerization inhibitor, pertuzumab. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2005;55(6):717–27.
Erjala K. Signaling via ErbB2 and ErbB3 associates with resistance and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification with sensitivity to EGFR inhibitor Gefitinib in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(13):4103–11.
Schoeberl B, et al. Therapeutically targeting ErbB3: a key node in ligand-induced activation of the ErbB receptor-PI3K Axis. Sci Signal. 2009;2(77):ra31–ra31.
Huang J, et al. The anti-erbB3 antibody MM-121/SAR256212 in combination with trastuzumab exerts potent antitumor activity against trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer. 2013;12(1):134.
Liu JF, et al. Randomized phase II trial of Seribantumab in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced platinum-resistant or -refractory ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(36):4345–53.
McDonagh CF, et al. Antitumor activity of a novel bispecific antibody that targets the ErbB2/ErbB3 oncogenic unit and inhibits Heregulin-induced activation of ErbB3. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(3):582–93.
Okazaki S, et al. Development of an ErbB4 monoclonal antibody that blocks neuregulin-1-induced ErbB4 activation in cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2016;470(1):239–44.
Lange T, et al. Trastuzumab has anti-metastatic and anti-angiogenic activity in a spontaneous metastasis xenograft model of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Lett. 2011;308(1):54–61.
Norman G, et al. Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(Suppl_1):33–42.
Slamon DJ, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast Cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):783–92.
Bang Y-J, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9742):687–97.
Kondo N, et al. Antitumor effect of gefitinib on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma enhanced by trastuzumab. Oncol Rep. 2008;20(2):373–8.
Kondo N, et al. Combined molecular targeted drug therapy for EGFR and HER-2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines. Int J Oncol. 2012;40(6):1805–12.
Wilson TR, et al. Neuregulin-1-mediated autocrine signaling underlies sensitivity to HER2 kinase inhibitors in a subset of human cancers. Cancer Cell. 2011;20(2):158–72.
Kulkarni S, et al. TMEM16A/ANO1 suppression improves response to antibody mediated targeted therapy of EGFR and HER2/ERBB2. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2017;56:460–71.
Fayette J, et al. Randomized phase II study of Duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) vs. Cetuximab in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (MEHGAN study). Front Oncol. 2016;6:232.
Jimeno A, et al. Phase Ib study of duligotuzumab (MEHD7945A) plus cisplatin/5-fluorouracil or carboplatin/paclitaxel for first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer. 2016;122(24):3803–11.
Juric D, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of the first-in-class dual action HER3/EGFR antibody MEHD7945A in locally advanced or metastatic epithelial tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(11):2462–70.
Lee S, et al. Inhibition of ErbB3 by a monoclonal antibody that locks the extracellular domain in an inactive configuration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(43):13225–30.
Brand TM, et al. Human papillomavirus regulates HER3 expression in head and neck Cancer: implications for targeted HER3 therapy in HPV+ patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(12):3072–83.
Cohen EEW, et al. Phase II trial of ZD1839 in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(10):1980–7.
Cohen EEW. Phase II trial of Gefitinib 250 mg daily in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(23):8418–24.
Caponigro F, et al. A phase I/II trial of gefitinib and radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced inoperable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Anti-Cancer Drugs. 2008;19(7):739–44.
Hainsworth JD, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy/gefitinib followed by concurrent chemotherapy/radiation therapy/gefitinib for patients with locally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer. 2009;115(10):2138–46.
Stewart JSW, et al. Phase III study of Gefitinib compared with intravenous methotrexate for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(11):1864–71.
Baselga J, et al. Phase I safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic trial of ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with five selected solid tumor types. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(21):4292–302.
Perez CA, et al. Phase II study of gefitinib adaptive dose escalation to skin toxicity in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(9):887–92.
Argiris A, et al. Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trial of docetaxel with or without Gefitinib in recurrent or metastatic head and neck Cancer: an eastern cooperative oncology group trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(11):1405–14.
Chen L, et al. Predictive factors associated with gefitinib response in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Chin J Cancer Res. 2014;26(4):466–70.
Scheffler M, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of tyrosine kinase inhibitors: focus on 4-anilinoquinazolines. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(6):371–403.
Swaisland HC, et al. Single-dose clinical pharmacokinetic studies of gefitinib. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(11):1165–77.
Siu LL, et al. Phase I/II trial of Erlotinib and cisplatin in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a Princess Margaret Hospital phase II consortium and National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(16):2178–83.
Hamilton M, et al. Effects of smoking on the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(7 Pt 1):2166–71.
Xia W, et al. Anti-tumor activity of GW572016: a dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor blocks EGF activation of EGFR/erbB2 and downstream Erk1/2 and AKT pathways. Oncogene. 2002;21(41):6255–63.
de Souza JA, et al. A phase II study of Lapatinib in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(8):2336–43.
Harrington K, et al. Postoperative adjuvant Lapatinib and concurrent Chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance Lapatinib monotherapy in high-risk patients with resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(35):4202–9.
Sacco AG, Worden FP. Molecularly targeted therapy for the treatment of head and neck cancer: a review of the ErbB family inhibitors. OncoTargets and therapy. 2016;9:1927.
Solca F, et al. Target binding properties and cellular activity of Afatinib (BIBW 2992), an irreversible ErbB family blocker. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2012;343(2):342–50.
Markovic A, Chung CH. Current role of EGF receptor monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12(9):1149–59.
Machiels J-PH, et al. Activity of afatinib administered in a window pre-operative study in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) : EORTC-90111. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15_suppl):6049–6049.
Cohen EEW, et al. Biomarker analysis in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) patients (pts) treated with second-line afatinib versus methotrexate (MTX): LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LUX-H&N1). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(15_suppl):6023–6023.
Burtness B, et al. LUX-head and neck 2: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of afatinib as adjuvant therapy after chemoradiation (CRT) in primary unresected, high/intermediate-risk, squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (HNSCC) patients (pts). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15_suppl):6001–6001
Kalous O, et al. Dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible pan-HER inhibitor, inhibits proliferation of HER2-amplified breast Cancer cell lines resistant to Trastuzumab and Lapatinib. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(9):1978–87.
Engelman JA, et al. PF00299804, an irreversible pan-ERBB inhibitor, is effective in lung Cancer models with EGFR and ERBB2 mutations that are resistant to Gefitinib. Cancer Res. 2007;67(24):11924–32.
Williams JP, et al. Pre-clinical characterization of Dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible pan-ErbB inhibitor, combined with ionizing radiation for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e98557.
Chiu JW, et al. Pharmacokinetic assessment of dacomitinib (pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA SCCHN) following administration through a gastrostomy feeding tube (GT). Investig New Drugs. 2015;33(4):895–900.
Audet M-L, et al. Evaluation of potential predictive markers of efficacy of dacomitinib in patients (pts) with recurrent/metastatic SCCHN from a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15_suppl):6041–6041.
Cai X, et al. Discovery of 7-(4-(3-Ethynylphenylamino)-7-methoxyquinazolin-6-yloxy)-N-hydroxyheptanamide (CUDC-101) as a potent multi-acting HDAC, EGFR, and HER2 inhibitor for the treatment of Cancer. J Med Chem. 2010;53(5):2000–9.
Lai CJ, et al. CUDC-101, a multitargeted inhibitor of histone deacetylase, epidermal growth factor receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, exerts potent anticancer activity. Cancer Res. 2010;70(9):3647–56.
Galloway TJ, et al. A phase I study of CUDC-101, a multitarget inhibitor of HDACs, EGFR, and HER2, in combination with Chemoradiation in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(7):1566–73.
Xie T, et al. Pharmacological targeting of the pseudokinase Her3. Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10(12):1006–12.
Mizrachi A, et al. Tumour-specific PI3K inhibition via nanoparticle-targeted delivery in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14292.
Zumsteg ZS, et al. Taselisib (GDC-0032), a potent beta-sparing small molecule inhibitor of PI3K, Radiosensitizes head and neck squamous carcinomas containing activating PIK3CA alterations. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(8):2009–19.
Burris HA, 3rd, Overcoming acquired resistance to anticancer therapy: focus on the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;71(4):829–842.
Dolly SO, et al. Phase I study of Apitolisib (GDC-0980), dual Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase and mammalian target of rapamycin kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(12):2874–84.
Geiger JL, et al. Phase II trial of everolimus in patients with previously treated recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38(12):1759–64.
Anisuzzaman AS, et al. In vitro and in vivo synergistic antitumor activity of the combination of BKM120 and erlotinib in head and neck cancer: mechanism of apoptosis and resistance. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16:729–38.
Rebucci M, et al. Mechanisms underlying resistance to cetuximab in the HNSCC cell line: role of AKT inhibition in bypassing this resistance. Int J Oncol. 2011;38(1):189–200.
Mohan S, et al. MEK inhibitor PD-0325901 overcomes resistance to PI3K/mTOR inhibitor PF-5212384 and potentiates antitumor effects in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(17):3946–56.
Gonzales CB, et al. Co-targeting ALK and EGFR parallel signaling in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2016;59:12–9.
Zhou J, et al. CDK4/6 or MAPK blockade enhances efficacy of EGFR inhibition in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2017;8:13897.
Michel L, et al. Phase I trial of palbociclib, a selective cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, in combination with cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2016;58:41–8.
Zeng L, et al. Combining Chk1/2 inhibition with cetuximab and radiation enhances in vitro and in vivo cytotoxicity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16(4):591–600.
Huang KK, et al. Exome sequencing reveals recurrent REV3L mutations in cisplatin-resistant squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19552.
Koole K, et al. FGFR1 is a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3884–93.
Muntasell A, et al. Targeting NK-cell checkpoints for cancer immunotherapy. Curr Opin Immunol. 2017;45:73–81.
Srivastava RM, et al. CD137 stimulation enhances Cetuximab-induced natural killer: dendritic cell priming of antitumor T-cell immunity in patients with head and neck Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(3):707–16.
Luedke E, et al. Cetuximab therapy in head and neck cancer: immune modulation with interleukin-12 and other natural killer cell-activating cytokines. Surgery. 2012;152(3):431–40.
Kumai T, et al. Targeting HER-3 to elicit antitumor helper T cells against head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16280.
Jie HB, et al. CTLA-4(+) regulatory T cells increased in Cetuximab-treated head and neck Cancer patients suppress NK cell cytotoxicity and correlate with poor prognosis. Cancer Res. 2015;75(11):2200–10.
Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(4):252–64.
Lyford-Pike S, et al. Evidence for a role of the PD-1:PD-L1 pathway in immune resistance of HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2013;73(6):1733–41.
Concha-Benavente F, et al. Identification of the cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic pathways downstream of EGFR and IFNgamma that induce PD-L1 expression in head and neck Cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76(5):1031–43.
Boeckx C, et al. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: focus on potential molecular mechanisms of drug resistance. Oncologist. 2013;18(7):850–64.
Wheeler DL, et al. Mechanisms of acquired resistance to cetuximab: role of HER (ErbB) family members. Oncogene. 2008;27(28):3944–56.
Wheeler DL, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor cooperates with Src family kinases in acquired resistance to cetuximab. Cancer Biol Ther. 2009;8(8):696–703.
Lu Y, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ubiquitination as a mechanism of acquired resistance escaping treatment by the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody Cetuximab. Cancer Res. 2007;67(17):8240–7.
P O-charoenrat, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor family members are differentially regulated by c-erbB signaling in head and neck squamous carcinoma cells. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2000;18(2):155–61.
Sen M, et al. Targeting Stat3 abrogates EGFR inhibitor resistance in Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(18):4986–96.
Misale S, et al. Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature. 2012;486:532–6.
Diaz LA Jr, et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature. 2012;486(7404):537–40.
Johansson AC, et al. Cancer-associated fibroblasts induce matrix metalloproteinase-mediated Cetuximab resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells. Mol Cancer Res. 2012;10(9):1158–68.
Ogawa T, et al. Methylation of death-associated protein kinase is associated with cetuximab and erlotinib resistance. Cell Cycle. 2012;11(8):1656–63.
Ahsan A, et al. Role of epidermal growth factor receptor degradation in cisplatin-induced cytotoxicity in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70(7):2862–9.
Stoehlmacher-Williams J, et al. Polymorphisms of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and survival in patients with advanced cancer of the head and neck (HNSCC). Anticancer Res. 2012;32(2):421–5.
Wang Y, et al. A meta-analysis on the relations between EGFR R521K polymorphism and risk of Cancer. Int J Genomics. 2014;2014:1–7.
Shinkawa T, et al. The absence of Fucose but not the presence of galactose or bisecting N-Acetylglucosamine of human IgG1 complex-type oligosaccharides shows the critical role of enhancing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. J Biol Chem. 2002;278(5):3466–73.
Suzuki E, et al. A Nonfucosylated anti-HER2 antibody augments antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity in breast Cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(6):1875–82.
Braig F, et al. Cetuximab resistance in head and neck cancer is mediated by EGFR-K521Polymorphism. Cancer Res. 2016;77(5):1188–99.
Ritter CA, et al. Human breast cancer cells selected for resistance to Trastuzumab in vivo overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor and ErbB ligands and remain dependent on the ErbB receptor network. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(16):4909–19.
Wang D, et al. HER3 targeting sensitizes HNSCC to Cetuximab by reducing HER3 activity and HER2/HER3 dimerization: evidence from cell line and patient-derived xenograft models. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;23(3):677–86.
Cabebe E, Wakelee H. Role of anti-angiogenesis agents in treating NSCLC: focus on bevacizumab and VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2007;8(1):15–27.
Ellis LM, Hicklin DJ. VEGF-targeted therapy: mechanisms of anti-tumour activity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(8):579–91.
Ratushny V, et al. Targeting EGFR resistance networks in head and neck cancer. Cell Signal. 2009;21(8):1255–68.
Seiwert TY, Cohen EEW. Targeting angiogenesis in head and neck cancer. Semin Oncol. 2008;35(3):274–85.
Liao YH, et al. Epidermal growth factor-induced ANGPTL4 enhances anoikis resistance and tumour metastasis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncogene. 2017;36(16):2228–42.
Mayer A, et al. Downregulation of EGFR in hypoxic, diffusion-limited areas of squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(11):1351–8.
Bossi P, et al. Functional genomics uncover the biology behind the responsiveness of head and neck squamous cell Cancer patients to Cetuximab. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3961–70.
Riedel F, et al. EGFR antisense treatment of human HNSCC cell lines down-regulates VEGF expression and endothelial cell migration. Int J Oncol. 2002;21(1):11–6.
Cohen EEW, et al. Erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a phase I/II study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(3):247–57.
Soulieres D, et al. Multicenter phase II study of Erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell Cancer of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(1):77–85.
Fury MG, et al. A phase II study of SU5416 in patients with advanced or recurrent head and neck cancers. Investig New Drugs. 2006;25(2):165–72.
Elser C, et al. Phase II trial of Sorafenib in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3766–73.
Gilbert J, et al. A randomized phase II efficacy and correlative studies of cetuximab with or without sorafenib in recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(4):376–82.
Argiris A, et al. Cetuximab and bevacizumab: preclinical data and phase II trial in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ann Oncol. 2012;24(1):220–5.
Argiris A, et al. Phase II randomized trial of radiation therapy, cetuximab, and pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1594–600.
Hurwitz SJ, et al. Pharmacodynamics of DT-IgG, a dual-targeting antibody against VEGF-EGFR, in tumor xenografted mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;69(3):577–90.
Zhang H, et al. A dual-targeting antibody against EGFR-VEGF for lung and head and neck cancer treatment. Int J Cancer. 2011;131(4):956–69.
Lecaros RLG, et al. Nanoparticle delivered VEGF-A siRNA enhances photodynamic therapy for head and neck cancer treatment. Mol Ther. 2016;24(1):106–16.
Liu F-Y, et al. CCR7 regulates cell migration and invasion through JAK2/STAT3 in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:1–11.
Karnoub AE, Weinberg RA. Ras oncogenes: split personalities. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(7):517–31.
Suda T, et al. Copy number amplification of the PIK3CA gene is associated with poor prognosis in non-lymph node metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:416.
Smilek P, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression and mutations in the EGFR signaling pathway in correlation with anti-EGFR therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Neoplasma. 2012;59(05):508–15.
Braig F, et al. Liquid biopsy monitoring uncovers acquired RAS-mediated resistance to cetuximab in a substantial proportion of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(28):42988–95.
Rampias T, et al. RAS/PI3K crosstalk and cetuximab resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(11):2933–46.
Tinhofer I, et al. Targeted next-generation sequencing of locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck reveals druggable targets for improving adjuvant chemoradiation. Eur J Cancer. 2016;57:78–86.
Pedrero JM, et al. Frequent genetic and biochemical alterations of the PI 3-K/AKT/PTEN pathway in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2005;114(2):242–8.
Lyu J, et al. Predictive value of pAKT/PTEN expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma treated with cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;121(1):67–72.
Burtness B, et al. Activity of cetuximab (C) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients (pts) with PTEN loss or PIK3CA mutation treated on E5397, a phase III trial of cisplatin (CDDP) with placebo (P) or C. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15_suppl):6028–6028
McAllister SS, Weinberg RA. Tumor-host interactions: a far-reaching relationship. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(26):4022–8.
Raudenska M, et al. Prognostic significance of the tumour-adjacent tissue in head and neck cancers. Tumour Biol. 2015;36(12):9929–39.
Baylin SB. Aberrant patterns of DNA methylation, chromatin formation and gene expression in cancer. Hum Mol Genet. 2001;10(7):687–92.
Chang X, et al. Identification of Hypermethylated genes associated with cisplatin resistance in human cancers. Cancer Res. 2010;70(7):2870–9.
Gifford G. The acquisition of hMLH1 methylation in plasma DNA after chemotherapy predicts poor survival for ovarian cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(13):4420–6.
Segura-Pacheco B, et al. Global DNA hypermethylation-associated cancer chemotherapy resistance and its reversion with the demethylating agent hydralazine. J Transl Med. 2006;4:32.
Bedi A, et al. Inhibition of TGF-enhances the in vivo antitumor efficacy of EGF receptor-targeted therapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2012;11(11):2429–39.
Hoellein A, et al. Aurora kinase inhibition overcomes Cetuximab resistance in squamous cell Cancer of the head and neck. Oncotarget. 2011;2(8):599–609.
Astsaturov I, et al. Synthetic lethal screen of an EGFR-centered network to improve targeted therapies. Sci Signal. 2010;3(140):ra67-ra67.
Yuan L, et al. Recurrent FGFR3-TACC3 fusion gene in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Biol Ther. 2014;15(12):1613–21.
Daly C, et al. FGFR3-TACC3 fusion proteins act as naturally occurring drivers of tumor resistance by functionally substituting for EGFR/ERK signaling. Oncogene. 2017;36(4):471–81.
Burtness B, et al. NCCN task force report: management of dermatologic and other toxicities associated with EGFR inhibition in patients with cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S5–21. quiz S22-4
Fernandez-Mateos J, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway polymorphisms as predictive markers of cetuximab toxicity in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in a Spanish population. Oral Oncol. 2016;63:38–43.
O’Neil BH, et al. High incidence of Cetuximab-related infusion reactions in Tennessee and North Carolina and the association with atopic history. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3644–8.
Baas JM, et al. Recommendations on management of EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38(5):505–14.
Kohl P, et al. Systems biology: an approach. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2010;88(1):25–33.
Chow YP, et al. Exome sequencing identifies potentially Druggable mutations in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2017;7:42980.
William WN, et al. Erlotinib and the risk of oral cancer: the erlotinib prevention of oral cancer (epoc) randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(2):209–16.
Khan Z, et al. Cetuximab activity in dysplastic lesions of the upper aerodigestive tract. Oral Oncol. 2016;53:60–6.
Ariotti N, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor activation remodels the plasma membrane lipid environment to induce nanocluster formation. Mol Cell Biol. 2010;30(15):3795–804.
Clayton AH, et al. Ligand-induced dimer-tetramer transition during the activation of the cell surface epidermal growth factor receptor—a multidimensional microscopy analysis. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(34):30392–9.
Needham SR, et al. EGFR oligomerization organizes kinase-active dimers into competent signalling platforms. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13307.
Ramirez UD, et al. Compounds identified by virtual docking to a tetrameric EGFR extracellular domain can modulate Grb2 internalization. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:436.
Ferris RL, et al. Phase II trial of post-operative radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin plus panitumumab in patients with high-risk, resected head and neck cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(12):2257–62.
Machiels J-P, et al. Zalutumumab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(4):333–43.
Rodriguez MO, et al. Nimotuzumab plus radiotherapy for unresectable squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;9(5):343–9.
Reddy BK, et al. Nimotuzumab provides survival benefit to patients with inoperable advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomized, open-label, phase IIb, 5-year study in Indian patients. Oral Oncol. 2014;50(5):498–505.
Rao S, et al. Phase I study of epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine plus matuzumab in previously untreated patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(6):868–74.
Rao S, et al. Matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) compared with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a randomised, multicentre open-label phase II study. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(11):2213–9.
Martins RG, et al. Cisplatin and radiotherapy with or without Erlotinib in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(11):1415–21.
Yao M, et al. Phase II study of erlotinib and docetaxel with concurrent intensity-modulated radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38(Suppl 1):E1770–6.
Harrington KJ, et al. Final analysis: a randomized, blinded, placebo (P)-controlled phase III study of adjuvant postoperative lapatinib (L) with concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CH-RT) in high-risk patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). J Clin Oncol 2014;32(15_suppl):6005–6005
Huo ZJ, et al. Novel nanosystem to enhance the antitumor activity of lapatinib in breast cancer treatment: therapeutic efficacy evaluation. Cancer Sci. 2015;106(10):1429–37.
Machiels JP, et al. Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(5):583–94.
Abdul Razak AR, et al. A phase II trial of dacomitinib, an oral pan-human EGF receptor (HER) inhibitor, as first-line treatment in recurrent and/or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Ann Oncol. 2012;24(3):761–9.
Kim HS, et al. Phase II clinical and exploratory biomarker study of dacomitinib in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(3):544–52.
Acknowledgments
The authors were supported by R21CA191425 and R01DK108195 (to EAG), Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award F30 Fellowship (F30 CA180607 to TNB), and NIH core grant CA06927 (to Fox Chase Cancer Center).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kiseleva, A., Beck, T.N., Serebriiskii, I.G., Liu, H., Burtness, B., Golemis, E.A. (2018). Targeting the ErbB Family in Head and Neck Cancer. In: Burtness, B., Golemis, E. (eds) Molecular Determinants of Head and Neck Cancer. Current Cancer Research. Humana Press, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78762-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78762-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78761-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78762-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)