Trial reportJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2025
Randomized clinical efficacy and safety study of peltopepimut-S plus cemiplimab compared to cemiplimab alone in patients with recurrent/metastatic HPV16-positive head and neck cancer.
Trial report in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03669718 (A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Study of Cemiplimab Versus the Combination of Cemiplimab With ISA101b in the Treatment of Subjects With HPV16-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Study of Cemiplimab Versus the Combination of Cemiplimab With ISA101b in the Treatment of Subjects With HPV16-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer (OPC)
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical research progress and challenges of vaccine for human papillomavirus-associated cancers.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Redefining oropharyngeal cancer in the HPV era: integrating precision medicine and immunotherapeutic frontiers.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- The current landscape of therapeutic vaccination approaches for treatment of HPV-dependent malignancies.NPJ vaccines · 2026Review
- Bright side of the dark genome: antigens for next-gen cancer vaccines.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Review
- Therapeutic vaccination for active induction of T cell immunity against cancer, ready for a rich harvest after 40 years.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Review
- Advances in immunotherapy for HPV-associated malignancies: emerging strategies and clinical progress.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeltopepimut-S is a therapeutic vaccine, which induces specific expansion of both CD4+helper and CD8+cytotoxic T-cells against human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) E6/E7 oncoproteins. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn a randomized phase 2 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of peltopepimut-S plus cemiplimab compared with cemiplimab alone as first-line or second-line therapy in recurrent/metastatic HPV16-positive head and neck cancer. The primary efficacy endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) by an independent review (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, RECIST v1.1), while the primary safety endpoint was frequency and severity of adverse events. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
resultsOverall, 198 anti-programmed cell death protein-1 therapy-naïve patients with confirmed HPV16-positive recurrent/metastatic oropharyngeal cancer were randomized to receive cemiplimab plus peltopepimut-S (n=100) or placebo (n=99). The trial did not meet its primary objective (ORR, 25.3% in peltopepimut-S arm vs 22.9% in placebo arm; p=0.735). The median OS (mOS) and PFS in the placebo arm were unexpectedly longer than in the peltopepimut-S arm (26.9 vs 15.8 months) and (20.3 vs 5.5 months), respectively. In predefined exploratory analyses this was associated with an excess death rate from progressive disease in patients with pre-treatment programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) <20. In contrast, patients with CPS ≥20 had a higher ORR of 51.7% (95% CI, 32.5% to 70.6%) vs 25.8% (95% CI, 11.9% to 44.6%) and a longer mOS in the peltopepimut-S arm (34.8 vs 28.8 months) compared with the placebo arm, respectively. If patients had received all three vaccine or placebo doses, the ORR in patients with CPS ≥20 was 70.0% (95% CI, 45.7% to 88.1%) vs 29.2% (95% CI, 12.6% to 51.1%) in the peltopepimut-S arm and placebo arms, respectively, associated with mOS not reached (after 42 months) versus 23.3 months. The addition of peltopepimut-S to cemiplimab did not increase cemiplimab's toxicity.
conclusionAdding peltopepimut-S to cemiplimab did not improve ORR and worsened mOS in the primary analysis. Divergent outcomes were seen in patients with pretreatment PD-L1 CPS <20 (worse ORR and mOS compared with placebo) and CPS ≥20 (higher ORR and longer mOS compared with placebo) values. Future drug development is justifiable in the CPS ≥20 patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03669718.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.