Search

Purpose: Epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are standard first-line therapy for EGFR -mutant, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients experience disease progression. We report results from the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-789 study of pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab for TKI-resistant, EGFR -mutant, metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03515837)., Methods: Adults with pathologically confirmed stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC, documented DEL19 or L858R EGFR mutation, and progression after EGFR-TKI treatment were randomly assigned 1:1 to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks plus four cycles of pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin once every 3 weeks and then maintenance pemetrexed. Dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Final PFS testing was completed at the second interim analysis (IA2; data cutoff, December 3, 2021); OS was tested at final analysis (FA; data cutoff, January 17, 2023). Efficacy boundaries were one-sided P = .0117 for PFS and OS., Results: Four hundred ninety-two patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 245) or placebo plus chemotherapy (n = 247). At IA2, the median PFS was 5.6 months for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus 5.5 months for placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97]; P = .0122). At FA, the median OS was 15.9 versus 14.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02]; P = .0362). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 43.7% of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy recipients versus 38.6% of placebo plus chemotherapy recipients., Conclusion: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in patients with TKI-resistant, EGFR -mutant, metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC did not significantly prolong PFS or OS versus placebo plus chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-789.

Purpose: The open-label, phase III EVOKE-01 study evaluated sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus standard-of-care docetaxel in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with progression on/after platinum-based chemotherapy, anti-PD-(L)1, and targeted treatment for actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Primary analysis is reported., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by histology, best response to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen, and AGA treatment received or not) to SG (one 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) or docetaxel (one 75 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion on day 1) in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, patient-reported symptom assessment, and safety., Results: In the intention-to-treat population (SG, n = 299; docetaxel, n = 304), 55.4% had one previous line of therapy. Median follow-up was 12.7 months (range, 6.0-24.0). The primary end point was not met. There was a numerical OS improvement for SG versus docetaxel (median, 11.1 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .0534), consistent across squamous and nonsquamous histologies. Median PFS was 4.1 versus 3.9 months (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.11]). An OS benefit was observed for SG (n = 192) versus docetaxel (n = 191) in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen (3.5-month median OS increase; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97]); this was consistent across histologies. Among patients receiving SG and docetaxel, 6.8% and 14.2% discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), respectively; 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, had TRAEs leading to death., Conclusion: Although statistical significance was not met, OS numerically improved with SG versus docetaxel, which was consistent across histologies. Clinically meaningful improvement in OS was noted in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen. SG was better tolerated than docetaxel and consistent with its known safety profile, with no new safety signals.

RET fusions are relatively rare in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers (NSCLCs), being around 1-2% of all NSCLCs. They share the same clinical features as the other fusion-driven NSCLC patients, as follows: younger age, adenocarcinoma histology, low exposure to tobacco, and high risk of spreading to the brain. Chemotherapy and immunotherapy have a low impact on the prognosis of these patients. Multitargeted RET inhibitors have shown modest activity jeopardized by high toxicity. New potent and selective RET inhibitors (RET-Is) (pralsetinib and selpercatinib) have achieved a higher efficacy minimizing the known toxicities of the multitargeted agents. This review will describe the sensitivity of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in RET fusion + NSCLC patients, as well their experiences with the 'old' multi-targeted RET inhibitors. This review will focus on the advent of new potent and selective RET-Is. We will describe their efficacy as well as the main mechanisms of resistance to them. We will further proceed to deal with the new drugs and strategies proposed to overcome the resistance to RET-Is. In the last section, we will also focus on the safety profile of RET-Is, dealing with the main toxicities as well as the rare but severe adverse events.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) poses a significant challenge in clinical oncology, necessitating continual refinement of treatment approaches in stages II and III. Recent advancements have highlighted the potential of neoadjuvant therapy in optimising patient outcomes. Biomarker testing guides neoadjuvant therapy decisions, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression testing. Neoadjuvant therapy aims to improve oncological outcomes by treating micrometastatic disease and assessing tumour response before surgery. Disease-free survival is a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Multidisciplinary collaboration is crucial for individualised treatment planning and optimising patient care. The management of NSCLC requires a comprehensive approach, integrating expertise across disciplines and tailoring treatment strategies to individual patient needs. Neoadjuvant therapy shows promise in improving long-term outcomes, with biomarker testing guiding treatment decisions. Challenges such as defining borderline resectability and differentiating pseudoprogression highlight the need for ongoing research and collaboration.

Background: Patients with EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib have few treatment options. Here, we report the primary analysis of the phase 2 INSIGHT 2 study evaluating tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, combined with osimertinib in this population., Methods: This open-label, phase 2 study was conducted at 179 academic centres and community clinics in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC of any histology, with MET amplification by tissue biopsy fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH; MET gene copy number of ≥5 or MET-to-CEP7 ratio of ≥2) or liquid biopsy next-generation sequencing (MET plasma gene copy number of ≥2·3), following progression on first-line osimertinib. Patients received oral tepotinib 500 mg plus oral osimertinib 80 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed objective response in patients with MET amplification by central FISH treated with tepotinib plus osimertinib with at least 9 months of follow-up. Safety was analysed in patients who received at least one study drug dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03940703 (enrolment complete)., Findings: Between Feb 13, 2020, and Nov 4, 2022, 128 patients (74 [58%] female, 54 [42%] male) were enrolled and initiated tepotinib plus osimertinib. The primary activity analysis population included 98 patients with MET amplification confirmed by central FISH, previous first-line osimertinib and at least 9 months of follow-up (median 12·7 months [IQR 9·9-20·3]). The confirmed objective response rate was 50·0% (95% CI 39·7-60·3; 49 of 98 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or worse adverse events were peripheral oedema (six [5%] of 128 patients), decreased appetite (five [4%]), prolonged electrocardiogram QT interval (five [4%]), and pneumonitis (four [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16 (13%) patients. Deaths of four (3%) patients were assessed as potentially related to either trial drug by the investigator due to pneumonitis (two [2%] patients), decreased platelet count (one [1%]), respiratory failure (one [1%]), and dyspnoea (one [1%]); one death was attributed to both pneumonitis and dyspnoea., Interpretation: Tepotinib plus osimertinib showed promising activity and acceptable safety in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and MET amplification as a mechanism of resistance to first-line osimertinib, suggesting a potential chemotherapy-sparing oral targeted therapy option that should be further investigated., Funding: Merck (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Y-LW reports receiving institute grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Roche; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Hengrui, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. VG reports receiving personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Olema Oncology; speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Gilead, GSK, and Novartis; fees for expert testimony for Eli Lilly; and travel support from Gilead, AstraZeneca, and PharmaMar. PJV reports receiving personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. MWi reports receiving personal advisory board fees, consulting fees, speaker fees, and institute grants from AstraZeneca. CKL reports receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Zuellig Pharma; travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. JM reports receiving advisory board fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD, and research funding to his institution from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Pierre Fabre. LMT reports receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; personal honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. HH reports receiving honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sysmex Corporation, 3H Medi Solution, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Biopharma Co, Tokyo, Japan, an affiliate of Merck, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Takeda, and MSD; research funding from IQVIA, Syneos Health Clinical, EPS Corporation, Nippon Kayaku, Takeda, MSD, Amgen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, CMIC, Pfizer R&D, LabCorp, Kobayashi Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Eisai, EP-CRSU, Shionogi & Co, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, GSK, Sanofi, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, SRL Medisearch, PRA Health Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Ascent Development Services, and Bayer; and financial support for the present manuscript from Guardant Health. PLC reports receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer, and honoraria fees from AstraZeneca. JR reports receiving personal honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, speaker fees (to their institution) from Merck, and advisory board fees (to their institution) from Merck. GF reports receiving personal fees for speaker engagements with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and MSD, and travel support from Roche. TK reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Taiho, and Takeda; receiving research funding for their institution from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BluePrint, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haihe Biopharma, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, and TurningPoint; receiving advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer; and their spouse as an employee of Eli Lilly. EN reports receiving research funding from Roche, Pfizer, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, Pierre Fabre, Qiagen, and Bayer; personal honoraria for lectures from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, Qiagen, Mirati, and Bayer; travel support from Takeda, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and fees for participation in data safety meetings from Apollomics. HSH reports receiving research grants for their institution from AstraZeneca, Merck, Janssen, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria and fees for lectures and advisory board meetings from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Janssen; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. EFS reports receiving advisory or consultancy fees to their institution from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Daiichi Sankyo; personal speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and advisory board fees from Merck and Daiichi Sankyo. MWe reports holding a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, ISA Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Immatics, Bayer, and ImCheck therapeutics; honoraria fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, SYNLAB, Janssen, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, GWT, Amgen, and Novartis; travel support from Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GEMoaB, Sanofi/Aventis, Immatics, and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck; and research funding to his institution from Roche. DT reports receiving consulting fees for their institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Takeda; research funding from ACM Biolabs, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Pfizer; and speaker fees for their institution from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Takeda. MM reports receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; personal honoraria fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, MSD, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; and other clinical trial support from Chugai Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, Kissei, Taiho, and Novartis. AO’B, SA, BMP, CS, DJ, RS, BE-L, and NK report being employees of Merck. KB reports being an employee of Merck at the time of the study and manuscript preparation. KG reports being an employee of EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck. XL reports receiving consulting fees from EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, AstraZeneca, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hengrui Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint Medicines, Sensei Biotherapeutics, AbbVie, Arrivent, and Regeneron; travel support from Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, and research funding to their institution from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, and Regeneron. TMK reports receiving grants for their institution from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Yuhan; honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, IMBDx, Janssen, Takeda, and Yuhan; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Regeneron, and Takeda; and clinical trial funding to their institution from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Bayer, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Boryung, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dizal, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck, Roche/Genentech, Hanmi, Genmab, Janssen, Novartis, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Yuhan. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Actionable driver mutations account for 40-50% of NSCLC cases, and their identification clearly affects treatment choices and outcomes. Conversely, non-actionable mutations are genetic alterations that do not currently have established treatment implications. Among co-occurring alterations, the identification of concurrent actionable genomic alterations is a rare event, potentially impacting prognosis and treatment outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the prevalence and patterns of concurrent driver genomic alterations in a large series of NSCLCs to investigate their association with clinicopathological characteristics, to assess the prognosis of patients whose tumor harbors concurrent alterations in the genes of interest and to explore their potential therapeutic implications. Results: Co-occurring driver alterations were identified in 26 out of 1520 patients with at least one gene alteration (1.7%). Within these cases, the incidence of concurrent actionable gene alterations was 39% (0.7% of the overall cohort). Among compound actionable gene mutations, EGFR was the most frequently involved gene (70%). The most frequent association was EGFR mutations with ROS1 rearrangement. Front-line targeted treatments were the preferred approach in patients with compound actionable mutations, with dismal median PFS observed (6 months). Conclusions: Advances in genomic profiling technologies are facilitating the identification of concurrent mutations. In patients with concurrent actionable gene alterations, integrated molecular and clinical data should be used to guide treatment decisions, always considering rebiopsy at the moment of disease progression.

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the current standard treatment option in patients with EGFR -mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress on osimertinib. However, outcomes with chemotherapy are dismal, and the treatment of central nervous system (CNS) disease is an unmet need in this setting., Methods: Patients with EGFR -mutant NSCLC who were candidates to receive osimertinib in the metastatic setting at our Center from 2015 to 2022 were retrospectively evaluated to identify patients who received standard platinum-based chemotherapy post-osimertinib. Data were collected on treatment outcomes, with a focus on brain metastases and progression patterns., Results: A total of 220 patients received indication for osimertinib in the study period; n = 176 had adequate follow-up data. Overall, n = 117 patients experienced disease progression on osimertinib. The median time to osimertinib progressive disease (PD) was 15 months (95% confidence interval CI 13-18). Of them, 51 patients (45%) had no access to further treatments. Of the remaining patients, n = 8 received experimental treatments, and n = 55 received standard platinum-based chemotherapy and were considered for this study. Median duration of chemotherapy was 3 months (95% CI 2-5); the best responses among 53 evaluable patients were observed as follows: 15% partial response/complete response (PR/CR), 40% stable disease (SD), 45% PD. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3 (95% CI 2-5) and 10 (95% CI 6-15) months, respectively. All patients had baseline and follow-up brain radiologic assessments, and n = 23 had brain metastases at the start of chemotherapy. With a median follow-up of 13 months, intracranial PD occurred in 47% patients, being the first site of PD in 59% of cases. The median time for intracranial (IC) PD was 2 months (95% CI 2-7). IC PD occurred as oligometastatic in 29%, whereas in 71% of cases, it was associated with systemic PD., Conclusions: Access to subsequent treatments and CNS progression are confirmed unmet needs in EGFR -mutant NSCLC patients. Clinical and CNS-specific outcomes in patients receiving standard chemotherapy after the failure of osimertinib are dismal. Novel upfront treatment options with demonstrated prolonged PFS and better CNS outcomes may help address this important issue.

Various next-generation ALK TKIs are available as first-line options for ALK-positive NSCLC, with alectinib and lorlatinib being commonly preferred. However, no direct comparison between them has been conducted, making it impossible to pick a winner. We performed an analytic, 'non-comparative' assessment of the two phase 3 pivotal clinical trials showing superiority of alectinib (ALEX) and lorlatinib (CROWN) in comparison to crizotinib. Overall, the two studies were very similar in the study design and patient characteristics, with the exception of the selection and evaluation of brain metastases. PFS hazard ratios numerically favored lorlatinib, both according to the investigator and to BICR. Notably, the 3-year PFS rate was numerically higher with lorlatinib (64%) than with alectinib (46.4%). Despite similar response rates and overall intracranial response, the rate of complete intracranial response was higher with lorlatinib, with a cumulative incidence risk of CNS disease progression at 12 months of 9.4% with alectinib and 2.8% with lorlatinib. The peculiar toxicities of lorlatinib were related to lipidic profile alterations, peripheral oedema and cognitive effects, with no impact on cardiovascular risk nor impairment in quality of life versus crizotinib. Furthermore, the rate of permanent treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was numerically higher with alectinib (26%) than with lorlatinib (7%). In conclusion, despite the immature OS data for both drugs, the efficacy of lorlatinib appears higher than alectinib while maintaining a manageable toxicity profile., Competing Interests: I. Attili received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. F. de Marinis received honoraria or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Xcovery and Roche outside the submitted work. A. Passaro reports personal fees, as a speaker bureau or advisor, for AstraZeneca, Agilent/Dako, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche Genentech outside the submitted work. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Non-small cell lung cancer is a heterogeneous disease and molecular characterisation plays an important role in its clinical management. Next-generation sequencing-based panel testing enables many molecular alterations to be interrogated simultaneously, allowing for comprehensive identification of actionable oncogenic drivers (and co-mutations) and appropriate matching of patients with targeted therapies. Despite consensus in international guidelines on the importance of broad molecular profiling, adoption of next-generation sequencing varies globally. One of the barriers to its successful implementation is a lack of accepted standards and guidelines specifically for the reporting and clinical annotation of next-generation sequencing results. Based on roundtable discussions between pathologists and oncologists, we provide best practice recommendations for the reporting of next-generation sequencing results in non-small cell lung cancer to facilitate its use and enable easy interpretation for physicians. These are intended to complement existing guidelines related to the use of next-generation sequencing (solid and liquid). Here, we discuss next-generation sequencing workflows, the structure of next-generation sequencing reports, and our recommendations for best practice thereof. The aim of these recommendations and considerations is ultimately to ensure that reports are fully interpretable, and that the most appropriate treatment options are selected based on robust molecular profiles in well-defined reports., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR -mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review., Results: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR -related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib., Conclusions: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR -mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK -positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN study. Here, we report long-term outcomes from CROWN after 5 years of follow-up., Methods: Two hundred ninety-six patients with ALK -positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 149) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 147). This post hoc analysis presents updated investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes, safety, and biomarker analyses., Results: With a median follow-up for PFS of 60.2 and 55.1 months, respectively, median PFS was not reached (NR [95% CI, 64.3 to NR]) with lorlatinib and 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.9) with crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.27]); 5-year PFS was 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) and 8% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median time to intracranial progression was NR (95% CI, NR to NR) with lorlatinib and 16.4 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.9) with crizotinib (HR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.12]). Safety profile was consistent with that in prior analyses. Emerging new ALK resistance mutations were not detected in circulating tumor DNA collected at the end of lorlatinib treatment., Conclusion: After 5 years of follow-up, median PFS has yet to be reached in the lorlatinib group, corresponding to the longest PFS ever reported with any single-agent molecular targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC and across all metastatic solid tumors. These results coupled with prolonged intracranial efficacy and absence of new safety signals represent an unprecedented outcome for patients with advanced ALK -positive NSCLC and set a new benchmark for targeted therapies in cancer.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma accounting for 15% of lung cancers with dismal survival outcomes. Minimal changes in therapy and prognosis have occurred in SCLC for the past four decades. Recent progress in the treatment of extensive-stage disease (ES-SCLC) has been marked by incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) into platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to modest improvements. Moreover, few second-line-and-beyond treatment options are currently available. The main limitation for the molecular study of SCLC has been the scarcity of samples, because only very early diseases are treated with surgery and biopsies are not performed when the disease progresses. Despite all these difficulties, in recent years we have come to understand that SCLC is not a homogeneous disease. At the molecular level, in addition to the universal loss of retinoblastoma (RB) and TP53 genes, a recent large molecular study has identified other mutations that could serve as targets for therapy development or patient selection. In recent years, there has also been the identification of new genetic subtypes which have shown us how intertumor heterogeneity exists. Moreover, SCLC can also develop intratumoral heterogeneity linked mainly to the concept of cellular plasticity, mostly due to the development of resistance to therapies. The aim of this review is to quickly present the current standard of care of ES-SCLC, to focus on the molecular landscapes and subtypes of SCLC, subsequently present the most promising therapeutic strategies under investigation, and finally recap the future directions of ongoing clinical trials for this aggressive disease which still remains a challenge.

Background: MAURIS is an Italian multicenter, open-label, phase IIIb ongoing trial, aiming at evaluating the safety and effectiveness of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide in patients with newly diagnosed, extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The primary objective is the safety evaluation., Materials and Methods: Patients received atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide Q3W for 4-6 cycles in the induction phase, followed by atezolizumab maintenance Q3W. We presented the interim analysis on safety (referring to the induction phase) and clinical effectiveness, in all patients (N = 154) and in subgroups that received ≤3 (N = 23), 4 (N = 43), and 5-6 cycles (N = 89) of induction., Results: At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, 139 patients (90.3%) discontinued treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 29.9% of patients overall, and the rate was lower in patients with 5-6 cycles (19.1%) than in those with 4 (34.9%) or ≤3 (63.6%) cycles. Immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 14.9%, 15.7%, 11.6%, and 18.2% of patients, overall and by subgroup, respectively. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.7 and 5.5 months, respectively. Overall, 111 patients (71.6%) had a tumor response., Conclusions: Interim results provide further evidences about safety and efficacy profile of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide treatment in a ES-SCLC patient population closer to that observed in clinical practice., Clinical Trial Registration: Eudract No. 2019-001146-17, NCT04028050., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK -positive NSCLC are lacking., Methods: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK -positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety., Results: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed., Conclusions: Among patients with resected ALK -positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Uncommon (ucEGFRmuts) and rare epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) mutations account for 10-15% of diagnosed cases and consist of a heterogeneous group represented by several clusters within exons 18-21 (e.g., exon 18 point mutations, exon 21 L861X, exon 20 S768I), as well as exon 20 insertions (Ex20ins). Their incidence is under molecular and clinical investigation following recent findings that reported an increase of sensitivity and specificity of next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods. Consequently, their detection allows for the selection of emerging treatment options to significantly improve patients' outcomes in these particular subgroups of EGFR -mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Specifically, this commentary is focused on the notable progress of the Phase 3 PAPILLON study that showed primary efficacy results from amivantamab, a bispecific antibody with specific binding and affinity to extracellular domains of EGFR and MET, plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients, as compared with chemotherapy alone, thus becoming the new standard of care in this group of patients.

Background: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy revolutionized treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients progress due to primary or acquired resistance. Sitravatinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can shift the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment toward an immunostimulatory state. Combining sitravatinib with nivolumab (sitra + nivo) may potentially overcome initial CPI resistance., Patients and Methods: In the phase III SAPPHIRE study, patients with advanced non-oncogenic driven, nonsquamous NSCLC who initially benefited from (≥4 months on CPI without progression) and subsequently experienced disease progression on or after CPI combined with or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to sitra (100 mg once daily administered orally) + nivo (240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks administered intravenously) or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks administered intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR; all assessed by blinded independent central review), and safety., Results: A total of 577 patients included randomized: sitra + nivo, n = 284; docetaxel, n = 293 (median follow-up, 17.1 months). Sitra + nivo did not significantly improve OS versus docetaxel [median, 12.2 versus 10.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.05; P = 0.144]. The median PFS was 4.4 versus 5.4 months, respectively (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32; P = 0.452). The ORR was 15.6% for sitra + nivo and 17.2% for docetaxel (P = 0.597); CBR was 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.004); median DOR was 7.4 versus 7.1 months, respectively (P = 0.924). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 53.0% versus 66.7% of patients receiving sitra + nivo versus docetaxel, respectively., Conclusions: Although median OS was numerically longer with sitra + nivo, the primary endpoint was not met in patients with previously treated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The safety profiles demonstrated were consistent with previous reports., Competing Interests: Disclosure HB reports honoraria for lectures for Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi, and Regeneron; writing engagements (nonfinancial) with Amgen, BMS, and AstraZeneca; advisory board participation with BMS, Lilly, Genentech, Inc., Pfizer, Merck, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Genmab, Regeneron, BioNTech, Amgen, Axiom, PharmaMar, Takeda, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Daiichi, Guardant, Natera, Oncocyte, BeiGene, iTEO, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Da Volterra, Puma, and BerGenBio; full or part-time employment at Fox Chase Cancer Center; stock options from Sonnet Bio, Inspirna (formerly Rgenix) and Nucleai; research grants from BMS and Lilly; principal investigator (nonfinancial) for AstraZeneca, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., and BMS; data and safety monitoring board for the University of Pennsylvania: CAR T Program, Takeda, Incyte, Novartis, and Springworks; and travel support from Amgen, BMS, Merck, Lilly, EMD-Serono, Genentech, Inc., and Regeneron. FdM reports speaker’s bureau and advisory board participation with AstraZeneca, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, BMS, and Novartis. DD reports institutional funding from BMS; principal investigator (nonfinancial) for BMS, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., and MSD; and an advisory role (nonfinancial) for Amgen, BMS, and MSD. CR reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; and stocks from Gilead. WSMET reports research grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi/Regeneron; principal investigator (non-financial) for Roche, Mirati Therapeutics, BeiGene, and Genmab. MLJ reports research funding (institutional) from AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptimmune, Amgen, Apexigen, Arcus Biosciences, Array BioPharma, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Atreca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, BioAtla, Black Diamond, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Calithera Biosciences, Carisma Therapeutics, Checkpoint Therapeutics, City of Hope National Medical Center, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Dynavax, Lilly, Elicio Therapeutics, EMD Serono, EQRx, Erasca, Exelixis, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GSK, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Harpoon, Helsinn Healthcare SA, Hengrui Therapeutics, Hutchison MediPharma, IDEAYA, Biosciences, IGM Biosciences, Immunitas Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce Therapeutics, Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, Kartos Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Lycera, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Merck, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Mythic Therapeutics, NeoImmuneTech, Neovia Oncology, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Nuvalent, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Palleon Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PMV Pharmaceuticals, Rain Therapeutics, RasCal Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Ribon Therapeutics, Rubius Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals/Birdie Biopharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Silicon Therapeutics, Stemcentrx, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tarveda, TCR2 Therapeutics, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, Turning Point Therapeutics, University of Michigan, Vyriad, WindMIL Therapeutics, and Y-mAbs Therapeutic; consulting/advisory role feed (institutional) from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, ArriVent, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Axelia Oncology, Black Diamond, Calithera Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, EcoR1, Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GSK, Gritstone Oncology, IDEAYA Biosciences, Immunocore, iTeos, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Molecular Axiom, Novartis, Oncorus, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicines, Sanofi-Aventis, Seagen, Synthekine, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Turning Point Therapeutics, and VBL Therapeutics. EBG reports research grants from ABL-Bio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Dynavax, Technologies, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inc., Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Neon, and Novartis; an advisory role for AbbVie, ABL-Bio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Merck, Natera, Novartis, Personalis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shionogi, and XILO. KH reports financial interests (personal) and advisory board participation with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Perthera, BMS, BeiGene, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell, BioNTech, and AstraZeneca; and an institutional research grant or contract with OncoC4. DP reports to be an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Novartis, priME Oncology, Peer CME, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, GSK, Pfizer; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Samsung, Celgene, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, GSK, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, and Gilead; principal investigator for AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Medimmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, AbbVie, and GSK. MR reports to be an invited speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., MSD, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; speaker’s bureau fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., MSD, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; advisory board fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and is a member of the data and safety monitoring board for Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi. SPo reports consulting fees (personal) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Takeda, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, and EQRx; honoraria for lectures, presentations or speakers bureaus (personal) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony (personal) from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Merck Serono; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee, or advocacy group (nonfinancial) for the British Thoracic Oncology Group, ALK Positive UK, Lung Cancer Europe, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, and ETOP-IBCSG Partners Foundation Board. RSH reports consulting fees from DynamiCure Biotechnology, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Inc., Gilead, HiberCell, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., NextCure, Novartis, Oncocyte Corp, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and AbbVie; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bolt Therapeutics, BMS, Candel Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, EMD Serono, I-Mab Biopharma, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Normunity, Ocean Biomedical, Revelar Biotherapeutics, Ribbon Therapeutics, Xencor; stock options from Normunity, Immunocore, and Checkpoint Therapeutics; member of the board of directors for Junshi Pharmaceuticals, American Association for Cancer Research, Immunocore, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and Southwest Oncology Group; full-time employment at Yale Cancer Center; and research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Merck. TAL reports consulting fees from Catalyst, Eisai, Jazz, Janssen, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; and advisory board participation with GI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novocure, Takeda, Merck, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. RLS reports full- or part-time employment with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.; and stocks/shares from Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. XY reports full or part-time employment with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.; and stocks/shares from Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. RH reports full- or part-time employment with Mirati Therapeutics, Inc.; and stocks/shares from Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. SPe reports honoraria (institutional) from AiCME, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, Ipsen, Medscape, Merck Sharp, and Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Novartis, PER, PeerView, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., RTP, Sanofi, Takeda, and Galencia; financial support (institutional) from Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, GSK, iTeos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics, Inc., Pharma Mar, Promontory Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., and Seattle Genetics; and is a member of ESMO, ASCO, AACR, IASLC, SSOM, SAKK, and ETOP; Other: Vice President of Swiss Cancer League, past President of ESMO, Strategic Advisory board SPCC (Paris-Saclay) Chair, and ETOP scientific chair. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The combination of platinum-based chemotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a standard of care option in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Positive efficacy and safety results have been demonstrated with different chemo-ICI combinations in the corresponding clinical trials, however no randomized prospective comparison is available and there is no evidence on how to choose among the available regimens., Methods: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2023 to review data on chemo-ICI regimens available in the first-line setting in patients with NSCLC, and reach common considerations both in clinical practice and in research setting., Results: Overall, all panelists agreed that safety of the chemo-immunotherapy combination regimens is supported by reviewed data, showing no additional toxicity concerns over those of the individual components of each regimen and highlighting differences in toxicity profile based on ICI component (single anti-PD-1 versus double anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4). Among disease characteristics, PD-L1 value (<1%) but not histology was considered a potential selection factor in favor of the combination with dual ICI. With regards to clinical features, the panelists agreed that chemotherapy, whichever the ICI combination regimen, remains the backbone to counteract disease-related symptoms included those conditioning worse performance status. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to prospectively evaluating the impact of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 on brain metastasis, biomarker subgroups, and the optimal duration and schedule of combination regimens., Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, the panelists reached common considerations on strengths and differences between chemotherapy plus single agent ICI and chemotherapy plus double agent ICIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. In the absence of direct comparison, different toxicity profile and subgroup analysis by PD-L1 are considered as the main potential features to select among the two regimens, however to be confirmed by recommended prospective randomized clinical research., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest C. Gridelli received honoraria as speaker bureau or advisory board member or as consultant from MSD, BMS, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Menarini, Boehringer, Karyopharm, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim. S. Peters received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations: AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, Medtoday, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, Peerview, Pfizer, PRIME, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody. T. Mok received education grants, honoraria, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations: AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology Platform, Lunit, ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group, HUTCHMED, Alpha Biopharma, ACEA Pharmaceutical Research, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Origimed, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis GmbH, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lucence, Medscape, Permanyer Publications, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Research to Practice, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting, Liangyihui Network Technology Co, Ltd, AbbVie, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, C4 Therapeutics, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, D3, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Bio, Guardant Health, touchIME, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQvia, Lilly, Loxo, Lunit, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, Puma Biotechnology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, Vertex, Yuhan, Qiming Development (HK) Ltd, G1 Therapeutics, Janssen, geneDecode. Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Aurora Tele-Oncology Platform, HUTCHMED, ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group. MC Garassino received education grants, honoraria, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations: MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Tiziana Life Sciences, Sanofi, Celgene, Daiiki Sankyo, Inivata, Incyte, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Janssen, Regeneron, Otsuka, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Exelixis, Amgen. Luis Paz-Ares reports institutional research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Laboratorios Pfizer Ltda.; personal fees (self/family) from Altum Secuency, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Genomica, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Biotech, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Laboratorios Pfizer Ltda., PharmaMar, Roche, Servier Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Oncology; and serves as a board member at Genómica and Altum all outside the submitted work. F. de Marinis received honoraria or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Xcovery, and Roche. Dr. Attili reports no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Osimertinib is a central nervous system (CNS)-active, third generation, irreversible, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations, with demonstrated efficacy in EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present the rationale and design for TARGET (NCT05526755), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5 years of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with completely resected EGFRm stage II to IIIB NSCLC., Materials and Methods: TARGET is a phase II, multinational, open-label, single-arm study. Adults aged ≥18 years (Taiwan ≥20 years), with resected stage II to IIIB NSCLC are eligible; prior adjuvant chemotherapy is allowed. Eligible patients must have locally confirmed common (exon 19 deletion or L858R) or uncommon (G719X, L861Q, and/or S768I) EGFR-TKI sensitizing mutations, alone or in combination. Patients will receive osimertinib 80 mg once daily for 5 years or until disease recurrence, discontinuation or death. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort). Secondary endpoints include: investigator-assessed DFS at 3 and 4 years; overall survival at 3, 4, and 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort); DFS at 3, 4, and 5 years (uncommon EGFR mutations cohort); safety and tolerability, type of recurrence and CNS metastases (both cohorts). Exploratory endpoints include: tissue/plasma concordance; analysis of circulating molecules in plasma samples using different profiling approaches to detect minimal residual disease; incidence and change over time of incidental pulmonary nodules., Results: TARGET is currently recruiting, and completion is expected in 2029., Competing Interests: Disclosure RAS reports research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and advisory board fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, J INTS BIO, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. FDM reports consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp, & Dohme Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, and Takeda. JYH reports receiving honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Yuhan, consultation fees from ABION, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen, AstraZeneca, reports grants from Roche, Takeda, ONO, and an advisory board fee from AstraZeneca. JCMH reports speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Takeda, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis. EM reports employment for AstraZeneca and PHASTAR. LS and MS report employment and stock ownership with AstraZeneca. SP reports paid expert testimony for Merck Serono and Roche, consultation fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, EQRx, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics, research funding (to institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trizel, Turning Point Therapeutics and member of the board of directors for Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Medical treatment has changed drastically in recent years, especially for advanced stages of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), for which the development of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy significantly increased survival and quality of life. This single-center retrospective study aimed to analyze the outcome predictors, the surrogate outcomes, and the patient-reported outcomes after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for initially unresectable NSCLC. Patients affected by an initially unresectable NSCLC and identified between March 2014 and December 2021 who received immunotherapy alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were collected. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life (QoL) Group questionnaire-Lung Cancer 29 Module to compare differences in symptoms and QoL at two different times, 30 days and 1 year after surgery. Surgical, pathological records, and patient-reported outcomes (at 30 days and 1 year after surgery) were reviewed. Complete pathological remission was achieved in 7 patients (36.8%) and major pathological remission in 3 patients (15.7%). The median overall survival in the study group is 19 months (range: 2-57.4). Of 19 patients, 16 (84.2%) are alive to date, of which 2 (10.5%) have a local recurrence. At 30 days from surgery, the main symptoms reported by EORTC Module were coughing, shortness of breath, the side effect of treatment, fear of progression, and surgery-related problems. Induction immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy can be considered for unresectable locally advanced NSCLC, and after the downstaging, the possibility of surgery could be re-evaluated in a multidisciplinary setting with high rates of R0 resection. In this selected and highly motivated group of patients, the QoL and symptoms after salvage surgeries are acceptable and even better than those reported in the literature., (© 2023. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

Background: ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the treatment and largely improved the survival outcomes of patients with NSCLC harboring ALK rearrangements. Different ALK TKI compounds have demonstrated antitumor activity in these patients and are available in clinical practice. However, clinical expertise across countries varies according to local regulatory approval of different drugs, identifying multiple treatment scenarios to comply with international guidelines and clinical practice., Methods: A virtual webinar was held on July 2023 to discuss the state of the art and future perspectives in the treatment of ALK rearrangement in advanced NSCLC in Italy. The faculty hosting the webinar was composed of eight medical oncologists from different regions of Italy with clinical expertise in treating patients with lung cancer. Live-shared notes were used to produce a report to serve as the basis of a review manuscript on the topic., Results: Alectinib and brigatinib are the preferred front-line treatment options in Italy, pending approval of the front-line medicine lorlatinib, which would be considered among the choices. Due to a local regulatory limitation of second-line lorlatinib, which is not allowed after front-line brigatinib, alectinib is commonly the preferred front-line choice to follow a sequence of alectinib, followed by lorlatinib, followed by platinum plus pemetrexed chemotherapy. Age and performance status were not considered per se as clinical features influencing treatment choice. However, treatment compliance is deemed a relevant factor in decision making with regard to the number of pills to be administered. In general, given the availability of alternative choices, the spectrum of patients' comorbidities and polypharmacotherapy interactions should be taken into account in treatment selection according to the toxicity profile of each compound. In addition, several issues were debated with regard to improving treatment outcomes, including testing, brain metastases, and management of an oligoprogressive disease., Conclusions: The treatment scenario of ALK-positive disease is dynamically evolving. Furthermore, not all FDA- and EMA-approved compounds are approved in Italy with the same indications. This influences therapeutic opportunities and increases the need for greater clinical expertise to help and guide treatment selection.

PERLA is a global, double-blind, parallel phase II trial (NCT04581824) comparing efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 antibodies dostarlimab and pembrolizumab, plus chemotherapy (DCT and PCT, respectively) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC without known targetable genomic aberrations. Patients stratified by PD-L1 tumor proportion score and smoking status were randomized 1:1, receiving ≤35 cycles 500 mg dostarlimab or 200 mg pembrolizumab, ≤35 cycles 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed and ≤4 cycles cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ) or carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/ml/min) Q3W. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) (blinded independent central review). Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) based on investigator assessment, overall survival (OS) and safety. Exploratory endpoints include ORR by PD-L1 subgroup and duration of response. PERLA met its pre-specified endpoint. ORR (n/N; 95% CI) is 45% (55/121; 36.4-54.8) for DCT and 39% (48/122; 30.6-48.6) for PCT (data cut-off: 07 July 23), numerically favoring dostarlimab in PD-L1-positive subgroups. Median PFS (months [95% CI]) is 8.8 (6.7-10.4) for DCT and 6.7 (4.9-7.1) for PCT (HR 0.70 [95% CI: 0.50-0.98]; data cut-off: 04 August 22). Median OS (months [95% CI]) is 19.4 (14.5-NR) for DCT and 15.9 (11.6-19.3) for PCT (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.53-1.05]) (data cut-off: 07 July 23). Safety profiles are similar between groups. In this study, DCT shows similar efficacy to PCT and demonstrates clinical efficacy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring most driver gene alterations. Starting from the first generation, research rapidly moved to the development of newer, more selective generations of TKIs, obtaining improved results in terms of disease control and survival. However, the use of novel generations of TKIs is not without limitations. We reviewed the main results obtained, as well as the ongoing clinical trials with TKIs in oncogene-addicted NSCLC, together with the biology underlying their potential strengths and limitations. Across driver gene alterations, novel generations of TKIs allowed delayed resistance, prolonged survival, and improved brain penetration compared to previous generations, although with different toxicity profiles, that generally moved their use from further lines to the front-line treatment. However, the anticipated positioning of novel generation TKIs leads to abolishing the possibility of TKI treatment sequencing and any role of previous generations. In addition, under the selective pressure of such more potent drugs, resistant clones emerge harboring more complex and hard-to-target resistance mechanisms. Deeper knowledge of tumor biology and drug properties will help identify new strategies, including combinatorial treatments, to continue improving results in patients with oncogene-addicted NSCLC.

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) can harbour different MET alterations, such as MET overexpression (MET OE), MET gene amplification (MET AMP), or MET gene mutations. Retrospective studies of surgical series of patients with MET-dysregulated NSCLC have shown worse clinical outcomes irrespective of the type of specific MET gene alteration. On the other hand, earlier attempts failed to identify the 'druggable' molecular gene driver until the discovery of MET exon 14 skipping mutations (METex14). METex14 are rare and amount to around 3% of all NSCLCs. Patients with METex14 NSCLC attain modest results when they are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). New selective MET inhibitors (MET-Is) showed a long-lasting clinical benefit in patients with METex14 NSCLC and modest activity in patients with MET AMP NSCLC. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating new small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, or antibodies drug conjugate (ADCs). This review focuses on the prognostic role of MET, the summary of pivotal clinical trials of selective MET-Is with a focus on resistance mechanisms. The last section is addressed to future developments and challenges.

Non-invasive methods to assess mutational status, as well as novel prognostic biomarkers, are warranted to foster therapy personalization of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study investigated the association of contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography (CT) radiomic features of lung adenocarcinoma lesions, alone or integrated with clinical parameters, with tumor mutational status ( EGFR , KRAS , ALK alterations) and Overall Survival (OS). In total, 261 retrospective and 48 prospective patients were enrolled. A Radiomic Score (RS) was created with LASSO-Logistic regression models to predict mutational status. Radiomic, clinical and clinical-radiomic models were trained on retrospective data and tested (Area Under the Curve, AUC) on prospective data. OS prediction models were trained and tested on retrospective data with internal cross-validation (C-index). RS significantly predicted each alteration at training (radiomic and clinical-radiomic AUC 0.95-0.98); validation performance was good for EGFR (AUC 0.86), moderate for KRAS and ALK (AUC 0.61-0.65). RS was also associated with OS at univariate and multivariable analysis, in the latter with stage and type of treatment. The validation C-index was 0.63, 0.79, and 0.80 for clinical, radiomic, and clinical-radiomic models. The study supports the potential role of CT radiomics for non-invasive identification of gene alterations and prognosis prediction in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, to be confirmed with independent studies.

Background: Since their first introduction in clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors showed limited benefit in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. With the rationale of increasing immune activation, combinatorial ICI strategies have been evaluated also in this subgroup of patients., Methods: We performed a systematic review on efficacy of ICI-based strategies in EGFR-mutant NSCLC according to most updated evidence., Results: Overall, ICI monotherapy and ICI plus chemotherapy confirm to be ineffective in EGFR-mutant NSCLC, whereas the combination of ICI with antiangiogenic and chemotherapy showed promising results. Limited data are available with alternative ICI combination strategies, driven by strong biological rationale of modulating the tumor immune microenvironment., Conclusions: To date, the available evidence do not support the use of ICI in patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. Clinical trials are ongoing to define which is the best timing and exploring novel combinations with ICI in this specific disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A. Passaro reports personal fees, as speaker bureau or advisor, for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche Genentech, outside the submitted work; F. de Marinis has served in a consultant/advisory role for Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche Genentech, Takeda and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In ADAURA, adjuvant osimertinib significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in resected stage IB to IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. We report in-depth analyses of three-year safety, tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from ADAURA., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to osimertinib 80 mg or placebo once daily for up to 3 years. Safety assessments were performed at baseline, week 2, week 4, week 12, and every 12 weeks until treatment completion or discontinuation, and 28 days after treatment was stopped. The SF-36 survey measured HRQoL at baseline, week 12, week 24, and every 24 weeks until recurrence, treatment completion or discontinuation. Data cutoff: April 11, 2022., Results: Safety and HRQoL analysis sets: osimertinib, n = 337 and n = 339; placebo, n = 343 each. Median (range) total exposure duration was longer with osimertinib versus placebo: 35.8 (0-38) versus 25.1 (0-39) months. Most adverse events (AEs) were first reported within 12 months of starting treatment (osimertinib 97%, placebo 86%). AEs leading to dose reduction, interruption or discontinuation were reported in 12%, 27% and 13% respectively of patients with osimertinib; 1%, 13% and 3% with placebo. Stomatitis and diarrhea were the most common AEs leading to osimertinib dose reduction or interruption; interstitial lung disease was the most common leading to osimertinib discontinuation (per protocol). There were no differences in time to deterioration for SF-36 physical, mental component summaries between osimertinib and placebo., Conclusions: No new safety signals were reported and HRQoL was maintained with 3 years of adjuvant osimertinib treatment. Combined with significant efficacy benefit, these data further support adjuvant osimertinib in stage IB to IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IB-IIIA resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has limited benefit for improving cure rates. The proportion of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) alterations among patients with resected NSCLC is comparable to that observed in patients with advanced disease, and the use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been demonstrated to prolong disease-free survival (DFS). With recent approval of osimertinib in this context, a focus on the rapidly evolving scenario and future perspective in clinical practice is needed and was the aim of the current review., Observations: Randomized phase 3 clinical trials demonstrated DFS benefit with adjuvant EGFR TKI therapy in patients with resected EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. The most recent trial (ADAURA) assessed 3-year adjuvant osimertinib and showed consistent DFS benefit and a significant role of the intervention in preventing the occurrence of brain metastasis. However, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy, the appropriate duration of treatment, the management of disease relapse, and the effective cure rate remain undetermined. A deeper investigation on molecular biomarkers, covariant patterns, and dynamic monitoring of postsurgical circulating DNA would be helpful for the implementation of future strategies to further improve survival rates after adjuvant therapy for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC., Conclusions and Relevance: Adjuvant osimertinib revolutionized the treatment algorithm for patients with stage IB-IIIA resected EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Further evidence driven by clinical issues will be key for further optimization of the goals of adjuvant treatment in these patients.

Background: Among patients with resected, epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR )-mutated, stage IB to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adjuvant osimertinib therapy, with or without previous adjuvant chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo in the ADAURA trial. We report the results of the planned final analysis of overall survival., Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo until disease recurrence was observed, the trial regimen was completed (3 years), or a discontinuation criterion was met. The primary end point was investigator-assessed disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease. Secondary end points included disease-free survival among patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety., Results: Of 682 patients who underwent randomization, 339 received osimertinib and 343 received placebo. Among patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the 5-year overall survival was 85% in the osimertinib group and 73% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.73; P<0.001). In the overall population (patients with stage IB to IIIA disease), the 5-year overall survival was 88% in the osimertinib group and 78% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% CI, 0.34 to 0.70; P<0.001). One new serious adverse event, pneumonia related to coronavirus disease 2019, was reported after the previously published data-cutoff date (the event was not considered by the investigator to be related to the trial regimen, and the patient fully recovered). Adjuvant osimertinib had a safety profile consistent with that in the primary analysis., Conclusions: Adjuvant osimertinib provided a significant overall survival benefit among patients with completely resected, EGFR -mutated, stage IB to IIIA NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The role of salvage surgery after tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced oncogene-addicted non-small cell lung cancer is largely unexplored., Patients: We aimed to describe the pathological features and surgical early-outcomes of Anaplastic Lymphome Kinase anaplastic lymphome kinase positive non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing surgery after first-line alectinib treatment. We retrospectively collected and analyzed multicentric data of 10 patients treated with alectinib for advanced-stage anaplastic lymphome kinase positive lung adenocarcinoma who underwent anatomical surgical resection from January 2020 to Decemeber 2021. All patients were treatment naive and received alectinib (600 mg twice daily). Surgery was always proposed after multidisciplinary discussion. The primary endpoints were pathological response and surgical feasibility (technical intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes)., Results: Alectinib was received for a mean of 212 days before surgery (42-415 days) and was generally interrupted about one week before surgery (range: 0-32 days) with no patient experienced grade 4 toxicity. All patients received an R0 resection with surgery consisting of lobectomy in 8 cases with bilobectomy and (left) pneumonectomy in 1 case each. Intra-operative difficulties were described in 7 cases (70%), mostly due to perivascular fibrosis or thickening of mediastinal lymph nodal tissues. Major and minor complications occurred in 0 and 3 cases (30%), respectively. A pathological complete response and major pathological response (defined as 0% and < 10% viable tumor cells, respectively) were observed in 50% and 90% of cases, respectively. Despite short follow-up, only one tumor recurrence was observed (in the only patient who did not resume alectinib after surgery)., Interpretation: Despite some technical intraoperative difficulties, salvage surgery was safe and feasible after Alectinib for advanced lung adenocarcinoma., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We assessed a simple smartphone-aided program to help three participants with severe neuro-motor and speech disabilities access preferred songs, call or send messages to distant partners, and call the caregiver. The program relied on the use of a smartphone, five cards with identification tags, and a mini speaker. The participants could select one of the cards (engagement options) by touching it with the smartphone. Using the program, all participants managed to access songs, reach partners, and call the caregiver independently and engaged in the related forms of leisure and communication/interaction throughout the 10-min sessions available. The results suggest that the program might be a valuable aid for people with severe neuro-motor and speech disabilities., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B 12 , folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months ( P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed., Conclusion: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

ALK translocation amounts to around 3-7% of all NSCLCs. The clinical features of ALK+ NSCLC are an adenocarcinoma histology, younger age, limited smoking history, and brain metastases. The activity of chemotherapy and immunotherapy is modest in ALK+ disease. Several randomized trials have proven that ALK inhibitors (ALK-Is) have greater efficacy with respect to platinum-based chemotherapy and that second/third generation ALK-Is are better than crizotinib in terms of improvements in median progression-free survival and brain metastases management. Unfortunately, most patients develop acquired resistance to ALK-Is that is mediated by on- and off-target mechanisms. Translational and clinical research are continuing to develop new drugs and/or combinations in order to raise the bar and further improve the results attained up to now. This review summarizes first-line randomized clinical trials of several ALK-Is and the management of brain metastases with a focus on ALK-I resistance mechanisms. The last section addresses future developments and challenges.

Purpose: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting., Patients and Methods: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles., Results: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia ( P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia ( P = .002); and alopecia ( P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea ( P = .004) was more common., Conclusion: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Background: For many patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care (SoC) is adjuvant chemotherapy; however, disease recurrence remains high. Based on positive results from ADAURA (NCT02511106), adjuvant osimertinib was approved for treatment of resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC., Objective: The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with resected EGFRm NSCLC., Methods: A five-health-state, state-transition model with time dependency was developed to estimate lifetime (38 years) costs and survival of resected EGFRm patients treated with adjuvant osimertinib or placebo (active surveillance), with/without prior adjuvant chemotherapy, using a Canadian Public Healthcare perspective. Transitions between health states were modeled using ADAURA and FLAURA (NCT02296125) data, Canadian life tables, and real-world data (CancerLinQ Discovery ® ). The model used a 'cure' assumption: patients remaining disease free for 5 years after treatment completion for resectable disease were deemed 'cured.' Health state utility values and healthcare resource usage estimates were derived from Canadian real-world evidence., Results: In the reference case, adjuvant osimertinib treatment led to a mean 3.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; (11.77 vs 8.57) per patient, versus active surveillance. The modeled median percentage of patients alive at 10 years was 62.5% versus 39.3%, respectively. Osimertinib was associated with mean added costs of Canadian dollars (C$)114,513 per patient and a cost/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of C$35,811 versus active surveillance. Model robustness was demonstrated by scenario analyses., Conclusions: In this cost-effectiveness assessment, adjuvant osimertinib was cost-effective compared with active surveillance for patients with completely resected stage IB‒IIIA EGFRm NSCLC after SoC., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Many new treatment modalities for non-small-cell carcinoma (NSCLC) have been described in the last two decades. Surgical resections remain the gold standard for early stages and may be considered for locally advanced tumors. Medical treatment has changed drastically in recent years, especially for advanced stages, for which the development of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy significantly increased survival and quality of life. The addition of radical surgical resection following immunotherapy or immuno-chemotherapy is feasible and safe with low surgical-related mortality and morbidity in selected patients with initially unresectable NSCLC. However, data from multiple ongoing trials with overall survival as the primary endpoint should be awaited before this strategy is introduced into the standard of care.

Background: After a median follow-up of 18·3 months, the third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, lorlatinib, improved progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the phase 3 CROWN study. Here we report updated efficacy data, including intracranial activity, from an unplanned analysis after 3 years of follow-up., Methods: CROWN is an ongoing, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial done in 104 centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older or aged 20 years and older (depending on local regulations) with advanced, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease, had at least one extracranial measurable target lesion (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST], version 1.1), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral lorlatinib 100 mg daily or oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. Randomisation was stratified by the presence or absence of brain metastasis, and by ethnicity. Since the primary endpoint of the study had been met at the planned interim analysis, no further formal analysis of progression-free survival was planned, per protocol. The current unplanned analysis was done to further characterise tumour-related endpoints with a longer follow-up and is presented descriptively. For the planned study, the primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, duration of response, intracranial duration of response, and safety. Efficacy endpoints were also assessed by the presence or absence of baseline brain metastases. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03052608., Findings: Between May 11, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 425 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 296 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the lorlatinib (n=149) or crizotinib (n=147) group. At data cutoff for this unplanned analysis (Sept 20, 2021), median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 36·7 months (IQR 31·3-41·9) for lorlatinib and 29·3 months (10·8-35·0) for crizotinib. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was not reached (95% CI not reached-not reached) for lorlatinib and was 9·3 months (7·6-11·1) for crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·27 [95% CI 0·18-0·39]). 3-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% CI 55-71) in the lorlatinib group and 19% (12-27) in the crizotinib group. Progression-free survival (investigator), objective response rate, intracranial objective response rate, time to intracranial progression, and duration of response were improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain metastases (n=37 lorlatinib; n=39 crizotinib), the HR for time to intracranial progression for lorlatinib versus crizotinib was 0·10 (95% CI 0·04-0·27); in patients without baseline brain metastases (n=112 lorlatinib; n=108 crizotinib), the HR was 0·02 (95% CI 0·002-0·14). In patients without brain metastases, one (1%) in the lorlatinib group and 25 (23%) in the crizotinib group had intracranial progression. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 113 (76%) of 149 patients (most commonly due to altered lipid levels) with lorlatinib and in 81 (57%) of 142 patients with crizotinib. Adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 11 (7%) patients in the lorlatinib group and 14 (10%) patients in the crizotinib group. There were no new safety signals., Interpretation: These updated, long-term data from CROWN show the durable benefit of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with treatment-naive, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and support the use of first-line lorlatinib in patients with and without baseline brain metastases., Funding: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The phase III ADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02511106) primary analysis demonstrated a clinically significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with adjuvant osimertinib versus placebo in EGFR-mutated stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after complete tumor resection (DFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.20 [99.12% CI, 0.14 to 0.30]; P < .001). We report an updated exploratory analysis of final DFS data., Methods: Overall, 682 patients with stage IB-IIIA (American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control, seventh edition) EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion/L858R) NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by stage, mutational status, and race) to receive osimertinib 80 mg once-daily or placebo for 3 years. The primary end point was DFS by investigator assessment in stage II-IIIA disease analyzed by stratified log-rank test; following early reporting of statistical significance in DFS, no further formal statistical testing was planned. Secondary end points included DFS in stage IB-IIIA, overall survival, and safety. Patterns of recurrence and CNS DFS were prespecified exploratory end points., Results: At data cutoff (April 11, 2022), in stage II-IIIA disease, median follow-up was 44.2 months (osimertinib) and 19.6 months (placebo); the DFS HR was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.30); 4-year DFS rate was 70% (osimertinib) and 29% (placebo). In the overall population, DFS HR was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.34); 4-year DFS rate was 73% (osimertinib) and 38% (placebo). Fewer patients treated with osimertinib had local/regional and distant recurrence versus placebo. CNS DFS HR in stage II-IIIA was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.42). The long-term safety profile of osimertinib was consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusion: These updated data demonstrate prolonged DFS benefit over placebo, reduced risk of local and distant recurrence, improved CNS DFS, and a consistent safety profile, supporting the efficacy of adjuvant osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Background: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is currently the standard of care. However, as clinical trials include a very limited number of elderly patients, evidence on the safety and efficacy of using ICI-based regimens is still limited., Methods: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2022 to review the available evidence on the use of ICI-based regimens in the first-line setting in elderly patients with NSCLC and provide a position paper on the field both in clinical practice and in a research setting., Results: All panelists agreed that age per se is not a limitation for ICI treatments, as the elderly should be considered only as a surrogate for other clinical factors of frailty. Overall, ICI efficacy in the elderly population is supported by reviewed data. In addition, the panelists were confident that available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in elderly patients with NSCLC. Conversely, concerns were expressed on the safety of chemo + ICI-based combination, which were considered mainly related to the toxicities of chemotherapy components. Therefore, suggestions were proposed to tailor combined approaches in the elderly patients with NSCLC. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to implementing the real-world assessment of elderly patients treated with ICIs, who are mostly underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials., Conclusions: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the significant limitations affecting the clinical practice in elderly patients affected by NSCLC, and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the second-most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The most common histological type is non-small-cell lung cancer, accounting for 85% of all lung cancer cases. About one out of three new cases of non-small-cell lung cancer are diagnosed at a locally advanced stage-mainly stage III-consisting of a widely heterogeneous group of patients presenting significant differences in terms of tumor volume, local diffusion, and lymph nodal involvement. Stage III NSCLC therapy is based on the pivotal role of multimodal treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy, and a wide-ranging option of systemic treatments. Radical surgery is indicated in the case of hilar lymphnodal involvement or single station mediastinal ipsilateral involvement, possibly after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; the best appropriate treatment for multistation mediastinal lymph node involvement still represents a matter of debate. Although the main scope of treatments in this setting is potentially curative, the overall survival rates are still poor, ranging from 36% to 26% and 13% in stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC, respectively. The aim of this article is to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive overview of the state-of-the-art treatments for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction The suitability of adjuvant therapy (AT) in patients with stage IB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still under debate considering the cost-benefit ratio between improvement in survival and side effects. We retrospectively evaluated survival and incidence of recurrence in radically resected stage IB NSCLC, to determine whether AT could significantly improve prognosis. Methods Between 1998 and 2020, 4692 consecutive patients underwent lobectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy for NSCLC. Two hundred nineteen patients were pathological T2aN0M0 (>3 and ≤4 cm) NSCLC 8th TNM. None received preoperative or AT. Overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and the cumulative incidence of relapse were plotted and log-rank or Gray's tests were used to assess the difference in outcome between groups. Results The most frequent histology was adenocarcinoma (66.7%). Median OS was 146 months. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year OS rates were 79%, 60%, and 47%, whereas the 5-, 10-, and 15-year CSS were 88%, 85%, and 83%, respectively. OS was significantly related to age ( p < 0.001) and cardiovascular comorbidities ( p = 0.04), whereas number of LNs removed was an independent prognostic factor of CSS ( p = 0.02). Cumulative incidence of relapse at 5-, 10-, and 15-year were 23%, 31%, and 32%, respectively, and significantly related to the number of LNs removed ( p = 0.01). Patients with more than 20 LNs removed and clinical stage I had a significantly lower relapse ( p = 0.02). Conclusions Excellent CSS, up to 83% at 15-year, and relatively low risk of recurrence for stage IB NSCLC (8th TNM) patients suggested that AT for those patients could be reserved only for very selected high-risk cases.

Aim: Healthcare administrative databases represent a valuable source for real-life data analysis. The primary aim of this study is to compare effectiveness and cost profile in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring synchronous brain metastases (BMs) who received non-chemo first-line systemic therapy with or without advanced radiotherapy (aRT)., Methods: Diagnostic ICD-9-CM codes were used for identifying all patients with a new diagnosis of lung cancer between 2012 and 2019. Among these, patients who had started a first-line systemic treatment with either TKIs or pembrolizumab, alone or in combination with intensity-modulated or stereotactic RT, were selected. Clinical outcomes investigated included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-treatment failure (TTF). The cost outcome was defined as the average per capita cumulative healthcare direct costs of the treatment, including all inpatient and outpatient costs., Results: The final cohort included 177 patients, of whom 58 were treated with systemic treatment plus aRT (STRT) and 119 with systemic treatment alone. The addition of aRT to systemic treatment was associated with a significantly better OS ( p = 0.020) and PFS ( p = 0.041) than systemic therapy alone. The ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) value indicated an average cost of €3792 for each month of survival after STRT treatment and confirmed clinical effectiveness but higher healthcare costs., Conclusions: This real-world study suggests that upfront aRT for NCLSC patients with synchronous BMs represents a valid treatment strategy, boosting the efficacy of novel and emerging drug classes with sustainable costs for the health service., Translational Relevance: The present real-world study reports that the use of upfront advanced radiotherapyaRT and new-generation systemic agents, such as TKIs and pembrolizumab, may have higher oncological control and an improved cost-effectiveness profile than the use of new-generation systemic agents alone in NCLSC patients with synchronous brain metastases. Acquired evidence can also be used to inform policymakers that adding advanced radiotherapy results is a sustainable cost for the health service. Since approximately 50% of patients do not meet RCT inclusion criteria, a significant proportion of them is receiving treatment that is not evidence-informed; therefore, these results warrant further studies to identify the best radiotherapy timing and possible dose escalation approaches to improving treatment efficacy in patient subgroups not typically represented in randomized controlled trials.

Background: Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients with questions remaining in this population. Particularly in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving anticancer treatments, the safety of these vaccines has so far been little investigated., Methods: This is a prospective trial of patients with thoracic cancer receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines at the Division of Thoracic Oncology of European Institute of Oncology between February and September 2021., Results: A total 207 patients affected by thoracic cancers (199 lung cancers and 8 mesotheliomas) had received Covid-19 vaccines (206 mRNA vaccines and 1 virus-vectored vaccine). The majority of patients had at least one comorbidity (76.3%). They were concomitantly treating with targeted therapy (TT) (45.9%), immunotherapy (IO) (22.7%), and chemotherapy (CT) (14%). A total of 64 AEs (15.6%) were observed after administration of Sars-Cov-2 vaccine. The majority of AEs were grade 1 [G1] (6.3%) and G2 (8.8%), only two events were G3 (0.5%). The median follow-up was 9 months (range 1-22 months), during this follow-up 21 patients (10.1%) had a positive nasal swab, most of the patients were asymptomatic (67%) and the symptomatic ones (33%) had mild symptoms and fewer complications and hospitalizations., Conclusions: COVID-19 m-RNA vaccines appear to be safe in the cohort of patients with thoracic malignances in active treatment, including those receiving immunotherapy. Considering the high morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer receiving active treatments, our study supports the current vaccine prioritization, third and/or fourth dose, of all cancer patients with active treatment., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Radiomics enables the mining of quantitative features from medical images. The influence of the radiomic feature extraction software on the final performance of models is still a poorly understood topic. This study aimed to investigate the ability of radiomic features extracted by two different radiomic platforms to predict clinical outcomes in patients treated with radiosurgery for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. We developed models integrating pre-treatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived radiomic features and clinical data., Materials and Methods: Pre-radiotherapy gadolinium enhanced axial T1-weighted MRI scans were used. MRI images were re-sampled, intensity-shifted, and histogram-matched before radiomic extraction by means of two different platforms (PyRadiomics and SOPHiA Radiomics). We adopted LASSO Cox regression models for multivariable analyses by creating radiomic, clinical, and combined models using three survival clinical endpoints (local control, distant progression, and overall survival). The statistical analysis was repeated 50 times with different random seeds and the median concordance index was used as performance metric of the models., Results: We analysed 276 metastases from 148 patients. The use of the two platforms resulted in differences in both the quality and the number of extractable features. That led to mismatches in terms of end-to-end performance, statistical significance of radiomic scores, and clinical covariates found significant in combined models., Conclusion: This study shed new light on how extracting radiomic features from the same images using two different platforms could yield several discrepancies. That may lead to acute consequences on drawing conclusions, comparing results across the literature, and translating radiomics into clinical practice., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Radiomics investigates the predictive role of quantitative parameters calculated from radiological images. In oncology, tumour segmentation constitutes a crucial step of the radiomic workflow. Manual segmentation is time-consuming and prone to inter-observer variability. In this study, a state-of-the-art deep-learning network for automatic segmentation (nnU-Net) was applied to computed tomography images of lung tumour patients, and its impact on the performance of survival radiomic models was assessed. In total, 899 patients were included, from two proprietary and one public datasets. Different network architectures (2D, 3D) were trained and tested on different combinations of the datasets. Automatic segmentations were compared to reference manual segmentations performed by physicians using the DICE similarity coefficient. Subsequently, the accuracy of radiomic models for survival classification based on either manual or automatic segmentations were compared, considering both hand-crafted and deep-learning features. The best agreement between automatic and manual contours (DICE = 0.78 ± 0.12) was achieved averaging 2D and 3D predictions and applying customised post-processing. The accuracy of the survival classifier (ranging between 0.65 and 0.78) was not statistically different when using manual versus automatic contours, both with hand-crafted and deep features. These results support the promising role nnU-Net can play in automatic segmentation, accelerating the radiomic workflow without impairing the models' accuracy. Further investigations on different clinical endpoints and populations are encouraged to confirm and generalise these findings.

Introduction: Brigatinib is a potent next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for treatment-naive and crizotinib-refractory advanced ALK-positive (ALK+) NSCLC. We evaluated brigatinib after other next-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors., Methods: In this single-arm, phase 2, ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of brigAtinib-2 (NCT03535740), patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC whose disease progressed on alectinib or ceritinib received brigatinib 180 mg once daily (after 7-d 90-mg lead-in). Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was analyzed., Results: Among 103 patients (data cutoff: September 30, 2020; median follow-up [range]: 10.8 [0.5-17.7] mo), confirmed IRC-ORR was 26.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.0-35.8), median duration of response, 6.3 months (95% CI: 5.6-not reached), and median progression-free survival (mPFS), 3.8 months (95% CI: 3.5-5.8). mPFS was 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.7) in patients with ctDNA-detectable baseline ALK fusion (n = 64). Among 86 patients who progressed on alectinib, IRC-ORR was 29.1% (95% CI: 19.8-39.9); mPFS was 3.8 months (95% CI: 1.9-5.4). Resistance mutations were present in 33.3% (26 of 78) of baseline ctDNA; 54% (14 of 26) of mutations were G1202R; 52% (33 of 64) of patients with detectable ALK fusion had EML4-ALK variant 3. Most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events were increased creatine phosphokinase (32%) and diarrhea (27%). The mean dose intensity of brigatinib (180 mg once daily) was 85.9%., Conclusions: In ALK in Lung Cancer Trial of brigAtinib-2, brigatinib was found to have a limited activity in patients with ALK+ NSCLC post-ceritinib or post-alectinib therapy. mPFS was longer with brigatinib in patients without baseline detectable plasma ALK fusion., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The selective RET-inhibitor pralsetinib has shown therapeutic activity in early clinical trials in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring rearranged during transfection (RET) gene fusions. To date, the real-world efficacy of pralsetinib in this population is unknown., Materials and Methods: A retrospective efficacy and safety analysis was performed on data from patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC enrolled in the pralsetinib Italian expanded access program between July 2019 and October 2021., Results: Overall, 62 patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC received pralsetinib at 20 Italian centers. Next-generation sequencing was used to detect RET alterations in 44 patients (73 %). The most frequent gene fusion partner was KIF5B (75 % of 45 evaluable). Median age was 62 years (range, 36-90), most patients were female (57 %) and never smokers (53 %). Brain metastases were known in 18 patients (29.5 %) at the time of pralsetinib treatment. 13 patients were treatment naïve (unfit for chemotherapy), 48 were pretreated (median number of previous lines: 1, range, 1-4). The objective response rate (ORR) was 66 % [95 % confidence interval (CI), 53-81] in the evaluable population (n = 59). The disease control rate (DCR) was 79 %. After a median follow-up of 10.1 months, the median progression free survival was 8.9 months (95 %CI, 4.7-NA). In patients with measurable brain metastases (n = 6) intracranial ORR was 83 %, intracranial DCR was 100 %. Overall, 83.6 % of patients experienced any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), 39 % grade 3 or greater (G ≥ 3). The most common G ≥ 3 TRAEs were neutropenia (9.8 %), dry mouth/oral mucositis (8.2 %), and thrombocytopenia (6.6 %). Seven patients (12 %) discontinued pralsetinib due to TRAEs, twenty-six had at least one dose level modification due to TRAEs. Two treatment-related deaths were observed (1 sepsis, 1 typhlitis)., Conclusions: In the real-world setting, pralsetinib confirmed durable systemic activity and intracranial response in RET-fusion positive NSCLC. Toxicity profile was consistent with previous reports., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: No evidence supports the choice of specific imaging filtering methodologies in radiomics. As the volume of the primary tumor is a well-recognized prognosticator, our purpose is to assess how filtering may impact the feature/volume dependency in computed tomography (CT) images of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and if such impact translates into differences in the performance of survival modeling. The role of lesion volume in model performances was also considered and discussed., Methods: Four-hundred seventeen CT images NSCLC patients were retrieved from the NSCLC-Radiomics public repository. Pre-processing and features extraction were implemented using Pyradiomics v3.0.1. Features showing high correlation with volume across original and filtered images were excluded. Cox proportional hazards (PH) with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regularization and CatBoost models were built with and without volume, and their concordance (C-) indices were compared using Wilcoxon signed-ranked test. The Mann Whitney U test was used to assess model performances after stratification into two groups based on low- and high-volume lesions., Results: Radiomic models significantly outperformed models built on only clinical variables and volume. However, the exclusion/inclusion of volume did not generally alter the performances of radiomic models. Overall, performances were not substantially affected by the choice of either imaging filter (overall C-index 0.539-0.590 for Cox PH and 0.589-0.612 for CatBoost). The separation of patients with high-volume lesions resulted in significantly better performances in 2/10 and 7/10 cases for Cox PH and CatBoost models, respectively. Both low- and high-volume models performed significantly better with the inclusion of radiomic features (P<0.0001), but the improvement was largest in the high-volume group (+10.2% against +8.7% improvement for CatBoost models and +10.0% against +5.4% in Cox PH models)., Conclusions: Radiomic features complement well-known prognostic factors such as volume, but their volume-dependency is high and should be managed with vigilance. The informative content of radiomic features may be diminished in small lesion volumes, which could limit the applicability of radiomics in early-stage NSCLC, where tumors tend to be small. Our results also suggest an advantage of CatBoost models over the Cox PH models., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tlcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tlcr-22-248/coif). BAJF reports grants and personal fees from Accuray, grants from Fondazione IEO-CCM (Istituto Europeo di Oncologia-Centro Cardiologico Monzino) & FUV (Fondazione Umberto veronesi), grants from AIRC (Italian Association for Cancer Research), personal fees from IBA, personal fees from Elekta, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Ipsen, personal fees from Carl Zeiss, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. MGV reports grants from AIRC IG-22159, outside the submitted work. MZ reports grants from AIRC-IG 22159, outside the submitted work. SV reports grants from Accuray, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2022 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Quality of life (QoL) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is negatively impacted by their disease and treatment side effects. We present detailed patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the phase 3 CROWN study, which compared lorlatinib with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC., Materials and Methods: PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire with Lung Cancer module. A longitudinal, random-intercept, random-slope, mixed-effect model assessed score changes from baseline up to (not including) end of treatment. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline at each cycle were calculated and presented up to cycle 18 (≥ 10-point change considered clinically meaningful)., Results: In both lorlatinib (n = 148) and crizotinib (n = 140) arms, there were longitudinal improvements across multiple functioning and symptom scores during treatment compared with pre-treatment. Numerical improvements for most longitudinal functioning scores (physical, role, emotional, social) favored lorlatinib; cognitive functioning favored crizotinib. Numerical improvements favored lorlatinib for several symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea [clinically meaningful improvement], and cough); peripheral neuropathy favored crizotinib. Subgroup analyses showed PROs did not differ by presence/absence of baseline brain metastases., Conclusions: Patients receiving first-line lorlatinib or crizotinib showed improvements and delayed deterioration in QoL, functioning, and several symptoms. Alongside the previously reported significantly longer progression-free survival and higher intracranial response rates for lorlatinib versus crizotinib, these data further support the use of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with/without baseline brain metastases and provide evidence of several QoL improvements with lorlatinib when used in the first-line setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest ICMJE form COIs Dr Mazieres reports receiving personal consulting fees or honorarium from Pfizer, and personal consultancy fees from F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Hengrui Therapeutics, and Amgen. Dr Iadeluca, Ms Reisman, Dr Thurm, Ms Polli are employees of Pfizer and hold Pfizer stock/stock options. Dr Shaw reports receiving personal honoraria, advisory board or consultancy fees, and institutional research support from Pfizer, and is currently an employee of Novartis and holds Novartis stock/stock options. Dr Solomon reports receiving personal honoraria or advisory board fees from Pfizer, Novartis, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Takeda, Janssen, and Lilly. Dr Bauer reports receiving personal consultancy and speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Bayer; personal consultancy fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Foundation Medicine, Pfizer, Loxo Oncology, Guardant Health, Exelixis, Blueprint Medicines; payment/reimbursement of exact expenses from Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Foundation Medicine, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Bayer, Guardant Health; institutional consultancy fees from Leap Therapeutics, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer; and institutional grant support from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Medpacto, Incyte, Mirati Therapeutics, MedImmune, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, MabVax, Stemline Therapeutics, Merck, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Genentech, Deciphera, Merrimack, Immunogen, Millennium, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Principia Biopharma, Peleton, Immunocore, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Aileron Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Onyx, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas Pharma, Five Prime Therapeutics, Jacobio, Top Alliance BioScience, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, ARMO BioSciences, Leap Therapeutics, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer, Loxo Oncology, and Bayer. Dr de Marinis reports receiving personal advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Felip reports receiving personal speakers’ bureau fees from Medscape, Peervoice, Springer, Touch Independent Medical Education, prIME Oncology, CME Outfitters; personal advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Daichii Sankyo; personal advisory or board member fees from Grifols; grant support from Fundación Merck Salud. Dr Goto reports receiving grant support or contracts from Pfizer, AZK; institutional grant support or contracts from AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, ONO Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Preferred Networks Inc.; personal honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureau, manuscript writing or educational events from Lilly, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, ONO Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck, and Thermo Fisher; personal advisory board or data safety monitoring board fees from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Novartis, Guardant Health, Illumina, Daiichi Sankyo, ONO Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and reports a leadership, fiduciary or board role with Cancer Net Japan, and JAMT. Dr Kim reports receiving medical writing support from Pfizer; institutional grant support from Pfizer, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridge BioTherapeutics, Chong Keun Dang, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Janssen, Merck, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Xcovery, and Yuhan; and travel support from Amgen, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Mok reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Clovis Oncology, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, XCovery, G1 Therapeutics Inc.; personal consultancy, advisory or lecture fees from Abbvie, ACEA Pharmaceuticals, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., geneDecode (uncompensated), Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., IQVIA, Incyte Corporation, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics Inc., MoreHealth, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Inc, PrIME Oncology, Puma Biotechnology Inc, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis R&D, Takeda, Touch Medical Media, Virtus Medical Group (stock option), Yuhan Corporation, HutchMed (shareholder), SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Inivata, Berry Oncology, G1 Therapeutics Inc., Aurora (shareholder), Qiming Development (HK) Ltd., Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Ltd, Liangyihui Network Technology Co., Ltd, Taiho, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Covidien LP, Elevation Oncology, C4 Therapeutics, Inc, D3 Bio Ltd.; shareholder or stock options from Loxo-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., Act Genomics-Sanomics Group; Board of Director at AstraZeneca PLC (Jan 2019 onwards), HutchMed (Oct 2018 onwards), Act Genomics-Sanomics Group (Board Chairman 2015 onwards), Lunit USA, Inc. (Mar 2021 onwards), Aurora (Sep 2020 onwards). Dr Liu reports receiving grants or contracts from institutions - NCI (US), CIHR (Canada), CCSRI (Canada), AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim; Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events (personal) from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Takeda, Jazz; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board (personal) from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Merck, Abbvie, Jazz, Takeda, Roche, BMS, Novartis., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)