Search

Simple Summary: RET fusions are relatively rare in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers (NSCLCs), being around 1–2% of all NSCLCs. Chemotherapy and immunotherapy have a low impact on the prognosis of patients with RET fusions positive NSCLC. 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 in minimizing the known toxicities of the old drugs. 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 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Non-small cell lung cancer in stages II and III is a significant health challenge, requiring ongoing improvements in treatment strategies. One promising approach is neoadjuvant therapy, which is given before surgery to shrink tumours and treat unseen cancer spread. This early treatment can help doctors see how well the tumour responds, which can guide further therapy after surgery. Testing for specific markers in the tumour, like certain gene mutations and protein levels, helps doctors choose the most effective treatments for each patient. By doing this, the chances of successful surgery and long-term survival improve. Managing this type of cancer requires a team of specialists working together to create personalised treatment plans. Despite its promise, neoadjuvant therapy comes with challenges, such as determining which tumours can be removed after treatment and recognising if a tumour appears larger due to treatment effects rather than actual growth. However, the medical community's ongoing research and dedication are essential to overcoming these obstacles and enhancing the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy. This approach aims to increase survival rates and improve the quality of life for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, making it a valuable advancement for society. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This study is a real-world study on a large cohort of patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progressed on osimertinib, focusing on access to subsequent treatments and progression patterns, including central nervous system (CNS) progression. Almost half of these patients had no access to further treatments due to worsening of clinical conditions or death. The outcomes of standard platinum-based chemotherapy were dismal and in line with those reported in the literature. Notably, intracranial disease progression was a rare event during osimertinib, whereas it occurred in half the patients during standard chemotherapy. Overall, the data highlight the clinical unmet needs in the treatment sequencing of single agent osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy alone, confirming the role of combination approaches and treatments in improving CNS control. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This study is an analytic review of the data on the two most used ALK TKIs, alectinib and lorlatinib, used as the first treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC. These drugs have shown promise in separate studies, but there has not been a direct comparison until now. We analyzed data from two major clinical trials that compared these drugs to crizotinib. We found that lorlatinib may be more effective in delaying the progression of the disease compared to alectinib, especially in controlling brain metastases. Although both drugs have side effects, and an alert has been created for the peculiar toxicities of lorlatinib, more people had to stop taking alectinib due to side effects compared to lorlatinib. Overall, the data suggest that lorlatinib might be a better option for patients with this type of lung cancer, but more research is needed to confirm these findings. This information could help clinicians make better treatment decisions for patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The dramatic improvement in the prognosis of patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) became possible thanks to the advent of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). In a subgroup of EGFR mutations, known as uncommon (ucEGFRmuts) and rare, NSCLC-mutated patients show, most of the time, lower EGFR-TKIs sensitivity than most common mutations, making this a great clinical point of discussion. Here, we summarized recent data about EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive NSCLC patients and Phase 3 trials ongoing, with a specific focus on the PAPILLON study. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Surgical resections remain the gold standard for early stages non-small-cell carcinoma (NSCLC) 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The identification of the optimal cancer treatment has become progressively more intricate for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients due to the multitude of options available. The testing of biomarkers to predict clinical responses to therapies is pivotal to stratify the patients based on the molecular features of their tumors. The number of actionable genetic alterations to be tested is increasing together with the comprehension of the molecular mechanisms underlying tumor growth and development. The possibility of using next generation sequencing-based approaches enhanced the acquisition of genetic data with potential clinical usefulness, and favored the integration of precision medicine in clinical practice. The availability of targeted sequencing panels that cover genetic alterations in hundreds of genes allows the performance of a comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of lung tumors. However, different issues still need to be solved, from the tissue needed for next generation sequencing analysis, to the choice of the test and its interpretation in the clinical context. This position paper from the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) summarizes the results of a discussion from a Precision Medicine Panel meeting on the challenges to bringing CGP and, therefore, precision medicine into the daily clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ICARUS trial is a phase II, open label, multicenter, single arm study conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a rechallenge treatment with the first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) gefitinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients carrying activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The ICARUS trial enrolled 61 patients who were rechallenged with gefitinib at progression after second-line chemotherapy. Serum-derived circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) collected before the rechallenge from a cohort of 29 patients, was retrospectively analyzed for the EGFR exon 19 deletions and for the p.L858R and p.T790M single nucleotide variants (SNV). The analysis of cfDNA detected the same EGFR activating mutation reported in the tumor tissue in 20/29 patients, with a sensitivity of 69%. Moreover, a p.T790M variant was found in 14/29 patients (48.3%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months for p.T790M positive patients (CI 95% 1.4–3.1 months) versus 3.5 months for the p.T790M negative patients (CI 95% 1.6–5.3 months), resulting in a statistically significant difference (Long rank test p = 0.0180). These findings confirmed the role of the p.T790M mutation in the resistance to first-generation TKIs. More importantly, our data suggest that TKI rechallenge should be guided by biomarker testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]