Search

The ever-growing knowledge regarding NSCLC molecular biology has brought innovative therapies into clinical practice; however, the treatment situation in the non-metastatic setting is rapidly evolving. Indeed, immunotherapy-based perioperative treatments are currently considered the standard of care for patients with resectable NSCLC in the absence of EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements. Recently, data have been presented on the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the adjuvant and locally advanced setting for patients with NSCLC harboring such driver gene alterations. The aim of the current work is to review the available evidence on the use of targeted treatments in the non-metastatic setting, together with a summary of the ongoing trials designed for actionable gene alterations other than EGFR and ALK. To date, 3-year adjuvant osimertinib treatment has been demonstrated to improve DFS and OS and to reduce CNS recurrence in resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC in stage IB–IIIA (TNM 7th edition). The use of osimertinib after chemo-radiation in stage III unresectable EGFR-mutated NSCLC showed the relevant PFS improvement. In the ALK-positive setting, 2-year alectinib treatment was shown to clearly improve DFS compared to adjuvant standard chemotherapy in resected NSCLC with stage IB (≥4 cm)–IIIA (TNM 7th edition). Several trials are ongoing to establish the optimal adjuvant TKI treatment duration, as well as neoadjuvant TKI strategies in EGFR- and ALK-positive disease, and (neo)adjuvant targeted treatments in patients with actionable gene alterations other than EGFR or ALK. In conclusion, our review depicts how the current treatment scenario is expected to rapidly change in the context of non-metastatic NSCLC with actionable gene alterations, hence appropriate molecular testing from the early stages has become crucial to establish the most adequate approaches both in the perioperative and the locally advanced disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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. [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]

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. [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]

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.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)