Search

Background: Fucus vesiculosus -derived fucoidan, a multifunctional bioactive polysaccharide sourced from marine organisms, exhibits a wide range of therapeutic properties, including its anti-tumor effects. While previous research has reported on its anti-cancer potential, limited studies have explored its synergistic capabilities when combined with other natural bioactive ingredients. In this current study, we present the development of an integrative functional beverage, denoted as VMW-FC, which is composed of a fucoidan complex (FC) along with a blend of various herbal components, including vegetables (V), mulberries and fruits (M), and spelt wheat (W). Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of mortality, particularly in metastatic cases. Therefore, the urgent need for novel alternative medicines that comprehensively inhibit CRC persists. In this investigation, we assess the impact of VMW-FC on CRC cell proliferation, cell cycle dynamics, metastasis, in vivo tumorigenesis, and potential side effects. Methods: Cell growth was assessed using MTT and colony formation assays, while metastatic potential was evaluated through wound healing and transwell migration assays. The underlying signaling mechanisms were elucidated through qPCR and western blot analysis. In vivo tumor formation and potential side effects were evaluated using a subcutaneous tumor-bearing NOD/SCID mouse model. Results: Our findings demonstrate that VMW-FC significantly impedes CRC proliferation and migration in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Furthermore, it induces sub-G1 cell cycle arrest and an increase in apoptotic cell populations, as confirmed through flow-cytometric analysis. Notably, VMW-FC also suppresses xenograft tumor growth in NOD/SCID mice without causing renal or hepatic toxicity. Conclusion: The integrative herbal concoction VMW-FC presents a promising approach for inhibiting CRC by slowing proliferation and migration, inducing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, and suppressing markers associated with proliferation (Ki-67, PCNA, and CDKs) and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) (Vimentin, N-cadherin, and β-catenin).

Dementia is a leading cause of disability and dependence in older adults worldwide. The aim of this pilot study was to explore the effect of using a kazoo instrument to improve pulmonary function and cognitive reserve in middle-aged and older adults in rural areas. This quasi-experimental study was conducted at two community care stations selected using cluster sampling from a rural district in southern Taiwan. We enrolled 85 middle-aged and older adults who were randomly assigned into self-learner and in-class groups. Both groups received a 6-month kazoo program. Cognitive and pulmonary function were compared before and after the intervention between the two groups. Significantly improved pulmonary function with regards to forced vital capacity ( p

Background: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group PA.3 (NCIC CTG PA.3) was a phase 3 study (n = 569) that demonstrated benefits for overall survival and progression-free survival with the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma (APC). Mutation status of the v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and EGFR gene copy number (GCN) were evaluated as predictive markers in 26% of patients who had tumor samples available for analysis.Methods: KRAS mutation status was evaluated by direct sequencing of exon 2, and EGFR GCN was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. The results were correlated with survival, which was the primary endpoint of the trial.Results: KRAS analysis was successful in 117 patients, and EGFR FISH analysis was successful in 107 patients. KRAS mutations were identified in 92 patients (78.6%), and EGFR amplification or high polysomy (FISH-positive results) was identified in 50 patients (46.7%). The hazard ratio of death between gemcitabine/erlotinib and gemcitabine/placebo was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-1.57) for patients with wild-type KRAS and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.68-1.66) for patients with mutant KRAS (P value for interaction = .38), and the hazard ratio was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.34-1.07) for FISH-negative patients and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.49-1.65) for FISH-positive patients (P value for interaction = .32).Conclusions: In a molecular subset analysis of patients from NCIC CTG PA.3, EGFR GCN and KRAS mutation status were not identified as markers predictive of a survival benefit from the combination of erlotinib with gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of APC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pathogenesis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) involves multi-stage development of molecular aberrations affecting signaling pathways that regulate cancer growth and progression. This study was performed to gain a better understanding of the abnormal signaling that occurs in PDAC compared with normal duct epithelia.Methods: We performed immunohistochemistry on a tissue microarray of 26 PDAC, 13 normal appearing adjacent pancreatic ductal epithelia, and 12 normal non-PDAC ducts. We compared the levels of 18 signaling proteins including growth factor receptors, tumor suppressors and 13 of their putative downstream phosphorylated (p-) signal transducers in PDAC to those in normal ductal epithelia.Results: The overall profiles of signaling protein expression levels, activation states and sub-cellular distribution in PDAC cells were distinguishable from non-neoplastic ductal epithelia. The ERK pathway activation was correlated with high levels of S2448p-mTOR (100%, p = 0.05), T389p-S6K (100%, p = 0.02 and S235/236p-S6 (86%, p = 0.005). Additionally, T389p-S6K correlated with S727p-STAT3 (86%, p = 0.005). Advanced tumors with lymph node metastasis were characterized by high levels of S276p-NFkappaB (100%, p = 0.05) and S9p-GSK3beta (100%, p = 0.05). High levels of PKBbeta/AKT2, EGFR, as well as nuclear T202/Y204p-ERK and T180/Y182p-p38 were observed in normal ducts adjacent to PDAC compared with non-cancerous pancreas.Conclusion: Multiple signaling proteins are activated in pancreatic duct cell carcinogenesis including those associated with the ERK, PKB/AKT, mTOR and STAT3 pathways. The ERK pathway activation appears also increased in duct epithelia adjacent to carcinoma, suggesting tumor micro-environmental effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Optimal target delineation threshold values for positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) radiotherapy planning is controversial. In this present study, different PET CT threshold values were used for target delineation and then compared pathologically. Methods and Materials: A total of 31 non-small-cell lung cancer patients underwent PET CT before surgery. The maximal diameter (MD) of the pathologic primary tumor was obtained. The CT-based gross tumor volumes (GTV(CT)) were delineated for CT window-level thresholds at 1,600 and -300 Hounsfield units (HU) (GTV(CT1)); 1,600 and -400 (GTV(CT2)); 1,600 and -450 HU (GTV(CT3)); 1,600 and -600 HU (GTV(CT4)); 1,200 and -700 HU (GTV(CT5)); 900 and -450 HU (GTV(CT6)); and 700 and -450 HU (GTV(CT7)). The PET-based GTVs (GTV(PET)) were autocontoured at 20% (GTV(20)), 30% (GTV(30)), 40% (GTV(40)), 45% (GTV(45)), 50% (GTV(50)), and 55% (GTV(55)) of the maximal intensity level. The MD of each image-based GTV in three-dimensional orientation was determined. The MD of the GTV(PET) and GTV(CT) were compared with the pathologically determined MD. Results: The median MD of the GTV(CT) changed from 2.89 (GTV(CT2)) to 4.46 (GTV(CT7)) as the CT thresholds were varied. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT) compared with the pathologically determined MD ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(CT1) was the best (r=0.87). The median MD of GTV(PET) changed from 5.72 cm to 2.67 cm as the PET thresholds increased. The correlation coefficient of the GTV(PET) compared with the pathologic finding ranged from 0.51 to 0.77. The correlation coefficient of GTV(50) was the best (r=0.77). Conclusion: Compared with the MD of GTV(PET), the MD of GTV(CT) had better correlation with the pathologic MD. The GTV(CT1) and GTV(50) had the best correlation with the pathologic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Functional genomic screens in two-dimensional cell culture models are limited in identifying therapeutic targets that influence the tumor microenvironment. By comparing targeted CRISPR-Cas9 screens in a two-dimensional culture with xenografts derived from the same cell line, we identified MEN1 as the top hit that confers differential dropout effects in vitro and in vivo. MEN1 knockout in multiple solid cancer types does not impact cell proliferation in vitro but significantly promotes or inhibits tumor growth in immunodeficient or immunocompetent mice, respectively. Mechanistically, MEN1 knockout redistributes MLL1 chromatin occupancy, increasing H3K4me3 at repetitive genomic regions, activating double-stranded RNA expression and increasing neutrophil and CD8 + T cell infiltration in immunodeficient and immunocompetent mice, respectively. Pharmacological inhibition of the menin-MLL interaction reduces tumor growth in a CD8 + T cell-dependent manner. These findings reveal tumor microenvironment-dependent oncogenic and tumor-suppressive functions of MEN1 and provide a rationale for targeting MEN1 in solid cancers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Centrosome amplification (CA), an abnormal increase in the number of centrosomes in the cell, is a recurrent phenomenon in lung and other malignancies. Although CA promotes tumor development and progression by inducing genomic instability (GIN), it also induces mitotic stress that jeopardizes cellular integrity. CA leads to the formation of multipolar mitotic spindles that can cause lethal chromosome segregation errors. To sustain the benefits of CA by mitigating its consequences, malignant cells are dependent on adaptive mechanisms that represent therapeutic vulnerabilities. We aimed to discover genetic dependencies associated with CA in lung cancer. Combining a CRISPR/Cas9 functional genomics screen with tumor genomic analyses, we identified the motor protein KIFC1, also known as HSET, as a putative vulnerability specifically in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) with CA. KIFC1 expression was positively correlated with CA in LUAD and associated with worse patient outcomes, smoking history, and indicators of GIN. KIFC1 loss-of-function sensitized LUAD cells with high basal KIFC1 expression to potentiation of CA, which was associated with a diminished ability to cluster extra centrosomes into pseudo-bipolar mitotic spindles. Our work suggests that KIFC1 inhibition represents a novel approach for potentiating GIN to lethal levels in LUAD with CA by forcing cells to divide with multipolar spindles, rationalizing further studies to investigate its therapeutic potential., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), routine testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) is recommended to identify actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). The therapeutic implications of repeated NGS testing on synchronous and metachronous tumors are unclear. Between February 2017 and October 2020, NSCLC samples from a single institution were reflex-tested using a targeted 15-gene NGS panel (TruSight Tumor 15, Illumina). Thirty-eight patients were identified with multiple NGS results from 82 samples: 11% were from single unifocal, 51% were from synchronous, and 38% were from metachronous tumors. Changes in EGFR , KRAS , PI3KCA , and TP53 variants were found in 22 patients' samples (58%). No changes were seen with longitudinal testing of multiple samples from single unifocal tumors, while changes were observed in 60% of synchronous and 71% of metachronous tumors. Of these, 26% of patients had AGA differences between samples. Acknowledging the limited sample size, a significant difference in overall survival was observed between synchronous separate primaries and metastasis. Repeat NGS testing of synchronous and metachronous NSCLC tumors may identify differing variants in >50% of patients. These changes may reflect separate primary lung carcinomas, tumor heterogeneity among intrapulmonary metastases, and clonal evolution. NGS testing of multiple tumors may enhance the identification of therapeutic targets for treatment decisions.

Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are increasingly utilized in preclinical drug efficacy studies due to their ability to retain the molecular, histological, and drug response characteristics of patient tumors. This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing the successful engraftment of PDXs. Lung adenocarcinoma PDXs were established using freshly resected tumor tissues obtained through surgery. Radiological data of pulmonary nodules from this PDX cohort were analyzed, categorizing them into solid tumors and tumors with ground-glass opacity (GGO) based on preoperative CT images. Gene mutation status was obtained from next generation sequencing data and MassARRAY panel. A total of 254 resected primary lung adenocarcinomas were utilized for PDX establishment, with successful initial engraftment in 58 cases (22.8 %); stable engraftment defined as at least three serial passages was observed in 43 cases (16.9 %). The stable engraftment rates of PDXs from solid tumors and tumors with GGO were 22.1 % (42 of 190 cases) and 1.6 % (1 of 64 cases), respectively (P < 0.001). Adenocarcinomas with advanced stage, poor differentiation, solid histologic subtype, and KRAS or TP53 gene mutations were associated with stable PDX engraftment. Avoiding tumors with GGO features could enhance the cost-effectiveness of establishing PDX models from early-stage resected lung adenocarcinomas., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: KY is a consultant for Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, Johnson & Johnson Enterprise Innovation, Inc., and Medtronic. KY also has collaborations with Johnson & Johnson Enterprise Innovation, Inc, Olympus Corporation, and ODS Medical Inc., Siemens, and OKF Technologies. No conflicts for remaining authors., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Several observations indicate that protein expression analysis by immunohistochemistry (IHC) remains relevant in individuals with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when considering targeted therapy, as an early step in diagnosis and for therapy selection. Since the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS), the role of IHC in testing for NSCLC biomarkers has been forgotten or ignored. We discuss how protein-level investigations maintain a critical role in defining sensitivity to lung cancer therapies in oncogene- and non-oncogene-addicted cases and in patients eligible for immunotherapy, suggesting that IHC testing should be reconsidered in clinical practice. We also argue how a panel of IHC tests should be considered complementary to NGS and other genomic assays. This is relevant to current clinical diagnostic practice but with potential future roles to optimize the selection of patients for innovative therapies. At the same time, strict validation of antibodies, assays, scoring systems, and intra- and interobserver reproducibility is needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Fred R. Hirsch has participated in scientific advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Regeneron, Novartis, Amgen, Genentech, Novocure, NextCure, Nectin Therapeutics, Merus Therapeutics, G1-Therapeutics, and Blueprint Medicines., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The TNM classification of lung cancer is periodically revised. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer collected and analyzed a new database to inform the forthcoming ninth edition of the TNM classification. The results are herewith presented., Methods: After exclusions, 76,518 patients from a total of 124,581 registered patients were available for analyses: 58,193 with clinical stage, 39,192 with pathologic stage, and 62,611 with best stage NSCLC. The proposed new N2 subcategories (N2a, involvement of single ipsilateral mediastinal or subcarinal nodal station, and N2b, involvement of multiple ipsilateral mediastinal nodal stations with or without involvement of the subcarinal nodal station) and the new M1c subcategories (M1c1, multiple extrathoracic metastases in one organ system, and M1c2, multiple extrathoracic metastases in multiple organ systems) were considered in the survival analyses. Several potential stage groupings were evaluated, using multiple analyses, including recursive partitioning, assessment of homogeneity within and discrimination between potential groups, clinical and statistical significance of survival differences, multivariable regression, and broad assessment of generalizability., Results: T1N1, T1N2a, and T3N2a subgroups are assigned to IIA, IIB, and IIIA stage groups, respectively. T2aN2b and T2bN2b subgroups are assigned to IIIB. M1c1 and M1c2 remain in stage group IVB. Analyses reveal consistent ordering, discrimination of prognosis, and broad generalizability of the proposed ninth edition stage classification of lung cancer., Conclusions: The proposed stages for the ninth edition TNM improve the granularity of nomenclature about anatomic extent that has benefits as treatment approaches become increasingly differentiated and complex., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Nishimura and Ms. Giroux report that statistical consulting by Cancer Research And Biostatistics (CRAB) employees for data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation in the Staging Project is funded by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Dr. Fong reports payments made to his institution by Competitive Research Grant, MRFF EPCDR Improving Diagnosis in Cancers Low Survival Rates; Competitive Research Grant, NHMRC Ideas grant: Early lung cancer biomarkers; Competitive Research Grant, MRFF Next Generation Clinical Researchers Program - Practitioner Fellowship; Competitive Research Grant, NHMRC Project: Novel biomarkers for lung cancer; Competitive Research Grant, NHMRC Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) to diagnose lung cancer; payments to himself by UpToDate Reviewer and Cochrane Clinical Answers Reviewer; payment for travel support to WCLC, ATS in 2022 and PCCP in 2023; payments for travel support by the 2023 Asia Pacific Coalition Against Lung Cancer; and payments from the Asia Pacific Society of Respirology former President and EXCO member; support with loan bronchoscopes for the purpose of a research study—no financial funding from Olympus; and software licensing for Computer Aided Diagnosis research in the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST) from Mevis Veolity. Dr. Giuliani reports receiving payments for Advisory Board member from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; and being Section Editor, of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics. Dr. Marom reports receiving honorarium for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Nicholson reports receiving personal fees from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AbbVie, Oncologica, UpToDate, the European Society of Oncology, and Liberum; and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Van Schil reports receiving lecture and consulting institutional fees from AstraZeneca and Janssen and lecture and consulting personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche; and having leadership positions in BACTS (Belgian Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery) as treasurer and IASLC (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer) as president with no fees. Dr. Travis reports receiving a grant from the National Cancer Institute: MSKCC Core Grant: P30 CA008748. Dr. Rusch reports receiving support for the present manuscript from NIH Cancer Support Grant P30-CA008748; institutional funding for a clinical trail from Genentech; and miscellaneous honoraria for lectures of no commercial interest at various universities; funding for meeting preparation and attendance by NIH Thoracic Malignancy Steering Committee (Co-Chair); and reports being a committee member of MARS II and RAMON trials (Cancer Research UK). Dr. Asamura reports receiving funding for analyses of results and manuscript preparation and support from the IASLC for attending meetings. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The goal of surgical resection is to completely remove a cancer; it is useful to have a system to describe how well this was accomplished. This is captured by the residual tumor (R) classification, which is separate from the TNM classification that describes the anatomic extent of a cancer independent of treatment. The traditional R-classification designates as R0 a complete resection, as R1 a macroscopically complete resection but with microscopic tumor at the surgical margin, and as R2 a resection that leaves gross tumor behind. For lung cancer, an additional category encompasses situations in which the presence of residual tumor is uncertain., Methods: This paper represents a comprehensive review of evidence regarding these R categories and the descriptors thereof, focusing on studies published after the year 2000 and with adjustment for potential confounders., Results: Consistent discrimination between complete, uncertain, and incomplete resection is revealed with respect to overall survival. Evidence regarding specific descriptors is generally somewhat limited and only partially consistent; nevertheless, the data suggest retaining all descriptors but with clarifications to address ambiguities., Conclusion: On the basis of this review, the R-classification for the ninth edition of stage classification of lung cancer is proposed to retain the same overall framework and descriptors, with more precise definitions of descriptors. These refinements should facilitate application and further research., Competing Interests: Disclosure Drs. Asamura, Detterbeck, Edwards, Hoffmann, Infante, Marino, Nakajima, Ostrowski, Rami-Porta, Travis have nothing to disclose.Dr. Van Schil reports personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Roche, from Janssen, outside the submitted work; and BACTS (Belgian Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery) treasurer - no fees, IASLC (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer) president 2023-2025 - no feesDr. Tsao reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Bayer, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Abbvie, outside the submitted workDr. Donington reports Amgen: advisory board, AstraZeneca: advisory board and speaker, BMS: advisory board and speaker, Merck: advisory board and speaker, Roche/Genentech: advisory board and speaker.Dr. NICHOLSON reports personal fees from MERCK, personal fees from BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, grants and personal fees from PFIZER, personal fees from NOVARTIS, personal fees from ASTRA ZENECA, personal fees from BRISTOL MYER SQUIB, personal fees from ROCHE, personal fees from ASTRA ZENECA, personal fees from ABBVIE, personal fees from ONCOLOGICA, personal fees from UPTODATE, personal fees from EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF ONOCLOGY, personal fees from LIBERUM, personal fees from TAKEDA UK, personal fees from SANOFI, outside the submitted work; .Dr. Marom reports other from boehringer ingelheim, other from AstraZeneca, other from Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work; Raymond U. Osarogiagbon reports grants from National Cancer Institute, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from American Cancer Society, personal fees from Biodesix, personal fees from Genentech/Roche, personal fees from Lungevity Foundation, personal fees from National Cancer Institute, personal fees from Tryptych Healthcare Partners, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Osarogiagbon has a patent Lymph node specimen collection kit issued, and a patent Method for collecting lymph nodes issued and Board Chair, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (SWOG); Board of Scientific Advisors, National Cancer Institute; Steering Committee, National Lung Cancer Roundtable; Scientific Advisory Board, Lung Cancer Foundation of America; Scientific Advisory Board, GO2 Foundation; Scientific Advisory Board, Druckenmiller Center for Lung Cancer Research, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Scientific Advisory Board, LUNGevity Foundation. Founder, Oncobox Devices, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Comprehensive m6A epitranscriptome profiling of primary tumors remains largely uncharted. Here, we profiled the m6A epitranscriptome of 10 non-neoplastic lung (NL) tissues and 51 lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) tumors, integrating the corresponding transcriptome, proteome and extensive clinical annotations. We identified distinct clusters and genes that were exclusively linked to disease progression through m6A modifications. In comparison with NL tissues, we identified 430 transcripts to be hypo-methylated and 222 to be hyper-methylated in tumors. Among these genes, EML4 emerged as a novel metastatic driver, displaying significant hyper-methylation in tumors. m6A modification promoted the translation of EML4, leading to its widespread overexpression in primary tumors. Functionally, EML4 modulated cytoskeleton dynamics through interacting with ARPC1A, enhancing lamellipodia formation, cellular motility, local invasion, and metastasis. Clinically, high EML4 protein abundance correlated with features of metastasis. METTL3 small molecule inhibitor markedly diminished both EML4 m6A and protein abundance, and efficiently suppressed lung metastases in vivo.

Advances in the multidisciplinary care of early stage resectable NSCLC (rNSCLC) are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Numerous phase 3 trials produced results that have transformed patient outcomes for the better, yet these findings also require important modifications to the patient treatment journey trajectory and reorganization of care pathways. Perhaps, most notably, the need for multispecialty collaboration for this patient population has never been greater. These rapid advances have inevitably left us with important gaps in knowledge for which definitive answers will only become available in several years. To this end, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer commissioned a diverse multidisciplinary international expert panel to evaluate the current landscape and provide diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic recommendations for patients with rNSCLC, with particular emphasis on patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer-Union for International Cancer Control TNM eighth edition stages II and III disease. Using a team-based approach, we generated 19 recommendations, of which all but one achieved greater than 85% consensus among panel members. A public voting process was initiated, which successfully validated and provided qualitative nuance to our recommendations. Highlights include the following: (1) the critical importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of patients with rNSCLC driven by shared clinical decision-making of a multispecialty team of expert providers; (2) biomarker testing for rNSCLC; (3) a preference for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for stage III rNSCLC; (4) equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with stage II between upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant or perioperative strategies; and (5) the robust preference for adjuvant targeted therapy for patients with rNSCLC and sensitizing EGFR and ALK tumor alterations. Our primary goals were to provide practical recommendations sensitive to the global differences in biology and resources for patients with rNSCLC and to provide expert consensus guidance tailored to the individualized patient needs, goals, and preferences in their cancer care journey as these are areas where physicians must make daily clinical decisions in the absence of definitive data. These recommendations will continue to evolve as the treatment landscape for rNSCLC expands and more knowledge is acquired on the best therapeutic approach in specific patient and disease subgroups., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Spicer reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Roche, Regeneron, and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer; meeting support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; data safety monitoring board for AstraZeneca; and receipt of other services from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cascone reports receiving speaker fees and/or honoraria from the American Society for Clinical Oncology Post, AstraZeneca, Bio Ascend, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clinical Care Options, IDEOlogy Health, Medical Educator Consortium, Medscape, OncLive, PEAK Medical, PeerView, Physicians' Education Resource, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and Targeted Oncology; advisory role/consulting fees from Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Merck, oNKo-innate, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, and Regeneron; and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Dr.Ahn reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Alpha Pharmaceuticals, Genxin, and Pfizer; and honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boronoi, Arcus, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr.Dacic reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Medscape, outside the submitted work. Dr. Felip reports receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point, and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Touch Oncology; travel support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Roche; and other from Grifols as an independent member of the board, outside the submitted work. Dr. Forde reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Regeneron, and BioNTech; consulting fees from Ascendis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Curevac, Novartis, Regeneron, G1, Genlux, Genentech, Gritstone, Merck, Janssen, F Star, Sanofi, Amgen, Fosun, Teva, Synthekine, Flame, Iteos, and Tavotek. Dr. Higgins reports receiving grants or contracts from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, RefleXion Medicalx; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Janssen; positions on the NRG Oncology Board of Directors and RTOG Foundation Board of Directors; and stock or stock options in Picture Health. Dr. Kris reports receiving grant or contracts from BerGenBio, Merus, AstraZeneca, Mirati, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis; honoraria from Pfizer and AstraZeneca; and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mitsudomi reports receiving grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, Ono, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Thermo Fisher, Roche Diagnostics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Taiho, Takeda, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Thermo Fisher, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Invitae, Guardant, Novartis, Amgen, Merck biopharma, and Kyorin; data safety monitoring board for Taiho Pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Provencio reports receiving grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, and Takeda; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and meeting attendance support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Dr. Senan reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; honoraria from AstraZeneca; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and membership on ETOP scientific committee, outside the submitted work. Dr. Solomon reports receiving travel support from IASLC to attend meeting related to manuscript; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Amgen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline; unpaid leadership roles at the IASLC, Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, and Cancer Council of Victoria. Dr. Tsao reports receiving travel support from IASLC to attend meeting related to manuscript; grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Lily; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lily; honoraria from AbbVie and Sanofi; and board of directors for IASLC. Dr. Tsuboi reports receiving grant from AstraZeneca KK, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Novartis Japan, BMG KK, MiRXES, and Johnson & Johnson Japan; honoraria from Amgen KK, Johnson & Johnson Japan, AstraZeneca KK, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharma, Medtronic Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme KK, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Daiichi Sanko KK, and Novalis; advisory committee participation for Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and AstraZeneca KK; and Board of Directors for Japan Lung Cancer Society (JLCS), Bronchology Committee Chair for JLCS, and Educational Committee working group chair for IASLC, outside the submitted work. Dr. Wakelee reports receiving grants or contracts from ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, SeaGen, Xcovery, and Helsinn; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Mirati, Merck, and Genentech/Roche; and leadership positions on the IASLC Board of Directors and ECOG-ACRIN executive committee. Dr. Wu reports receiving grants and contracts form AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Henqrui, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and unpaid leadership role for Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group. Dr. Yang reports receiving personal fees and other from Amgen, Bayer Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, and Yuhan Pharmaceuticals; grants, personal fees, and other from AstraZeneca; other from Eli Lilly; personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer; and other from JNJ, Puma Technology, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhou reports receiving consulting fees from Innovent Biologics, Hengrui, Qila, and TopAlliance Biosciences; honoraria from Lily China, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, LUYE Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart. Dr. Kelly reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lepidic growth is considered noninvasive in lung nonmucinous adenocarcinoma, whereas other patterns are invasive. Considerable interobserver variability in assessing "invasion" has been reported. We assessed the utility of cytokeratin 7 (CK7) stain and recently proposed International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer criteria to improve assessment of noninvasion in lung adenocarcinoma., Methods: Four pathologists (two staff, two trainees) assessed 158 hematoxylin and eosin (HE)- and CK7-stained slides of 108 pT1N0-2 nonmucinous lung adenocarcinoma cases. Scoring took place in four rounds. First, sections were independently scored for percentage of noninvasive or probable noninvasive and invasive or probable invasive patterns. Second, after a consensus scoring algorithm for CK7 was formulated, the slides were rescored. Subsequent third-round scoring was conducted only on HE slides using the 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer proposed criteria, and fourth-round scoring on both HE and CK7 slides simultaneously. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for each round. Recurrence-free survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression methods., Results: In the first two rounds, interobserver concordance was consistently higher with CK7 (ICC range = 0.44-0.6) than HE (range = 0.24-0.49) scores. The IASLC proposed algorithm improved ICC of HE scores to 0.60 (95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.67), and round 4 HE and CK7 combined improved ICC to 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.80). Continuous measures of averaged noninvasive and probable noninvasive scores on HE were associated with improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.83-0.86)., Conclusions: CK7 staining consistently increased interobserver concordance in assessment of invasive versus noninvasive patterns than HE. Combining CK7 with the 2023 IASLC criteria for morphologic features of invasion may further improve the interobservers' concordance for the recognition of lepidic growth in nonmucinous lung adenocarcinoma., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Context.—: Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose., Objective.—: To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma., Data Sources.—: Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks., Conclusions.—: There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions., Competing Interests: The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (© 2024 College of American Pathologists.)

Purpose: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive and lethal form of lung cancer and the overall 5-year survival (OS) for patients is a dismal 7%. Radiation therapy (RT) provides some benefit for selected patients with SCLC but could be improved with radiosensitizing agents. In this study, we identified novel radiosensitizers for SCLC by a CRISPR-Cas9 screen and evaluated the efficacy of ATM inhibitor AZD1390 as a radiosensitizer of SCLC., Methods and Materials: We transduced the SCLC cell line SBC5 with a custom CRISPR sgRNA library focused on druggable gene targets and treated cells with RT. Cells collected at multiple timepoints were subjected to next-generation sequencing. We determined radiosensitization both in vitro with cell lines assessed by short-term viability and clonogenic assays, and in vivo mouse models by tumor growth delay. Pharmacodynamic effects of AZD1390 were quantified by ATM-Ser1981 phosphorylation, and RT-induced DNA damage by comet assay., Results: Using a CRISPR dropout screen, we identified multiple radiosensitizing genes for SCLC at various timepoints with ATM as a top determinant gene for radiosensitivity. Validation by ATM knockout (KO) demonstrated increased radiosensitivity by short-term viability assay (dose modification factor [DMF] 50 = 3.25-3.73 in SBC5 ATM-KO) and clonogenic assays (DMF 37 1.25-1.65 in SBC5 ATM-KO). ATM inhibition by AZD1390 effectively abrogated ATM Ser1981 phosphorylation in SCLC cell lines and increased RT-induced DNA damage. AZD1390 synergistically increased the radiosensitivity of SCLC cell lines (cell viability assay: SBC5 DMF 37 = 2.19, SHP77 DMF 37 = 1.56, H446 DMF 37 = 3.27, KP1 DMF 37 = 1.65 at 100nM; clonogenic assay: SBC5 DMF 37 = 4.23, H1048 DMF 37 = 1.91), and in vivo murine syngeneic, KP1, and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models, JHU-LX108 and JHU-LX33., Conclusions: In this study, we demonstrated that genetically and pharmacologically (AZD1390) inhibiting ATM markedly enhanced RT against SCLC, providing a novel pharmacologically tractable radiosensitizing strategy for patients with SCLC., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The centrosome is the main microtubule-organizing center in animal cells and centrosome amplification is a hallmark of cancer cells. To investigate the importance of centrosomes in colorectal cancer, we induced centrosome loss in normal and cancer human-derived colorectal organoids using centrinone B, a Polo-like kinase 4 (Plk4) inhibitor. We show that centrosome loss represses human normal colorectal organoid growth in a p53-dependent manner in accordance with previous studies in cell models. However, cancer colorectal organoid lines exhibited different sensitivities to centrosome loss independently of p53. Centrinone-induced cancer organoid growth defect/death positively correlated with a loss of function mutation in the APC gene, suggesting a causal role of the hyperactive WNT pathway. Consistent with this notion, β-catenin inhibition using XAV939 or ICG-001 partially prevented centrinone-induced death and rescued the growth two APC-mutant organoid lines tested. Our study reveals a novel role for canonical WNT signaling in regulating centrosome loss-induced growth defect/death in a subset of APC-mutant colorectal cancer independently of the classical p53 pathway., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Bourmoum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: Morphologic and molecular data for staging of multifocal lung squamous cell carcinomas (LSCCs) are limited. In this study, whole exome sequencing (WES) was used as the gold standard to determine whether multifocal LSCC represented separate primary lung cancers (SPLCs) or intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs). Genomic profiles were compared with the comprehensive morphologic assessment., Methods: WES was performed on 20 tumor pairs of multifocal LSCC and matched normal lymph nodes using the Illumina NovaSeq6000 S4-Xp (Illumina, San Diego, CA). WES clonal and subclonal analysis data were compared with histologic assessment by 16 thoracic pathologists. In addition, the immune gene profiling of the study cases was characterized by the HTG EdgeSeq Precision Immuno-Oncology Panel., Results: By WES data, 11 cases were classified as SPLC and seven cases as IPM. Two cases were technically suboptimal. Analysis revealed marked genomic and immunogenic heterogeneity, but immune gene expression profiles highly correlated with mutation profiles. Tumors classified as IPM have a large number of shared mutations (ranging from 33.5% to 80.7%). The agreement between individual morphologic assessments for each case and WES was 58.3%. One case was unanimously interpreted morphologically as IPM and was in agreement with WES. In a further 17 cases, the number of pathologists whose morphologic interpretation was in agreement with WES ranged from two (one case) to 15 pathologists (one case) per case. Pathologists showed a fair interobserver agreement in the morphologic staging of multiple LSCCs, with an overall kappa of 0.232., Conclusions: Staging of multifocal LSCC based on morphologic assessment is unreliable. Comprehensive genomic analyses should be adopted for the staging of multifocal LSCC., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Tumor-agnostic testing for NTRK1-3 gene rearrangements is required to identify patients who may benefit from TRK inhibitor therapies. The overarching objective of this study was to establish a high-quality pan-TRK immunohistochemistry (IHC) screening assay among 18 large regional pathology laboratories across Canada using pan-TRK monoclonal antibody clone EPR17341 in a ring study design. TRK-fusion positive and negative tumor samples were collected from participating sites, with fusion status confirmed by panel next-generation sequencing assays. Each laboratory received: (1) unstained sections from 30 cases of TRK-fusion-positive or -negative tumors, (2) 2 types of reference standards: TRK calibrator slides and IHC critical assay performance controls (iCAPCs), (3) EPR17341 antibody, and (4) suggestions for developing IHC protocols. Participants were asked to optimize the IHC protocol for their instruments and detection systems by using iCAPCs, to stain the 30 study cases, and to report the percentage scores for membranous, cytoplasmic, and nuclear staining. TRK calibrators were used to assess the analytical sensitivity of IHC protocols developed by using the 2 reference standards. Fifteen of 18 laboratories achieved diagnostic sensitivity of 100% against next-generation sequencing. The diagnostic specificity ranged from 40% to 90%. The results did not differ significantly between positive scores based on the presence of any type of staining vs the presence of overall staining in ≥1% of cells. The median limit of detection measured by TRK calibrators was 76,000 molecules/cell (range 38,000 to >200,000 molecules/cell). Three different patterns of staining were observed in 19 TRK-positive cases, cytoplasmic-only in 7 samples, nuclear and cytoplasmic in 9 samples, and cytoplasmic and membranous in 3 samples. The Canadian multicentric pan-TRK study illustrates a successful strategy to accelerate the multicenter harmonization and implementation of pan-TRK immunohistochemical screening that achieves high diagnostic sensitivity by using laboratory-developed tests where laboratories used centrally developed reference materials. The measurement of analytical sensitivity by using TRK calibrators provided additional insights into IHC protocol performance., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pleural mesothelioma usually presents at an advanced, incurable stage. Chemotherapy with platinum-pemetrexed is a standard treatment. We hypothesised that the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-pemetrexed would improve overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma., Methods: We did this open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial at 51 hospitals in Canada, Italy, and France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous chemotherapy (cisplatin [75 mg/m 2 ] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5-6 mg/mL per min] with pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 , every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles), with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02784171, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Jan 31, 2017, and Sept 4, 2020, 440 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone (n=218) or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab (n=222). 333 (76 %) of patients were male, 347 (79%) were White, and median age was 71 years (IQR 66-75). At final analysis (database lock Dec 15, 2022), with a median follow-up of 16·2 months (IQR 8·3-27·8), overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab (median overall survival 17·3 months [95% CI 14·4-21·3] with pembrolizumab vs 16·1 months [13·1-18·2] with chemotherapy alone, hazard ratio for death 0·79; 95% CI 0·64-0·98, two-sided p=0·0324). 3-year overall survival rate was 25% (95% CI 20-33%) with pembrolizumab and 17% (13-24%) with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events related to study treatment of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 60 (27%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 32 (15%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Hospital admissions for serious adverse events related to one or more study drugs were reported in 40 (18%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 12 (6%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Grade 5 adverse events related to one or more drugs occurred in two patients on the pembrolizumab group and one patient in the chemotherapy alone group., Interpretation: In patients with advanced pleural mesothelioma, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy was tolerable and resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival. This regimen is a new treatment option for previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma., Funding: The Canadian Cancer Society and Merck & Co., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MP has received grants for research to institution from AstraZeneca and Roche; payment for educational events from Astellas, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca; and received drugs for research from Roche and AstraZeneca. GLR received consulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; received support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, MSD, BMS, and Amgen; has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, GSK, and Italfarmaco; and has other financial or non-financial interests from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Pfizer, Takeda, and GSK. YL holds stock or stock options from Merck. SL received consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, and AbbVie and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca. AS received grants or contracts (payments to institution) from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Amphera; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Roche. MF received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Takeda and received honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Takeda. SAL has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Sanofi and Bayer. JRG received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and BMS. PB received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Mirati and AbbVie. NL has received editorial support from EMD Serono; received grants to institute (unrelated) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Inivata, Janssen, Merck/MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received honoraria or travel funding for CME lectures (unrelated) from AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Mirati, Helsinn, and Daichii Sankyo. LS has received grants or contracts to institution to support clinical trial from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, Repare, GSK, and Janssen and holds stock or stock options from AstraZeneca. DED has received research grants from CIHR, CancerCare Manitoba Foundation, and AstraZeneca; received research grants and salary awards from Manitoba Medical Services Foundation; received payment for educational events from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and BMS; served on an advisory board for Merck, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis; has acted in a leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid for Lung Cancer Canada (Medical Advisory Committee), Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (Chair, Fellowship Committee), and Canadian Cancer Trials Group (Chair, Small Cell Lung Cancer Working Group); and received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from AstraZeneca (Medical writing assistance on a small-cell lung cancer paper). QC has received grants to institution from Alkermes, Amgen, Apollomics, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bicycle, BMS, Conjupro, Decipher, Eli Lilly, Esperas, Exactis, GSK, iTEOS, Kelun, Merck, Mirati, Nuvalent, Ocellaris, Pfizer, Rvolution Medicines, Roche, SeaGen, Spectrum, and Treadwell; received consulting fees from Amgen, AnHeart, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck and Co, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; received payment for speaking or presentations from AstraZeneca; acted on an advisory board for Amgen, AnHeart, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Merck and Co, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; acted on a Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Merck and KGaA; and occupied a leadership or fiduciary role in a board, society, committee, or advocacy group, paid or unpaid for Lung Cancer Canada and Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. CWL has served as a member of the Board of Directors for Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. LG received grants or contracts to institution from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Janssen, Lilly, and Novartis; received support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Takeda; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Inhatarget Therapeutics. XQ received support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer (ESMO 2022), Janssen (ASCO 2022), and Sanofi (ASCO 2023). VW received consulting fees from Amgen; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, and Sanofi; received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Roche, and Sanofi; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen. GZ received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inventiva Pharma, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; acted in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Da Volterra, Inventiva Pharma, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. MLS received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from BMS and support for attending meetings or travel from Pfizer (ESMO 2022). AM received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Boehringer, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, and Italfarmaco and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, and Takeda. FG received consulting fees from Novocure, BMS, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, and MSD; received payment for speaker bureau from Novocure; received support for attending meetings or travel from Novartis, MSD, BMS, PharmaMar, and Pierre Fabre. SD received payment for presentations from Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and BMS and travel and accommodation support during meetings from Istituto Gentili, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and BMS. GLC received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novocure and BMS and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novocure. PAZ received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer; received support for attending meetings or travel from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck Sharp and Dohme, Astellas, Janssen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Bayer. MM received support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis. FLC received consulting fees from Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and received support for attending meetings or travel from Takeda and Amgen. CG received consulting fees from Karyopharm, Menarini, and Roche; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaux, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, BMS, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, GSK, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. FP received partial funding to institution and experimental study drug from Pfizer; received financial support to institution from Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Incyte, Tesaro/GSK, and Merck; and received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Ipsen, Clovis, Astellas, Sanofi, Roche, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Liquid biopsy is recommended to diagnose molecular resistance to targeted therapy in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, not all jurisdictions provide funding and patient access. We report patients' perceived value of liquid biopsy in targeted therapy resistance., Methods: Canadian patients participating in a national EGFR T790M liquid biopsy validation study completed structured interviews measuring perceived value and willingness-to-pay for plasma circulating tumor DNA testing as an alternative to tumor biopsy using open-ended and iterative bidding approaches., Results: A total of 60 patients with advanced lung cancer participated with a median age of 64 years (range: 31-87 y); 69% were Asian and 45% female. All had received prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 17% also received chemotherapy. All patients preferred to have plasma testing over repeat tumor biopsy. In the context of the Canadian publicly funded system, patients estimated that a median of 300 (interquartile range: 150-800) Canadian dollars was a reasonable price to pay for liquid biopsy. Patients were personally willing to pay a median 100 (interquartile range: 33-350) Canadian dollars., Conclusions: In a system that covers the cost of standard diagnostic tests, patients with lung cancer indicated high willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired targeted therapy resistance. Patients have high perceived value of plasma genotyping and prefer it to repeat tumor biopsy., (© 2024 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.)

Introduction: Pathologic response has been proposed as an early clinical trial end point of survival after neoadjuvant treatment in clinical trials of NSCLC. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published recommendations for pathologic evaluation of resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to assess pathologic response interobserver reproducibility using IASLC criteria., Methods: An international panel of 11 pulmonary pathologists reviewed hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from the lung tumors of resected NSCLC from 84 patients who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in six clinical trials. Pathologic response was assessed for percent viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma. For each slide, tumor bed area was measured microscopically, and pre-embedded formulas calculated unweighted and weighted major pathologic response (MPR) averages to reflect variable tumor bed proportion., Results: Unanimous agreement among pathologists for MPR was observed in 68 patients (81%), and inter-rater agreement (IRA) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.93) for unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. Overall, unweighted and weighted methods did not reveal significant differences in the classification of MPR. The highest concordance by both methods was observed for cases with more than 95% viable tumor (IRA = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1) and 0% viable tumor (IRA = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). The most common reasons for discrepancies included interpretations of tumor bed, presence of prominent stromal inflammation, distinction between reactive and neoplastic pneumocytes, and assessment of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma., Conclusions: Our study revealed excellent reliability in cases with no residual viable tumor and good reliability for MPR with the IASLC recommended less than or equal to 10% cutoff for viable tumor after neoadjuvant therapy., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)