[IoNESCO trial: Immune neoajuvant therapy in early stage non-small cell lung cancer]

A Review of the Current Approach and Treatment Landscape for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The therapeutic landscape of the management of stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has drastically evolved with the incorporation of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Stage III NSCLC accounts for one-third of the cases and the treatment strategy of these locally advanced presentations are diverse, ranging from surgical to non-surgical options; with the incorporation of chemo-immunotherapy, radiation, and targeted therapies wherever applicable. The staging of this disease has also changed, and it is essential to have a strong multidisciplinary approach to do justice to patient care. In this article, we aim to navigate the nuanced approaches in the diagnosis and treatment of stage III NSCLC and expand on the evolution of the management of this disease.

Precision Surgery in NSCLC

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still one of the leading causes of death worldwide. This is mostly because the majority of lung cancers are discovered in advanced stages. In the era of conventional chemotherapy, the prognosis of advanced NSCLC was grim. Important results have been reported in thoracic oncology since the discovery of new molecular alterations and of the role of the immune system. The advent of new therapies has radically changed the approach to lung cancer for a subset of patients with advanced NSCLC, and the concept of incurable disease is still changing. In this setting, surgery seems to have developed a role of rescue therapy for some patients. In precision surgery, the decision to perform surgical procedures is tailored to the individual patient; taking into consideration not only clinical stage, but also clinical and molecular features. Multimodality treatments incorporating surgery, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents are feasible in high volume centers with good results in terms of pathologic response and patient morbidity. Thanks to a better understanding of tumor biology, precision thoracic surgery will facilitate optimal and individualized patient selection and treatment, with the goal of improving the outcomes of patients affected by NSCLC.

Neoadjuvant PD-1 Blockade in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current perspectives and Moving Forward

Perioperative therapy for non-small cell lung cancer has been studied extensively in a bid to improve overall survival, as approximately half of the patients with surgically resectable tumors at the time of diagnosis relapse. In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies, such as the anti-programmed death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade, have contributed to achieving an improved overall survival of patients with advanced stage lung cancer. Thus, the development of this treatment strategy has considerable potential to precipitate a breakthrough in cancer immunotherapy. PD-1/PD-L1 blockade has several potential immunological benefits when used as a neoadjuvant therapy. However, there are concerns associated with this neoadjuvant therapy. Many studies have reported its efficacy, but there is limited evidence regarding the long-term survival of patients. Similarly, it is unclear whether existing biomarkers are adequate for monitoring the prognosis of patients, or if new biomarkers are required. In this article, we present recent reports on neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy and discuss its future challenges.

Progress and perspectives of perioperative immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death. Lung cancer mortality has decreased over the past decade, which is partly attributed to improved treatments. Curative surgery for patients with early-stage lung cancer is the standard of care, but not all surgical treatments have a good prognosis. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are used to improve the prognosis of patients with resectable lung cancer. Immunotherapy, an epoch-defining treatment, has improved curative effects, prognosis, and tolerability compared with traditional and ordinary cytotoxic chemotherapy, providing new hope for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immunotherapy-related clinical trials have reported encouraging clinical outcomes in their exploration of different types of perioperative immunotherapy, from neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy, neoadjuvant immune-combination therapy (chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy plus antiangiogenic therapy, immunotherapy plus radiotherapy, or concurrent chemoradiotherapy), adjuvant immunotherapy, and neoadjuvant combined adjuvant immunotherapy. Phase 3 studies such as IMpower 010 and CheckMate 816 reported survival benefits of perioperative immunotherapy for operable patients. This review summarizes up-to-date clinical studies and analyzes the efficiency and feasibility of different neoadjuvant therapies and biomarkers to identify optimal types of perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC.

Comparison between immunotherapy efficacy in early non-small cell lung cancer and advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Currently, immunotherapy is widely used in the treatment of various stages of non-small cell lung cancer. According to clinical experience and results of previous studies, immunotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy seems to exhibit better efficacy against early resectable non-small cell lung cancer as compared to advanced lung cancer, which is often defined as unresectable non-small cell lung cancer. However, this observation has not been established in clinical studies. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy in early and late lung cancer, wherein objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were used as evaluation indexes. The present study also evaluated the safety of immunotherapy in early and late lung cancer, wherein the rate of treatment-related adverse reactions (TRAEs) was used as an indicator.

METHODS

Electronica databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases, were searched to identify relevant studies. Besides this, all the available reviews, abstracts, and meeting reports from the main international lung cancer meetings were searched manually. ORR, DCR, and TRAEs were extracted as the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 52 randomized controlled trials involving 13,660 patients were shortlisted. It was observed that immunotherapy alone significantly improved DCR in early lung cancer in comparison to advanced lung cancer. Importantly, the improvement in ORR was not to the same extent as reported in the case of advanced lung cancer. The combination of immunotherapy with other therapies, especially immunochemotherapy, significantly improved ORR and DCR in early lung cancer. In terms of safety, immunotherapy either alone or in combination with other therapies exhibited a better safety profile in early lung cancer than in advanced lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, the benefits of immunotherapy in early lung cancer appeared to be better than those observed in advanced lung cancer, especially with the regard to the regimen of immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy. In terms of safety, both immunotherapy alone and its combination with chemotherapy were found to be safer in early lung cancer as compared to advanced lung cancer.

Immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) for stage I to III non-small cell lung cancer treated with surgery or radiotherapy with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common lung cancer, accounting for approximately 80% to 85% of all cases. For people with localised NSCLC (stages I to III), it has been speculated that immunotherapy may be helpful for reducing postoperative recurrence rates, or improving the clinical outcomes of current treatment for unresectable tumours. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017 and it includes two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) among  people  with localised NSCLC of stages I to III who received curative intent of radiotherapy or surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to 19 May 2021): CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and five trial registers. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs conducted in adults (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with  NSCLC stage I to III after surgical resection, and those with unresectable locally advanced stage III NSCLC receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. We included participants who underwent primary surgical treatment, postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy if the same strategy was provided for both intervention and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used survival analysis to pool time-to-event data, using hazard ratios (HRs). We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to clinical heterogeneity (immunotherapeutic agents with different underlying mechanisms), we combined data by applying random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs involving 5128 participants (this included 2 new trials with 188 participants since the last search dated 20 January 2017). Participants who underwent surgical resection or received curative radiotherapy were randomised to either an immunotherapy group or a control group. The immunological interventions were active immunotherapy Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) adoptive cell transfer (i.e. transfer factor (TF), tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), dendritic cell/cytokine-induced killer (DC/CIK), antigen-specific cancer vaccines (melanoma-associated antigen 3 (MAGE-A3) and L-BLP25), and targeted natural killer (NK) cells. Seven trials were at high risk of bias for at least one of the risk of bias domains. Three trials were at low risk of bias across all domains and one small trial was at unclear risk of bias as it provided insufficient information. We included data from nine of the 11 trials in the meta-analyses involving 4863 participants. There was no evidence of a difference between the immunotherapy agents and the controls on any of the following outcomes: overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; P = 0.27; 4 trials, 3848 participants; high-quality evidence), progression-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.03; P = 0.19; moderate-quality evidence), adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; P = 0.11; 4 trials, 4126 evaluated participants; low-quality evidence), and severe adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; 6 trials, 4546 evaluated participants; low-quality evidence).  Survival rates at different time points showed no evidence of a difference between immunotherapy agents and the controls. Survival rate at 1-year follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; I2 = 57%; 7 trials, 4420 participants; low-quality evidence), 2-year follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 7 trials, 4420 participants; moderate-quality evidence), 3-year follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 7 trials, 4420 participants; I2 = 22%; moderate-quality evidence) and at 5-year follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; 7 trials, 4389 participants; moderate-quality evidence).  Only one trial reported overall response rates. Two trials provided health-related quality of life results with contradicting results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this updated review, the current literature does not provide evidence that suggests a survival benefit from adding immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) to conventional curative surgery or radiotherapy, for people with localised NSCLC (stages I to III). Several ongoing trials with immune checkpoints inhibitors (PD-1/PD-L1) might bring new insights into the role of immunotherapy for people with stages I to III NSCLC.

Current status and future perspectives on immunotherapy in neoadjuvant therapy of resectable non-small cell lung cancer

Resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is defined as stage I-II, and some locally advanced (stage III) tumor. Despite the associated relatively high recurrence rates after surgery, surgical treatment remains the standard treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC. At present, neoadjuvant therapy is becoming an increasingly popular therapeutic strategy for resectable NSCLC. However, studies have reported that neoadjuvant chemotherapy only slightly improves recurrence rates, making it inadequate for extending patient survival. The significant survival benefits of immunotherapy in advanced NSCLC have greatly stimulated researchers' interests in applying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treating early-stage resectable NSCLC. A few recent phase II radomized clinical trials suggested that ICIs yield better major pathologic response (MPR) rates than neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, demonstrating their potential as alternatives to the existing fixed therapy pattern for early-stage NSCLC. Most initial studies regarding neoadjuvant immunotherapy selected MPR and pathologic complete response (pCR) as primary or secondary endpoints, leading to a significant reduction in the time and cost of research and development compared with the use of overall survival time and median survival time as endpoints. Meanwhile, to confirm these benefits, more phase III clinical trials are being conducted, and there is a growing demand for research on related problems, including the screening of population, formulation of treatment strategies, duration and course of immunotherapy, influence of neoadjuvant immunotherapy on the safety of surgery, standardization of treatment effect evaluation and pathologic evaluation, and ways to effectively identify pseudoprogression and avoid resultant misjudgment in surgery and adjuvant therapy.

Lung Cancer Surgery after Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

In early-stage lung cancer, recurrences are observed even after curative resection. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy might be a promising approach to eliminate micrometastasis and to potentially reduce recurrence rates and improve survival. Early trials have shown encouraging rates of pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy and have demonstrated that surgery can be safely performed after neoadjuvant immunotherapy with various agents and in combination with chemo-(radio)therapy. However, whether these response rates translate into improved disease-free survival rates and overall survival rates remains to be determined by ongoing phase III studies.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: right drugs, right patient, right time?

Standard curative treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves surgery in combination with postoperative (adjuvant) platinum-based chemotherapy where indicated. Preoperative (neoadjuvant) therapies offer certain theoretical benefits compared with adjuvant approaches, including the ability to assess on-treatment response, reduce the tumor bulk prior to surgery, and enhance tolerability in the preoperative setting. Indeed, the use of neoadjuvant therapies are well established in other cancers such as breast and rectal cancers to debulk the tumor and guide ongoing therapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar efficacy but less toxicity in NSCLC. More recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting programmed death-1 (PD1)/PD1-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have transformed the treatment of advanced NSCLC; the unique mechanisms of action of ICI offer additional rationale for assessment in the neoadjuvant setting. Preclinical studies in mouse cancer models support the proof of concept of neoadjuvant ICI (NAICI) through improvement of T-cell effector function and long-term memory induction. Preliminary early-phase human trial data support the proposition that NAICI in NSCLC may provide an feasible and potentially efficacious future treatment strategy and large, randomized phase III trials are currently recruiting to assess this approach. However, outstanding issues include defining optimal treatment combinations which balance high efficacy with acceptable toxicity, validating biomarkers to aid in patient selection, and avoiding potential pitfalls such as missing a window for successful surgery, that is, choosing the right drugs, for the right patient, at the right time. Predictive biomarkers to direct selection of therapy are required, and the validation of major pathological response (MPR) as a surrogate for survival will be important in the uptake of the neoadjuvant approach.

Surgery after neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer

Surgery is the standard of care for patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, as a single modality, surgery for early stage or locally advanced NSCLC remains associated with high rates of local and distant recurrence. The addition of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy has modestly improved outcomes. While systemic therapy paired with surgery for other malignancies such as breast cancer have resulted in far better outcomes for equivalent stage designations, outcome improvements for operable NSCLC have lagged in part as a result of trials where adjuvant chemotherapy seemed to incur harm for stage IA patients and only modest survival benefit for stage IB-IIIA patients (AJCC 7th ed.). In recent years, immunotherapy for NSCLC has emerged as a systemic therapy with significant benefit over traditional chemotherapy regimens. These advances with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have opened the door to administering peri-operative immunotherapy for operable NSCLC. As a result, a great multitude of studies investigating the use of immunotherapy in combination with surgery for NSCLC as well as several other malignancies have emerged. In this review, we outline the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the treatment of operable NSCLC and summarize the available evidence that include preoperative ICI as a single modality or in combination with systemic agents and/or radiotherapy. Further, we summarize how such treatment trajectories open multiple unique windows of opportunity for scientific discovery and potential therapeutic gains for these vulnerable patients.