Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Changing Landscape Due to Immunotherapy

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy in HCC: Current status and the future

Surgical therapies in patients with early-stage HCC can afford long-term survival but are often limited by the continued risk of recurrence, underscoring an interest in (neo)adjuvant strategies. Prior attempts at adjuvant therapy using tyrosine kinase inhibitors failed to yield significant improvements in recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Advances in the efficacy of systemic therapy options, including the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors, have fueled renewed interest in this area. Indeed, the IMBrave050 trial recently demonstrated significant improvements in recurrence-free survival with 1 year of adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in high-risk patients undergoing surgical resection or ablation, with several other ongoing trials in this space. There is a strong rationale for consideration of the administration of these therapies in the neoadjuvant setting, supported by early clinical data demonstrating high rates of objective responses, although larger trials examining downstream outcomes are necessary, particularly considering the possible risks of this strategy. In parallel, there has been increased interest in using systemic therapies as a bridging or downstaging strategy for liver transplantation. Current data suggest the short-term safety of this approach, with acceptable rates of rejection, so immunotherapy is not considered a contraindication to transplant; however, larger studies are needed to evaluate the incremental value of this approach over locoregional therapy. Conversely, the use of immunotherapy is currently discouraged after liver transplantation, given the high risk of graft rejection and death. The increasing complexity of HCC management and increased consideration of (neo)adjuvant strategies highlight the critical role of multidisciplinary care when making these decisions.

Revolutionizing Localized Lung Cancer Treatment: Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy plus Immunotherapy for All?

Lung cancer poses a significant public health challenge, with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) representing 20 to 25% of all NSCLC cases, staged between I and IIIA. Despite surgical interventions, patient survival remains unsatisfactory, with approximately 50% mortality within 5 years across early stages. While perioperative chemotherapy offers some benefit, outcomes vary. Therefore, novel therapeutic approaches are imperative to improve patient survival. The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy emerges as a promising avenue. In this review, we explore studies demonstrating the benefits of this combination therapy, its impact on surgical procedures, and patient quality of life. However, challenges persist, particularly for patients failing to achieve pathologic complete response (pCR), those with stage II lung cancer, and individuals with specific genetic mutations. Additionally, identifying predictive biomarkers remains challenging. Nevertheless, the integration of immunotherapy and chemotherapy in the preoperative setting presents a new paradigm in managing resectable lung cancer, heralding more effective and personalized treatments for patients.

Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Resectable NSCLC

Non-small cell lung cancer, even when diagnosed in early stages, has been linked with poor survival rates and distant recurrence patterns. Novel therapeutic approaches harnessing the immune system have been implemented in early stages, following the designated steps of advanced NSCLC treatment strategies. Immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) regimens as monotherapy, combinational, or alongside chemotherapy have been intensely investigated as adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and, more recently, perioperative therapeutic strategies, representing pivotal milestones in the evolution of early lung cancer management while holding great potential for the future. The subject of current ongoing research is optimizing treatment outcomes for patient subsets with different needs and identifying biomarkers that could be predictive of response while translating the trials' endpoints to survival rates. The aim of this review is to discuss all current treatment options with the pros and cons of each, persistent challenges, and future perspectives on immunotherapy as illuminating the path to a new era for resectable NSCLC.

Recent advances in lung cancer research: unravelling the future of treatment

Lung cancer, a multifaceted disease, demands tailored therapeutic approaches due to its diverse subtypes and stages. This comprehensive review explores the intricate landscape of lung cancer research, delving into recent breakthroughs and their implications for diagnosis, therapy, and prevention. Genomic profiling and biomarker identification have ushered in the era of personalised medicine, enabling targeted therapies that minimise harm to healthy tissues while effectively combating cancer cells. The relationship between pulmonary tuberculosis and lung cancer is examined, shedding light on potential mechanisms linking these two conditions. Early detection methods, notably low-dose computed tomography scans, have significantly improved patient outcomes, emphasising the importance of timely interventions. There has been a growing interest in segmentectomy as a surgical intervention for early-stage lung cancer in recent years. Immunotherapy has emerged as a transformative approach, harnessing the body's immune system to recognise and eliminate cancer cells. Combining immunotherapy with traditional treatments, such as chemotherapy and targeted therapies, has shown enhanced efficacy, addressing the disease's heterogeneity and overcoming drug resistance. Precision medicine, guided by genomic profiling, has enabled the development of targeted therapies like tyrosine kinase inhibitors, offering personalised treatments tailored to individual patients. Challenges such as drug resistance and limited accessibility to advanced therapies persist, emphasising the need for collaborative efforts and innovative technologies like artificial intelligence. Despite challenges, ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations and technological advancements offer hope for a future where lung cancer is treatable and preventable, reducing the burden on patients and healthcare systems worldwide.

The value of high-risk clinicopathologic features for chemotherapy in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study

Background

Surgical resection is the main treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but recurrence remains a concern. Adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to have survival benefits for resected stage II and III NSCLC, but debate continues regarding its use in stage I NSCLC. High-risk features, such as tumor size and stage, are considered in deciding whether to administer adjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

The data of 666,689 patients diagnosed with lung cancer from 2004 to 2016 were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Ultimately, 26,160 patients diagnosed with stage I NSCLC were included in the study based on a screening procedure.

Results

After matching, 4,285 patients were identified, of whom 1,440 (33.6%) received chemotherapy. High-risk clinicopathologic features, including a high histologic grade, visceral pleural invasion (VPI), the examination of an insufficient number of lymph nodes (LNs), and limited resection, were independent risk factors for a poor prognosis. Chemotherapy significantly improved lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS) and overall survival (OS) in stage I patients with VPI [LCSS: hazard ratio (HR): 0.839, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.706-0.998, P=0.047; OS: HR: 0.711, 95% CI: 0.612-0.826, P<0.001], regardless of whether or not the patient had fewer than 11 LNs (LCSS: HR: 0.809, 95% CI: 0.664-0.986, P=0.04; OS: HR: 0.677, 95% CI: 0.570-0.803, P<0.001). Chemotherapy was only observed to improve OS for stage IB patients with a high histologic grade when combined with either or both of the following high-risk factors: the presence of VPI and fewer than 11 LNs examined.

Conclusions

The presence of VPI was the dominant predictor and the examination of an insufficient number of LNs was the secondary indicator, and a high histologic grade was a potential indicator of the need to administer chemotherapy in the treatment of stage I NSCLC.

Adjuvant and neo-adjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements

Surgical resection is the most effective therapeutic option for the cure in early stage resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, despite complete resection, up to 70% of patients die within 5 years mainly due to tumor recurrence in extra-thoracic organs. Adjuvant or neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy may improve postoperative survival, but the absolute survival benefit is modest with an around 5% improvement at 5 years. Recent advance in systemic therapy has changed treatment strategy for advanced unresectable NSCLC, and also has provided a paradigm shift in treatment strategy for resectable NSCLC. For NSCLC without oncogenic driver alterations, immunotherapy using immune-checkpoint inhibitors may improve clinical outcomes in preoperative neoadjuvant setting as well as in postoperative adjuvant setting. Here, we overview recent evidence of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy and discuss emerging clinical questions in decision-making of treatment for potentially resectable patients with NSCLC harboring no oncogenic alterations.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with adjuvant pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Introduction

Perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Methods

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

During a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.