Recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer

Samira Shojaee; Patrick Nana-Sinkam

doi:10.12688/f1000research.11471.1

Home Browse Recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Review

Recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Samira Shojaee¹, Patrick Nana-Sinkam¹

PUBLISHED 07 Dec 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer-related death in both men and women. However, over the last few years, we have witnessed improved outcomes that are largely attributable to early detection, increased efforts in tobacco control, improved surgical approaches, and the development of novel targeted therapies. Currently, there are several novel therapies in clinical practice, including those targeting actionable mutations and more recently immunotherapeutic agents. Immunotherapy represents the most significant step forward in eradicating this deadly disease. Given the ever-changing landscape of lung cancer management, here we present an overview of the most recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer.

Keywords

EGFR, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, ALK mutation

Corresponding author: Patrick Nana-Sinkam

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant 1U01CA213330-01 (S.N-S).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2017 Shojaee S and Nana-Sinkam P. 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 work is properly cited.

How to cite: Shojaee S and Nana-Sinkam P. Recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):2110 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11471.1) First published: 07 Dec 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):2110 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11471.1) Latest published: 07 Dec 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):2110 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11471.1)

Personalized targeted therapy

Over the past decade, the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has evolved. While early diagnosis and surgical treatment results in optimal patient outcomes, the majority of patients are diagnosed with lung cancer at later, largely incurable stages often requiring multimodality therapy. Over the last decade, we have observed significant improvements in the management of advanced stages primarily due to an increased understanding of the molecular heterogeneity and drivers of lung cancer initiation and progression as well as improvements in radio and surgical therapies. Using high-throughput platforms, investigators have determined that a significant percentage of lung tumors have actionable somatic mutations, each of which represents an opportunity for novel targeted or “personalized” therapy. Investigators have discovered mutations within the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), ROS-1, KRAS, HER2, BRAF, MET, and RET^1–7. Through clinical trials, distinct roles for targeted therapies are emerging as standard first- or second-line therapies in patients harboring select mutations.

EGFR mutation

Mutations in EGFR, first discovered in 2004⁸, are present in up to 10–15% of all patients with NSCLC⁹. Initial studies described the most common demographics as never-smokers, female gender, and Asian ethnicity^9–12. Mutations are predominantly located in EGFR exons 18–21. A total of 85% of the mutations are either deletions in exon 19 or a single-point substitution mutation in exon 21 (l858R)^11,12. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib) are the currently available first-line agents for patients harboring EGFR-positive mutations with an estimated initial response rate of 70–80%^13,14. Patients with stage IV NSCLC and EGFR mutations treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors experienced improved progression-free survival (PFS), increased response rate, better overall quality of life, and fewer side effects in comparison to those receiving standard platinum-based chemotherapy¹⁵. The majority of patients, however, experience disease progression secondary to acquired resistance. Up to 60% of acquired resistance mutations are driven by T790M¹⁶. T790M is an activating point mutation in exon 20 which substitutes methionine for threonine and interferes with the binding of tyrosine kinase inhibitors⁶. Next-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting T790M mutations have been developed in the event of resistance to first-line therapy¹⁷. Jänne and colleagues showed that among those with positive T790M mutations and evidence of disease progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the use of next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors with specific T790M targeting such as osimertinib resulted in a response rate of 61% (95% CI: 52–70) as opposed to a response rate of 21% (95% CI: 12–34) when there was no centrally detectable T790M mutation. The authors reported a median PFS of 9.6 months versus 2.8 months in EGFR-T790M-negative patients^18–20. Osimertinib was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of EGFR-T790M-positive NSCLC with disease progression on a prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor²⁰. The median overall survival (OS) is likely to improve following the approval of third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as osimertinib, which showed a median PFS of 9.6 months for patients without central nervous system (CNS) metastasis^21,22. Additionally, necitumumab, a recently approved second-generation EGFR monoclonal antibody, showed improved OS in advanced squamous NSCLC when combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy²⁰. In an open-labeled randomized phase III trial in 1,093 patients with stage IV NSCLC, Thatcher et al. showed that OS was significantly prolonged in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group (OS: 11.5 months [95% CI: 10.4–12.6]) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone (OS: 9.9 months [95% CI: 8.9–11.1])²³.

ALK rearrangement

A total of 4–5% of NSCLC adenocarcinomas harbor ALK genetic rearrangements. A short inversion in chromosome 2p results in rearrangement of the receptor tyrosine kinase ALK and fusion of the intracellular kinase domain with the amino acid end of echinoderm microtubule-associated protein like 4 (EML4). Many variants of EML4–ALK fusions have been identified, but most commonly exons 1–13 of EML4 join exons 20–29 of ALK⁷. EML4–ALK fusion leads to a ligand-independent, constitutive activation of the rearranged ALK receptor, which is responsible for both tumor cell proliferation and survival^7,24. Frequently detected in young never-smoker males²⁵, ALK fusions are thought to occur mutually exclusively of EGFR mutations. ALK fusions are primarily sensitive to the ALK inhibitor crizotinib^7,24,25. In 2011, the results of 119 ALK-rearranged NSCLC patients were combined with those of 136 ALK-rearranged patients from another trial and formed the efficacy data that led to conditional FDA approval of crizotinib²⁶. A total of 72% of 119 patients were never-smokers and 97% had adenocarcinoma histology. The response rate was 61% with an estimated PFS of 10 months (95% CI: 8.2–14.7). By 2013, a randomized phase III trial (PROFILE-1007) confirmed the efficacy of crizotinib in ALK-rearranged NSCLC^27–29. The majority of patients, however, developed resistance relapsing within 12 months³⁰. Ceritinib, a novel ALK inhibitor, showed greater potency compared to crizotinib in a phase I study of 130 patients. Antitumor activity was independent of prior ALK-inhibitor therapy^31,32. There was an overall response rate of 58% (95% CI: 48–67). The response rate was also reported at 56% (95% CI: 45–67) among those who had previously received crizotinib. Among patients with NSCLC who received at least 400 mg of ceritinib per day, the median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.6–9.5). On April 2014, ceritinib received an accelerated FDA approval for use in patients with metastatic ALK-positive NSCLC who were previously treated with crizotinib. Along with ceritinib, alectinib, another FDA-approved ALK inhibitor, has potential advantages over crizotinib including greater specificity, sensitivity, and ability to cross the blood–brain barrier as well as a different spectrum of activity against resistance mutations^26,33–35. While most patients with ALK- or ROS1-positive NSCLC develop resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, loratinib, a selective brain-penetrant ALK/ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is active against most known resistance mutations and has been granted FDA breakthrough therapy status. In a study of 54 patients with ALK- or ROS1-positive NSCLC with or without brain metastases, loratinib treatment resulted in durable clinical responses with a 50% overall response rate, including intracranial responses, in ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC patients, many of whom had CNS metastases. Nearly 50% of the patients had prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and 39 patients had CNS metastasis^35,36.

KRAS and MEK mutation

Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS), a RAS proto-oncogene, has a critical role in signal transduction pathways that regulate cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival. Among the activated downstream pathways from RAS is the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK). MEK1 (also known as MAP2K1), a serine-threonine kinase, affects the regulation of growth-regulating proteins. KRAS mutations are the most common driver alterations, found in up to 25% of all patients with adenocarcinoma¹. Targeting KRAS itself has been challenging, primarily because KRAS activates multiple downstream effectors, including MEK, among many others. MEK1 inhibitors in the setting of RAS mutations are currently undergoing testing^37–39. Tao et al. recently demonstrated that KRAS mutations can drive increased expression of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) and cyclin D1, facilitating cell proliferation and thus tumorigenesis⁴⁰. Additionally, a synthetic interaction between KRAS and CDK4 in animal models has proven to be lethal⁴¹. While there is no specific targeted therapy for KRAS mutations, pre-clinical data suggest that the MEK inhibitor trametinib in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (palbociclib) has significant anti-KRAS-mutant NSCLC activity⁴⁰.

ROS1 mutation

The ROS1 proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1) is activated by chromosomal rearrangement, which leads to the fusion of a portion of ROS1 that includes the entire tyrosine kinase domain with 1 of 12 different partner proteins⁴² The ROS1 fusion kinases are then activated and result in cellular transformation. A total of 1% of patients with NSCLC have ROS1 rearrangements, and they are commonly found in never-smokers with histologic features of adenocarcinoma⁴³. The kinase domains of ALK and ROS1 share 77% amino acid identity within the ATP-binding sites. Crizotinib binds with high affinity to both ALK and ROS1^42,44,45. Shaw and colleagues noted that crizotinib showed marked antitumor activity in patients with advanced ROS1-rearranged NSCLC⁴⁶. In March 2016, the FDA approved crizotinib for the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors are ROS1 positive.

MET mutation

The MET receptor tyrosine kinase is a known oncogene, with a somatic mutation frequency of 8.3% in lung adenocarcinoma and 2% in lung squamous cell carcinoma⁴⁷. Unlike activating EGFR mutations that occur primarily in the tyrosine kinase domain, MET mutations are distributed across all domains of the gene⁴⁸. MET can be activated as a primary oncogenic driver in NSCLC in at least two main ways: high-level MET amplification and MET exon 14 alterations. MET exon 14 skipping events occur in both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma histology and are found across all smoking histories and histologic types. MET exon 14 skipping results from somatic mutations in the introns of MET and leads to an alternatively spliced transcript of MET^49,50. The alternatively spliced MET receptor exhibits decreased ubiquitination and delayed downregulation, leading to prolonged activation of MET and MAPK⁴⁹. Overall, reports of MET exon 14 skipping have ranged from 1.5% to 6% of NSCLC^49,51–54. Patients harboring MET amplification, MET exon 14 alteration, and the combination of both have shown favorable response to MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as crizotinib in multiple case series, and these drugs continue to be a topic of ongoing investigation^54–58.

BRAF mutation

BRAF mutations act as an oncogenic driver via the MAPK pathway in NSCLC. The most common of these mutations, BRAF V600E (Val600Glu), is observed in 1 to 2% of lung adenocarcinomas^3,59–61. Despite unclear prognostic implications of BRAF V600E mutation, several studies have associated BRAF V600E with poor outcomes and lower response rates to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC compared with patients with NSCLC without BRAF mutations^61,62. Dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, demonstrated clinical activity with an overall confirmed response of 33% (95% CI: 23–45) and median PFS of 5.5 months in patients with previously treated NSCLC with BRAF V600E-mutant NSCLC⁶³. Additionally, BRAF plus MEK inhibition has demonstrated an increased overall response, PFS, and OS compared with BRAF-inhibitor monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma^64–66. In a study of 57 patients previously treated with systemic chemotherapy for metastatic BRAF V600E-mutant NSCLC, the investigators showed an overall response of 63.2% (36 of 57, 95% CI: 49.3–75.6) with dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib⁶⁷. Investigations targeting BRAF V600E are ongoing.

Anti-angiogenic agents

Angiogenesis is one of the hallmarks of cancer, and blockade of vascular endothelin growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) signaling inhibits the formation, proliferation, and migration of new blood vessels⁴⁶. Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against VEGF, when compared to carboplatin-paclitaxel first-line chemotherapy, resulted in a notable OS improvement in eligible patients with non-squamous NSCLC⁶⁸. The anti-VEGFR antibody ramucirumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to the VEGFR-2 extracellular domain with high affinity, preventing the binding of all VEGF ligands and receptor activation⁶⁹. Ramucirumab improved PFS and OS when combined with docetaxel, irrespective of histology, and was approved by the FDA in NSCLC⁷⁰. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III trial, 1,253 patients with squamous and non-squamous NSCLC who progressed during or after a first-line platinum-based chemotherapy regimen were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive docetaxel plus either ramucirumab or placebo. Median OS was 10.5 months (IQR: 5.1–21.2) among patients randomized to docetaxel plus ramucirumab and 9.1 months (4.2–18) for patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75−0.98, P = 0.023). In those given ramucirumab, median PFS was 4.5 months (IQR: 2.3–8.3), while the control group had a PFS of three months (IQR: 1.4–6.9) (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68–0.86, P <0.0001)⁷¹.

Immunotherapy in NSCLC

Therapies targeting the complex interaction between tumors and the immune system represent the largest recent breakthrough in cancer therapy. Immunotherapy is a particularly attractive option, as it is independent of the cancer cell mutational status and has been proven to be efficacious with a more acceptable side effect profile. Therapies targeting inhibitory checkpoint molecules including cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4), programmed death 1 (PD-1), and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) have all demonstrated clinical efficacy. CTLA4 expressed on T cells primarily regulates the extent of the early stages of T-cell activation⁷². CTLA4 was the first immune checkpoint receptor to be clinically targeted. The exact mechanism of CTLA4 action is debatable, but its major role is thought to be in the down-modulation of helper T-cell activity and the enhancement of regulatory T-cell immunosuppressive activity⁷². Ipilimumab was the first immunotherapeutic to show survival benefit in metastatic melanoma and was approved by the FDA in 2010 for the treatment of advanced melanoma⁷³. Therapies directed to other immune checkpoint receptors such as PD-1 and PD-L1 have emerged as promising targets. The PD-1 and B7-1 (also known as CD8) receptors, expressed on activated T cells, are connected by ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, which are expressed by tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes^74–76. Tumor PD-L1 expression is common in NSCLC. Indeed, in a study of 436 patients with NSCLC, PD-L1 expression was detectable in tumor cells in 34.5% (88/256) of patients with adenocarcinoma and 34% (61/180) of patients with squamous cell carcinoma⁷⁷. PD-1 interaction with both PD-L1 and PD-L2 ligands results in tumor immune recognition and elimination escape by inhibiting T-cell activation. The monoclonal antibody nivolumab directed to the PD-1 receptor has shown activity across NSCLCs with various histologic features. In a randomized trial of 272 patients receiving nivolumab versus docetaxel, the median OS was 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.3–13.3) versus 6.0 months (95% CI: 5.1–7.3), respectively⁷⁸. The 1-year OS rate was 42% (95% CI: 34–50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI: 17–31) with docetaxel, while the response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P = 0.008). Nivolumab resulted in a median PFS of 3.5 months, whereas docetaxel demonstrated a median PFS of 2.8 months (HR for death or disease progression: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.47–0.81, P <0.001).

There was a 7% rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the nivolumab group versus 55% in the docetaxel group. In March 2015, nivolumab was approved by the FDA for the management of squamous NSCLC. This was followed by FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. In October 2015, Borghaei et al. showed that the median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI: 9.7–15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group versus 9.4 months (95% CI: 8.1–10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (HR for death: 0.73, 96% CI: 0.59–0.89, P = 0.002). At 1 year, the OS rate was 51% with nivolumab versus 39% with docetaxel. At 18 months, the OS rate was 39% (95% CI: 34–45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI: 19–28) with docetaxel⁷⁹.

In October 2015, another PD-1 receptor-directed monoclonal antibody, pembrolizumab, was approved by the FDA as a second-line treatment in NSCLC. The clinical efficacy of nivolumab and pembrolizumab was found to be independent of histology. Greater benefit was seen in smokers and in patients with PD-L1-positive expression⁷⁸. Although the clinical value of targeting the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway has been established, the POPLAR study evaluated the blockade of PD-L1–B7-1 interactions in addition to PD-L1-PD-1 blockade⁷⁷. In a multicenter, open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial by Fehrenbacher et al., the investigators evaluated the efficacy of atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated NSCLC (POPLAR trial)⁸⁰. Atezolizumab is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal anti-PD-L1 antibody which blocks PD-L1-PD-1 and PD-L1-B7-1 interactions, resulting in the restoration of anti-tumor T-cell activity and enhanced T-cell priming. OS in the intention-to-treat population was 12.6 months (95% CI: 9.7–16.4) for atezolizumab versus 9.7 months (95% CI: 8.6–12.0) for docetaxel (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.53–0.99, P = 0.04). The FDA approved atezolizumab in October 2016 for the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. Several trials comparing anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 agents, individually and in combination with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor (ipilimumab), with platinum-based combination regimens as first-line therapy are ongoing^81–83.

Toxicities in the treatment of NSCLC

Although targeted therapy agents are directed against tumor cells, they are still associated with toxicities affecting multiple organs. Overall, the most common side effects of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and ALK inhibitors involve the gastrointestinal (43–60%), ophthalmic (55–62%), hematologic (5–10%), and cardiovascular (10%) systems⁸⁴. A total of 5% of patients discontinued crizotinib use due to toxicity⁸⁵. Liver toxicity is more frequent with gefitinib, and diarrhea and skin toxicity are frequent with afatinib. The most common adverse effects observed with ramucirumab were neutropenia (49%), febrile neutropenia (16%), and fatigue (16%). The number of deaths from adverse events was 5%⁸⁶.

The toxicities of immunotherapies in lung cancer are less frequent. The most commonly observed immune-related adverse effects of nivolumab involved the skin, gastrointestinal tract, and kidneys⁷¹. All adverse effects including pneumonitis were managed effectively with corticosteroids or infliximab and did not result in mortality. Pembrolizumab has a similar safety profile, but one study demonstrated a <1% incidence of mortality from pneumonitis⁸⁴.

Radiotherapy

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become a treatment option for early stage node-negative NSCLC patients who are not operative candidates or refuse surgical options⁸⁷. Despite its high tumor control rate and favorable toxicity profile relative to other surgical and non-surgical options, SABR use has been limited primarily to early stage disease^87–90. Limited data from two pooled studies demonstrated the potential role for SABR in T1–2aN0M0 inoperable NSCLC⁹¹. Patients were randomized to SABR (31 patients) versus lobectomy (27 patients). The estimated OS at three years was 95% (95% CI: 85–100) in the SABR group compared with 79% (95% CI: 64–97) in the surgery group (HR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.017–1.190, log-rank P = 0.037). The SABR group had a recurrence-free survival at three years of 86% (95% CI: 74–100), while the surgery group’s was 80% (95% CI: 65–97). In addition to radiotherapy’s role in stage I NSCLC, new studies have examined its role in combination with chemotherapy in the management of stage IV NSCLC and have shown improved survival when radiotherapy was applied to the primary tumor. From a total of 274 patients in a study by Su et al., 183 had non-oligometastatic disease. Patients with oligometastatic disease who received radiation to primary tumor had better OS (P <0.001). For non-oligometastatic patients, multivariate analysis showed that receiving ≥63 Gy radiation, having a gross tumor volume of <146 cm³, having response to chemotherapy, and having stable or increased post-treatment KPS independently predicted better OS (P = 0.018, P = 0.014, P = 0.014, and P = 0.001, respectively). Among patients with greater primary tumor volume, high radiation dose remained of benefit for OS⁹². Radiotherapy has also shown benefit in the setting of CNS involvement. Depending on the volume and number of brain metastases, stereotactic radiation is often preferred to whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT), when feasible, mainly due to fewer neurological side effects. In patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with brain metastasis, a higher response rate is noted with WBRT. Additionally, WBRT improves the duration of intracranial disease control compared to tyrosine kinase inhibitors or stereotactic radiosurgery. Despite these results, many practitioners and patients avoid WBRT to prevent the hair loss, fatigue, and neurocognitive sequelae of WBRT⁹³. In patients with oligo-progressive disease on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy, local radiotherapy or surgical resection is recommended with continuation of the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor on a case-by-case basis^93–95.

Surgical therapy

Various techniques are being investigated to make surgical resection less invasive. Sublobar resection and single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) have shown promising results⁹⁶. In their study of 121 patients (88% adenocarcinoma, 76% stage I), Hsu et al. used single-port VATS segmentectomies and lobectomies and concluded that resection was both safe and feasible in a multi-institutional retrospective analysis. They identified patient age of 60 years or more, male sex, and tumor size greater than 3 cm as unfavorable preoperative outcome predictors. The results of this study remain to be validated in a randomized controlled prospective study⁹⁶. Altorki and colleagues compared patients treated with sublobar resection to patients treated with lobectomy in stage I NSCLC and showed no significant 10-year survival difference among the two groups⁹⁷. Additionally, Burdett et al. showed that patients with stage IB, II, or III NSCLC who received chemotherapy following surgery (with or without radiotherapy) had longer survival than those who had surgery without chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy)⁹⁷. The role of surgery has also changed secondary to the implementation of lung cancer screening within and outside the USA.

Early cancer detection using low-dose CT screening showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)^98,99. Major goals of surgical participation in lung cancer screening programs were defined and established in Europe by the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons¹⁰⁰. These goals include optimization of the management of screen-detected nodules, reduction of false-positive rates of surgical biopsies, reduction of surgical incision-related trauma, implementation of national or international risk assessment guidelines, implementation of a smoking cessation policy, and active education of primary care physicians towards lung cancer screening programs. Additionally, it is important to emphasize the role of surgical resection in the diagnosis of specific histologic types of lung cancer as per the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lung tumors and the eighth edition of the TNM classification. It is emphasized that in tumors such as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), large cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, and pleomorphic carcinoma, the diagnosis cannot be made without complete evaluation of the entire tumor histologically^101,102. Additionally, although the role of surgery in stage IIIA N2 disease remains controversial, in a meta-analysis of 868 patients from six trials, McElnay et al. showed that the HR comparing patients randomized to surgery after chemotherapy was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.82–1.23, P = 0.954), whereas patients randomized to surgery after chemoradiotherapy demonstrated a HR of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.75–1.01, P = 0.068). The overall HR of all pooled trials was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81–1.03, P = 0.157)¹⁰³. The authors concluded that surgery should be considered as part of the multimodal treatment for patients with resectable lung cancer and ipsilateral mediastinal nodal disease. In the trimodality regimen, a 13% relative improvement in OS was noted with surgical results. Resection for patients with oligometastatic disease represents a relatively new concept in thoracic surgery. In patients with oligometastatic disease, local treatment for distant metastases and curative-intent pulmonary resection may lead to longer survival but requires an optimal method of patient selection. Additional trials are required to determine the ideal treatment plan and long-term follow up in this patient population^104–106.

Conclusion

The identification of driver mutations has led to a new era of personalized targeted therapy for NSCLC. This has created hope for a disease that carries a high morbidity and mortality. Cutting-edge interrogation of the tumor genome has provided a unique opportunity to investigate potentially targetable molecular aberrations in tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Paired with effective targeted therapies, these advances can help improve NSCLC outcomes. However, resistance to targeted therapies and the ongoing demand for better understanding of driver genomic aberrations requires continued and relentless effort. Studies of novel checkpoint inhibitors and numerous trials exploring the role of immunotherapy are ongoing, although there have been promising results with favorable toxicity profiles using immunotherapeutic agents. Combination therapeutics with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or stereotactic ablative therapy need to be studied further.

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant 1U01CA213330-01 (S.N-S).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

F1000 recommended

References

1. Downward J: Targeting RAS signalling pathways in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003; 3(1): 11–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Prenzel N, Fischer OM, Streit S, et al.: The epidermal growth factor receptor family as a central element for cellular signal transduction and diversification. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2001; 8(1): 11–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, et al.: Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002; 417(6892): 949–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
4. Tzahar E, Waterman H, Chen X, et al.: A hierarchical network of interreceptor interactions determines signal transduction by Neu differentiation factor/neuregulin and epidermal growth factor. Mol Cell Biol. 1996; 16(10): 5276–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Sadiq AA, Salgia R: MET as a possible target for non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(8): 1089–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Yu HA, Arcila ME, Rekhtman N, et al.: Analysis of tumor specimens at the time of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKI therapy in 155 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(8): 2240–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
7. Koivunen JP, Mermel C, Zejnullahu K, et al.: EML4-ALK fusion gene and efficacy of an ALK kinase inhibitor in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(13): 4275–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
8. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al.: Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(21): 2129–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
9. Cadranel J, Ruppert A, Beau-Faller M, et al.: Therapeutic strategy for advanced EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013; 88(3): 477–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Russell PA, Barnett SA, Walkiewicz M, et al.: Correlation of mutation status and survival with predominant histologic subtype according to the new IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification in stage III (N2) patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2013; 8(4): 461–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Tokumo M, Toyooka S, Kiura K, et al.: The relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and clinicopathologic features in non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11(3): 1167–73. PubMed Abstract
12. Kosaka T, Yatabe Y, Endoh H, et al.: Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung cancer: biological and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2004; 64(24): 8919–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Pao W, Miller VA: Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, small-molecule kinase inhibitors, and non-small-cell lung cancer: current knowledge and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(11): 2556–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Wu YL, Zhong WZ, Li LY, et al.: Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and their correlation with gefitinib therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis based on updated individual patient data from six medical centers in mainland China. J Thorac Oncol. 2007; 2(5): 430–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al.: Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(10): 947–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
16. Socinski MA, Evans T, Gettinger S, et al.: Treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013; 143(5 Suppl): e341S–e368S. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Balak MN, Gong Y, Riely GJ, et al.: Novel D761Y and common secondary T790M mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant lung adenocarcinomas with acquired resistance to kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12(21): 6494–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Zhou W, Ercan D, Chen L, et al.: Novel mutant-selective EGFR kinase inhibitors against EGFR T790M. Nature. 2009; 462(7276): 1070–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
19. Ramalingam S, Yang JC, Lee CK, et al.: LBA1_PR: Osimertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC: updated efficacy and safety results from two Phase I expansion cohorts. J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11(4 Suppl): S152. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Jänne PA, Yang JC, Kim DW, et al.: AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(18): 1689–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Goss G, Tsai C, Shepherd FA, et al.: Osimertinib for pretreated EGFR Thr790Met-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AURA2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(12): 1643–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Sequist LV, Heist RS, Shaw AT, et al.: Implementing multiplexed genotyping of non-small-cell lung cancers into routine clinical practice. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22(12): 2616–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Thatcher N, Hirsch FR, Luft AV, et al.: Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(7): 763–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Choi YL, Soda M, Yamashita Y, et al.: EML4-ALK mutations in lung cancer that confer resistance to ALK inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(18): 1734–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M, et al.: Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature. 2007; 448(7153): 561–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
26. Shaw AT, Engelman JA: ALK in lung cancer: past, present, and future. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(8): 1105–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Camidge DR, Bang Y, Kwak EL, et al.: Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated results from a phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13(10): 1011–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Ou SH, Kwak EL, Siwak-Tapp C, et al.: Activity of crizotinib (PF02341066), a dual mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, in a non-small cell lung cancer patient with de novo MET amplification. J Thorac Oncol. 2011; 6(5): 942–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Solomon BJ, et al.: Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(11): 1004–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Blackhall F, Kim D, Besse B, et al.: Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in PROFILE 1007: a randomized trial of crizotinib compared with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014; 9(11): 1625–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Doebele RC, Pilling AB, Aisner DL, et al.: Mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib in patients with ALK gene rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(5): 1472–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Katayama R, Shaw AT, Khan TM, et al.: Mechanisms of acquired crizotinib resistance in ALK-rearranged lung Cancers. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4(120): 120ra17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
33. Shaw AT, Kim D, Mehra R, et al.: Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(13): 1189–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
34. Ou SH, Ahn JS, De Petris L, et al.: Alectinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Global Study. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(7): 661–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Kim D, Mehra R, Tan DS, et al.: Activity and safety of ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-1): updated results from the multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(4): 452–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Felip E, Bauer TM, Solomon B, et al.: Safety and efficacy of lorlatinib (PF-06463922) in patients with advanced ALK+ or ROS1+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Thorac Oncol. Presented at: 17th World Conference on Lung Cancer; Vienna, Austria. Abstract MA07.11. 2017; 12(1): S383–S384. Publisher Full Text
37. Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA, et al.: Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2008; 455(7216): 1069–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
38. Riely GJ, Kris MG, Rosenbaum D, et al.: Frequency and distinctive spectrum of KRAS mutations in never smokers with lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(18): 5731–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Yip PY, Yu B, Cooper WA, et al.: Patterns of DNA mutations and ALK rearrangement in resected node negative lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2013; 8(4): 408–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Tao Z, Le Blanc JM, Wang C, et al.: Coadministration of Trametinib and Palbociclib Radiosensitizes KRAS-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers In Vitro and In Vivo. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(1): 122–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Puyol M, Martín A, Dubus P, et al.: A synthetic lethal interaction between K-Ras oncogenes and Cdk4 unveils a therapeutic strategy for non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2010; 18(1): 63–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Davies KD, Doebele RC: Molecular pathways: ROS1 fusion proteins in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(15): 4040–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Clavé S, Gimeno J, Muñoz-Mármol AM, et al.: ROS1 copy number alterations are frequent in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(7): 8019–8028. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Gainor JF, Shaw AT: Novel targets in non-small cell lung cancer: ROS1 and RET fusions. Oncologist. 2013; 18(7): 865–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Bergethon K, Shaw AT, Ou SH, et al.: ROS1 rearrangements define a unique molecular class of lung cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(8): 863–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
46. Huber KV, Salah E, Radic B, et al.: Stereospecific targeting of MTH1 by (S)-crizotinib as an anticancer strategy. Nature. 2014; 508(7495): 222–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
47. Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ, et al.: Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(21): 1963–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
48. Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, et al.: Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013; 6(269): pl1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
49. Krishnaswamy S, Kanteti R, Duke-Cohan JS, et al.: Ethnic differences and functional analysis of MET mutations in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15(18): 5714–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
50. Kong-Beltran M, Seshagiri S, Zha J, et al.: Somatic mutations lead to an oncogenic deletion of met in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(1): 283–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Ma PC, Jagadeeswaran R, Jagadeesh S, et al.: Functional expression and mutations of c-Met and its therapeutic inhibition with SU11274 and small interfering RNA in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2005; 65(4): 1479–88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
52. Seo JS, Ju YS, Lee WC, et al.: The transcriptional landscape and mutational profile of lung adenocarcinoma. Genome Res. 2012; 22(11): 2109–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
53. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014; 511(7511): 543–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
54. Frampton GM, Ali SM, Rosenzweig M, et al.: Activation of MET via diverse exon 14 splicing alterations occurs in multiple tumor types and confers clinical sensitivity to MET inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2015; 5(8): 850–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
55. Awad MM, Oxnard GR, Jackman DM, et al.: MET Exon 14 Mutations in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Are Associated With Advanced Age and Stage-Dependent MET Genomic Amplification and c-Met Overexpression. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(7): 721–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
56. Caparica R, Yen CT, Coudry R, et al.: Responses to Crizotinib Can Occur in High-Level MET-Amplified Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Independent of MET Exon 14 Alterations. J Thorac Oncol. 2017; 12(1): 141–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
57. Wang SX, Zhang B, Wakelee HA, et al.: Case Series of MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutation-positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers and Response to Crizotinib. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 98(1): 239. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
58. Noonan SA, Berry L, Lu X, et al.: Identifying the Appropriate FISH Criteria for Defining MET Copy Number-Driven Lung Adenocarcinoma through Oncogene Overlap Analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11(8): 1293–304. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
59. Camidge DR, Ignatius Ou SH, Shapiro G, et al.: Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced c-MET-amplified non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(suppl 5): 8001. Reference Source
60. Mazières J, Merlio J, Missy P, et al.: Routine molecular profiling of patients with NSCLC - Authors' reply. Lancet. 2016; 388(10049): 1054–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
61. Kris MG, Johnson BE, Berry LD, et al.: Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs. JAMA. 2014; 311(19): 1998–2006. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
62. Cardarella S, Ogino A, Nishino M, et al.: Clinical, pathologic, and biologic features associated with BRAF mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(16): 4532–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
63. Marchetti A, Felicioni L, Malatesta S, et al.: Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(26): 3574–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
64. Planchard D, Kim TM, Mazieres J, et al.: Dabrafenib in patients with BRAF^V600E-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(5): 642–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
65. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al.: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(18): 1694–703. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
66. Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dréno B, et al.: Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(20): 1867–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
67. Long GV, Flaherty KT, Stroyakovskiy D, et al.: Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(7): 1631–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
68. Planchard D, Besse B, Groen HJM, et al.: Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAF^V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(7): 984–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
69. Skobe M, Rockwell P, Goldstein N, et al.: Halting angiogenesis suppresses carcinoma cell invasion. Nat Med. 1997; 3(11): 1222–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
70. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, et al.: Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(24): 2542–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
71. Spratlin JL, Cohen RB, Eadens M, et al.: Phase I pharmacologic and biologic study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully human immunoglobulin G₁ monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(5): 780–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
72. Garon EB, Ciuleanu TE, Arrieta O, et al.: Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2014; 384(9944): 665–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
73. Rudd CE, Taylor A, Schneider H: CD28 and CTLA-4 coreceptor expression and signal transduction. Immunol Rev. 2009; 229(1): 12–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
74. Wolchok JD, Saenger Y: The mechanism of anti-CTLA-4 activity and the negative regulation of T-cell activation. Oncologist. 2008; 13 Suppl 4: 2–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
75. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al.: Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(8): 711–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
76. Pardoll DM: The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12(4): 252–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
77. Scheel AH, Ansén S, Schultheis AM, et al.: PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer: Correlations with genetic alterations. Oncoimmunology. 2016; 5(5): e1131379. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
78. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al.: Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(2): 123–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
79. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al.: Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(17): 1627–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
80. Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, et al.: Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10030): 1837–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
81. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al.: Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10027): 1540–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
82. Chen DS, Irving BA, Hodi FS: Molecular pathways: next-generation immunotherapy--inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1 and programmed death-1. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(24): 6580–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
83. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Brahmer JR, et al.: Nivolumab in Combination With Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(25): 2969–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
84. Landi L, Cappuzzo F: Management of NSCLC: focus on crizotinib. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014; 15(17): 2587–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
85. Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, Goldman JW, et al.: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open-label, phase 1, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18(1): 31–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
86. Hirsh V: Managing treatment-related adverse events associated with egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Oncol. 2011; 18(3): 126–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
87. O’Sullivan Coyne G, Madan RA, Gulley JL: Nivolumab: promising survival signal coupled with limited toxicity raises expectations. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(10): 986–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
88. Gauden S, Ramsay J, Tripcony L: The curative treatment by radiotherapy alone of stage I non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Chest. 1995; 108(5): 1278–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
89. Haffty BG, Goldberg NB, Gerstley J, et al.: Results of radical radiation therapy in clinical stage I, technically operable non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1988; 15(1): 69–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
90. Senan S: Stereotactic body radiotherapy: do central lung tumors still represent a 'no-fly zone'? Onkologie. 2012; 35(7–8): 406–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
91. Fang LC, Komaki R, Allen P, et al.: Comparison of outcomes for patients with medically inoperable Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer treated with two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66(1): 108–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
92. Chang JY, Senan S, Paul MA, et al.: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(6): 630–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
93. Su S, Hu Y, Ouyang W, et al.: Might radiation therapy in addition to chemotherapy improve overall survival of patients with non-oligometastatic Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer?: Secondary analysis of two prospective studies. BMC Cancer. 2016; 16(1): 908. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
94. Yang TJ, Wu AJ: Cranial irradiation in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016; 5(1): 134–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
95. Paez JG, Jänne PA, Lee JC, et al.: EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004; 304(5676): 1497–500. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
96. Hsu PK, Lin WC, Chang YC, et al.: Multiinstitutional analysis of single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resection for primary lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99(5): 1739–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
97. Altorki NK, Yip R, Hanaoka T, et al.: Sublobar resection is equivalent to lobectomy for clinical stage 1A lung cancer in solid nodules. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 147(2): 754–62; Discussion 762–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
98. Burdett S, Pignon JP, Tierney J, et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (3): CD011430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
99. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al.: Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(5): 395–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
100. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al.: The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology. 2011; 258(1): 243–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
101. Pedersen JH, Rzyman W, Veronesi G, et al.: Recommendations from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) regarding computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Europe. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 51(3): 411–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
102. Rami-Porta R, Asamura H, Travis WD, et al.: Lung cancer - major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67(2): 138–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
103. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, et al.: The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors: Impact of Genetic, Clinical and Radiologic Advances Since the 2004 Classification. J Thorac Oncol. 2015; 10(9): 1243–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
104. McElnay PJ, Choong A, Jordan E, et al.: Outcome of surgery versus radiotherapy after induction treatment in patients with N2 disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Thorax. 2015; 70(8): 764–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation
105. Tsao AS, Scagliotti GV, Bunn PA Jr, et al.: Scientific Advances in Lung Cancer 2015. J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11(5): 613–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
106. Yamaguchi M, Edagawa M, Suzuki Y, et al.: Pulmonary Resection for Synchronous M1b-cStage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 103(5): 1594–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Dec 2017

Author details Author details

¹ Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant 1U01CA213330-01 (S.N-S).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 07 Dec 2017, 6:2110

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11471.1

Copyright

© 2017 Shojaee S and Nana-Sinkam P. 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 work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Shojaee S and Nana-Sinkam P. Recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):2110 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11471.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 07 Dec 2017

Views

0

Reviewer Report 07 Dec 2017

Paul Van Schil, Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

Patrick Pauwels, Department of Pathology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12385.r28462

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an ... Continue reading

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

0

Reviewer Report 07 Dec 2017

Rita Chiari, Department of Medical Oncology, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.12385.r28461

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Dec 2017

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 07 Dec 17	read	read

Rita Chiari, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Paul Van Schil, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

Patrick Pauwels, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

0 Views

07 Dec 2017 | for Version 1

Paul Van Schil, Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

Patrick Pauwels, Department of Pathology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium

0 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

0 Views

07 Dec 2017 | for Version 1

Rita Chiari, Department of Medical Oncology, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

0 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Downward J: Targeting RAS signalling pathways in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003; 3(1): 11–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Prenzel N, Fischer OM, Streit S, et al.: The epidermal growth factor receptor family as a central element for cellular signal transduction and diversification. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2001; 8(1): 11–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, et al.: Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002; 417(6892): 949–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[4] 4. Tzahar E, Waterman H, Chen X, et al.: A hierarchical network of interreceptor interactions determines signal transduction by Neu differentiation factor/neuregulin and epidermal growth factor. Mol Cell Biol. 1996; 16(10): 5276–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Sadiq AA, Salgia R: MET as a possible target for non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(8): 1089–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Yu HA, Arcila ME, Rekhtman N, et al.: Analysis of tumor specimens at the time of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKI therapy in 155 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(8): 2240–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[7] 7. Koivunen JP, Mermel C, Zejnullahu K, et al.: EML4-ALK fusion gene and efficacy of an ALK kinase inhibitor in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(13): 4275–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[8] 8. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al.: Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(21): 2129–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[9] 9. Cadranel J, Ruppert A, Beau-Faller M, et al.: Therapeutic strategy for advanced EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013; 88(3): 477–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Russell PA, Barnett SA, Walkiewicz M, et al.: Correlation of mutation status and survival with predominant histologic subtype according to the new IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification in stage III (N2) patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2013; 8(4): 461–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Tokumo M, Toyooka S, Kiura K, et al.: The relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and clinicopathologic features in non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2005; 11(3): 1167–73. PubMed Abstract

[12] 12. Kosaka T, Yatabe Y, Endoh H, et al.: Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung cancer: biological and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2004; 64(24): 8919–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Pao W, Miller VA: Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, small-molecule kinase inhibitors, and non-small-cell lung cancer: current knowledge and future directions. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(11): 2556–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Wu YL, Zhong WZ, Li LY, et al.: Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and their correlation with gefitinib therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis based on updated individual patient data from six medical centers in mainland China. J Thorac Oncol. 2007; 2(5): 430–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al.: Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(10): 947–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[16] 16. Socinski MA, Evans T, Gettinger S, et al.: Treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013; 143(5 Suppl): e341S–e368S. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Balak MN, Gong Y, Riely GJ, et al.: Novel D761Y and common secondary T790M mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant lung adenocarcinomas with acquired resistance to kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12(21): 6494–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Zhou W, Ercan D, Chen L, et al.: Novel mutant-selective EGFR kinase inhibitors against EGFR T790M. Nature. 2009; 462(7276): 1070–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[19] 19. Ramalingam S, Yang JC, Lee CK, et al.: LBA1_PR: Osimertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC: updated efficacy and safety results from two Phase I expansion cohorts. J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11(4 Suppl): S152. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Jänne PA, Yang JC, Kim DW, et al.: AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(18): 1689–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Goss G, Tsai C, Shepherd FA, et al.: Osimertinib for pretreated EGFR Thr790Met-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AURA2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(12): 1643–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Sequist LV, Heist RS, Shaw AT, et al.: Implementing multiplexed genotyping of non-small-cell lung cancers into routine clinical practice. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22(12): 2616–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Thatcher N, Hirsch FR, Luft AV, et al.: Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(7): 763–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Choi YL, Soda M, Yamashita Y, et al.: EML4-ALK mutations in lung cancer that confer resistance to ALK inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(18): 1734–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M, et al.: Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature. 2007; 448(7153): 561–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[26] 26. Shaw AT, Engelman JA: ALK in lung cancer: past, present, and future. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(8): 1105–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Camidge DR, Bang Y, Kwak EL, et al.: Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated results from a phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13(10): 1011–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Ou SH, Kwak EL, Siwak-Tapp C, et al.: Activity of crizotinib (PF02341066), a dual mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, in a non-small cell lung cancer patient with de novo MET amplification. J Thorac Oncol. 2011; 6(5): 942–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Solomon BJ, et al.: Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(11): 1004–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Blackhall F, Kim D, Besse B, et al.: Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in PROFILE 1007: a randomized trial of crizotinib compared with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014; 9(11): 1625–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Doebele RC, Pilling AB, Aisner DL, et al.: Mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib in patients with ALK gene rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(5): 1472–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Katayama R, Shaw AT, Khan TM, et al.: Mechanisms of acquired crizotinib resistance in ALK-rearranged lung Cancers. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 4(120): 120ra17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[33] 33. Shaw AT, Kim D, Mehra R, et al.: Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(13): 1189–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[34] 34. Ou SH, Ahn JS, De Petris L, et al.: Alectinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Global Study. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(7): 661–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Kim D, Mehra R, Tan DS, et al.: Activity and safety of ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-1): updated results from the multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(4): 452–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Felip E, Bauer TM, Solomon B, et al.: Safety and efficacy of lorlatinib (PF-06463922) in patients with advanced ALK+ or ROS1+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Thorac Oncol. Presented at: 17th World Conference on Lung Cancer; Vienna, Austria. Abstract MA07.11. 2017; 12(1): S383–S384. Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA, et al.: Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2008; 455(7216): 1069–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[38] 38. Riely GJ, Kris MG, Rosenbaum D, et al.: Frequency and distinctive spectrum of KRAS mutations in never smokers with lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(18): 5731–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Yip PY, Yu B, Cooper WA, et al.: Patterns of DNA mutations and ALK rearrangement in resected node negative lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2013; 8(4): 408–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Tao Z, Le Blanc JM, Wang C, et al.: Coadministration of Trametinib and Palbociclib Radiosensitizes KRAS-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers In Vitro and In Vivo. Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 22(1): 122–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Puyol M, Martín A, Dubus P, et al.: A synthetic lethal interaction between K-Ras oncogenes and Cdk4 unveils a therapeutic strategy for non-small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2010; 18(1): 63–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Davies KD, Doebele RC: Molecular pathways: ROS1 fusion proteins in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(15): 4040–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. Clavé S, Gimeno J, Muñoz-Mármol AM, et al.: ROS1 copy number alterations are frequent in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(7): 8019–8028. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Gainor JF, Shaw AT: Novel targets in non-small cell lung cancer: ROS1 and RET fusions. Oncologist. 2013; 18(7): 865–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Bergethon K, Shaw AT, Ou SH, et al.: ROS1 rearrangements define a unique molecular class of lung cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(8): 863–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] 46. Huber KV, Salah E, Radic B, et al.: Stereospecific targeting of MTH1 by (S)-crizotinib as an anticancer strategy. Nature. 2014; 508(7495): 222–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[47] 47. Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ, et al.: Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(21): 1963–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] 48. Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, et al.: Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013; 6(269): pl1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[49] 49. Krishnaswamy S, Kanteti R, Duke-Cohan JS, et al.: Ethnic differences and functional analysis of MET mutations in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15(18): 5714–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[50] 50. Kong-Beltran M, Seshagiri S, Zha J, et al.: Somatic mutations lead to an oncogenic deletion of met in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(1): 283–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Ma PC, Jagadeeswaran R, Jagadeesh S, et al.: Functional expression and mutations of c-Met and its therapeutic inhibition with SU11274 and small interfering RNA in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2005; 65(4): 1479–88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[52] 52. Seo JS, Ju YS, Lee WC, et al.: The transcriptional landscape and mutational profile of lung adenocarcinoma. Genome Res. 2012; 22(11): 2109–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[53] 53. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014; 511(7511): 543–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[54] 54. Frampton GM, Ali SM, Rosenzweig M, et al.: Activation of MET via diverse exon 14 splicing alterations occurs in multiple tumor types and confers clinical sensitivity to MET inhibitors. Cancer Discov. 2015; 5(8): 850–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[55] 55. Awad MM, Oxnard GR, Jackman DM, et al.: MET Exon 14 Mutations in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Are Associated With Advanced Age and Stage-Dependent MET Genomic Amplification and c-Met Overexpression. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(7): 721–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Caparica R, Yen CT, Coudry R, et al.: Responses to Crizotinib Can Occur in High-Level MET-Amplified Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Independent of MET Exon 14 Alterations. J Thorac Oncol. 2017; 12(1): 141–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[57] 57. Wang SX, Zhang B, Wakelee HA, et al.: Case Series of MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutation-positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers and Response to Crizotinib. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 98(1): 239. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[58] 58. Noonan SA, Berry L, Lu X, et al.: Identifying the Appropriate FISH Criteria for Defining MET Copy Number-Driven Lung Adenocarcinoma through Oncogene Overlap Analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11(8): 1293–304. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[59] 59. Camidge DR, Ignatius Ou SH, Shapiro G, et al.: Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced c-MET-amplified non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(suppl 5): 8001. Reference Source

[60] 60. Mazières J, Merlio J, Missy P, et al.: Routine molecular profiling of patients with NSCLC - Authors' reply. Lancet. 2016; 388(10049): 1054–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[61] 61. Kris MG, Johnson BE, Berry LD, et al.: Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs. JAMA. 2014; 311(19): 1998–2006. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[62] 62. Cardarella S, Ogino A, Nishino M, et al.: Clinical, pathologic, and biologic features associated with BRAF mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19(16): 4532–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[63] 63. Marchetti A, Felicioni L, Malatesta S, et al.: Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harboring BRAF mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(26): 3574–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[64] 64. Planchard D, Kim TM, Mazieres J, et al.: Dabrafenib in patients with BRAF^V600E-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(5): 642–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] 65. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al.: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(18): 1694–703. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[66] 66. Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dréno B, et al.: Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(20): 1867–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[67] 67. Long GV, Flaherty KT, Stroyakovskiy D, et al.: Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(7): 1631–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Planchard D, Besse B, Groen HJM, et al.: Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAF^V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(7): 984–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[69] 69. Skobe M, Rockwell P, Goldstein N, et al.: Halting angiogenesis suppresses carcinoma cell invasion. Nat Med. 1997; 3(11): 1222–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, et al.: Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(24): 2542–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Spratlin JL, Cohen RB, Eadens M, et al.: Phase I pharmacologic and biologic study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully human immunoglobulin G₁ monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(5): 780–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[72] 72. Garon EB, Ciuleanu TE, Arrieta O, et al.: Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2014; 384(9944): 665–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[73] 73. Rudd CE, Taylor A, Schneider H: CD28 and CTLA-4 coreceptor expression and signal transduction. Immunol Rev. 2009; 229(1): 12–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[74] 74. Wolchok JD, Saenger Y: The mechanism of anti-CTLA-4 activity and the negative regulation of T-cell activation. Oncologist. 2008; 13 Suppl 4: 2–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[75] 75. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al.: Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(8): 711–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[76] 76. Pardoll DM: The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012; 12(4): 252–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[77] 77. Scheel AH, Ansén S, Schultheis AM, et al.: PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer: Correlations with genetic alterations. Oncoimmunology. 2016; 5(5): e1131379. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[78] 78. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al.: Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(2): 123–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[79] 79. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al.: Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(17): 1627–39. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[80] 80. Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, et al.: Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10030): 1837–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[81] 81. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al.: Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10027): 1540–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[82] 82. Chen DS, Irving BA, Hodi FS: Molecular pathways: next-generation immunotherapy--inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1 and programmed death-1. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(24): 6580–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[83] 83. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Brahmer JR, et al.: Nivolumab in Combination With Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(25): 2969–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[84] 84. Landi L, Cappuzzo F: Management of NSCLC: focus on crizotinib. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014; 15(17): 2587–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[85] 85. Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, Goldman JW, et al.: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open-label, phase 1, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18(1): 31–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[86] 86. Hirsh V: Managing treatment-related adverse events associated with egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Oncol. 2011; 18(3): 126–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[87] 87. O’Sullivan Coyne G, Madan RA, Gulley JL: Nivolumab: promising survival signal coupled with limited toxicity raises expectations. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(10): 986–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[88] 88. Gauden S, Ramsay J, Tripcony L: The curative treatment by radiotherapy alone of stage I non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Chest. 1995; 108(5): 1278–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[89] 89. Haffty BG, Goldberg NB, Gerstley J, et al.: Results of radical radiation therapy in clinical stage I, technically operable non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1988; 15(1): 69–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[90] 90. Senan S: Stereotactic body radiotherapy: do central lung tumors still represent a 'no-fly zone'? Onkologie. 2012; 35(7–8): 406–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[91] 91. Fang LC, Komaki R, Allen P, et al.: Comparison of outcomes for patients with medically inoperable Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer treated with two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66(1): 108–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[92] 92. Chang JY, Senan S, Paul MA, et al.: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus lobectomy for operable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(6): 630–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[93] 93. Su S, Hu Y, Ouyang W, et al.: Might radiation therapy in addition to chemotherapy improve overall survival of patients with non-oligometastatic Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer?: Secondary analysis of two prospective studies. BMC Cancer. 2016; 16(1): 908. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[94] 94. Yang TJ, Wu AJ: Cranial irradiation in patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016; 5(1): 134–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[95] 95. Paez JG, Jänne PA, Lee JC, et al.: EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004; 304(5676): 1497–500. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[96] 96. Hsu PK, Lin WC, Chang YC, et al.: Multiinstitutional analysis of single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical resection for primary lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99(5): 1739–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[97] 97. Altorki NK, Yip R, Hanaoka T, et al.: Sublobar resection is equivalent to lobectomy for clinical stage 1A lung cancer in solid nodules. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 147(2): 754–62; Discussion 762–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[98] 98. Burdett S, Pignon JP, Tierney J, et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (3): CD011430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[99] 99. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al.: Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(5): 395–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[100] 100. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Berg CD, et al.: The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology. 2011; 258(1): 243–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[101] 101. Pedersen JH, Rzyman W, Veronesi G, et al.: Recommendations from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) regarding computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Europe. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 51(3): 411–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[102] 102. Rami-Porta R, Asamura H, Travis WD, et al.: Lung cancer - major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67(2): 138–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[103] 103. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, et al.: The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Lung Tumors: Impact of Genetic, Clinical and Radiologic Advances Since the 2004 Classification. J Thorac Oncol. 2015; 10(9): 1243–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[104] 104. McElnay PJ, Choong A, Jordan E, et al.: Outcome of surgery versus radiotherapy after induction treatment in patients with N2 disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Thorax. 2015; 70(8): 764–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | F1000 Recommendation

[105] 105. Tsao AS, Scagliotti GV, Bunn PA Jr, et al.: Scientific Advances in Lung Cancer 2015. J Thorac Oncol. 2016; 11(5): 613–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[106] 106. Yamaguchi M, Edagawa M, Suzuki Y, et al.: Pulmonary Resection for Synchronous M1b-cStage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 103(5): 1594–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Recent advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Keywords

Personalized targeted therapy

EGFR mutation

ALK rearrangement

KRAS and MEK mutation

ROS1 mutation

MET mutation

BRAF mutation

Anti-angiogenic agents

Immunotherapy in NSCLC

Toxicities in the treatment of NSCLC

Radiotherapy

Surgical therapy

Conclusion

Competing interests

Grant information

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated