Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are the most common oncogenic drivers in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Significant developments have taken place which highlight the differences in tumor biology that exist between the mutant and wild-type subtypes of NSCLC. Patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC have a variety of EGFR-targeting agents available proven to treat their disease. This has led to superior patient outcomes when used as a monotherapy over traditional cytotoxic systemic therapy. Attempts at combining EGFR agents with other anticancer systemic treatment options, such as chemotherapy, antiangiogenic agents, and immunotherapy, have shown varied outcomes. Currently, no specific combination stands out to cause a shift away from the use of single-agent EGFR inhibitors in the first-line setting. Similarly, adjuvant EGFR inhibitors, are yet to significantly add to patient overall survival if used at earlier timepoints in the disease course. Liquid biopsy is an evolving technology with potential promise of being incorporated into the management paradigm of this disease. Data are emerging to suggest that this technique may be capable of identifying early resistance mechanisms and consequential disease progression on the basis of the analysis of blood-based circulating tumor cells.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become the standard of care for many patients with advanced solid cancers. These agents differ from chemotherapy by activating antitumor T-cells to detect and destroy tumor cells.¹ Agents currently in clinical use and being widely tested in clinical trials for multiple tumor types include monoclonal antibodies against anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL-1).

People living in rural and remote areas continue to face significant inequities in cancer outcomes compared to their metropolitan counterparts. Despite advances in cancer control, these disparities persist across the cancer trajectory. This personal view consolidates findings from our Equitable Cancer Outcomes for Rural and Remote Communities series, highlighting survival disadvantages, challenges in measuring and reporting rurality, barriers to implementing evidence-based interventions, and shortcomings in historical policy. We argue for place-based, system-level reform that genuinely partners with rural communities, leverages local strengths, and embeds rural voices in research, policy, and service delivery. Key recommendations include adopting a formal partnership position statement to guide collaboration across sectors, strengthening rural data infrastructure, harmonising rural-urban classifications, tailoring implementation strategies, and prioritising geographical equity within cancer policy. Achieving meaningful progress requires coordinated cross-sector action and sustained investment in rural capacity. Equitable cancer outcomes will only be achieved by recognising and addressing the responsibility to deliver best practice care for all people affected by cancer, regardless of where they live.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses daily challenges to the entire oncology workforce. Staff members must absorb multiple executive briefings, adapt to escalating scenario modelling, and seamlessly execute ever-changing operational modes in real-time. The unique threat of looming re-deployment and rationing care add to the uncertainty. We highlight the need for qualitative research to understand the psychosocial impact of these challenges. We posit that the perspective of all team members should be explored: from doctors to ancillary staff.

Purpose: This study formed the development stage of a population-based survey aiming to: (i) understand the needs and experiences of people affected by cancer in Queensland, Australia and (ii) recruit a pool of participants for ongoing cancer survivorship research. The current study aimed to co-design and test a single qualitative survey question and study invitation materials to maximise acceptability of, and participation in, the survey and future research. Methods: Fifty-two community members, including cancer survivors and caregivers, participated across 15 co-design workshops and 20 pretest interviews. During workshops, participants generated and refined ideas for an open-ended survey question and provided feedback on a study invitation letter. The use of a single, open-ended question aims to minimise participant burden while collecting rich information about needs and experiences. The research team then shortlisted the question ideas and revised study invitation materials based on workshop feedback. Next, using interviews, community members were asked to respond to a shortlisted question to test its interpretability and relevance and to review revised invitation materials. Content analysis of participant feedback was used to identify principles for designing study materials. Results: Principles for designing qualitative survey questions were identified from participant feedback, including define the question timeframe and scope; provide reassurance that responses are valid and valued; and use simple wording. Principles for designing study invitation materials were also identified, including communicate empathy and sensitivity; facilitate reciprocal benefit; and include a ‘human element’. The qualitative survey question and study invitation materials created using these principles were considered relevant and acceptable for use in a population-based survey. Conclusions: Through community consultation and co-design, this study identified principles for designing qualitative data collection and invitation materials for use in cancer survivorship research. These principles can be applied by other researchers to develop study materials that are sensitive to the needs and preferences of community members.

Geographic disparities in cancer outcomes represent a critical health equity challenge, with rural populations consistently experiencing poorer outcomes than urban populations. The lack of harmonised rurality measures creates substantial barriers to evidence synthesis and has precluded meta-analyses. This perspectives paper discusses concepts of rurality, identifies rurality classification systems used by cancer researchers in OECD countries that can be harmonised with the OECD Extended Typology, and develops recommendations for consistent rural-urban coding. Targeted searches of grey and published literature on cancer policy and rurality classification systems were conducted. The secondary analysis examined studies identified through systematic database searching of OVID Medline, Elsevier Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. From 289 studies across 22 OECD countries, twenty-seven rurality classification systems were identified, with eleven systems harmonised to create the Rural-Urban Classification System Harmonisation Framework featuring a consistent five-point rurality scale and standardised urban-rural dichotomisation. Implementation recommendations address system selection, standardised categorisation, and reporting standards. Adopting this harmonisation framework will improve research comparability and strengthen evidence to inform equitable cancer policies. Commonwealth of Australia's 10.13039/501100025520 Medical Research Future Fund (MRF2030313).