PURPOSE: We report the first 5-year follow-up of any first-line phase III immunotherapy trial for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KEYNOTE-024 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02142738 ) is an open-label, randomized controlled trial of pembrolizumab compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated NSCLC with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score of at least 50% and no sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations. Previous analyses showed pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab (200 mg once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles) or platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients in the chemotherapy group with progressive disease could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival; OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned: 154 to pembrolizumab and 151 to chemotherapy. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff (June 1, 2020) was 59.9 (55.1-68.4) months. Among patients initially assigned to chemotherapy, 99 received subsequent anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy, representing a 66.0% effective crossover rate. Median OS was 26.3 months (95% CI, 18.3 to 40.4) for pembrolizumab and 13.4 months (9.4-18.3) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.81). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 5-year OS rate were 31.9% for the pembrolizumab group and 16.3% for the chemotherapy group. Thirty-nine patients received 35 cycles (ie, approximately 2 years) of pembrolizumab, 82.1% of whom were still alive at data cutoff (approximately 5 years). Toxicity did not increase with longer treatment exposure. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab provides a durable, clinically meaningful long-term OS benefit versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of at least 50%.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We report 5-year efficacy and safety outcomes from the phase III KEYNOTE-407 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02775435 ). Eligible patients with previously untreated, metastatic squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel once every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST version 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Five hundred fifty-nine patients were randomly assigned in the intention-to-treat population (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, n = 278; placebo plus chemotherapy, n = 281). The median time from random assignment to data cutoff was 56.9 (range, 49.9-66.2) months. OS and PFS were improved with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.71 [0.59 to 0.85] and 0.62 [0.52 to 0.74]), with 5-year OS rates of 18.4% versus 9.7%, respectively. Toxicity was manageable. Among 55 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab, the objective response rate was 90.9% and the 3-year OS rate after completion of 35 cycles (approximately 5 years after random assignment) was 69.5%. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy maintained an OS and PFS benefit versus placebo plus chemotherapy in previously untreated, metastatic squamous NSCLC and is a standard-of-care first-line treatment option for metastatic squamous NSCLC regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver alterations. A guideline update for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations was published separately. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from December 2015 to January 2020 and meeting abstracts from ASCO 2020. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Twenty-seven RCTs, 26 observational studies, and one meta-analysis provide the evidence base (total 54). Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients with nonsquamous NSCLC should have the results of testing for potentially targetable mutations (alterations) before implementing therapy for advanced lung cancer, regardless of smoking status recommendations, when possible, following other existing high-quality testing guidelines. Most patients should receive targeted therapy for these alterations: Targeted therapies against ROS-1 fusions, BRAF V600e mutations, RET fusions, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK fusions should be offered to patients, either as initial or second-line therapy when not given in the first-line setting. New or revised recommendations include the following: Osimertinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (exon 19 deletion, exon 21 L858R, and exon 20 T790M); alectinib or brigatinib is the optimal first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusions. For the first time, to our knowledge, the guideline includes recommendations regarding RET, MET, and NTRK alterations. Chemotherapy is still an option at most stages. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines .

Cancer patients’ attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients’ willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients’ reasons for their preferences. A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients’ decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings. In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants’ attitudes and values. Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.