Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for up to 85% of all lung cancers. The last few years have seen the development of a new staging system, diagnostic procedures such as liquid biopsy, treatments like immunotherapy, as well as deeper molecular knowledge; so, more options can be offered to patients with driver mutations. Groups with specific treatments account for around 25% and demonstrate significant increases in overall survival, and in some subgroups, it is important to evaluate each treatment alternative in accordance with scientific evidence, and even more so with immunotherapy. New treatments similarly mean that we must reconsider what should be done in oligometastatic disease where local treatment attains greater value.

Nutritional deficiency is a common medical problem that affects 15–40% of cancer patients. It negatively impacts their quality of life and can compromise treatment completion. Oncological therapies, such as surgery, radiation therapy, and drug therapies are improving survival rates. However, all these treatments can play a role in the development of malnutrition and/or metabolic alterations in cancer patients, induced by the tumor or by its treatment. Nutritional assessment of cancer patients is necessary at the time of diagnosis and throughout treatment, so as to detect nutritional deficiencies. The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment method is the most widely used tool that also evaluates nutritional requirements. In this guideline, we will review the indications of nutritional interventions as well as artificial nutrition in general and according to the type of treatment (radiotherapy, surgery, or systemic therapy), or palliative care. Likewise, pharmacological agents and pharmaconutrients will be reviewed in addition to the role of regular physical activity.

Osimertinib—a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor—is recommended as adjuvant therapy for resected stage IB–IIIA epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer, based on significant disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival improvement shown in the previously reported phase 3 ADAURA trial. A trend toward an increased DFS event rate after completion of 3 years adjuvant treatment in ADAURA suggests that some patients may benefit from longer adjuvant osimertinib treatment. We therefore explored whether tumor-informed, circulating tumor DNA-based, molecular residual disease (MRD) could predict recurrence in an exploratory post hoc analysis of 220 patients (n = 112 osimertinib; n = 108 placebo) from ADAURA. MRD preceded imaging DFS events in this study by a median of 4.7 (95% confidence interval, 2.2–5.6) months. DFS and MRD event-free rate at 36 months was 86% versus 36% for patients in the osimertinib versus placebo groups (hazard ratio, 0.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.15–0.36)). In the osimertinib group, DFS or MRD events were detected in 28 (25%) patients; most events occurred following osimertinib cessation (19 of 28, 68%) and within 12 months of stopping osimertinib (11 of 19, 58%). At 24 months after osimertinib, the DFS and MRD event-free rate was 66%. In this study, MRD preceded DFS events in most patients across both arms. DFS and MRD event-free status was maintained for most patients during adjuvant osimertinib treatment and posttreatment follow-up, with most MRD or DFS events occurring after osimertinib treatment discontinuation or completion. MRD detection could potentially identify patients who may benefit from longer adjuvant osimertinib, although this requires clinical confirmation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02511106.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has improved pathological responses and survival rates compared with chemotherapy alone, leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of nivolumab plus chemotherapy for resectable stage IB-IIIA NSCLC (AJCC 7th edition) without ALK or EGFR alterations. Unfortunately, a considerable percentage of tumors do not completely respond to therapy, which has been associated with early disease progression. So far, it is impossible to predict these events due to lack of knowledge. In this study, we characterized the gene expression profile of tumor samples to identify new biomarkers and mechanisms behind tumor responses to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and disease recurrence after surgery. Methods: Tumor bulk RNA sequencing was performed in 16 pretreatment and 36 post-treatment tissue samples from 41 patients with resectable stage IIIA NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy from NADIM trial. A panel targeting 395 genes related to immunological processes was used. Tumors were classified as complete pathological response (CPR) and non-CPR, based on the total absence of viable tumor cells in tumor bed and lymph nodes tested at surgery. Differential-expressed genes between groups and pathway enrichment analysis were assessed using DESeq2 and gene set enrichment analysis. CIBERSORTx was used to estimate the proportions of immune cell subtypes. Results: CPR tumors had a stronger pre-established immune infiltrate at baseline than non-CPR, characterized by higher levels of IFNG, GZMB, NKG7, and M1 macrophages, all with a significant area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) >0.9 for CPR prediction. A greater effect of neoadjuvant therapy was also seen in CPR tumors with a reduction of tumor markers and IFNγ signaling after treatment. Additionally, the higher expression of several genes, including AKT1, BST2, OAS3, or CD8B; or higher dendritic cells and neutrophils proportions in post-treatment non-CPR samples, were associated with relapse after surgery. Also, high pretreatment PD-L1 and tumor mutational burden levels influenced the post-treatment immune landscape with the downregulation of proliferation markers and type I interferon signaling molecules in surgery samples. Conclusions: Our results reinforce the differences between CPR and non-CPR responses, describing possible response and relapse immune mechanisms, opening the possibility of therapy personalization of immunotherapy-based regimens in the neoadjuvant setting of NSCLC.

Purpose: Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis is used for genotyping advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); monitoring dynamic ctDNA changes may be used to predict outcomes. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective, exploratory analysis of two phase III trials [AURA3 (NCT02151981), FLAURA (NCT02296125)]. All patients had EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm; ex19del or L858R) advanced NSCLC; AURA3 also included T790M-positive NSCLC. Osimertinib (FLAURA, AURA3), or comparator EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI; gefitinib/erlotinib; FLAURA), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (AURA3) was given. Plasma EGFRm was analyzed at baseline and Weeks 3/6 by droplet digital PCR. Outcomes were assessed by detectable/non-detectable baseline plasma EGFRm and plasma EGFRm clearance (non-detection) at Weeks 3/6. Results: In AURA3 (n = 291), non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm had longer median progression-free survival [mPFS; HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.68; P < 0.0001]. In patients with Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 184), respectively, mPFS (months; 95% CI) was 10.9 (8.3–12.6) versus 5.7 (4.1–9.7) with osimertinib and 6.2 (4.0–9.7) versus 4.2 (4.0–5.1) with platinum-pemetrexed. In FLAURA (n = 499), mPFS was longer with non-detectable versus detectable baseline plasma EGFRm (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41–0.70; P < 0.0001). For Week 3 clearance versus non-clearance (n = 334), respectively, mPFS was 19.8 (15.1 to not calculable) versus 11.3 (9.5–16.5) with osimertinib and 10.8 (9.7–11.1) versus 7.0 (5.6–8.3) with comparator EGFR-TKI. Similar outcomes were observed by Week 6 clearance/non-clearance. Conclusions: Plasma EGFRm analysis as early as 3 weeks on-treatment has the potential to predict outcomes in EGFRm advanced NSCLC.

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been associated with improved efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving anti-PD-(L)1 blockade agents, while the concurrent use of corticosteroids seems to worsen it. We evaluated outcomes in advanced NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 blockade agents in relation to the presence of irAEs and the reasons for using corticosteroids: whether for palliative cancer-related reasons or for the management of irAEs.