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 results from the phase III KEYNOTE-042 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02220894 ). Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR/ALK alterations and with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 1% received pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 35 cycles or chemotherapy (carboplatin + paclitaxel or pemetrexed) for 4-6 cycles with optional maintenance pemetrexed. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, ≥ 20%, and ≥ 1% groups. Patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab with ≥ stable disease could begin second-course pembrolizumab upon progression. One thousand two hundred seventy‐four patients were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab, n = 637; chemotherapy, n = 637). Median follow-up time was 61.1 (range, 50.0-76.3) months. OS outcomes favored pembrolizumab ( v chemotherapy) regardless of PD-L1 TPS (hazard ratio [95% CI] for TPS ≥ 50%, 0.68 [0.57 to 0.81]; TPS ≥ 20%, 0.75 [0.64 to 0.87]; TPS ≥ 1%, 0.79 [0.70 to 0.89]), with estimated 5-year OS rates with pembrolizumab of 21.9%, 19.4%, and 16.6%, respectively. No new toxicities were identified. Objective response rate was 84.3% among 102 patients who completed 35 cycles of pembrolizumab and 15.2% among 33 patients who received second-course pembrolizumab. First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy continued to show durable clinical benefit versus chemotherapy after 5 years of follow-up in PD-L1–positive, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR/ALK alterations and remains a standard of care.

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low- and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Lung cancer remains the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide.¹ A substantial minority of patients with adenocarcinomas, who account for 70% to 85% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), harbor activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.² These patients are treated with first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib, which can lead to median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10 to 14 months.^3-5

Lung cancer is one of the most incident types of cancer and a leading cause of cancer mortality in Brazil. We reviewed the current status of lung cancer by searching relevant data on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the country. This review highlights several issues that need to be addressed, including smoking control, patient lack of awareness, late diagnosis, and disparities in the access to cancer health care facilities in Brazil. We propose strategies to help overcome these limitations and challenge health care providers, as well as the society and governmental representatives, to work together and to take a step forward in fighting lung cancer.