Bacteriophage (phage) therapy, including monophage preparations, phage cocktails, engineered phages, and phage-derived enzymes, has re-emerged as a potential option for difficult-to-treat and biofilm-associated infections in the context of rising antimicrobial resistance. Recent scientific and regulatory developments, such as the 2024 World Health Organization Bacterial Priority Pathogens List and the introduction of the European Pharmacopoeia general chapter 5.31 on phage therapy medicinal products, highlight the growing interest in establishing quality, safety, and governance standards for clinical implementation. This narrative review provides an overview of current clinical applications of phage therapy, drawing on published case reports, case series, early-phase clinical studies, and regulatory experiences across different healthcare settings. Clinical use has been reported in respiratory, urinary tract, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and device-associated infections, particularly in cases involving multidrug-resistant pathogens, often in combination with antibiotics. At the same time, the biological characteristics of phages, such as strain specificity, adaptive composition of phage cocktails, and the need for individualized formulations, pose significant regulatory and translational challenges. Access to phage therapy currently relies on heterogeneous regulatory mechanisms, including compassionate use programmes, magistral preparations, named-patient pathways, and other national frameworks. Overall, phage therapy represents a promising strategy for selected infections, but its broader clinical adoption will depend on harmonized regulatory approaches, robust quality standards, and the generation of stronger clinical evidence to support safe and scalable use.

Background/Objectives: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80–90% of all lung cancers. Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) represent an expanding targeted therapy option for the treatment of NSCLC. The aim is to perform a systematic literature review to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of ADCs currently undergoing clinical trials for the treatment of NSCLC. Methods: The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, ClinicalTrial.gov and Web of Science databases, covering the period from 2014 to 2024. Only randomized and non-randomized phase II-IV clinical trials focusing on ADC-based therapies for adult patients affected by NSCLC were selected. The Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2.0) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) were used to evaluate the overall risk of bias in the included randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. While GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Efficacy endpoints were categorized based on primary outcomes while safety was assessed through the frequency and severity of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), and a qualitative summary of the findings was conducted. Results: A total of seven studies, including three randomized, three non-randomized, and one without specific allocation, were included, comprising 1287 patients, with 693 (54%) men, and an average age of 63 years old. Two studies were deemed to have a low risk of bias, while six had a moderate risk or some concerns. Five ADCs were evaluated: trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), telisotuzumab vedotin, patritumab deruxtecan, and datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd). T-DXd demonstrated superior efficacy in HER2-overexpressing and HER2-mutant NSCLC, with an ORR of 52.9% and 49.0%, respectively. However, HER2-mutant patients exhibited a longer median DOR (16.8 vs. 6.2 months) but a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 TEAEs (38.6% vs. 22%). T-DM1 showed modest efficacy, with an ORR of 20% in HER2-overexpressing NSCLC and 6.7% in HER2-mutant patients. Dato-DXd demonstrated improved ORR (26.4% vs. 12.8%) and PFS (4.4 vs. 3.7 months) compared to docetaxel. Patritumab deruxtecan achieved an ORR of 39% in EGFR-mutant NSCLC, while telisotuzumab vedotin exhibited limited activity in c-MET-positive NSCLC (ORR 9%, median DOR 7.5 months). Frequency and severity of TEAEs varied across ADCs, with ILD being a major concern, highlighting the need for strict patient monitoring and early intervention to mitigate severe adverse events. Conclusions: ADCs represent a promising advancement in NSCLC treatment, offering targeted therapeutic options beyond conventional chemotherapy and immunotherapy. T-DXd has emerged as the most effective ADC for HER2-mutant NSCLC with manageable safety profile, whereas Dato-DXd provides a viable alternative for TROP2-expressing tumors. While ADCs offer significant clinical benefits, careful patient selection and proactive management of adverse events remain crucial. Ongoing and future trials will further refine the role of ADCs in personalized NSCLC treatment, potentially expanding their tumor-agnostic use to broader patient populations.