Purpose: Primary analysis of VISION showed tepotinib had durable clinical activity in patients with MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present updated outcomes for clinically relevant subgroups. Patients and Methods: This phase II, open-label, multi-cohort study of 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) tepotinib in patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC assessed efficacy and safety in predefined subgroups according to age, prior therapies (chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors), and brain metastases. An ad hoc retrospective analysis using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) criteria assessed intracranial activity. Results: 152 patients were evaluable for efficacy (median age: 73.1). Overall, objective response rate (ORR) was 44.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 36.7–53.0]. Patients aged <75 (n = 84) and ≥75 (n = 68) had ORRs of 48.8% (95% CI: 37.7–60.0) and 39.7% (95% CI: 28.0–52.3), respectively. Treatment-naïve (n = 69) versus previously treated (n = 83) patients showed consistent efficacy [ORR (95% CI): 44.9% (32.9–57.4) vs. 44.6% (33.7–55.9); median duration of response (95% CI): 10.8 (6.9–not estimable) vs. 11.1 (9.5–18.5) months]. Of 15 patients analyzed by RANO-BM (12 received prior radiotherapy), 13 achieved intracranial disease control; 5 of 7 patients with measurable brain metastases had partial intracranial responses. Of 255 patients evaluable for safety, 64 (25.1%) experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE), leading to discontinuation in 27 patients (10.6%). Rates of adverse events (AE) were broadly consistent irrespective of prior therapies. Conclusions: Tepotinib showed meaningful activity across subgroups by age, prior therapies, and brain metastases, with a manageable safety profile and few treatment discontinuations. See related commentary by Rosner and Spira, p. 1055

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) comprises about 15% of all lung cancers. It is an aggressive disease, with early metastasis and a poor prognosis. Until recently, SCLC treatment remained relatively unchanged, with chemotherapy remaining the cornerstone of treatment. In this overview we will highlight the recent advances in the field of staging, surgery, radiotherapy and systemic treatment. Nevertheless, the prognosis remains dismal and there is a pressing need for new treatment options. We describe the progress that has been made in systemic treatment by repurposing existing drugs and the addition of targeted treatment. In recent years, immunotherapy entered the clinic with high expectations of its role in the treatment of SCLC. Unravelling of the genomic sequence revealed new possible targets that may act as biomarkers in future treatment of patients with SCLC. Hopefully, in the near future, we will be able to identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapy or immunotherapy to improve prognoses.

MET amplification (METamp), a mechanism of acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, occurs in up to 30% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing on first-line ... Plain language summary Osimertinib is used to treat a type of lung cancer that has specific changes (mutations) in a gene called EGFR. Although tumors will usually shrink (respond) during treatment...

In the last decade, immunotherapy has been one of the most important advances in the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment landscape. Nevertheless, only a subset of NSCLC patients benefits from it. Currently, the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved diagnostic test for first-line immunotherapy in metastatic NSCLC patients uses tissue biopsies to determine the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. However, obtaining tumor tissue is not always feasible and puts the patient at risk. Liquid biopsy, which refers to the tumor-derived material present in body fluids, offers an alternative approach. This less invasive technique gives real-time information on the tumor characteristics. This review addresses different promising liquid biopsy based biomarkers in NSCLC patients that enable the selection of patients who benefit from immunotherapy and the monitoring of patients during this therapy. The challenges and the opportunities of blood-based biomarkers such as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), exosomes, epigenetic signatures, microRNAs (miRNAs) and the T cell repertoire will be addressed. This review also focuses on the less-studied feces-based and breath-based biomarkers.

Radical multimodality treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is controversial, with intense debate (but lack of data) about which surgical procedure to perform [extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or pleurectomy/decortication (PD)], if any. In order to perform a randomized comparison, the most optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy should be determined. EORTC 1205 is a clinical trial randomizing between upfront surgery, followed by chemotherapy (cisplatin plus pemetrexed) and deferred surgery, following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early stage (T1–3 N0–2 M0) MPM (irrespective of histological subtype). The surgical procedure performed is (extended) pleurectomy/decortication (e-PD), which is promoted as an alternative for EPP, but lacks standardization. Primary outcome parameter is successful completion of multimodality treatment; secondary outcome parameters are surgical quality parameters (in order to standardize the procedure), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), treatment-failure free survival, operative morbidity and mortality, toxicity and safety.

Background: The role of surgery in pleural mesothelioma remains controversial. It may be appropriate in highly selected patients as part of a multimodality treatment including chemotherapy. Recent years have seen a shift from extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy toward extended pleurectomy/decortication. The most optimal sequence of surgery and chemotherapy remains unknown.Methods: EORTC-1205-LCG was a multicentric, noncomparative phase 2 trial, 1:1 randomising between immediate (arm A) and deferred surgery (arm B), followed or preceded by chemotherapy. Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0–1) had treatment-naïve, borderline resectable T1–3 N0–1 M0 mesothelioma of any histology. Primary outcome was rate of success at 20 weeks, a composite end-point including 1) successfully completing both treatments within 20 weeks; 2) being alive with no signs of progressive disease; and 3) no residual grade 3–4 toxicity. Secondary end-points were toxicity, overall survival, progression-free survival and process indicators of surgical quality.Findings: 69 patients were included in this trial. 56 (81%) patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy and 58 (84%) patients underwent surgery. Of the 64 patients in the primary analysis, 21 out of 30 patients in arm A (70.0%; 80% CI 56.8–81.0%) and 17 out of 34 patients (50.0%; 80% CI 37.8–62.2%) in arm B reached the statistical end-point for rate of success. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.8 (95% CI 8.5–17.2) months and 27.1 (95% CI 22.6–64.3) months in arm A, and 8.0 (95% CI 7.2–21.9) months and 33.8 (95% CI 23.8–44.6) months in arm B. Macroscopic complete resection was obtained in 82.8% of patients. 30- and 90-day mortality were both 1.7%. No new safety signals were found, but treatment-related morbidity was high.Interpretation: EORTC 1205 did not succeed in selecting a preferred sequence of pre- or post-operative chemotherapy. Either procedure is feasible with a low mortality, albeit consistent morbidity. A shared informed decision between surgeon and patient remains essential.