Glioblastoma is the most common malignant primary brain tumor. Overall, the prognosis for patients with this disease is poor, with a median survival of <2 years. There is a slight predominance in males, and incidence increases with age. The standard approach to therapy in the newly diagnosed setting includes surgery followed by concurrent radiotherapy with temozolomide and further adjuvant temozolomide. Tumor‐treating fields, delivering low‐intensity alternating electric fields, can also be given concurrently with adjuvant temozolomide. At recurrence, there is no standard of care; however, surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy with chemotherapy or bevacizumab are all potential options, depending on the patient's circumstances. Supportive and palliative care remain important considerations throughout the disease course in the multimodality approach to management. The recently revised classification of glioblastoma based on molecular profiling, notably isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) mutation status, is a result of enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of disease. There is a clear need for better therapeutic options, and there have been substantial efforts exploring immunotherapy and precision oncology approaches. In contrast to other solid tumors, however, biological factors, such as the blood‐brain barrier and the unique tumor and immune microenvironment, represent significant challenges in the development of novel therapies. Innovative clinical trial designs with biomarker‐enrichment strategies are needed to ultimately improve the outcome of patients with glioblastoma.

Lung cancer has traditionally been classified by histology. However, a greater understanding of disease biology and the identification of oncogenic driver alterations has dramatically altered the therapeutic landscape. Consequently, the new classification paradigm of non–small-cell lung cancer is further characterized by molecularly defined subsets actionable with targeted therapies and the treatment landscape is becoming increasingly complex. This review encompasses the current standards of care for targeted therapies in lung cancer with driver molecular alterations. Targeted therapies for EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R mutations, and ALK and ROS1 rearrangements are well established. However, there is an expanding list of approved targeted therapies including for BRAF V600E, EGFR exon 20 insertion, and KRAS G12C mutations, MET exon 14 alterations, and NTRK and RET rearrangements. In addition, there are numerous other oncogenic drivers, such as HER2 exon 20 insertion mutations, for which there are emerging efficacy data for targeted therapies. The importance of diagnostic molecular testing, intracranial efficacy of novel therapies, the optimal sequencing of therapies, role for targeted therapies in early-stage disease, and future directions for precision oncology approaches to understand tumor evolution and therapeutic resistance are also discussed.

The traditional classification of lung cancer into small cell lung cancer and non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been transformed with the increased understanding of the molecular alterations and genomic biomarkers that drive the development of lung cancer. Increased activation of the phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway leads to numerous hallmarks of cancer and this pathway represents an attractive target for novel anticancer therapies. In NSCLC, the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway has been heavily implicated in both tumorigenesis and the progression of disease. A number of specific inhibitors of PI3K, Akt and mTOR are currently under development and in various stages of preclinical investigation and in early phase clinical trials for NSCLC. Early evidence has yielded disappointing results. Clinical trials, however, have been performed on predominantly molecularly unselected populations, and patient enrichment strategies using high‐precision predictive biomarkers in future trials will increase the likelihood of success. A greater understanding of the underlying molecular biology including epigenetic alterations is also crucial to allow for the detection of appropriate biomarkers and guide combination approaches.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has resulted in impressive and durable clinical activity for many cancers including melanoma; however, there remain few reliable predictors for long-term response. This study investigated whether [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET) imaging may better predict long-term outcomes compared with standard computed tomography (CT) response criteria. Retrospective analysis of metastatic melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy with baseline and 1-year FDG-PET and CT imaging at Melanoma Institute Australia. One-year response was determined using RECIST for CT and EORTC criteria for PET, coded as complete response (CR or CMR), partial response (PR or PMR), stable disease (SD or SMD) or progressive disease (PD or PMD). Progression-free survival (PFS) was determined from the 1-year landmark. Patients (n = 104) were evaluated with median follow-up 30.1 months and 98% remain alive. Most received anti-PD-1 as monotherapy (67%) or combined with ipilimumab (31%). At 1 year, 28% had CR, 66% had PR and 6% had SD on CT, while 75% had CMR, 16% PMR and 9% SMD/PMD on PET. CMR was observed in 68% of patients with PR on CT. RECIST PFS post 1-year landmark was similar in patients with CR versus PR/SD, but improved in patients with CMR versus non-CMR {median not reached [NR] versus 12.8 month; hazard ratio [HR] 0.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.23]; P < 0.01}. In patients with PR on CT, PFS was improved in patients with PR + CMR versus PR + non-CMR (median NR versus 12.8 months; HR 0.07 [95% CI 0.02-0.27]; P < 0.01). In the 78 CMR patients, 78% had discontinued treatment and 96% had ongoing response. Whilst only a small proportion of patients have a CR at 1 year, most patients with a PR have CMR on PET. Almost all patients with CMR at 1 year have ongoing response to therapy thereafter. PET may have utility in predicting long-term benefit and help guide discontinuation of therapy.

Interest in dietary phytochemicals for potential cancer chemoprevention has increased substantially. Screening dietary compounds for chemopreventive activity however, requires a systematic and wide-ranging approach to encompass the complexity of carcinogenesis. We present some of the molecular pathways that underpin the broad biological processes involved in carcinogenesis. Oxidative stress, inflammation, and the evasion of apoptosis are important biological mechanisms by which carcinogenesis occurs. Subsequently, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and pro-apoptotic activity represent important activities for preventing, suppressing, or reversing the development of carcinogenesis. Ultimately, these mechanisms of action may provide a useful basis for screening novel phytochemicals for chemopreventive activity. In this review, we identify the important molecular processes that may be targeted in routine screenings of dietary phytochemicals to ultimately select the most effective potential candidates for cancer chemoprevention.