The development of targeted therapy in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients has radically changed their clinical perspectives. Current first-line standard treatment for advanced disease is commonly considered third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), osimertinib. The study of primary and acquired resistance to front-line osimertinib is one of the main burning issues to further improve patients' outcome. Great heterogeneity has been depicted in terms of duration of clinical benefit and pattern of progression and this might be related to molecular factors including subtypes of EGFR mutations and concomitant genetic alterations. Acquired resistance can be categorized into two main classes: EGFR-dependent and EGFR-independent mechanisms and specific pattern of progression to first-line osimertinib have been demonstrated. The purpose of the manuscript is to provide a comprehensive overview of literature about molecular resistance mechanisms to first-line osimertinib, from a clinical perspective and therefore in relationship to emerging therapeutic approaches.

Background: About 30% of new non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases are diagnosed at a locally advanced stage, which includes a highly heterogeneous group of patients with a wide spectrum of treatment options. The management of stage III NSCLC involves a multidisciplinary team, adequate staging, and a careful patient selection for surgery or radiation therapy integrated with systemic treatment. Methods: This is a single-center observational retrospective and prospective study including a consecutive series of stage III NSCLC patients who were referred to the Veneto Institute of Oncology and University Hospital of Padova (Italy) between 2012 and 2021. We described clinico-pathological characteristics, therapeutic pathways, and treatment responses in terms of radiological response in the entire study population and in terms of pathological response in patients who underwent surgery after induction therapy. Furthermore, we analysed survival outcomes in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 301 patients were included. The majority of patients received surgical multimodality treatment (n = 223, 74.1%), while the remaining patients (n = 78, 25.9%) underwent definitive CRT followed or not by durvalumab as consolidation therapy. At data cut-off, 188 patients (62.5%) relapsed and the median RFS (mRFS) of the entire population was 18.2 months (95% CI: 15.83–20.57). At the time of analyses 140 patients (46.5%) were alive and the median OS (mOS) was 44.7 months (95% CI: 38.4–51.0). A statistically significant difference both in mRFS (p = 0.002) and in mOS (p < 0.001) was observed according to the therapeutic pathway in the entire population, and selecting patients treated after 2018, a significant difference in mRFS (p = 0.006) and mOS (p < 0.001) was observed according to treatment modality. Furthermore, considering only patients diagnosed with stage IIIB-C (N = 131, 43.5%), there were significant differences both in mRFS (p = 0.047) and in mOS (p = 0.022) as per the treatment algorithm. The mRFS of the unresectable population was 16.3 months (95% CI: 11.48–21.12), with a significant difference among subgroups (p = 0.030) in favour of patients who underwent the PACIFIC-regimen; while the mOS was 46.5 months (95% CI: 26.46–66.65), with a significant difference between two subgroups (p = 0.003) in favour of consolidation immunotherapy. Conclusions: Our work provides insights into the management and the survival outcomes of stage III NSCLC over about 10 years. We found that the choice of radical treatment impacts on outcome, thus suggesting the importance of appropriate staging at diagnosis, patient selection, and of the multidisciplinary approach in the decision-making process. Our results confirmed that the PACIFIC trial and the following introduction of durvalumab as consolidation treatment may be considered as a turning point for several improvements in the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway of stage III NSCLC patients.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection continues to be a social and public health problem. Thanks to more and more effective antiretroviral therapy (ART), nowadays HIV-positive patients live longer, thus increasing their probability to acquire other diseases, malignancies primarily. Senescence along with immune-system impairment, HIV-related habits and other oncogenic virus co-infections increase the cancer risk of people living with HIV (PLWH); in the next future non-AIDS-defining cancers will prevail, lung cancer (LC) in particular. Tumor in PLWH might own peculiar predictive and/or prognostic features, and antineoplastic agents’ activity might be subverted by drug-drug interactions (DDIs) due to concurrent ART. Moreover, PLWH immune properties and comorbidities might influence both the response and tolerability of oncologic treatments. The therapeutic algorithm of LC, rapidly and continuously changed in the last years, should be fitted in the context of a special patient population like PLWH. This is quite challenging, also because HIV-positive patients have been often excluded from participation to clinical trials, so that levels of evidence about systemic treatments are lower than evidence in HIV-uninfected individuals. With this review, we depicted the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical-pathological characteristics and implications for LC care in PLWH, offering a valid focus about this topic to clinicians.

The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (N = 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost–effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34€, 21,726.28€ and 19,637.83€ for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0€/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77€/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0€ per patient. This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation.

The use of immunotherapy (IOT) in treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has revolutionized care standards. However, full compliance with neoadjuvant, perioperative, and adjuvant treatment protocols remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate compliance rates with IOT-based protocols in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and perioperative settings. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on prospective clinical trials involving preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative IOT protocols in resectable NSCLC up to December 2024. Primary outcomes included compliance with medical treatment (e.g., omission of therapy rate, incomplete therapy rate, and omission of surgery rate), surgical outcomes (R0 resection rate), and post-treatment severe adverse events (AEs). A total of 30 studies, with 10,493 patients, were included. In the neoadjuvant settings, 26 studies (16 neoadjuvant; 10 perioperative) investigated IOT alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Almost all patients received at least one therapy administration, while 11.3 % experienced incomplete cycles. Surgery was not performed in 16.1 % of cases, and an R0 resection was achieved in 80.5 % of patients. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were observed in 67.7 % of patients. In the adjuvant setting, 14 studies evaluated IOT (4 adjuvant; 10 perioperative). Complete omission of adjuvant therapy occurred in 9,6 % of patients, while 34,6 % required a discontinuation or cycle reduction. Grade ≥ 3 were AEs observed in 19.0 % of patients. Overall protocol compliance was superior in neoadjuvant protocols (effect size: 0.78 [IC 95 %: 0.70-0.85]) compared to adjuvant protocols (effect size: 0.61 [IC 95 %: 0.53-0.69]) and perioperative protocols (effect size: 0.49 [IC 95 %: 0.43-0.55]). However, perioperative protocols showed similar compliance and Grade ≥ 3 AE rates compared to preoperative and postoperative protocols. Compliance with treatment protocols in NSCLC remains a critical factor, particularly for radical surgery candidates. This study represents a landmark effort in synthesizing comprehensive data on compliance with immunotherapy protocols in resectable NSCLC. Improving protocol compliance through tailored strategies and multidisciplinary coordination is essential to maximize the therapeutic potential of immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC and enhance patient outcomes.