ESMO CPG MNSCLC 18SEPT2019

Updated version published 18 September 2019 by the ESMO Guidelines Committee
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice

Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†
Originally published in 2018 – Ann Oncol (2018) 29 (suppl 4): iv192–iv237
D. Planchard1, S. Popat2, K. Kerr3, S. Novello4, E. F. Smit5, C. Faivre-Finn6, T. S. Mok7, M.
Reck8, P. E. Van Schil9, M. D. Hellmann10 & S. Peters11, on behalf of the ESMO Guidelines
Committee*
1Department of Medical Oncology, Thoracic Group, Gustave-Roussy Villejuif, France; 2Royal Marsden Hospital, London;
3Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen University Medical School, Aberdeen, UK; 4Department of Oncology, University of Turin,
San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Italy; 5Thoracic Oncology Service, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
6Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 7Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China; 8LungenClinic Airway Research Center North (ARCN),
German Center for Lung Research, Grosshansdorf, Germany; 9Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Antwerp
University Hospital and Antwerp University, Antwerp, Belgium; 10Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA; 11Medical
Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
*Correspondence to: ESMO Guidelines Committee, ESMO Head Office, Via Ginevra 4, CH-6900 Lugano, Switzerland. E-mail:
clinicalguidelines@esmo.org
†Approved by the ESMO Guidelines Committee: February 2002, last update September 2018. This publication supersedes the
previously published version—Ann Oncol 2016; 27 (Suppl 5): v1–v27.
Incidence and epidemiology

Primary lung cancer remains the most common malignancy after non-melanocytic skin cancer, and deaths from lung
cancer exceed those from any other malignancy worldwide [1]. In 2012, lung cancer was the most frequently diagnosed
cancer in males with an estimated 1.2 million incident cases worldwide. Among females, lung cancer was the leading
cause of cancer death in more developed countries and the second leading cause of cancer death in less developed
countries [1]. The highest incidence is found in Central/Eastern Europe and Asia with age-standardised incidence rates
of 53.5 and 50.4 per 100 000, respectively. European projections for 2017 indicate a 10.7% drop in 5 years with an
incidence of 33.3/100 000 in males and a rise of 5.1% and an incidence of 14.6/100 000 in females [2]. Contrary to the
United States, the death rate in females is increasing in Europe [3]. The number of lung cancer-related deaths in
Europe for 2017 is estimated to represent the leading cause of cancer deaths in both genders, accounting for 24% in
males and 15% in females, respectively [2].
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80%–90% of lung cancers, while small cell lung cancer (SCLC)
has been decreasing in frequency in many countries over the past two decades [4]. During the last 25 years, the
distribution of histological types of NSCLC has changed: in the United States, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC),
formerly the predominant histotype, decreased, while adenocarcinoma has increased in both genders. In Europe,
similar trends have occurred in men, while in women, both SCC and adenocarcinoma are still increasing [5].
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that lung cancer is the cause of 1.59 million deaths globally per
year, with 71% of them caused by smoking. Tobacco smoking remains the main cause of lung cancer and the
geographical and temporal patterns of the disease largely reflect tobacco consumption during the previous decades.
Both smoking prevention and smoking cessation can lead to a reduction in a large fraction of lung cancers [6]. In
countries with active tobacco control measures, the incidence of lung cancer has begun to decline in men and is
reaching a plateau for women [1, 7–9]. Several other factors have been described as lung cancer risk factors, including
exposure to asbestos, arsenic, radon and non-tobacco-related polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Hypotheses about
indoor air pollution (e.g. coal-fuelled stoves and cooking fumes) are made for the relatively high burden of non-smoking-
related lung cancer in women in some countries [10]. There is evidence that lung cancer rates are higher in cities than
in rural settings but many confounding factors other than outdoor air pollution may be responsible for this pattern.
About 500 000 deaths annually are attributed to lung cancer in lifetime never-smokers [1]. Absence of any history of
tobacco smoking characterises 19% of female compared with 9% of male lung carcinoma in the United States [11, 12].
An increase in the proportion of NSCLC in never-smokers has been observed, especially in Asian countries [13]. These
new epidemiological data have resulted in ‘non-smoking-associated lung cancer’ being considered a distinct disease
entity, where specific molecular and genetic tumour characteristics have been identified [14].
© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 1

Use of non-cigarette tobacco products such as cigars and pipes has been increasing. A pooled analysis highlighted
the increased risk, particularly for lung and head and neck cancers, in smokers (former and current) of cigars and pipes
[15].
Familial risk of lung cancer has been reported in several registry-based studies after careful adjustment for smoking
[16]. A recent study estimated the heritability of lung cancer at 18% but many of the genetic components remain
unidentified. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified lung cancer susceptibility loci including
CHRNA3, CHRNA5, TERT, BRCA2, CHECK2 and the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region [17–19]. Another trial,
including data from 29 266 cases and 56 450 controls from European descent, found 18 susceptibility loci reaching
genome-wide significance, among which 10 were previously unknown. Interestingly, while four of the latter were
associated with overall lung cancer risk, six were associated with lung adenocarcinoma only [20].
Diagnosis and pathology/molecular biology
Diagnosis
Changes in the therapeutic scenario in the last 15 years have emphasised the need for a multidisciplinary approach
in lung cancer. Data show that high-volume centres and multidisciplinary teams are more efficient at managing patients
with lung cancer than low-volume or non-multidisciplinary centres, by providing more complete staging, better
adherence to guidelines and increased survival [21, 22]. Multidisciplinary tumour boards influence providers’ initial plans
in 26%–40% of cases [23]. The absolute need to reach a proper and precise morphological and biological definition
often requires challenging tissue sampling, with most treatment decisions depending on the information obtained from
the specimen collected at diagnosis.
Bronchoscopy is a technique ideally suited to large, central lesions and offers the advantage of minimal morbidity.
Bronchoscopy can be used for bronchial washing, brushing, bronchial and transbronchial biopsy, with a diagnostic yield
of 65%–88% [24–26]. By combining direct bronchoscopic airway visualisation with ultrasound-guided biopsy of the
lesion, endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) provides a diagnostic yield of 75%–85% in large, centrally located lesions [27,
28]. Fibre optic bronchoscopy allows for the evaluation of regional lymph nodes by EBUS and/or endoscopic ultrasound
(EUS). EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) is less invasive and at least as accurate as
mediastinoscopy [29]. Several studies have shown that cytological specimens obtained by EBUSTBNA are suitable for
molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS)
and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) status [30–33]; however, collection of samples suitable for broader molecular
diagnostic testing should be encouraged.
In case of peripheral lesions, transthoracic percutaneous fine needle aspiration and/or core biopsy, under imaging
guidance [typically computed tomography (CT)] is proposed [34]. Needle biopsy is associated with a diagnostic
accuracy of > 88% yield, a sensitivity of 90% and a false-negative rate of 22% [25, 35–38]. The most significant
disadvantage of transthoracic needle biopsy is a procedural risk of pneumothorax, ranging from 17% to 50% [37, 38].
In the presence of a pleural effusion, thoracentesis could represent both a diagnostic tool and a palliative treatment.
If fluid cytology examination is negative, image-guided pleural biopsy or surgical thoracoscopy should be carried out.
More invasive, surgical approaches [mediastinoscopy, mediastinotomy, thoracoscopy, video-assisted thorascopic
surgery (VATS), secondary lesion resection etc.] in the diagnostic workup are considered when the previously
described techniques cannot allow for an accurate diagnosis.
Pathology/molecular biology
Histological diagnosis
Histological diagnosis of NSCLC is crucial to many treatment decisions and should be as exact and detailed as the
samples and available technology allow. Diagnosis should be based upon the criteria laid out in the WHO classification
[39]. This classification details the complete diagnostic approach for surgically resected tumours but, importantly, also
provides guidance for assessing and reporting small biopsy and cytology samples where complete morphological
criteria for specific diagnosis may not be met [39–41].
Most patients with NSCLC present with advanced stage unresectable disease, therefore all treatment-determining
diagnoses must be made on small biopsy and/or cytology-type samples. Sampling may be carried out of the primary
tumour or any accessible metastases, taken under direct vision or more usually with image-guided assistance, which
greatly increases the diagnostic yield (hit rate). Sampling metastatic disease may facilitate staging, as well as
diagnosis. These diagnostic samples frequently have limited tumour material and must therefore be handled
accordingly; ensuring processing is suitable for all likely diagnostic procedures and that material is used sparingly at
each step, since many diagnostic tests may be required [42].
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become a key technique in primary diagnosis as well as in predictive biomarker
assessment. In those cases of NSCLC where specific subtyping is not possible by morphology alone, a limited panel of
IHC is recommended to determine the subtype [39, 40]. Thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF1) positivity is associated
with probable diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, p40 positivity with probable diagnosis of SCC; if neither are positive the
diagnosis remains NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). IHC staining should be used to reduce the NSCLC-NOS rate
to < 10% of cases diagnosed [IV, A]. Pathologists are urged to conserve tissue at every stage of diagnosis, to use only

two tissue sections for IHCNSCLC subtyping and to avoid excessive IHC investigation, which may not be clinically
relevant.
Molecular diagnostics
After morphological diagnosis, the next consideration is therapy-predictive biomarker testing. This practice will be
driven by the availability of treatments and will vary widely between different geopolitical health systems [43–45].
Contemporary practice has now evolved into two testing streams, one for the detection of targetable, usually addictive,
oncogenic alterations and the other for immuno-oncology therapy biomarker testing. A personalised medicine synopsis
table is shown in Table 1.
Several molecular drivers for oncogene addiction represent strong predictive biomarkers and excellent therapeutic
targets. They are generally mutually exclusive of each other [43–45]. These tumours are much more common in never-
(never smoked or who smoked < 100 cigarettes in lifetime), long-time ex- (>10 years) or light-smokers (<15 pack-years)
but they can also be found in patients who smoke. The vast majority of oncogene-addicted lung cancers are
adenocarcinomas. Patients, in general, tend to be younger, while female gender and East Asian ethnicity particularly
enriches for EGFR-mutant tumours. Nonetheless, guidelines suggest that all patients with advanced, possible, probable
or definite, adenocarcinoma should be tested for oncogenic drivers [43–46]. Molecular testing is not recommended in
SCC, except in those rare circumstances when SCC is found in a never-, long-time ex- or light-smoker (<15 pack-
years) [IV, A]. Testing for EGFR mutations and rearrangements involving the ALK and ROS1 genes are now
considered mandatory in most European countries. BRAF V600E mutations are rapidly approaching this status as first-
line BRAF/MEK inhibitors are more widely approved, while HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) and MET
exon 14 mutations and fusion genes involving RET and NTRK1 (neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase 1) are evolving
targets/biomarkers [43–46].
EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established effective therapies in patients who have activating and
sensitising mutations in exons 18–21 of EGFR [47]. Prevalence is around 10%–20% of a Caucasian population with
adenocarcinoma but much higher in Asian population. Around 90% of the most common mutations comprise deletions
in exon 19 and the L858R substitution mutation in exon 21. Any testing approach must cover these mutations [I, A];
however, complete coverage to include exons 18–21 is recommended [III, B]. The T790M exon 20 substitution mutation
is only rarely found in EGFR TKI-naive disease using standard techniques but is the most frequent cause of resistance
to first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs (50%–60% of cases). Cases of patients carrying germline T790M mutation
have also been reported [48]. Further studies to better understand the prevalence, familial penetrance and lifetime lung
cancer risk in germline T790M-mutant patients are warranted. Implications of this mutation in TKI-naive disease are
unclear, but the availability of TKIs effective against T790M-mutant recurrent disease makes T790M testing on disease
relapse mandatory [I, A]. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood testing is an acceptable approach to detect T790M at relapse but
lacks sensitivity, so all patients with a negative blood test still require tissue biopsy [II, A] [49]. Tissue biopsy may also
be more effective in identifying other resistance mechanisms which may require alternative treatment (SCLC
transformation, MET amplification, HER2 alterations etc.).
Fusion genes involving ALK and a number of partners (most commonly EML4) account for around 2%–5%of the
same population that is routinely tested for EGFR mutations [50]. ALK-driven adenocarcinoma is very sensitive to
several ALK TKIs. Early trials validated break-apart fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) as the test to identify ALK
gene rearrangement but the close association between a positive FISH test and modestly elevated ALK protein in
tumour cells allows ALK IHC to be used, either to select cases for confirmatory FISH testing or as the primary therapy-
determining test [50, 51]. ALK IHC must reliably detect low levels of ALK protein and be validated against alternative
tests to detect ALK fusion genes, especially if ALK IHC is used as the therapy-determining assay, without confirmation
by FISH [II, A]. Emerging data demonstrate that the presence of the ALK protein (positive IHC staining) is associated
with treatment response [I, A] [52, 53]. Recently, IHC has been accepted as an equivalent alternative to FISH for ALK
testing [54]. Testing for ALK rearrangement should be systematically carried out in advanced non-squamous NSCLC [I,
A]. ALK mutations are emerging as important resistance mechanisms to ALK TKIs and ALK mutation testing may soon
become a routine test at relapse as newer-generation ALK TKIs show differential efficacy against different ALK
mutations [55].
ROS1 fusion genes are yet another addictive oncogenic driver that occurs in ~1%–4% of the same testing
population. Like ALK, ROS1 has several potential fusion gene partners. Crizotinib, a TKI effective against ALK and
MET, is also approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for use in ROS1-rearranged adenocarcinomas. FISH
has been the standard approach to detecting ROS1 rearrangements. IHC may be used in a manner similar to ALK
testing, to identify candidate tumours for confirmatory FISH testing. The sensitivity of this approach is high, using
currently available IHC, but specificity of IHC is low [IV, C]. FISH or other testing is required to confirm the diagnosis;
IHC is currently not recommended as the primary treatment determining test [IV, A] [45, 46, 50]. Testing for ROS1
rearrangement should be systematically carried out in advanced non-squamous NSCLC [III, A].
BRAF mutation testing is now required in many countries after the approval of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for BRAF
V600-mutant NSCLC. Any method is valid provided that it is adequately sensitive for the samples used and has been
appropriately quality-assured, both within the laboratory and through external quality assurance. The V600E mutation is
the most common of the BRAF V600 family and, overall, these BRAF mutations are found in ~2% of cases. BRAF V600
mutations appear mutually exclusive to EGFR and KRAS mutations, ALK and ROS1 rearrangements and are similarly
much more common in adenocarcinoma. BRAF V600 mutation status should be systematically analysed in advanced
non-squamous NSCLC for the prescription of BRAF/MEK inhibitors [II, A].

For many laboratories, testing for EGFR and BRAF mutations and ALK and ROS1 rearrangements involves
individual standalone tests. Multiplex, massively parallel, so-called next-generation sequencing (NGS) of various sorts
is rapidly being adopted as the standard approach to screening adenocarcinomas for oncogenic targets [III, A] [45, 49,
50, 56]. Platform-specific, commercially available panels can cover genes of interest and provide a comprehensive,
multiplex test for mutations and, in some cases, fusion genes. NGS will not address biomarkers that require testing at
the protein level (requires IHC) and the question of whether NGS-detected fusion genes require an orthogonal test
(IHC, FISH) for confirmation remains open. Whatever testing modality is used, it is mandatory that adequate internal
validation and quality control measures are in place and that laboratories participate in, and perform adequately,
external quality assurance schemes for each biomarker test [III, A].
The approval of the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) agent pembrolizumab as a standard-of-care first-
line treatment in selected patients has made programmed death-ligand (PD-L1) IHC a mandatory test in all patients
with advanced NSCLC. Although the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 assay was the only test validated in clinical trials of
pembrolizumab, extensive technical comparison studies suggest that trial-validated commercial kit assays based on the
28-8 and SP263 PD-L1 IHC clones may be alternative tests [III, A] [57–61]. If laboratories use, by choice or force of
circumstances, a non-trial-validated PD-L1 IHC test, i.e. a laboratory developed test (LDT), there is a high risk that the
assay may fail quality assurance and a very careful, extensive validation is essential before clinical use [IV, A] [35, 36].
There is a relationship between the extent of PD-L1 expression on tumour cells, or in some trials in tumour infiltrating
immune cells, and the probability of clinical benefit from numerous anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 agents, in first- and second-line
therapy [57]. For pembrolizumab, the mandatory treatment threshold is a tumour proportion score (TPS, presence of
PD-L1 signal on tumour cell membranes) ≥ 50% in first line and ≥ 1% in second line [62, 63]. PD-L1 expression testing
is recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC [I, A]. For nivolumab and atezolizumab in
second line, PD-L1 testing is not required for drug prescription. PD-L1 IHC is an approved biomarker test for
immunotherapeutics in NSCLC but it is not a perfect biomarker; less than half of biomarker-selected patients benefit
from treatment and some responses may be encountered in ‘biomarker-negative’ cohorts. Much work is underway to
identify alternative, or more likely, additional biomarkers to enrich patient populations for response. Various measures
of tumour mutational burden (TMB) are being explored and TMB has been validated prospectively in a unique
prospective clinical trial to date [64]. An international effort is ongoing to define a consensus on how TMB should be
measured [65–67]. Assessment of tumour inflammation is also of interest, but again, various approaches are being
pursued, including histological assessment of immune cell infiltrates and mRNA-based expression signatures of
immune-related genes. More data are required before any of these new approaches can be routinely incorporated into
NSCLC biomarker testing.
Blood monitoring
The ability to detect oncogenic driver genomic alterations, or factors associated with disease resistance to
treatment in peripheral blood, opens the way to disease monitoring in a way that would not be practically feasible were
repeat testing solely based upon tumour biopsy testing. In practice, and with current knowledge, this is more likely to
involve the use of cfDNA rather than circulating tumour cells (CTCs); the vast majority of existing data concern EGFR
mutation testing in blood [68]. Currently, much EGFR plasma testing is based upon highly sensitive allele-specific
polymerase chain reaction (ASPCR). Plasma genotyping may be considered before undergoing a tumour biopsy to
detect the T790M mutation. However, if the plasma testing is negative for T790M, the tissue biopsy is strongly
recommended to determine T790M status because of the risks of false-negative plasma results [III, A]. NGS techniques
can be used; as more biomarkers are identified and validated, more NGS-based gene panels would be available.
Notwithstanding the issues regarding sensitivity of blood testing, potentially clinically valuable information may be
derived from serial blood testing during treatment. For example, the disappearance from the blood of the primary
sensitising EGFR mutation is associated with clinical and radiological evidence of response to EGFR TKIs and is a
good prognostic indicator [IV, C].
After maximum response to EGFR TKI therapy and disappearance of the mutation from the plasma, the
reappearance of the primary sensitising mutation, with or without detection of the T790M resistance mutation, may be
an indicator of ‘biochemical’ disease relapse. This occurrence may predate radiological relapse, which, in turn, may
predate clinical/symptomatic disease relapse. Currently, such findings are essentially exploratory since there is no
consensus as to when and how any clinical intervention should be managed. There is no doubt, however, that this kind
of molecular monitoring could, in the future, offer benefit to patients in a number of different personalised treatment
scenarios.
TMB was evaluated in patient tissue as well as blood samples in different trials. Unique assays and cut-offs are not
yet defined but preliminary data from the POPLAR and OAK trials found TMB in blood is associated with improved
atezolizumab clinical benefit in patients with NSCLC [69]. Exploratory data suggesting blood TMB (bTMB) as a
predictive biomarker for atezolizumab as well as durvalumab/tremelimumab activity front-line have recently been
presented [70, 70a]. bTMB measured from ctDNA allows for rapid, less invasive testing and may be more
representative of the heterogeneity of metastatic lesions. Two prospective trials in the first-line setting are exploring the
same biomarker [NCT03178552; NCT02542293].

Staging and risk assessment

A complete medical history with comorbidities, weight loss, performance status (PS) and physical examination must
be recorded. An exhaustive smoking habit assessment has to be included, indicating type, quantity and timing.
Laboratory
Standard tests including routine haematology, renal and hepatic function and bone biochemistry tests are required.
The routine use of serum markers, such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), is not recommended [IV, B] [71].
The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a widely available blood-based data point, validated in numerous
oncological settings as a potential prognostic marker. NLR has been considered as a potential dynamic marker but
further prospective validations are needed [IV, C] [72, 73].
Radiology
Baseline imaging
A contrast-enhanced CT scan of the chest and upper abdomen including complete assessment of liver, kidneys
and adrenal glands should be carried out. Imaging of the central nervous system (CNS) is most relevant in those
patients with neurological symptoms or signs [IV, A]; however, if available, imaging of the CNS with magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI, preferably with gadolinium enhancement) or CT of the brain with iodinated contrast should be
carried out at diagnosis [IV, B]. MRI is more sensitive than CT scan [III, B] [74].
Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a deadly complication of solid tumours and has a poor prognosis.
Adenocarcinomas are the most common tumours to metastasise to the leptomeninges. In case of clinical suspicion,
LMD diagnostic imaging should include the brain and the spinal cord, as LMD can impact the entire neuraxis. If
metastatic disease has been determined by CT scan of the chest and upper abdomen or by brain imaging, other
imaging is only necessary if it has an impact on treatment strategy. If bone metastases are clinically suspected, bone
imaging is required [IV, B]. Bone scan or positron emission tomography (PET), ideally coupled with CT, can be used for
detection of bone metastasis [IV, B]. PET-CT is the most sensitive modality in detecting bone metastasis [II, B] [75].
Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET or PET-CT has higher sensitivity and specificity than bone scintigraphy [76]. FDG-
PET-CT scan also has high sensitivity for the evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules, intra-thoracic pathological lymph
nodes and distant metastatic disease [77]. However, the low sensitivity of this exam in small lesions, in lesions close to
FDG-avid structures (overprojection) or in lesions that move extensively, such as those just above the diaphragm,
should be considered. MRI may complement or improve the diagnostic staging accuracy of FDG-PET-CT imaging,
particularly in assessing local chest wall, vascular or vertebra invasion and is also effective for identification of nodal
and distant metastatic disease. NSCLC is staged according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union
for International Cancer Control (UICC) system (8th edition) and is grouped into the stage categories shown in Tables 2
and 3 [78, 79].
In the presence of a solitary metastatic lesion on imaging studies, including pleural and pericardial effusion, efforts
should be made to obtain a cytological or histological confirmation of stage IV disease [IV, A].
Response evaluation
Response evaluation is recommended after 2–3 cycles of chemotherapy (ChT) or immunotherapy, using the same
initial radiographic investigation that demonstrated tumour lesions [IV, B]. The same procedure and timing (every 6–9
weeks) should be applied for the response evaluation in patients treated with targeted therapies and/or immunotherapy
[IV, B]. Follow-up with PET is not routinely recommended, due to its high sensitivity and relatively low specificity [IV, C].
Measurement of lesions should follow Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1 [IV, A] [80].
The adequacy of RECIST in evaluating response to EGFR or ALK TKIs in respective genetically driven NSCLC is still
debatable even if this remains the standard method of evaluation for these patients [IV, B]. In these two subgroups of
patients (and in other actionable oncogene alterations), treatment beyond RECIST progression is a common approach,
pursuing clinical benefit more than morphological response. This approach differs from what was carried out historically
with cytotoxic agents. The conventional radiological response criteria are unable to describe pseudoprogression (PsPD)
and can result in underestimation of the therapeutic benefit of immune checkpoint blockade. Several radiological criteria
have been developed specifically for immunotherapy, to better define the tumour response in this context. Two-
dimensional immune-related response criteria (irRC) were proposed in 2009 and modified in 2013 with the immune-
related RECIST (irRECIST) [81, 82]. More recently, the RECIST working group published a proposition of new criteria
called immune-RECIST (iRECIST), to standardise response assessment among immunotherapy clinical trials [83]. A
subsequent adaption of RECIST designed to better capture cancer immunotherapy responses has been published:
immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST) [84]. More data are needed to compare the RECIST, iRECIST, imRECIST and
irRECIST to quantify the differences in outcome estimation before using of them in clinical practice. Nonconventional
responses and PsPD are very rarely observed in NSCLC, ranging generally under 5% of all cases, and RECIST v1.1
should still be used in routine practice [IV, B] [85–88].

Management of advanced/metastatic NSCLC

The treatment strategy (Figures 1–7) should take into account factors such as histology, molecular pathology, age,
PS, comorbidities and the patient’s preferences. Treatment decisions should ideally be discussed within a
multidisciplinary tumour board who can evaluate and change management plans, including recommending additional
investigations and changes in treatment modality [89]. Systemic therapy should be offered to all stage IV patients with
PS 0–2 [I, A].
In any stage of NSCLC, smoking cessation should be highly encouraged: it can improve outcome and smoking may
interact with systemic therapy [II, A]. For example, smoking reduces erlotinib bioavailability [90, 91]. Given the
established relationship between smoking and lung cancer, patients who have smoked may feel stigmatised or guilty
after diagnosis and more pessimistic about their illness and likely outcomes, all of which may have adverse implications
for health-related quality of life (QoL) [92].
For these reasons, healthcare professionals should give clear advice about the adverse implications of continued
smoking and include smoking cessation programmes in the therapeutic algorithm.
First-line treatment of EGFR- and ALK-negative NSCLC, PD-L1 ≥ 50%

Lung cancers were previously considered poorly immunogenic, with minimal benefit seen in historical studies of
cytokine modulation or vaccines. However, the recent development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has upended this
belief and provided proof of principle that immunotherapy can play an important role in the treatment of patients with
lung cancers.
The phase III KEYNOTE-024 study has established the role for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in patients
with untreated, advanced NSCLC and tumour characterised by PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% [62], in absence of EGFR
mutation or ALK translocations. In KEYNOTE-024, 1934 patients were screened to identify 500 patients (30%) with
tumour PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%. Of these patients, 305 patients were randomised to receive 200 mg pembrolizumab
every 3 weeks (up to 2 years) or 4–6 cycles of standard platinum-doublet ChT. All efficacy measures favoured
pembrolizumab, including objective response rate (ORR 45% versus 28%), progression-free survival [PFS, hazard ratio
(HR) 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.68, P<0.001] and overall survival (OS, HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.41–0.89,
P=0.005). Safety and QoL also favoured pembrolizumab [93]. Continued follow-up has further emphasised the
effectiveness of pembrolizumab, with median OS (mOS) doubled in those who received pembrolizumab compared with
ChT (30 versus 14 months) [94].
Pembrolizumab is considered a standard first-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression
≥ 50% who do not otherwise have contraindications to use of immunotherapy (such as severe autoimmune disease or
organ transplantation) [I, A; European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)
v1.1 score: 5].
KEYNOTE-042 and CheckMate 026 examined a lower threshold for PD-L1 [66, 95, 95a]. Recent results from
KEYNOTE-042, a phase III study of patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% who were randomised to either pembrolizumab or ChT,
demonstrated improved OS in patients treated with pembrolizumab at three thresholds of PD-L1: ≥ 50%, ≥ 20% and ≥
1%. The HR for OS was 0.69, 0.77 and 0.81, respectively. Overall, the preponderance of the OS benefit was driven by
patients with ≥ 50%, while no significant increase was seen in those patients with 1%–49% PD-L1 expression (HR 0.92,
95% CI 0.77–1.11).
In CheckMate 026, patients with untreated, advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥ 1% (analysis based on 5% threshold)
were randomised to nivolumab or platinum-doublet ChT [66]. There were no improvements in any efficacy metrics.
However, an exploratory retrospective and unplanned analysis examined the impact of TMB on benefit of nivolumab. A
total of 312 patients (58% of randomised patients) had sufficient tissue for whole exome sequencing. In those patients
with the highest tertile of TMB (> 243 missense non-synonymous somatic mutations per sample), ORR (47% versus
28% with ChT) and PFS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38–1.0) favoured those who received nivolumab. Meanwhile, among
patients with low or medium TMB, ORR was numerically better in those who received ChT (33% versus 23% with
nivolumab).
Overall, these results confirm the benefit of pembrolizumab in the first-line setting seen in KEYNOTE-024, restricted
to patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%).
First-line treatment of EGFR- and ALK-negative NSCLC disease, regardless of PD-L1 status
Recently, results of the phase III trials KEYNOTE-189, IMpower150, IMpower132 and IMpower130 have brought
new options for the therapeutic choices in first line of non-squamous NSCLC and trials KEYNOTE-407 and IMpower131
for patients with squamous NSCLC.
In KEYNOTE-189, patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, PS 0–1, without sensitising EGFR or ALK
mutations, were randomised to receive pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin plus either 200 mg of pembrolizumab or
placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles plus
pemetrexed maintenance therapy [96]. The mOS in the pembrolizumab/ChT arm was 22.0 months (95% CI 19.5–25.2)
versus 10.3 months (95% CI 8.7–13.6) in the ChT arm (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45–0.70, P<0.00001). The PFS also
favoured the pembrolizumab/ChT combination (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40–0.58, P<0.00001) [96a]. The OS benefit of
pembrolizumab/ChT was observed in all PD-L1 tumour subgroups. Based on the results from KEYNOTE-189,
pembrolizumab in combination with pemetrexed and a platinum-based ChT should be considered a standard option in
metastatic non-squamous NSCLC [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4].

In IMpower150, the addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus ChT significantly improved PFS and OS among
patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression [97]. The PFS was longer in the
atezolizumab/bevacizumab/ChT arm compared with bevacizumab/ChT in patients without EGFR mutation or ALK
rearrangement [median PFS (mPFS) 8.3 versus 6.8 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.52–0.74; P<0.001]. In this patient
group, survival was longer in the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/ChT arm compared with bevacizumab/ChT (mOS 19.2
versus 14.7 months; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64–0.96; P=0.02; 12-month OS 67% versus 61%). Results from IMpower150
place the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab with carboplatin and paclitaxel as a therapeutic option in
patients with PS 0–1 with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, in absence of contraindications to use of immunotherapy
[I, A]. Of note, this is the only trial to date also including patients with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations and
demonstrating a stringent OS benefit (PFS HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37–0.94; OS HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29–1.03). In EGFR-
mutant patients, median OS was not estimable (NE, 95% CI 17.0–NE) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus
carboplatin plus paclitaxel and 18.7 months (95% CI 13.4–NE) with bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (HR
0.61, 95% CI 0.29–1.28). Improved OS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel was
observed in patients with sensitising EGFR mutations, defined as exon 19 deletions or L858R mutations (HR 0.31, 95%
CI 0.11–0.83) [97a]. This association in EGFR- or ALK-positive NSCLC patients defines a treatment opportunity for this
subgroup after targeted therapies have been exploited in unselected non-squamous NSCLC including EGFR- and ALK-
driven NSCLC [I, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 3], and more specifically [III, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 3] for EGFR- and [III, B;
MCBS v1.1 score: 3] for ALK-exploratory subgroups.
Recently, the combination of carboplatin or cisplatin with pemetrexed and atezolizumab followed by maintenance
pemetrexed and atezolizumab has been shown, in the context of the IMpower132 trial, to be superior to the ChT
doublet followed by maintenance pemetrexed. An improvement in mPFS from 5.2 to 7.6 months was observed (HR 0.6,
95% CI 0.49–0.72, P<0.0001) while OS was not statistically significantly increased at the time of analysis with mOS of
18.1 versus 13.6 months (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64–1.03, P=0.0797), suggesting another potential treatment opportunity [I,
B; not EMA-approved] [98].
IMpower130 is an additional multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study randomising stage IV NSCC
patients 2:1 to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 weeks) and carboplatin/albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P) (4–6
cycles), followed by maintenance atezolizumab to ChT alone (maintenance with pemetrexed switch or best supportive
care). This trial showed a significant improvement in OS (18.6 versus 13.9 months; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.98,
P=0.033) and PFS (7.0 versus 5.5 months, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54–0.77, P<0.0001) with atezolizumab plus ChT versus
ChT as first-line treatment, offering a new standard treatment opportunity in this subgroup of patients [98a] [I, A; MCBS
v1.1 score: 3].
KEYNOTE-407 is a randomised, placebo-controlled study of patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC [99].
Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel every 3 weeks or nab-P weekly plus pembrolizumab
or placebo for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for a total of 35 treatments. The combination of ChT plus
pembrolizumab was associated with improved ORR (58.4% versus 35.0%, P=0.0004) and improved OS (HR 0.64,
mOS 15.9 versus 11.3 months, P=0.0008). The benefit in OS was seen across PD-L1 expression strata (TPS < 1% HR
0.61, TPS 1%–49% HR 0.57, TPS ≥ 50% HR 0.64). No new safety concerns were observed. Results from KEYNOTE-
407 place the combination of pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab-P as a standard choice in patients
with metastatic squamous NSCLC [I, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 4].
Atezolizumab was studied in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC in the IMpower131 study. Patients were
randomised to atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-P or carboplatin/nab-P [100].
Atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-P had improved PFS compared with carboplatin/nab-P (HR 0.715, P=0.0001), but no
improvement in OS was seen at the first interim analysis (mOS 14 versus 13.9 months). More mature data are needed
to evaluate long-term benefit of the strategy; with the use of atezolizumab with carboplatin and nab-P today
representing an option in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC [I, B; not EMA-approved].
One key area of uncertainty is among PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, as none of these trials provide a direct comparison
between ChT plus checkpoint inhibitors versus pembrolizumab monotherapy. However, cross-trial comparison between
trials suggest similar OS outcomes among PD-L1 ≥ 50%, with very different toxicity profiles, suggesting that
pembrolizumab monotherapy may remain a reasonable choice for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% [101].
TMB has shown encouraging results as a predictive biomarker in retrospective studies in NSCLC and SCLC. The
first prespecified analysis of TMB as a biomarker was reported in the phase III trial CheckMate 227, evaluating
nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ChT in first-line NSCLC [64]. The TMB cut-off of 10 mutations per megabase (Mb)
was determined based on data from CheckMate 568 based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and
clinical impact analysis [102]. Patients with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC were randomised based on PD-L1
expression. Those who had PD-L1 TPS ≥ 1% received nivolumab/ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy or ChT; and
those with a PD-L1 TPS < 1% received nivolumab/ipilimumab, nivolumab/ChT or ChT. In patients with high TMB (≥ 10
mutations/ Mb, 44% of assessable patients), nivolumab/ipilimumab was associated with longer PFS than ChT (HR 0.58,
97.5% CI 0.41–0.81, P<0.001), and more than tripling of 1-year PFS (42.6% versus 13.2%). The PFS benefit with
nivolumab/ipilimumab was seen irrespective of PD-L1, wherein the HR similarly favoured nivolumab plus ipilimumab in
patients with a PD-L1 TPS ≥ 1% and those < 1% (HR 0.62 and HR 0.48, respectively). A similar benefit was seen in
both squamous and non-squamous histologies (squamous HR 0.63; non-squamous HR 0.55). Of importance, there
was no difference in PFS among patients with < 10 mutations/Mb (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84–1.35).

Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were more common with ChT than
nivolumab plus ipilimumab (36% versus 31%), with more subsequent discontinuations with immunotherapy (12%
versus 5%).
CheckMate 227 continues for the coprimary endpoint of OS in PD-L1 selected patients. For now, nivolumab plus
ipilimumab represents an optional treatment regimen for patients with NSCLC with a high TMB [I, A; not EMA-
approved]. Important questions remain regarding the role of immunotherapy combinations versus PD-1 monotherapy in
PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% and how TMB may inform the optimal use of PD-(L)1 plus ChT versus immunotherapy alone
combinations in NSCLC. The MYSTIC trial enrolled 1118 patients with metastatic NSCLC who were randomly allocated
to durvalumab alone, durvalumab plus tremelimumab or ChT. The primary endpoints were OS for durvalumab versus
ChT, and OS and PFS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus ChT in patients with 25% or greater PD-L1
expression in tumour cells. Durvalumab alone or with tremelimumab did not improve OS or PFS compared to ChT (OS:
16.3 versus 12.9 months, HR 0.76 and 11.9 versus 12.9 months, HR 0.85; PFS: 4.7 versus 5.4 months, HR 0.87 and
3.9 versus 5.4 months, HR 1.05, respectively). Exploratory analysis demonstrated that high blood TMB (≥ 20
mutations/Mb) was associated with longer OS in durvalumab and tremelimumab versus ChT (21.9 versus 10 months,
HR: 0.49) [79a]. Additional clinical data and evaluation of long-term benefit of these new strategies are needed.
Physicians and patients will need to conduct individualised discussions regarding benefit and risks of available
therapies over time.
Overall, the results from the KEYNOTE-024, IMpower150, KEYNOTE-189, IMpower132, IMpower130, CheckMate
227, KEYNOTE-407, MYSTIC and IMpower131 trials suggest that introducing immunotherapy will be a standard new
approach for most patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC.
First-line treatment of NSCLC without actionable oncogenic driver, with contraindications to

use of immunotherapy
ChT with platinum doublets should be considered in all stage IV NSCLC patients without an actionable oncogenic
driver, without major comorbidities and PS 0–2 [I, A]. Benefits of ChT versus best supportive care (BSC), namely a 23%
reduction of risk of death, a 1-year survival gain of 9% and a 1.5-month absolute increase in median survival and
improved QoL, were observed irrespective of age, sex, histology and PS in two meta-analyses [103–105]. The survival
benefit of two-agent over one-agent ChT regimens was reported in a meta-analysis in 2004; no survival benefit was
observed for three-agent over two-agent regimens [106]. Based on a 2006 meta-analysis, revealing a statistically
significant reduction (equal to 22%) in the risk of death at 1 year for platinum over non-platinum combinations, without
induction of unacceptable increase in toxicity, platinum-based doublets are recommended in all patients with no
contraindications to platinum compounds [I, A] [107]. Neither a large individual trial nor a meta-analysis found an OS
benefit of 6 versus fewer cycles of first-line platinum-based doublets, although a longer PFS coupled with significantly
higher toxicity was reported in patients receiving 6 cycles [108, 109]. Therefore, 4 cycles of platinum-based doublets
followed by less toxic maintenance monotherapy [I, A], or 4 cycles in patients not suitable for maintenance
monotherapy [I, A], up to a maximum of 6 cycles [IV, B], is currently recommended.
Several platinum-based regimens with third-generation cytotoxics (paclitaxel, gemcitabine, docetaxel, vinorelbine)
have shown comparable efficacy [110, 111]. The expected toxicity profile should contribute to the selection of the ChT
regimen, taking into account that:
• A recent Cochrane review including 10 trials with 3973 patients available for meta-analysis could not
demonstrate any difference between carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based ChT in OS. Cisplatin had higher
ORRs in an overall analysis but trials using paclitaxel or gemcitabine plus a platinum agent in both arms had
equivalent response. Cisplatin caused more nausea or vomiting and carboplatin caused more
thrombocytopaenia and neurotoxicity, while no difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 anaemia, neutropaenia,
alopaecia or renal toxicity was observed [112].
• The carboplatin/nap-P regimen has been shown in a large phase III trial to have a significantly higher ORR
compared with solvent-based paclitaxel/carboplatin (sb-PC), and less neurotoxicity [I, B] [113]. The benefits
were observed in both SCC and non-SCC (NSCC), with a larger impact on response in SCC. For this reason,
the carboplatin/nab-P regimen could be considered a chemotherapeutic option in advanced NSCLC patients,
particularly in patients with greater risk of neurotoxicity, pre-existing hypersensitivity to paclitaxel or
contraindications for standard paclitaxel premedication [I, B].
First-line treatment of SCC

Most individual trials and meta-analyses evaluating ChT options in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC did
not report any differential efficacy in patients with SCC [104]. Therefore, platinum-based doublets with the addition of a
third-generation cytotoxic agent (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes) are recommended in advanced SCC patients
without major comorbidities and PS 0–2 [I, A] (Figure 1).
Necitumumab, an immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody against EGFR, did not demonstrate a significant
impact in first-line treatment of metastatic NSCC when added to cisplatin/pemetrexed [114]. However, outcomes were
different when necitumumab was combined with different ChT regimens in SCC. In the SQUIRE trial, the addition of
necitumumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine produced a significant OS improvement (11.5 versus 9.9 months, HR 0.84, 95%
CI 0.74–0.96, P=0.01) and PFS improvement, with a 1-year survival equal to 48% in the experimental arm versus 43%
in the control arm [115]. In a retrospective analysis, the group of patients expressing EGFR (assessed by IHC) showed

an improvement in OS and PFS [mOS 11.7 months versus 10.0 months, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69–0.92, P=0.002; mPFS
5.7 versus 5.5 months, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.92, P=0.018] [116]. Based on these results, due to the limited clinical
improvement, the addition of necitumumab to cisplatin and gemcitabine has not been adopted as a standard in Europe
for advanced SCC and its use should be carefully evaluated [I, C; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 1].
First-line treatment of NSCC

Any platinum-based doublets with a third-generation agent including gemcitabine, vinorelbine or taxanes can be
used in NSCC (Figure 2). The incorporation of pemetrexed and bevacizumab into individual treatment schedules should
be considered, based on the following:
• Pemetrexed-based combination ChT represents a therapeutic option, based on the results of a recent meta-
analysis that showed a slight but significant survival benefit compared with gemcitabine- or docetaxel-based
combinations and of a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a large randomised phase III trial [II, A] [117, 118].
Pemetrexed use should be restricted to NSCC in any line of treatment in advanced disease [II, A] [119, 120].
• The survival benefit of carboplatin in combination with pemetrexed has been investigated in a meta-analysis
(exploratory subgroup analysis); survival benefit for pemetrexed plus platinum held true for cisplatin-containing
regimens but not for carboplatin-based regimens; however, results from prospective randomised studies
investigating this question are not yet available [117]. The combination of carboplatin with pemetrexed can be
an option in patients with a contraindication to cisplatin [II, B].
• Findings of two randomised clinical trials revealed that bevacizumab improves OS when combined with
paclitaxel/carboplatin regimens in patients with NSCC and PS 0–1 and, therefore, may be offered in the
absence of contraindications in eligible patients with advanced NSCC (bevacizumab should be given until
progression) [I, A] [121, 122]. A randomised phase III trial evaluating gemcitabine/cisplatin combination with or
without bevacizumab demonstrated an ORR and modest PFS advantage, but no OS benefit [123].
Two meta-analyses showed a consistent significant improvement in ORR, PFS and OS for the combination of
bevacizumab and platinum-based ChT, compared with platinum-based ChT alone in eligible patients with NSCC [124,
125]. Bevacizumab might therefore be considered with platinum-based regimens beyond paclitaxel/carboplatin in the
absence of contraindications [II, B]. Treatment with bevacizumab has also shown encouraging efficacy and acceptable
safety in patients with NSCC and asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases [126].
Maintenance
Decision-making about maintenance therapy must take into account histology, residual toxicity after first-line ChT,
response to platinum doublet, PS and patient preference. Several trials have investigated the role of maintenance
treatment in patients with good PS (0–1) either as ‘continuation maintenance’ or as ‘switch maintenance’. ‘Continuation
maintenance’ and ‘switch maintenance’ therapies refer to the maintained use of an agent included in first-line treatment
or the introduction of a new agent after 4 cycles of platinum-based ChT, respectively. One randomised phase III switch
maintenance trial has reported improvements in PFS and OS with pemetrexed [120] and erlotinib [127] versus placebo,
following 4 cycles of platinum-based ChT. In the case of pemetrexed, this benefit was seen only in patients with NSCC
[I, B]. Furthermore, the phase III IUNO study (maintenance erlotinib) failed to meet its primary endpoint of OS (HR 1.02,
95% CI 0.85–1.22, P=0.85) [128]. Maintenance treatment with erlotinib is only recommended for NSCC patients with an
EGFR-sensitising mutation [III, B]. Randomised trials investigating continuation maintenance have shown an
improvement in PFS and OS. A large phase III randomised trial of continuation maintenance with pemetrexed versus
placebo after 4 induction cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed ChT demonstrated a PFS and OS improvement in patients
with a PS 0–1, confirmed at long-term follow-up [129, 130]. mOS was 13.9 months (95% CI 12.8–16.0) with
pemetrexed and 11.0 months (95% CI 10.0–12.5) with placebo, with 1- and 2-year survival rates significantly longer for
patients given pemetrexed (58% and 32%, respectively) than for those given placebo (45% and 21%). Another phase III
study comparing maintenance bevacizumab, with or without pemetrexed, after first-line induction with bevacizumab,
cisplatin and pemetrexed showed a benefit in PFS for the pemetrexed/bevacizumab combination but no improvement in
OS [131], although a trend towards improved OS was seen when analysing 58% of events of 253 patients randomised
for this study [132]. In the PointBreak trial, which compared carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab followed by
bevacizumab with carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab followed by pemetrexed/bevacizumab, OS was comparable in
both arms (12.6 versus 13.4 months; HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86–1.16, P=0.949) [133]. In a phase III trial, it was also shown
that continuation maintenance with gemcitabine significantly reduces disease progression (mPFS 3.8 versus 1.9
months, HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44–0.72) with a non-significant OS improvement in patients with advanced NSCLC treated
with 4 cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine as first-line ChT [I, C] [134]. Continuing pemetrexed following completion of 4
cycles of first-line cisplatin/pemetrexed ChT is, therefore, recommended in patients with NSCC, in the absence of
progression after first-line ChT and upon recovery from toxicities from the previous treatment [I, A]. Of note, three
studies, one employing bevacizumab and the other two using monoclonal antibodies against EGFR (cetuximab or
necitumumab) administered concomitantly to ChT and further continued as monotherapy until disease progression,
have demonstrated survival benefits; however, the specific role of the maintenance phase cannot be appreciated in this
context [115, 121, 135].

PS 2 and beyond
ChT prolongs survival and improves QoL in NSCLC patients with PS 2 when compared with BSC [I, A] [136, 137].
A recently published meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of platinum-based
doublets versus single-agent regimens in the first-line therapy of PS 2 patients revealed platinum-based regimens to be
superior in terms of ORR and survival despite an increase in toxicities (mainly haematological) [138]. The superiority of
carboplatin-based combinations over monotherapy in PS 2 patients has been identified within two large phase III trials
[137, 139], with an acceptable toxicity profile. Therefore, platinum-based (preferably carboplatin) doublets should be
considered in eligible PS 2 patients [I, A]. Single-agent ChT with gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel [I, B] or
pemetrexed (restricted to NSCC) [II, B] is an alternative treatment option [139, 140].
All phase III studies with immunotherapies reported until today excluded patients with PS ≥ 2. Reported in abstract
form only, CheckMate 153 included 108 patients with advanced NSCLC and PS 2 treated with single-agent nivolumab
[141]. mOS was 3.9 months and 1-year survival 23%, being lower than observed in patients with PS 0–1. Toxicities
associated with treatment were comparable between PS 0–1 and PS 2 patients. Interestingly, an improvement in
patient-reported outcomes was observed for non-squamous NSCLC patients in the context of this trial. In a European-
based safety phase II trial (CheckMate 171), among 809 patients enrolled, 98 PS 2 patients were treated with
nivolumab; the safety was comparable to the overall population with an mOS of 5.4 months [142]. In conclusion,
insufficient data are available to date on the use of checkpoint inhibitors for these patients, but this treatment option can
be considered [III, B].
Poor PS (3–4) patients should be offered BSC in the absence of documented sensitising alterations such as EGFR
mutations, ALK or ROS1 rearrangements or BRAF V600 mutation [III, B].
Elderly patients
In the early 2000s, based on several phase III trials, single-agent ChT over BSC was established as the standard of
care for first-line therapy of advanced NSCLC patients aged > 70 years [140, 143]. A recent systematic review identified
platinum-based combination ChT as the preferred option for patients > 70 years of age with PS 0–2 and adequate
organ function [144]. Here, data from 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1705 patients > 70 years of age
showed that the addition of platinum agents resulted in improvement in OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69–0.85), PFS (HR
0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.93) and ORR (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32–1.85) compared with non-platinum-containing therapy.
Carboplatin was associated with an OS benefit (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59–0.78) whereas cisplatin was not (HR 0.91, 95%
CI 0.77–1.08). Treatment with platinum-based combinations comes at the expense of more treatment-related morbidity,
mainly anaemia, thrombocytopaenia, emesis, diarrhoea and peripheral neuropathy; this should be weighed against the
expected survival benefit. It is noteworthy that those RCTs that included formal QoL analysis found no difference in QoL
between treatment with platinum-based combinations or single agents in this population [137, 145]. Nevertheless,
concerns about treatment-related toxicity in the elderly population has led to the study of comprehensive geriatric
assessment (CGA) as a selection tool for treatment with either platinum-based regimens, single-agent therapy or BSC
based on patient’s fitness or frailty. The sole prospective randomised trial reported failed to demonstrate an
improvement in time to treatment failure and OS for advanced NSCLC patients > 70 years when treatment (carboplatin
doublet, single-agent ChT or BSC) was allocated based on CGA alone or a combination of PS and age. Also, the
incidence of grade 3–4 toxicities was not different between the two arms in this study [46]. Carboplatin-based doublet
ChT is recommended in eligible elderly patients with PS 0–2 and with adequate organ function [I, A]. For those patients
not eligible for doublet ChT, single-agent ChT remains the standard of care [I, B].
Evidence is accumulating for immune checkpoint inhibitors in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Although no
studies dedicated to elderly patients were reported yet, it can be inferred that ORRs and survival are not different
between patients ≤ 65 years and those > 65, based on subgroup analysis of the randomised second-line trials [63, 147–
150]. Of note, no differences in toxicities were observed [149]. In KEYNOTE-024, comparing first-line pembrolizumab
with combination ChT in advanced NSCLC patients whose tumours expressed PD-L1 > 50%, half the randomised
patients were > 65 years of age. In the subgroup analysis, the beneficial effect of pembrolizumab was not different
between patients aged ≤ 65 years and > 65 years of age (HR 0.61 versus 0.45) [62]. Likewise, in CheckMate 026,
comparing nivolumab with combination ChT in unselected first-line advanced NSCLC patients, there was no difference
in survival outcomes between patients treated with nivolumab aged ≤ 65 years and those > 65 years [66].
Immunotherapy should therefore be considered according to standard recommendations in elderly patients [III, A].
Second-line treatment of NSCLC without actionable oncogenic driver

In the few years since benefit was shown with PD-1 blockade in lung cancers, three PD-1 or PD-L1 therapies have
been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EMA in the second-line setting.
The three approved therapies in the immunotherapy-naive, second-line setting include nivolumab, pembrolizumab
and atezolizumab. Each has been approved on the basis of phase III studies demonstrating improved OS in
comparison with docetaxel. Results are summarised below. Overall, there are no major differences in terms of efficacy
or safety among these three therapies to inform a single optimal choice, and no comparative studies have been
conducted. There are two key distinctions between the three approved therapies, which can affect choice and use:
1. PD-L1 expression: nivolumab and atezolizumab are approved in patients with previously treated, advanced
NSCLC irrespective of PD-L1 expression, while pembrolizumab is approved only in patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1%.

2. Schedule of administration: atezolizumab and pembrolizumab are approved to be given once every three
weeks, while nivolumab is given once every two weeks based on current EMA approval. Of note, the FDA has
recently approved a 4-weekly schedule for nivolumab.
Overall, any of these three therapies represents reasonable standard therapy for most patients with advanced,
previously treated, PD-L1-naive NSCLC. Treatment of patients with a history of autoimmune disease should be
considered only with caution and after discussion of risks/benefits. Because of the risk of graft rejection, anti-PD-1/PD-
L1 agents should be avoided in patients with solid organ transplantation. For reference, we summarise the key data
from the relevant phase III studies here:
• Nivolumab: two phase III studies, CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057, have established the effectiveness of
nivolumab in the second-line setting [147, 148]. In CheckMate 017, 272 patients with squamous NSCLC were
randomised to nivolumab or docetaxel. OS was significantly improved in those who received nivolumab (HR
0.59, 95% CI 0.44–0.79, P<0.001). In CheckMate 057, 582 patients with non-squamous NSCLC were
randomised to nivolumab or docetaxel. OS was significantly improved with nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–
0.89, P=0.002). In a recent update of these studies, 2-year OS favoured nivolumab in both squamous (29%
versus 16% with docetaxel) [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5] and non-squamous NSCLC (23% versus 8%) [I,
A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5]. Tolerability also favoured nivolumab, with 10% of patients experiencing grade
3–4 treatment-related AEs compared with 55% with docetaxel.
• Pembrolizumab: The KEYNOTE-010 trial randomised 1034 patients with previously treated NSCLC with PD-L1
expression on at least 1% of tumour cells to receive pembrolizumab (tested at two doses, 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg,
each given every three weeks) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [63, 151]. OS was significantly longer for
pembrolizumab versus docetaxel (2 mg/kg: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58–0.88, P<0.001; 10 mg/kg: HR 0.61, 95% CI
0.49–0.75, P<0.001), with a recently reported 2-year OS rate of 14.5% versus 30.1% (2 mg/kg group) [I, A;
ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5]. Grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs were less common with pembrolizumab than
with docetaxel (13%–16% versus 35%). There was no significant difference in the efficacy or safety of
pembrolizumab at 2 or 10 mg/kg.
• Atezolizumab: The OAK trial [149, 149a] evaluated 850 patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with
one or two prior lines of ChT, who were randomised to atezolizumab or docetaxel. OS was significantly
improved with atezolizumab (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62–0.87, P<0.001). Tolerability was also better with
atezolizumab, with 15% of patients experiencing a grade 3–4 treatment-related toxicity compared with 43% of
those treated with docetaxel [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5].
There is a general trend across each of the phase III studies in second-line (nivolumab, pembrolizumab and
atezolizumab versus docetaxel) for enriched efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in patients with higher PD-L1
expression compared with those with no/less PD-L1 expression. However, unselected patients may still have improved
survival and tolerability with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents compared with docetaxel [I, A].
Therefore, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents are the treatment of choice for most patients with advanced, previously treated,
PD-L1-naïve NSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression [I, A].
Combination ChT regimens failed to show any OS benefit over single-agent treatments in second line. Single
agents improve disease-related symptoms and OS. Docetaxel has shown improved efficacy compared with BSC in
randomised trials with a significant improvement in OS in the TAX 320 trial for those patients who received docetaxel at
a dose of 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks [152, 153]. Similar efficacy, but more favourable tolerability for the weekly schedule,
could be confirmed in randomised trials comparing 3-weekly to weekly schedules of docetaxel [I, B] [154, 155].
Pemetrexed demonstrated comparable OS to docetaxel in a randomised phase III trial but had a more favourable
toxicity profile, with lower rates of neutropaenia, alopaecia and gastrointestinal events [156]. A retrospective analysis
confirmed a predictive impact of histology with an improved efficacy of pemetrexed compared with docetaxel in patients
with non-squamous NSCLC (mOS 9.0 versus 8.3 months; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61–1.0, P=0.004) [119].
While registration trials of pemetrexed and docetaxel did not limit therapy to a set number of treatment cycles,
second-line treatment duration should be individualised. Treatment may be prolonged if disease is controlled and
toxicity acceptable [II, B].
Docetaxel and pemetrexed (for NSCC only) are confirmed treatment options in second-line ChT, with comparable
efficacy [I, B], taking into account that immunotherapy is now the current standard second-line systemic therapy and
that these agents have not been formally assessed after checkpoint inhibitors.
In several trials, the combination of antiangiogenic agents with ChT has been investigated in patients with
pretreated advanced NSCLC. In the REVEL trial, ramucirumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2
(VEGFR2) antibody, in combination with docetaxel, showed a superior OS (mOS 10.5 versus 9.1 months, HR 0.86;
95% CI 0.75–0.98, P=0.032) and PFS (mPFS 4.5 versus 3 months, P<0.0001) compared with docetaxel and placebo
regardless of histology [ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 1] [157]. The main AEs associated with ramucirumab consisted of
myelotoxicity, oedema and mucositis. The efficacy of this combination was also preserved in the poor prognosis group
of patients who did not show any response to first-line ChT [157, 158]. Nintedanib, an oral angiokinase inhibitor,
improved PFS in combination with docetaxel compared with ChT alone in the LUME-1 trial (mPFS 3.4 versus 2.7
months, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68–0.92, P=0.0019) [159]. A significant prolongation of OS was observed in the group of
patients with adenocarcinoma histology (mOS 12.6 versus 10.3 months; HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.7–0.99, P=0.0359).
Gastrointestinal events and transient elevation of liver enzymes were the most frequent AEs associated with nintedanib.

However, the QoL analyses did not show any impact on QoL measurements for this combination. Again, improved
efficacy was seen in the poor prognostic group of patients with nonresponding or fast progressing tumours [159, 160].
The efficacy of the combination of antiangiogenic agents and ChT was confirmed in the ULTIMATE trial, which showed
prolongation of PFS for the combination of weekly paclitaxel and bi-weekly bevacizumab compared with docetaxel
(mPFS 5.4 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44–0.86, P=0.005) with no difference in OS [161]. The combination
of ramucirumab and docetaxel represents a treatment option for patients with NSCLC progressing after previous ChT or
immunotherapy, with PS 0–2 [I, B]. The combination of nintedanib and docetaxel represents a treatment option for
patients with adenocarcinoma progressing after previous ChT or immunotherapy [II, B]. Combination of paclitaxel and
bevacizumab is another treatment option [I, C; not EMA-approved].
Erlotinib represents a potential second-/third-line treatment option, in particular for patients not suitable for
immunotherapy or second-line ChT in unknown EGFR status or EGFR wild-type (WT) tumours [II, C]. Erlotinib has
shown superiority in OS compared with BSC in pretreated patients not eligible for further ChT (mOS 6.7 versus 4.7
months, HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58–0.85, P<0.001) [162]. In two additional trials, comparable efficacy of erlotinib and ChT
has been reported for patients with refractory NSCLC (progression during first-line platinum-based ChT) or in second-
/third-line therapy [163, 164].
In recent years, a growing number of reports revealed an inferior efficacy of EGFR TKIs in pretreated patients with
EGFR WT tumours compared with ChT [165]. In a meta-analysis summarising the results of 6 randomised trials with
900 patients, PFS for EGFR TKI was significantly inferior to ChT in the group of patients with EGFR WT tumours (HR
1.37, 95% CI 1.20–1.56, P<0.00001). However, these results did not translate into an OS difference (HR 1.02, 95% CI
0.87–1.20, P=0.81) [166]. An additional analysis of the Biomarkers France study reported a significant improvement in
PFS or OS for second-line ChT compared with second-line EGFR TKI in 1278 patients with pretreated NSCLC (PFS
4.3 versus 2.83 months, HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.77; OS 8.39 versus 4.99 months, HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.59–0.83,
P<0.0001) [167].
In patients with advanced SCC, afatinib was investigated versus erlotinib in the LUX-Lung 8 trial. PFS and OS were
improved in favour of afatinib (PFS 2.4 versus 1.9 months, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68–1.00, P=0.041; OS 7.9 versus 6.8
months, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P=0.0077) [168]. Afatinib was associated with improved prespecified disease-
related symptoms and health-related QoL [169].
Afatinib could be a therapeutic option in patients with advanced SCC with PS 0–2 unfit for ChT or immunotherapy,
progressing on or after ChT with unknown EGFR status or EGFR WT [I, C; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 2].
In conclusion, patients clinically or radiologically progressing after first-line therapy with PS 0–2 should be offered
second-line therapy, irrespective of administration of maintenance treatment [I, A]. So far, no prospective trials have
determined the best second-line therapy following failure of first-line treatment with pembrolizumab; however, according
to the first-line trial results, the preferred recommendation would be a platinum-based ChT, as discussed above [V, B]
[62].
Treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC

First-line treatment
EGFR mutation is the best established oncogenic target for management of advanced stage NSCLC [170, 171].
The predictive power of EGFR mutation is confirmed in multiple randomised phase III studies comparing first- (erlotinib
or gefitinib) or second-generation (afatinib) EGFR TKIs with standard platinum-based ChT [I, A] [172–177]. The benefit
of improvement in ORR and PFS is consistent across all age groups, genders, smoking status and PS. Notably, none
of the above studies have shown any benefit in OS for an EGFR TKI over platinum-based ChT, likely due to the high
level of crossover. EGFR TKIs represent the standard of care as first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutated
NSCLC [I, A] (Figures 3 and 4). Patients with PS 3–4 may also be offered an EGFR TKI as they are likely to receive a
similar clinical benefit as patients with good PS [III, A] [178]. Patients who have benefited from EGFR TKI treatment
may continue to receive the same therapy beyond initial radiological progression as long as they are clinically stable [II,
A] [179]. Patients with localised distant progression and ongoing systemic control, continuation of treatment with EGFR
TKI in combination with local treatment of progressing metastatic sites may be considered [III, B]. Continuous use of
EGFR TKI in combination with ChT is not recommended as it was not associated with PFS improvement [I, A] and
showed a detrimental effect on OS [II, B] [180].
The choice between first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs was investigated in two randomised studies. LUX-
Lung 7 is a randomised phase IIB study that compares afatinib with gefitinib [181]. The study reported similar tumour
ORR and a modest difference in PFS (mPFS 11.0 versus 10.9 months; HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57–0.95, P=0.0165). The
other co-primary endpoint for this study was OS and was not statistically different (mOS 27.9 versus 24.5 months; HR
0.86, 95% CI 0.66–1.12, P=0.258) [182]. More specifically, there was no difference in OS in patients with EGFR exon
19 mutation, which is contrary to the earlier claim of benefit in this subgroup from the pooled analysis of LUX-Lung 3
and LUX-Lung 6 studies [183].
ARCHER 1050 is a randomised phase III study that compares dacomitinib with gefitinib in stage IV EGFR-mutated
lung cancer patients without CNS metastasis [184, 185]. The study reported significant improvement in PFS (mPFS
14.7 versus 9.2 months; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47–0.74, P<0.0001). The mOS was 34.1 months with dacomitinib versus
26.8 months with gefitinib (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58–0.993, P=0.04). The OS probabilities at 30 months were 56.2% and
46.3% with dacomitinib and gefitinib, respectively. Both afatinib and dacomitinib are associated with higher incidence of
grade 3 skin and gastrointestinal toxicity and a significant proportion of patients require dose reduction. Erlotinib,
gefitinib and afatinib are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who have active

sensitising EGFR mutations, regardless of their PS [I, A]. Dacomitinib represents another treatment option [I, B; MCBS
v1.1 score: 3]. There is no general consensus preferring any of the four currently available first-line first- and second-
generation EGFR TKIs over others [IV, C].
Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR TKI that targets both sensitising EGFR mutation and the resistant exon 20
T790M mutation [186]. The drug was compared with a standard first-generation EGFR TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib) in the
FLAURA phase III study [187]. Significant improvement in PFS was observed (mPFS 18.9 versus 10.2 months; HR
0.46, 95% CI 0.37–0.57, P<0.0001). Median second PFS (mPFS2) was not reached (NR) [95% CI 23.7–not calculable
(NC)] in the osimertinib arm and 20.0 months (95% CI 18.2–NC) in the gefitinib or erlotinib arm (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–
0.78, P=0.0004) [187a]. More importantly, a similar degree of improvement was observed in the subgroup of patients
with CNS metastasis (mPFS 15.2 versus 9.6 months, HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.74, P=0.0009). OS was recently
announced in the form of a press release [187b] to statistically significantly favour osimertinib, while early results report
an HR of 0.63, which was not statistically significant. First-line osimertinib is now considered one of the options for
NSCLC patients with sensitising EGFR mutations [I, A; MBCS score v1.1 score: 4].
The combination of ChT with gefitinib, at progression with gefitinib, has not shown any clinical benefit (IMPRESS
Trial) [188]. The NEJ009 trial is the first phase III study that evaluated the efficacy of a combination of EGFR TKI
(gefitinib) and platinum doublet ChT (carboplatin/pemetrexed) in untreated advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR
mutations [189]. Carboplatin/pemetrexed/gefitinib demonstrated significantly better PFS (mPFS 20.9 versus 11.2
months, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39–0.62) and OS (mOS 52.2 versus 38.8 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52–0.92) compared
with gefitinib, in advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC [I, B; not EMA-approved]. A second phase III study confirmed the
potential benefit of the ChT (carboplatin/pemetrexed) combination with gefitinib in first-line therapy in EGFR-mutated
NSCLC (mPFS 16 versus 8 months, HR, 0.51 (95 CI 0.39–0.66), P<0.001), mOS versus 17 months HR 0.45, 95% CI
0.31–0.65, P<0.001) [189a], representing a first-line therapy option [I, B; not EMA-approved].
The combination of EGFR TKI and antiangiogenesis was first investigated in Japan. A randomised phase II study
compared the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab with erlotinib alone as first-line therapy for patients with EGFR-
mutant NSCLC. Seto et al. reported mPFS of 16.4 and 9.8 months (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35–0.76), respectively [II, A]
[190, 191]. However, the significant difference of PFS did not translate into a difference of OS between these
treatments (mOS 47 versus 47.4 months). A similar PFS was described in a European phase II trial that also evaluated
the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, which was determined to be suitable as a front-line treatment option in
EGFR-mutated NSCLC [III, B] [192]. A phase III trial (NEJ026) comparing bevacizumab/erlotinib to erlotinib in this
patient population reported encouraging interim analysis results with significant benefit on PFS (mPFS 16.9 versus 13.3
months, HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.87); survival results are pending [II, A] [193]. Ramucirumab (a human IgG1 VEGFR2
antagonist) in combination with erlotinib (versus erlotinib in combination with placebo) led to superior PFS (19.4 versus
12.4 months, HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.76, P<0.0001) in first-line EGFR-mutated NSCLC in a phase III trial [II, B; not
EMA-approved] [193a]. Safety was consistent with the established safety profiles of the individual compounds. Patients
with brain metastases were excluded. OS was not increased in the experimental arm at interim analysis (HR 0.82, 95%
CI 0.53–1.3) but data are still immature. While active research is ongoing, the EMA has approved the use of the
combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab [ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 3]. Erlotinib/bevacizumab represents a front-line
treatment option in EGFR-mutated tumours [II, B].
Beyond first-line treatment

Almost all patients who benefit from EGFR TKIs will eventually develop clinical resistance. About half of the
resistance is explained by the acquired EGFR exon 20 T790M mutations [194]. Osimertinib and several other third-
generation EGFR TKIs were developed targeting the T790M mutation. To date, the only approved medication for
patients with T790M mutation is osimertinib. AURA3 is a randomised phase III study that compared osimertinib with
pemetrexed/platinum in patients with proven T790M mutation at time of progression on first-/second-generation EGFR
TKI [195]. Tumour ORR was 71% and 31%, respectively (HR 5.39, 95% CI 3.46–8.48, P<0.001). The primary endpoint
of PFS was also significantly different (mPFS 10.2 versus 4.4 months; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.23–0.41, P<0.0001).
Osimertinib also showed a significantly longer CNS PFS (11.7 months) and higher CNS ORR (70%, 95% CI 51–85)
compared with ChT (CNS PFS 5.6 months, CNS ORR 31%, 95% CI 11–59) in patients with CNS metastases at
baseline [196]. The probability of experiencing a CNS progression event was lower for osimertinib than for ChT at both
3 months (2.7% versus 8.2%, respectively) and 6 months (11.5% versus 28.2%, respectively). This study has
established a new paradigm: all patients with clinical resistance to first-/second-generation EGFR TKIs should be tested
for the presence of T790M mutation and osimertinib should be offered as standard treatment for patients who test
positive [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4].
Molecular mechanisms of resistance to EGFR TKIs were complex and heterogenous in patients without T790M
mutation. These include MET amplification, HER2 amplification, PIK3CA alternations, BRAF mutation, KRAS mutation
and small cell transformation. The current standard in this scenario is platinum-based doublet ChT [I, A] and the
expected ORR and PFS are 31% and 5.4 months, respectively [188]. This should be considered as a therapeutic option
in patients with EGFR-mutated tumour, PS 0–1, in absence of contraindications to use of immunotherapy after targeted
therapies have been exploited but often with limited benefit [III, A; not EMA-approved] [97, 196a].

Treatment of ALK-rearranged NSCLC

First-line treatment
The anti-tumour activity of crizotinib was initially demonstrated in two multicentre single-arm studies, with significant
ORR and PFS advantages, as well as a survival advantage, compared with other treatment options [197, 198]. The
phase III study, PROFILE 1014, compared crizotinib with platinum–pemetrexed (without maintenance pemetrexed) as
first-line treatment in ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLC. It demonstrated a significantly longer PFS (mPFS 10.9 versus
7.0 months; HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.35–0.60; P<0.001) and higher ORR with crizotinib compared with ChT [199]. First-line
treatment with crizotinib is a treatment option for patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC [I, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score:
4] (Figures 3 and 5).
Ceritinib and alectinib are second-generation ALK inhibitors that have shown robust antitumour efficacy, along with
intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC. The ASCEND-4 trial compared ceritinib (750 mg/day) with
platinum-based ChT (cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed followed by maintenance pemetrexed) in untreated
advanced ALK-rearranged non-squamous NSCLC [200]. Overall, ceritinib improved ORR over ChT: 72.5% (95% CI
65.5–78.7) compared with 26.7% (95% CI 20.5–33.7). mPFS was 16.6 months (95% CI 12.6–27.2) with ceritinib versus
8.1 months (95% CI 5.8–11.1) with ChT (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42–0.73, P<0.01). At baseline, 59 patients in the ceritinib
arm and 62 patients in the ChT arm had CNS metastasis. Among them, the intracranial ORR by RECIST was 72.7%
(95% CI 49.8–89.3) with ceritinib versus 27.3% (95% CI 10.7–50.2) with ChT. In patients without baseline brain CNS
metastasis, the mPFS with ceritinib was 26.3 months (95% CI 15.4–27.7), versus 8.3 months (95% CI 6.0–13.7) in the
ChT arm. The most common AEs (all grades) in the ceritinib group were diarrhoea (85%), nausea (69%), vomiting
(66%) and an increase in alanine aminotransferase (ALT, 60%) [ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4]. Considering the safety
profile of ceritinib, the influence of food on its oral bioavailability and the fact that food may improve gastrointestinal
tolerability, a trial was conducted with a lower dose of ceritinib taken with a low-fat meal (ASCEND-8) [201]. A 450 mg
dose of ceritinib taken once daily with food provides similar systemic exposure as the currently approved daily dose of
750 mg in a fasted state, and preliminary safety results demonstrated a reduction of the gastrointestinal toxicities when
compared with the 750 mg fasted dose. These results suggest this dosing regimen as an alternative to the ceritinib 750
mg fasted dose [III, B].
The efficacy of alectinib was tested in a phase III head-to-head trial comparing this molecule [300 mg twice daily
(b.i.d.)] with crizotinib (250 mg b.i.d.) in ALK TKI-naive ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLC Japanese patients (J-ALEX
trial), demonstrating the superiority of alectinib as an initial targeted treatment [202]. The PFS HR of the alectinib arm
compared with the crizotinib arm was 0.34 (95% CI 0.17–0.70, P<0.0001). mPFS was NR [95% CI 20.3–not evaluable
(NE)] in the alectinib arm, while it was 10.2 months (95% CI 8.2–12.0) in the crizotinib arm. A similar global trial in ALK-
rearranged treatment-naïve patients was conducted (ALEX trial). Patients were randomised to receive either alectinib
(600 mg b.i.d.) or crizotinib (250 mg b.i.d.) [53]. The investigator-assessed mPFS with alectinib was 34.8 (95% CI 17.7–
NR), compared with 10.9 months (95% CI 9.1–12.9) with crizotinib [203, 203a]. PFS assessed by the independent
review committee was also significantly longer with alectinib than with crizotinib (mPFS 25.7 months; 95% CI 19.9–NE
versus 10.4 months; 95% CI 7.7–14.6, respectively). In patients with baseline CNS metastases, mPFS was 27.7
months for alectinib versus 7.4 months for crizotinib. The time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib
than with crizotinib (cause-specific HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10–0.28, P<0.001). The mOS was NE in either group. Grade 3–5
AEs were less frequent with alectinib (41% versus 50% with crizotinib) [ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4].
In the open-label ALTA-1L trial, 275 patients were randomised between brigatinib 180 mg once daily after a 7-day
lead-in at 90 mg or crizotinib [215]. At first interim analysis (after 99 events), median follow-up was 11.0 months in the
brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. Estimated PFS at 12 months was 67% in the brigatinib group
versus 43% in the crizotinib group (HR 0.49, P<.001). mPFS was NR versus 9.8 months. HRs consistently favoured
brigatinib across subgroups. On investigator assessment, PFS at 12 months was 69% versus 40% (HR 0.45, 95% CI
0.30–0.68) [I, B; not EMA-approved].The confirmed intracranial response rate among 39 patients with measureable
lesions was 78% versus 29% (ORR 10.42, 95% CI 1.90–57.05); the intracranial response rate among all 90 patients
with brain lesions was 67% versus 17% (ORR 13.00, 95% CI 4.38–38.61) [215].
In patients with CNS involvement, front-line use of ALK TKIs is effective, and alectinib [III, A] or ceritinib [IV, B] are
recommended, while interim analysis of ALTA-1L brigatinib data establish this drug in this setting too [III, A; not EMA-
approved]. While ceritinib represents a better treatment strategy than ChT [I, B] and presumably crizotinib [IV, B],
alectinib represents an EMA-approved better treatment option than ChT [III, A] and crizotinib [I, A, ESMO-MCBS v1.1
score: 4]. At first analysis, brigatinib presented with more favourable outcomes than crizotinib [I, A; not EMA-approved].
Lorlatinib is currently in phase III testing to investigate whether upfront treatment with this next-generation TKI can
further improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC compared with crizotinib
treatment [213].
Beyond first-line treatment

The benefit of crizotinib over second-line ChT in TKI-naive patients with previously treated ALK-rearranged NSCLC
was confirmed in the phase III PROFILE 1007, with better ORR and PFS [204]. The mPFS was 7.7 months (95% CI
6.0–8.8) in the crizotinib group, compared with 3.0 months (95% CI 2.6–4.3) in the ChT group. Any patient with NSCLC
harbouring an ALK fusion should receive crizotinib as next-line therapy, if not received previously [I, A]. Despite
improved outcome in patients with tumours harbouring ALK rearrangements and treated with crizotinib (mainly in first
line), all patients will eventually experience disease progression through primary or acquired resistance. Furthermore,
crizotinib penetration into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is negligible, and this pharmacological limitation is extremely

relevant in treatment decisions, taking into account the high propensity of ALK-rearranged NSCLC to metastasise to the
brain [205]. Ceritinib (ASCEND-5) and alectinib (ALUR) were compared with ChT in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC
previously treated with crizotinib and ChT [206, 207]. Both trials showed a significant improvement in mPFS compared
with ChT (5.4 months, 95% CI 4.1–6.9 for ceritinib versus 1.6 months, 95% CI 1.4–2.8 for ChT; HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36–
0.6, P<0.0001 and 9.6 months, 95% CI 6.9–12.2 for alectinib versus 1.4 months, 95% CI 1.3–1.6 for ChT; HR 0.15,
95% CI 0.08–0.29; P<0.001). CNS ORR was 54.2% and 35% with alectinib or ceritinib, respectively, versus 0% or 5%
with ChT in the ALUR and ASCEND-5 trials, respectively [206–208]. Based on this data, ceritinib and alectinib are
recommended in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC who progress on treatment with or are intolerant to
crizotinib [I, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 4].
The next-generation ALK inhibitors, such as brigatinib or lorlatinib, have an improved affinity for ALK and a wide
coverage of ALK secondary resistance mutations, and sequential therapy with these ALK inhibitors represent additional
treatment options in crizotinib-resistant populations. The ALTA trial evaluated brigatinib in crizotinib-resistant ALK-
rearranged NSCLC patients. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive oral brigatinib 90 mg once daily (arm A) or 180
mg once daily with a 7-day run-in at 90 mg (arm B) [209, 209a]. With an 8.0 month median follow-up, the ORR was
45% (97.5% CI, 34%–56%) in arm A and 54% (97.5% CI, 43%–65%) in arm B and mPFS was 9.2 months in arm A and
12.9 months in arm B. mOS was NR in arm A and was 27.6 months in arm B. CNS ORRs were 50% and 67% in arms
A and B, respectively. These data resulted in a recent EMA approval, and brigatinib represents an additional treatment
option at crizotinib resistance [III, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 3].
In results from a phase I study, lorlatinib demonstrated significant activity reporting ORRs of 46% and 42% among
ALK-rearranged patients pretreated with one or with two or more ALK TKIs, respectively, including patients with CNS
metastases at baseline (intracranial ORR 42%) [210]. A phase II study at the recommended dose (100 mg once a day)
demonstrated an objective response in 70% of patients who had only received previous crizotinib, 32% of patients
with one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP3B), and 39% of patients with two or more
previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors [211, 211a]. Of interest, in patients previously treated with one or more
second-generation ALK TKIs, a high proportion of patients harbouring an ALK secondary mutation responded to
treatment with lorlatinib, while those without detectable ALK mutations were still presenting a clinically meaningful
benefit [62% versus 32% (plasma); 69% versus 27% (tissue)] [212, 212a]. PFS was similar in patients with and without
ALK mutations on the basis of plasma genotyping (mPFS 7.3 months versus 5.5 months, HR 0.81) but significantly
longer in patients with ALK mutations identified by tissue genotyping (mPFS 11.0 months versus 5.4 months, HR 0.47).
The results of the study led to a new EMA approval for use of lorlatinib in patients whose disease has progressed after
alectinib or ceritinib as the first ALK TKI therapy, or crizotinib and at least one other ALK TKI in May 2019 [III, A; MCBS
score v1.1 score: 3] [211a, 212a].
In ALK-rearranged patients progressing on crizotinib, treatment with next-generation ALK TKIs, such as alectinib [I,
A], ceritinib [I, A] brigatinib [III, A] or lorlatinib [III, A], is recommended.
In patients who progress after a second-generation ALK TKI, the next-generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib is
recommended [III, A].
Treatment of ROS1-rearranged NSCLC

On the basis of the available preclinical data, the phase I PROFILE 1001 study of crizotinib was amended to
include patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC in the expansion cohort [216]. Among 50 patients with ROS1-
rearranged NSCLC in this trial cohort, the ORR to crizotinib was 72%, with a disease control rate equal to 90% and an
mPFS of 19.2 months. In a prospective French phase II study and in the retrospective EUROS1 study of crizotinib for
ROS1-rearranged NSCLC, mPFS was 10 and 9.1 months and ORR was 72% and 80%, respectively, although both of
these studies enrolled only approximately 30 patients [217, 218]. In a larger East Asian phase II study of crizotinib, the
mPFS among 127 patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer was 13.4 months [219]. Each study included patients
who had received varying numbers of prior lines of systemic therapy, although for all of these patients, crizotinib
remained the first ROS1-directed TKI. Single-agent crizotinib is recommended in the first-line setting or as second line
in patients with stage IV NSCLC with ROS1 rearrangement [III, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 3] (Figures 3 and 6). If
patients have received crizotinib in the first-line setting, then they may be offered platinum-based ChT therapy in the
second-line setting [IV, A].
Ceritinib is a potent and selective ALK inhibitor that also inhibits ROS1. In a Korean phase II study, 32 patients with
ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC were treated with ceritinib, 750 mg daily [220]. Among crizotinib-naive patients,
the ORR was 67%, with a disease control rate of 87%. The mPFS was 9.3 months for the entire cohort and reached
19.3 months for crizotinib-naive patients. Of note, in those two patients who had received prior crizotinib, no clinical
response was observed. Ceritinib might be considered in crizotinib-naive patients but is currently not approved by the
EMA [III, C].
Brigatinib, lorlatinib, repotrectinib and entrectinib also have potential anti-ROS1 activity on the basis of preclinical
studies and limited phase I/II encouraging clinical data [221, 221a, 221b] [III, C].
Treatment of BRAF-mutated NSCLC

The most common BRAF mutation, V600E (Val600Glu), is observed in 1%–2% of lung adenocarcinomas [222–
224], more frequently in patients with smoking history. In a retrospective multicentre cohort study in Europe, patients
with advanced BRAF-mutant lung cancer received treatment with either vemurafenib (n=29), dabrafenib (n=9) or

sorafenib (n=1) [225]. Of the BRAF mutations, 83% were BRAF V600E. The ORR was 53% and the PFS and OS were
5 and 10.8 months, respectively.
In a vemurafenib basket trial (VE-BASKET), patients with various BRAF V600 mutation-positive non-melanoma
tumours were enrolled in six prespecified cancer cohorts, including an NSCLC cohort with 20 patients [226]. A total of
19 NSCLC patients were evaluable for response. Overall, one patient was treatment-naïve and 50% and 45% of
patients received one or two or more lines of therapy before study inclusion, respectively. The ORR, mPFS and mOS
were 42%, 7.3 months and NR, respectively.
A prospective multicentre multicohort phase II study of dabrafenib monotherapy (cohort A), or combination therapy
with a MEK inhibitor (trametinib) (cohort B, beyond first-line and cohort C in first-line treatment) in patients with BRAF
V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC (BRF113928) was reported. With dabrafenib monotherapy (cohort A, n=78), the ORR
was 33% and mPFS and median duration of response (mDoR) were 5.5 and 9.6 months, respectively [227]. With
combination dabrafenib and trametinib in pretreated patients (cohort B, n=57), the ORR was 66% and mPFS and
mDoR were 10.2 and 9.8 months, respectively [228, 229]. With combination dabrafenib and trametinib therapy in
unpretreated patients (cohort C, n=36), the ORR was 64% and mPFS and mDoR were 10.9 and 10.4 months,
respectively [230]. The mOS was 24.6 months and half of the patients were still alive at two years from treatment
beginning. The EMA and the United States FDA have approved dabrafenib in combination with trametinib for the
treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. BRAF/MEK inhibition using
dabrafenib with trametinib is recommended in patients with BRAF inhibitor-naive, stage IV NSCLC with BRAF V600E
mutation [III, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 2] (Figures 3 and 7). If patients have received BRAF/MEK inhibition in the
first-line setting, then they may be offered platinum-based ChT in the second-line setting [IV, A].
Treatment of NSCLC with other actionable oncogenic drivers

Several other molecular targets have been identified harbouring somatic variants with therapeutic potential,
including RET, MET, HER2 and NTRK.
RET fusions are found in 1%–2% of NSCLC and tend to be mutually exclusive to other lung cancer drivers [231,
232]. Although RET-selective inhibitors have not yet been developed, several multitarget agents with anti-RET activity
have been evaluated in preclinical models and clinical trials. The activity of multikinase inhibitors (cabozantinib,
vandetanib, sunitinib, sorafenib, alectinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, ponatinib, regorafenib) in patients with RET-rearranged
NSCLC (ORR 16%–47% and mPFS 2.3–7.3 months) is clearly inferior to the responses and survival outcomes seen
with selective TKIs in other oncogene-addicted NSCLC models [233–236]. These studies are small and subject to
selection bias and results of heterogeneous benefit [III, C]. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefit of current
treatments as well as the development of more specific inhibitors (i.e. BLU-667, LOXO-292) [237, 237a, 237b].
Targeting RET is not currently routinely recommended and recruitment into open trials is encouraged [III, C].
Somatic dysregulation at MET occurs through a number of different non-exclusive mechanisms in NSCLC including
overexpression, amplification, mutation and gene-rearrangement. Previous trials aimed at targeting MET
overexpression (e.g. onartuzumab or tivantinib) have failed, and as the relationship between expression and genomics
is now better understood, focus has shifted to targeting genomic variants [238–240]. Two major MET variants may play
a key role as NSCLC oncogenic drivers: MET exon 14 variants (METex14) and MET amplification. MET amplification
can occur as either acquired (as a resistance mechanism to EGFR TKI therapy) or de novo. While a promising target,
targeting MET dysregulation by MET amplification is not currently routinely recommended and recruitment into open
trials is encouraged [III, C]. METex14 mutations are similarly as common as ALK rearrangements, occurring in 3%–4%
of NSCLC. They are more frequently but not exclusively identified in adenocarcinoma and sarcomatoid carcinoma
histological subtypes (especially those with an adenocarcinoma component), observed in current, ex- and never-
smokers, more frequently observed in older than in younger patients. METex14 mutations are extremely diverse and
result in aberrant splicing and exon 14 skipping, resulting in loss of the MET Y1003 c-Cbl binding site and reduced MET
degradation, detectable as increased expression by IHC. Moreover, METex14 mutations are mutually exclusive to other
drivers (EGFR, ALK, BRAF), further reinforcing MET status as an oncogenic driver, more often encountered in
smokers. Multiple case series and cohorts have now demonstrated durable ORRs with MET-targeting TKIs including
crizotinib, capmatinib and cabozantinib in METex14 patients, with the PROFILE 1001 trial METex14 cohort reporting an
ORR of 44%and a global retrospective series demonstrating a PFS of 7 months, both with crizotinib [241, 242]. A
variety of MET-directed TKIs are undergoing development against this target. For METex14 variants, while evidence of
benefit is stronger, recruitment into open trials is encouraged [III, C]. Crizotinib has demonstrated potential clinical
efficacy that needs to be confirmed [III, C].
HER2 dysregulation is another promising target for advanced NSCLC and is abrogated via different mechanisms
including exon 20 mutations, transmembrane domain mutations, amplification and protein overexpression. Mutations in
exon 20 were the first HER2 mutations described and occur in 1%–5% of patients, over-represented in young patients,
never-smokers, females, patients without ethnic clustering and typically in adenocarcinomas [243]. Such mutations are
analogous to EGFR exon 20 insertions, being mutually exclusive to other oncogenic drivers, and are usually 3–12 bp
in-frame insertions between codons 775–881, the most common being the YVMA insertion at codon 775. HER2
insertions are typically resistant to HER-targeting TKIs afatinib, dacomitinib and neratinib [244, 245], although some
specific genotypes, e.g. those resulting in Gly770 insertion, may retain sensitivity [246]. Afatinib and poziotinib have
demonstrated some activity in HER2-mutated NSCLC in small series [247, 248]. More recently, targeting HER2
mutation with adotrastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1) has shown promise with two cohorts demonstrating responses
including mutants with no copy-number change [249]. Abnormal gene copy-number is also identified at HER2, although

is typically polysomy, with HER2 exon 20 insertions and amplification usually mutually exclusive [243]. Targeting HER2
amplification or protein expression with trastuzumab monotherapy has not consistently demonstrated benefit, but may
have a role in HER2-mutant NSCLC, although data are usually based on cases confounded by concurrent ChT and
variable HER2 expression. The antibody–drug conjugate TDM-1 has shown very modest activity in HER2-
overexpressing NSCLC [250]. Rarer HER2 variants include transmembrane domain mutations (e.g. V659, G660) that
have reported sensitivity to afatinib and TDM-1 [251]. Nevertheless, given the paucity of robust data, targeting HER2
dysregulation is not currently recommended and recruitment into open trials is encouraged [III, C].
Somatic fusions involving the neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase genes (NTRK1-3) are rare oncogenic drivers
occurring at low prevalence (< 1%) in a variety of tumours including NSCLC [252], again typically in adenocarcinomas
(although non-adenocarcinoma cases are reported) and never-smokers [252a]. The rarity of these NTRK gene fusions
across different cancer types has resulted in basket trial design for drug development. NRTK1-3 gene fusions encode
oncogenic TRKA-C fusion proteins, respectively, that can be targeted by therapies in development, including
larotrectinib (LOXO-101) and entrectinib (RXDX-101) [253–256]. Both have demonstrated marked durable
responses in NTRK fusion-positive NSCLC in early reports from ongoing single arm basket studies. In July 2019,
the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended conditional approval in Europe of
larotrectinib for the treatment of adult and paediatric patients with solid tumours that display an NTRK gene fusion
whose disease has spread or cannot be surgically removed and who have no other satisfactory treatment
options. While recruitment in clinical trials is encouraged, larotrectinib and entrectinib show promising clinical
activity in these rare entities [III, C].
Role of radiotherapy in stage IV NSCLC

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plays a major role in the symptom control of metastases, such as painful chest
wall disease, painful bone metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, soft tissue or neural invasion. EBRT is indicated
in cases of haemoptysis and symptomatic airway obstruction [III, B]. A Cochrane systematic review of palliative EBRT
regimens for patients with thoracic symptoms from NSCLC included 14 RCTs (3576 patients) [257]. Doses of radiation
ranged from 10 Gy in 1 fraction to 60Gy in 30 fractions, with a total of 19 different dose/fractionation regimens. There
was no strong evidence that any regimen achieved a greater level of palliation [II, B]. Furthermore, higher dose
regimens were associated with higher rates of acute toxicity. However, it should be noted that the studies were
heterogeneous and most were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, therefore using dated radiotherapy (RT) techniques.
There are few data on the optimal timing of thoracic RT and systemic therapy in the stage IV NSCLC setting.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that the concurrent administration of ChT, targeted agents or immunotherapy
to palliative RT is beneficial in this group of patients.
Another method of palliation of thoracic symptoms is endobronchial brachytherapy (EBB). The effectiveness of EBB
compared with EBRT or other alternative endoluminal treatments was assessed in a Cochrane systematic review [258].
The authors concluded that EBRT alone is more effective for palliation than EBB alone [II, B]. However, evidence was
limited with regard to the comparison of EBB plus EBRT over EBRT alone for symptom relief. For patients previously
treated by EBRT who are symptomatic from recurrent endobronchial central obstruction, EBB may be considered in
selected cases [III, C].
Neurological symptoms from spinal cord compression can be relieved by early RT [II, B] [259].
Focus on brain metastases

CNS metastases are commonly identified with NSCLC, predominantly with adenocarcinoma. LMD is a deadly
complication of solid tumours and is associated with a poor prognosis. Adenocarcinomas are the most common
tumours to metastasise to the CNS. Of the patients with NSCLC, 30%–64% have CNS metastases, of which 4%–7%
present LMD [260]. Incidence and prevalence of LMD are both increasing due to brain metastases screening, better
imaging modalities as well as prolongation of patients’ survival.
Presence of malignant cells on CSF cytology provides the gold-standard for diagnosing leptomeningeal (LM)
carcinomatosis. Abnormalities on imaging can be found in 70%–80% of patients with LMD and the imaging modality of
choice is high quality, T1-weighted MRI with gadolinium contrast, which has been shown to be more sensitive
compared with contrast-enhanced CT [261, 262].
The treatment of patients with brain metastases, with/without LM involvement and no driver mutations, is dependent
on the prognosis. Prognosis can be estimated based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning
analysis (RPA): class I patients are those < 65 years old, with a good PS [Karnofsky Index (KI) ≥ 70%], no other
extracranial metastases and a controlled primary tumour; class III patients have a KI < 70%; and class II represents all
other patients [263]. In RPA class III patients, RT is not recommended in view of the dismal prognosis [I, A]; only BSC is
recommended, as their median survival is generally < 2 months. The role of whole-brain RT (WBRT) in unselected
patients has been questioned by the QUARTZ trial data, a phase III non-inferiority study, in which patients were
randomised to either BSC including dexamethasone plus WBRT 20Gy in 5 daily fractions or to the same BSC without
WBRT [264]. This trial demonstrated no difference between the treatment arms regarding the relief of symptoms,
steroid use, OS, QoL or quality-adjusted life years in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, confirming no benefit for
WBRT in the RPA class III subset [I, A]. However, the median survival in the trial was poor (8.5–9.2 weeks) and the trial
recruited over 7 years, a time during which considerable advances in molecular selection, systemic therapy,
stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patient selection and MRI brain surveillance have been implemented. A signal for

WBRT benefit was seen for younger patients with better Karnofsky PS and either controlled primary or no extracranial
disease. WBRT can therefore be considered for patients contingent on prognostic factors of better survival such as
driver mutations [III, C].
The most frequent WBRT schedules are 20Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions, with no difference in outcome
[I, A] [265]. For most patients with symptomatic brain metastases and/or significant oedema, dexamethasone or
equivalent corticosteroid is recommended [III, A] [266]. Tapering of the dose and, if possible, cessation after RT, are
recommended. Corticosteroids are not recommended in the case of asymptomatic brain metastases. WBRT may be
associated with delayed progressive cognitive impairment in responders, as tumour progression affects this parameter
more than radiation toxicity [267]. Neuroprotective agents have not shown a convincing role and are not recommended
for routine use [II, C], with a small phase III trial of memantine on 149 assessable patients (RTOG 0614) suggesting
benefit [268]. Hippocampus avoidance WBRT has been shown to be probably safe [269], but is still undergoing trial
evaluation and is not currently recommended for routine care [III, C].
Recent data showed that SRS can be considered as another standard of care for this patient population as a less
toxic alternative to WBRT. SRS of the surgical cavity in patients who have had complete resection of 1–3 brain
metastases significantly lowers local recurrence compared with that noted for observation alone [270].
In case of single brain metastases surgical resection can be considered [III, B] [271–273]. Postoperative WBRT or
SRS is generally recommended after surgical resection [I, A] [274].
Another treatment strategy, in the case of a limited number of metastases and RPA class I and II, is SRS alone [III,
B] [275–278]. The randomised trials evaluating SRS have included patients with 1–4 brain metastases. SRS has
increasingly become the favoured modality due to reduced morbidity compared with WBRT, but it should be noted that
there is no randomised trial comparing SRS alone to WBRT. A survival advantage in favour of WBRT plus SRS has
been demonstrated against WBRT but only for the subgroup of patients with a single brain metastasis [279]. The
majority of studies evaluating WBRT in addition of SRS or neurosurgery have shown a decline in cognitive function in
the combined arm [278, 279]. SRS alone with close follow-up, without WBRT consolidation, is therefore a
recommended strategy [III, B].
Although it is generally accepted that SRS should generally be considered in patients with ≤ 4 brain metastases, a
prospective observational study from Japan challenged this prevailing concept [280]. The study enrolled 1194 eligible
patients (76% had lung cancer) with 1 to 10 newly diagnosed brain metastases, longest diameter < 3 cm, largest
tumour < 10 mL in volume and a total cumulative volume of ≤ 15 mL. OS did not differ between patients treated with
SRS with 2-4 metastases and those with 5-10 metastases. This study therefore suggested the use of tumour volume
and absolute size, rather than the number of metastases, as treatment criteria. In some territories, the indication for
SRS is now based on total tumour volume rather than number of metastases, as the risk of radionecrosis increases
with tumour volume [III, C] [278]. In patients undergoing SRS, radionecrosis is a challenging complication to manage.
In patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who have not yet received prior systemic therapy (i.e. ChT, TKIs),
treatment with upfront systemic therapy and deferred RT should be considered, with trial data suggesting similar
intracranial and extracranial ORRs [II, B] [281, 282]. In patients suitable for first-line immune-checkpoint inhibitor
therapy, CNS metastases were generally mandated to have been treated before therapy, with evidence of intracranial
response. There is currently limited trial data demonstrating safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with small-
volume untreated CNS metastases [III, B] [283].
Among those patients with an actionable oncogenic driver (e.g. EGFR, ALK), between 44% and 60% develop brain
metastases in the course of their disease [284, 285]. In such patients, the use of CNS-penetrant next-generation TKIs
(e.g. osimertinib, alectinib, ceritinib) may restore control of brain disease, thereby potentially delaying cranial RT [II, A]
[53, 187, 200]. Moreover, next-generation TKIs may also reduce the incidence of new CNS metastases, thereby
significantly postponing the time to need CNS RT [53].
Focus on LM carcinomatosis
LMD may present with non-specific neurological symptoms (headaches, nausea, vomiting) as well as discrete signs
due to the CNS area involved (gait difficulties, cranial nerve palsies), and a high index of suspicion is required,
particularly in those with actionable oncogenic drivers due to higher prevalence [V]. Diagnostic modalities include
cerebrospinal MRI with contrast enhancement, ideally before CSF intervention. CSF sampling with cytological
assessment is diagnostic but limited by low sensitivity but high specificity [IV, A]. The prognosis from LMD due to
NSCLC is poor, and treatment aim is to prolong survival with acceptable QoL. Patients with actionable oncogenic
drivers may derive benefit from a CNS-penetrant next-generation TKI as per those with brain metastases [III, B];
otherwise, systemic therapy strategies vary widely across Europe. ChT and bevacizumab may have activity both
extracranially and intracranially, and also in the context of LMD [IV, C] [126, 286]. Intra-CSF pharmacotherapy may be
considered through either repeated lumbar punctures, a reservoir or ventricular device, although consideration should
be given to patient factors, e.g. PS, extracranial control and likely benefit [V, C]. No randomised data exist to support
the role of RT for LMD. In exceptional cases, focal RT can be considered for circumscribed, notably symptomatic,
lesions [V, C].
Role of surgery in stage IV NSCLC

As prognosis in the majority of patients with stage IV NSCLC is poor, the role of surgery is traditionally limited in this
patient group. However, with the widespread introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy improving

prognosis in specific subcategories, the role of thoracic surgery is currently redefined. At the present time, surgery may
be indicated for diagnosis, evaluation of response to systemic therapy and palliation, and highly selected patients may
be considered for lung resection with therapeutic intent or even for a salvage procedure. In the last two categories,
surgery can be carried out with a mortality < 2%, a low morbidity rate and 5-year survival rates in the range of 11%–
30% in retrospective series [IV, C] [287, 288]. Whether there is a significant difference between synchronous and
metachronous metastases and between different distant sites has not been clearly established and more prospective
data are needed.
When metastatic disease is suspected on PET scanning, invasive surgical procedures such as incisional biopsies,
mediastinoscopy, thoracoscopy (VATS) or laparoscopy may be required to obtain relevant biopsy samples. Examples
include patients with contralateral lung nodules, distant metastases or suspicion of mediastinal nodal involvement who
do not qualify for minimally invasive biopsies or in whom results of the latter are equivocal. Adequate samples should
be provided to the pathologist for detailed routine staining, IHC and molecular genetic testing [III, B].
Palliative interventions may be useful in case of local complications related to the primary tumour or metastatic foci
which cannot be managed by conservative measures, e.g. lung abscess, empyema, massive haemoptysis, spinal cord
compression and pathological bone fractures.
In the 8th edition of the tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) classification a new subcategory was introduced
comprising patients with one metastasis in a single distant organ, defined as M1b disease, in contrast to patients with
multiple metastases in one or more distant organs, currently M1c disease [289]. There is no general consensus on the
precise definition of oligometastatic disease and clear evidence for surgical treatment is limited, as only relatively small
prospective series are available [III, B] [290–292]. Prospective series suggest that complete surgical resection is
necessary to obtain long-term survival and that mediastinal nodal involvement carries a poor prognosis [293]. This is
further discussed in the section ‘Treatment of oligometastatic NSCLC’.
A specific subgroup consists of patients with malignant pleural nodules or malignant pleural effusion [293].
Extensive surgical procedures consisting of extrapleural pneumonectomy sometimes in combination with intraoperative
ChT or hyperthermic ChT, have been described when extrathoracic metastases or mediastinal lymph node involvement
have been excluded [294, 295]. However, these interventions carry a higher operative risk and prospective studies are
currently not yet available [IV, D]. Persisting or recurrent pleural effusions are usually managed by pleurodesis to
improve dyspnoea. Talc is the preferred agent and thoracoscopic poudrage may be better than injection of talc slurry in
patients with primary lung cancer [II, B] [296, 297]. In case of a trapped lung by a thickened visceral pleural peel,
indwelling pleural catheters or pleuroperitoneal shunts provide symptomatic relief [IV, B] [298, 299].
Lastly, salvage surgery may be considered in case of residual or progressive disease in the primary tumour or
metastatic site when no other treatment options remain or specific complications occur, such as formation of a lung
abscess in a necrotic cavity [300]. Long-term survival may be obtained in selected patients with limited distant
involvement, but only case reports have been published so far [V, C] [301].
In a recent retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, a cohort of 300 572 patients with stage IIIA, IIIB
or IV NSCLC were studied, of whom 4568 had a surgical intervention for stage IV disease [302]. A surgical selection
score could be constructed comprising histology, tumour size, TNM status, Charlson comorbidity index, age, race,
facility type, insurance and income. In a logistic regression model this score was found to be a good predictor of
survival. However, it should be noted that further prospective validation is necessary, and that the relative contribution
of surgery versus RT in a multimodality setting for stage IV disease was not studied in this analysis.
Treatment of oligometastatic disease

The growing interest in oligometastases is based on the concept that long-term disease control, or even cure, may
be achieved in some subgroups of these patients with aggressive local treatment of distant metastases (surgery or
high-dose RT) [303]. The term ‘oligometastases’ refers to a limited number of distant metastases, although there is no
consensus on the appropriate cut-off to define the oligometastatic state. Almost all published clinical trials investigating
local treatment of oligometastatic disease have limited inclusion to patients with ≤ 5 metastases. In addition, the vast
majority of the trials included patients with ≤ 3 metastases and in an individual patients meta-analysis published in
2014, almost 90% of the patients had a single metastasis [303]. Some studies also limited the number of organs in
which these metastases are present [304]. It should be noted that many of these studies did not include PET-CT
staging.
Oligometastases can be either synchronous, when a patient presents with a limited number of metastases at initial
diagnosis, or metachronous when metastases are identified after treatment of the primary tumour [305]. The biology of
synchronous and metachronous oligometastases may differ as illustrated by the fact that patients with metachronous
presentation have a better prognosis [303]. In patients receiving systemic therapy (mainly in tumours with driver
mutations treated with TKIs), the term oligoprogression can be also applied in the case of progression of a limited
number of metastatic lesions, when all the other lesions remain stable. Clinical trials are ongoing in this setting.
In this heterogeneous group of patients with oligometastases, the specific approach to oligometastases in the brain
has been discussed above. Another subgroup requiring further discussion is that of patients with a solitary lesion in the
contralateral lung. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Staging and Prognostic Factors
Committee carried out a systematic literature review, aiming at distinguishing a second primary from a metastasis in
patients who have more than one pulmonary nodule [306]. This review concluded that few features are definitive, with
many commonly used factors being suggestive, but carry a substantial risk of misclassification as the majority of second
primary lung tumours are of the same histology. For these cases, the IASLC recommended a careful review by a

multidisciplinary tumour board, and pursuit of radical therapy, such as that for a synchronous secondary primary
tumour, when possible. Both surgery [307, 308] and SRS [309, 310] have been shown to result in long-term survivors in
this setting [IV, B].
A systematic literature review identified 757 NSCLC patients treated with 1–5 (88% single metastases)
synchronous or metachronous metastases [303]. These patients had a median age at diagnosis of 61 years, 98% had a
good PS and two-thirds of patients had early-stage intrathoracic disease staged IA–IIB (after excluding metastatic
disease). Surgery was the most common treatment modality for both primary (n=635, 83.9%) and metastases (n=339,
62.3%). Predictive factors for OS were synchronous versus metachronous metastases (P<0.001), N-stage (P=0.002)
and adenocarcinoma histology (P=0.036). RPA for risk groups identified a good prognosis (low-risk) group presenting
with metachronous metastases (5-year OS of 48%), an intermediate-risk group presenting with synchronous
metastases and N0 disease (5-yearOS of 36%) and, finally, a high-risk group presenting with synchronous metastases
and intrathoracic N1/N2 disease (5-year OS of 14%). Caution is warranted before concluding that positive outcomes in
these patients are due solely to the treatment intervention, rather than patient selection or other biases [305].
Stage IV patients with limited synchronous metastases at diagnosis may experience long-term disease-free survival
(DFS) following systemic therapy and local consolidative therapy [LCT: high-dose RT including stereotactic ablative
body RT (SABR) or surgery] [III, B]. Five phase II trials evaluating LCT in patients with NSCLC and synchronous
oligometastases have been published. Three of these studies are small, single arm studies which generally showed
durable PFS in a subgroup of patients [290, 291, 311]. Two out of the five studies are randomised phase II studies that
were stopped early after interim analysis. The first study randomised NSCLC patients between maintenance therapy
(RT or surgery) in patients with ≤ 3 metastases, without progression after first-line systemic therapy (n=49). There was
a significant difference in PFS time between the two groups (mPFS 11.9 months in the LCT group versus 3.9 months in
the maintenance group; HR 0.35, P=0.005) [292]. The second study randomised patients with ≤ 5 metastatic sites
between maintenance ChT alone versus SABR followed by maintenance ChT (n=29) [312]. So far, there are no
published data on the impact of LCT on OS and long-term toxicity. Several clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate these
important endpoints.
Stage IV patients with limited metachronous metastases may be treated with a local treatment as some may
experience long-term DFS [IV, B]. However, this is based mainly on retrospective data. Although operative risk is low
and long-term survival may be achieved, current evidence for surgery in oligometastatic disease is limited, and the
relative contribution of surgery versus RT as local treatment modality has not yet been established. Solitary lesions in
the contralateral lung should, in most cases, be considered as synchronous secondary primary tumours and, if
possible, treated with curative-intent therapy [IV, B].
Similarly, there are few prospective data to support this treatment approach in patients with driver mutations who
present with oligoprogression on molecular-targeted therapies [IV, C]. Furthermore, there is little data on the safety of
combining SABR with molecularly targeted agents.
Some recommendations for the implementation of standard of care and advanced imaging modalities for identifying
and following up patients with oligometastatic disease have been published by the European Organisation for Research
and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) imaging group [313]. In the synchronous, metachronous and oligoprogessive
setting, because of the limited evidence available, inclusion in clinical trials is preferred.
Focus on bone metastases

Given the incidence of bone metastases in NSCLC (30%–40% of patients with NSCLC develop bone metastases),
it may be reasonable to evaluate for bone disease upon disease diagnosis. In general, the management aim is to
palliate symptoms and prevent complications. Palliative RT is highly effective, usually with rapid pain relief. Both
standard EBRT and SABR can be used to palliate painful, uncomplicated bone pain. However, the data on efficacy and
safety of SABR are mainly from retrospective single institution studies. Systematic reviews of palliative RT trials for
bone metastases showed that single and multiple fraction regimens provided equal pain relief; however, retreatment
rates were significantly higher in patients receiving single fraction treatment [I, A] [314, 315].
Zoledronic acid reduces skeletal-related events (SREs) (pathological fracture, radiation/surgery to bone or spinal
cord compression) [II, B] [316]. Denosumab shows a trend towards superiority to zoledronic acid in lung cancer in terms
of SRE prevention [II, B] [317]. In an exploratory analysis of a large phase III trial, denosumab was associated with
improved mOS in the subgroup of 702 metastatic NSCLC patients [318]. In the study of denosumab versus zoledronic
acid in patients with advanced cancers, the time extent to which pain interfered with daily life (used as surrogate for
QoL) was longer in patients treated with denosumab and with no pain or mild pain interference at baseline [319]. Both
agents are associated with increased risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Zoledronic acid or denosumab are thus
recommended in selected patients with advanced lung cancer with bone metastases [I, B]. Patients should be selected
if they have a life expectancy of >3 months and are considered at high risk of SREs.
Role of minimally invasive procedures in stage IV NSCLC

Endoscopy has a role to play in palliative care, notably in case of symptomatic major airway obstruction or post-
obstructive infection, where endoscopic debulking by laser, cryotherapy or stent placement may be helpful [III, C].
Endoscopy is useful in the diagnosis and treatment (endobronchial or by guiding endovascular embolisation) of
haemoptysis [III, C]. Vascular stenting might be useful in NSCLC-related superior vena cava compression [III, B].

Role of palliative care in stage IV NSCLC

Early palliative care intervention is recommended, in parallel with standard oncological care [I, A], with evidence
demonstrating that palliative care interventions significantly improve QoL. Two randomised trials evaluating the impact
of introducing specialised palliative care early after diagnosis of stage IV disease on patient QoL in ambulatory patients
were able to show improvements in QoL and mood, and, in one trial, a reduction in aggressive treatment and an
improvement in mOS [320, 321].
Follow-up, long-term implications and survivorship

The optimal approach to post-treatment management of patients with NSCLC, including the role of radiological
evaluation, is controversial, with very limited literature available. Due to the aggressive nature of this disease, generally
close follow-up, at least every 6–12 weeks after first-line therapy, is advised to allow for early initiation of second-line
therapy but should also depend on individual retreatment options [III, B].
Methodology
These Clinical Practice Guidelines were developed in accordance with the ESMO standard operating procedures
for Clinical Practice Guidelines development, http://www.esmo.org/Guidelines/ESMOGuidelines-Methodology. The
relevant literature has been selected by the expert authors. A summary of recommendations is provided in Table 4. A
MCBS table with ESMO-MCBS scores is included in Table 5. ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was used to calculate scores for new
therapies/indications approved by the EMA since 1 January 2016 [322]. Levels of evidence and grades of
recommendation have been applied using the system shown in Table 6; some statements may be accompanied by a
grade of recommendation alone. Statements without grading were considered justified standard clinical practice by the
experts and the ESMO faculty.
Disclosure
DP has reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck,
Merck Sharp and Dohme Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Roche; consulting, advisory role or lectures for
AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme Oncology,
Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Roche and has received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME
Oncology and Pfizer; SPo has reported honoraria from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Lilly,
Novartis, Takeda, Guardant Health, Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting/advisory role for Boehinger Ingleheim, Roche,
Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Epizyme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis
Oncology, Roche, Lilly, Takeda; KMK has reported lecture fees and consultancy for AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Boehringer
Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Roche
Diagnostics; SN has reported membership of the speaker bureau of Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe &
Dohme, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Incyte, Takeda; CFF has reported research/travel funding from
AstraZeneca and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; TM has reported holding stock in Sanomics Ltd. And Hutchison Chi-Med,
conducting research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis oncology, Merck
Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals and XCovery; has received speaker’s fee from
AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, BMS,
Taiho, Takeda Oncology, prIME Oncology and Amoy Diagnostics Co, LTD and honoraria from AstraZeneca,
Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck Sorono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, SFJ
Pharmaceuticals, ACEA Biosciences Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, OncoGenex Technologies Inc,
Celgene, Ignyta Inc, Cirina, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, Janssen, Takeda, Hutchison Chi-Med, OrigiMed, Henfrui
Therapeutics Inc, Sanofi-Aventis R&D and Yuhan Corporation for attending advisory boards; MH has reported
honoraria for consultancy for Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Janssen, Mirati, Syndax,
Shattuck Labs and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb; MR has reported honoraria for lectures
and consultancy from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer,
Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Merck, Roche, Lilly; SPe has reported educational grants, consultation, advisory boards
and/or lectures for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La
Roche, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Regeneron and Takeda; PEVS has reported
no conflicts of interest. ES has not reported any potential conflicts of interest.

References
1. IARC. Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide GLOBOCAN 2012. http://gco.iarc.fr/
2. Malvezzi M, Carioli G, Bertuccio P et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2017, with focus on lung cancer.
Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 1117–1123.
3. Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2014, Featuring Survival.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109: djx 0130.
4. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69–90.
5.Forman D, Bray F, Brewster D. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Lyon: IARC Press 2013.
6. Ordonez-Mena JM, Schottker B, Mons U et al. Quantification of the smoking-associated cancer risk with rate advancement
periods: meta-analysis of individual participant data from cohorts of the CHANCES consortium. BMC Med 2016; 14: 62.
7. Malvezzi M, Bertuccio P, Levi F et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2013. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 792–
800.
8. Jemal A, Ma J, Rosenberg PS et al. Increasing lung cancer death rates among young women in southern and midwestern
States. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2739–2744.
9. Hashim D, Boffetta P, La Vecchia C et al. The global decrease in cancer mortality: trends and disparities. Ann Oncol 2016;
27: 926–933.
10. Malhotra J, Malvezzi M, Negri E et al. Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 889–902.
11. Novello S, Stabile L, Siegfried J. Gender-related Differences in Lung Cancer. The IASLC Multidisciplinary Approach to
Thoracic Oncology. Aurora, CO: IASLC Press 2014.
12. McCarthy W, Meza R, Jeon J, Moolgavkar S. Chapter 6: Lung cancer in never smokers: epidemiology and risk prediction
models. Risk Anal 2012; 32(Suppl 1): S69.
13. Toh CK, Gao F, Lim WT et al. Never-smokers with lung cancer: epidemiologic evidence of a distinct disease entity. J Clin
Oncol 2006; 24: 2245–2251.
14. Couraud S, Souquet PJ, Paris C et al. BioCAST/IFCT-1002: epidemiological and molecular features of lung cancer in
never-smokers. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1403–1414.
15. Malhotra J, Borron C, Freedman ND et al. Association between Cigar or pipe smoking and cancer risk in men: a pooled
analysis of five Cohort studies. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2017; 10: 704–709.
16. Lorenzo Bermejo J, Hemminki K. Familial lung cancer and aggregation of smoking habits: a simulation of the effect of
shared environmental factors on the familial risk of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 1738–1740.
17. Mucci LA, Hjelmborg JB, Harris JR et al. Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic Countries. JAMA
2016; 315: 68–76.
18. Timofeeva MN, Hung RJ, Rafnar T et al. Influence of common genetic variation on lung cancer risk: meta-analysis of 14
900 cases and 29 485 controls. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21: 4980–4995.
19. Wang Y, McKay JD, Rafnar T et al. Rare variants of large effect in BRCA2 and CHEK2 affect risk of lung cancer. Nat
Genet 2014; 46: 736–741.
20. McKay JD, Hung RJ, Han Y et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies new lung cancer susceptibility loci and
heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across histological subtypes. Nat Genet 2017; 49: 1126–1132.
21. Freeman RK, Van Woerkom JM, Vyverberg A, Ascioti AJ. The effect of a multidisciplinary thoracic malignancy conference
on the treatment of patients with lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 38: 1–5.
22. Forrest LM, McMillan DC, McArdle CS, Dunlop DJ. An evaluation of the impact of a multidisciplinary team, in a single
centre, on treatment and survival in patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2005; 93: 977–978.
23. Schmidt HM, Roberts JM, Bodnar AM et al. Thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board routinely impacts therapeutic plans in
patients with lung and esophageal cancer: a prospective cohort study. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99: 1719–1724.
24. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the
Acquire Registry. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193: 68–77.
25. Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM. Establishing the diagnosis of lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer,
3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013; 143: e142S–e165S.
26. van der Drift MA, van der Wilt GJ, Thunnissen FB, Janssen JP. A prospective study of the timing and cost-effectiveness of
bronchial washing during bronchoscopy for pulmonary malignant tumors. Chest 2005; 128: 394–400.
27. Herth F, Becker HD, Ernst A. Conventional vs endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a
randomized trial. Chest 2004; 125: 322–325.

28. Paone G, Nicastri E, Lucantoni G et al. Endobronchial ultrasound-driven biopsy in the diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions.
Chest 2005; 128: 3551–3557.
29. Adams K, Shah PL, Edmonds L, Lim E. Test performance of endobronchial ultrasound and transbronchial needle
aspiration biopsy for mediastinal staging in patients with lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2009; 64:
757–762.
30. Nakajima T, Kimura H, Takeuchi K et al. Treatment of lung cancer with an ALK inhibitor after EML4-ALK fusion gene
detection using endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 2041–2043.
31. Nakajima T, Yasufuku K, Nakagawara A et al. Multigene mutation analysis of metastatic lymph nodes in non-small cell
lung cancer diagnosed by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. Chest 2011; 140: 1319–1324.
32. Rekhtman N, Brandt SM, Sigel CS et al. Suitability of thoracic cytology for new therapeutic paradigms in non-small cell
lung carcinoma: high accuracy of tumor subtyping and feasibility of EGFR and KRAS molecular testing. J Thorac Oncol 2011;
6: 451–458.
33. Sakairi Y, Nakajima T, Yasufuku K et al. EML4-ALK fusion gene assessment using metastatic lymph node samples
obtained by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 4938–4945.
34. Chan EY, Gaur P, Ge Y et al. Management of the solitary pulmonary nodule. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017; 141: 927–931.
35. Choi SH, Chae EJ, Kim JE et al. Percutaneous CT-guided aspiration and core biopsy of pulmonary nodules smaller than 1
cm: analysis of outcomes of 305 procedures from a tertiary referral center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 964–970.
36. Fontaine-Delaruelle C, Souquet PJ, Gamondes D et al. Negative predictive value of transthoracic core-needle biopsy: a
multicenter study. Chest 2015; 148: 472–480.
37. Lee SM, Park CM, Lee KH et al. C-arm cone-beam CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy of lung nodules:
clinical experience in 1108 patients. Radiology 2014; 271: 291–300.
38. Takeshita J, Masago K, Kato R et al. CT-guided fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsies of pulmonary lesions: a
single-center experience with 750 biopsies in Japan. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 29–34.
39. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Burke AP et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart, 4th
edition. Lyon, France: IARC Press 2015.
40. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M et al. Diagnosis of lung cancer in small biopsies and cytology: implications of the 2011
International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society
classification. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013; 137: 668–684.
41. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M et al. International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic
society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol
2011; 6: 244–285.
42. Dietel M, Bubendorf L, Dingemans AM et al. Diagnostic procedures for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC):
recommendations of the European Expert Group. Thorax 2016; 71: 177–184.
43. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and
ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of
Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. J Thorac Oncol 2013; 8: 823–859.
44. Kerr KM, Bubendorf L, Edelman MJ et al. Second ESMO consensus conference on lung cancer: pathology and molecular
biomarkers for non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1681–1690.
45. Lindeman N, Cagle P, Aisner D et al. Updated molecular testing guideline for the selection of lung cancer patients for
treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, the International
Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018; 142: 321–
346.
46. Kalemkerian GP, Narula N, Kennedy EB et al. Molecular testing guideline for the selection of patients with lung cancer for
treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Endorsement of the College of
American Pathologists/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical
Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 911–919.
47. Mok T, Carbone D, Hirsch F. IASLC Atlas of EGFR testing in Lung cancer. IASLC 2017. http://wclc2017.iaslc.org/.
48. Oxnard GR, Miller VA, Robson ME et al. Screening for germline EGFR T790M mutations through lung cancer genotyping.
J Thorac Oncol 2012; 7: 1049–1052.
49. Mok T, Wu YL, Lee JS et al. Detection and dynamic changes of EGFR mutations from circulating tumor DNA as a
predictor of survival outcomes in NSCLC patients treated with first-line intercalated erlotinib and chemotherapy. Clin Cancer
Res 2015; 21: 3196–3203.
50. Tsao M, Hirsch F, Yatabe Y. IASLC Atlas of ALK and ROS1 Testing in Lung Cancer, Second Edition. Aurora, CO:
International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2016.

51. Kerr KM, Lopez RF. Precision medicine in NSCLC and pathology: how does ALK fit in the pathway? Ann Oncol 2016;
27(Suppl 3): iii16–iii24.
52. van der Wekken AJ, Pelgrim R, t Hart N et al. Dichotomous ALK-IHC Is a better predictor for ALK inhibition outcome than
traditional ALKFISH in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 4251–4258.
53. Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N
Engl J Med 2017; 377: 829–838.
54. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Aisner DL et al. Updated molecular testing guideline for the selection of lung cancer patients for
treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the college of American Pathologists, the International
Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Thorac Oncol 2018; 13: 323–358.
55. Gainor JF, Dardaei L, Yoda S et al. Molecular mechanisms of resistance to first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors in
ALK-rearranged lung cancer. Cancer Discov 2016; 6: 1118–1133.
56. Deeb KK, Hohman CM, Risch NF et al. Routine clinical mutation profiling of non-small cell lung cancer using next-
generation sequencing. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139: 913–921.
57. Kerr KM, Hirsch FR. Programmed death ligand-1 immunohistochemistry: friend or foe? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016; 140:
326–331.
58. Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from phase 1 of
the blueprint PD-L1 IHC assay comparison project. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12: 208–222.
59. Ratcliffe MJ, Sharpe A, Midha A et al. Agreement between programmed cell death ligand-1 diagnostic assays across
multiple protein expression cutoffs in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 3585–3591.
60. Rimm DL, Han G, Taube JM et al. A prospective, multi-institutional, pathologist-based assessment of 4
immunohistochemistry assays for PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1051–1058.
61. Adam J, Le Stang N, Rouquette I et al. Multicenter French harmonization study for PD-L1 IHC testing in non-small cell
lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 953–958.
62. Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell
lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1823–1833.
63. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-
small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 1540–1550.
63a. Herbst RS, Garon EB, Kim D-W et al. Long-term follow-up in the KEYNOTE-010 study of pembrolizumab (pembro) for
advanced NSCLC, including in patients (pts) who completed 2 years of pembro and pts who received a second course of
pembro. Ann Oncol 2018; 29(Suppl 10); LBA4.
64. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T-E, Pluzanski A et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational
burden. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2093–2104.
65. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A et al. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1
blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 2015; 348: 124–128.
66. Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L et al. First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J
Med 2017; 376: 2415–2426.
67. Rizvi H, Sanchez-Vega F, La K et al. Molecular determinants of response to anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 and anti-
programmed death-ligand (PD-L)-ligand 1 blockade in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer profiled with targeted next-
generation sequencing. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 633–641.
68. Rolfo C, Mack PC, Scagliotti GV et al. ASLC statement paper: liquid biopsy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer
(NSCLC). J Thorac Oncol 2018; 13: 1248–1268.
69. Gandara DR, Paul SM, Kowanetz M et al. Blood-based tumor mutational burden as a predictor of clinical benefit in non-
small-cell lung cancer patients treated with atezolizumab. Nat Med 2018; 24: 1441–1448.
70. Velcheti V, Kim ES, Mekhail T et al. Prospective clinical evaluation of blood-based tumor mutational burden (bTMB) as a
predictive biomarker for atezolizumab (atezo) in 1L non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): interim B-F1RST results. J Clin Oncol
2018; 36: 12001–12001.
70a. Peters S, Chul Cho B, Reinmuth N et al. Abstract CT074: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) as a biomarker of survival in
metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC): blood and tissue TMB analysis from MYSTIC, a phase III study of first-line
durvalumab ± tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Cancer Res 2019; 79(Suppl 13): abstr CT074.
71. Grunnet M, Sorensen JB. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as tumor marker in lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2012; 76: 138–
143.
72. Ferrucci PF, Ascierto PA, Pigozzo J et al. Baseline neutrophils and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: prognostic
relevance in metastatic melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 732–738.

73. Mezquita L, Auclin E, Ferrara R et al. Association of the lung immune prognostic index with immune checkpoint inhibitor
outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 351–357.
74. Kuhn MJ, Hammer GM, Swenson LC et al. MRI evaluation of “solitary” brain metastases with triple-dose gadoteridol:
comparison with contrast-enhanced CT and conventional-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine MRI studies in the same patients.
Comput Med Imaging Graph 1994; 18: 391–399.
75. Wu Y, Li P, Zhang H et al. Diagnostic value of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed
tomography for the detection of metastases in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: E37–E47.
76. Chang MC, Chen JH, Liang JA et al. Meta-analysis: comparison of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission
tomography and bone scintigraphy in the detection of bone metastasis in patients with lung cancer. Acad Radiol 2012; 19:
349–357.
77. Grootjans W, de Geus-Oei LF, Troost EG et al. PET in the management of locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC. Nat
Rev Clin Oncol 2015; 12: 395–407.
78. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8 th edition. New York: Springer International Publishing
2017.
79. Brierley J, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, Union for International Cancer Control. TNM Classification of Malignant
Tumours 8th edition, 1–241.
80. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline
(version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228–247.
81. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-
related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 7412–7420.
82. Bohnsack O, Hoos A, Ludajic K. Adaptation of the immune related response criteria: irRECIST. Ann Oncol 2014; 25(Suppl
4): iv369.
83. Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A et al. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing
immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: e143–e152.
84. Hodi FS, Ballinger M, Lyons B et al. Immune-modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (imRECIST): refining
guidelines to assess the clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 850–858.
85. Gandara DR, Pawel JV, Sullivan RN et al. Impact of atezolizumab (atezo) treatment beyond disease progression (TBP) in
advanced NSCLC: results from the randomized phase III OAK study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 9001.
86. Tazdait M, Mezquita L, Lahmar J et al. Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy:
comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer 2018; 88: 38–47.
87. Mazieres J, Fehrenbacher L, Rittmeyer A et al. Non-classical response measured by immune-modified RECIST and post-
progression treatment effects of atezolizumab in 2L/3L NSCLC: Results from the randomized phase II study POPLAR. J Clin
Oncol 2016; 34: 9032.
88. Kazandjian D, Keegan P, Suzman DL et al. Characterization of patients treated with a programmed cell death protein 1
inhibitor (anti-PD-1) past RECIST progression from a metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) trial. J Clin Oncol 2017;
44: 3.
89. Ung KA, Campbell BA, Duplan D et al. Impact of the lung oncology multidisciplinary team meetings on the management of
patients with cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2016; 12: e298–e304.
90. Baser S, Shannon VR, Eapen GA et al. Smoking cessation after diagnosis of lung cancer is associated with a beneficial
effect on performance status. Chest 2006; 130: 1784–1790.
91. Hughes AN, O’Brien ME, Petty WJ et al. Overcoming CYP1A1/1A2 mediated induction of metabolism by escalating
erlotinib dose in current smokers. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1220–1226.
92. Rowland C, Danson SJ, Rowe R et al. Quality of life, support and smoking in advanced lung cancer patients: a qualitative
study. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2016; 6: 35–42.
93. Brahmer JR, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG et al. Health-related quality-of-life results for pembrolizumab versus
chemotherapy in advanced, PD-L1-positive NSCLC (KEYNOTE-024): a multicentre, international, randomised, open-label
phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1600–1609.
94. Brahmer J, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson A et al. OA 17.06 updated analysis of KEYNOTE-024: pembrolizumab vs
platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS 50%. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12: S1793–S1794.
95. Lopes G, Wu Y-L, Kudaba I et al. Pembrolizumab (pembro) versus platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo) as first-line
therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 1%: Open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-
042 study. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(18 Suppl): LBA4.

95a. Mok TSK, Wu YL, Kudaba I et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing,
locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3
trial. Lancet 2019; 393: 1819–1830.
96. Gandhi L, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung
cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2078–2092.
96a. Gadgeel SM, Garassino MC, Esteban E et al. KEYNOTE-189: Updated OS and progression after the next line of therapy
(PFS2) with pembrolizumab (pembro) plus chemo with pemetrexed and platinum vs placebo plus chemo for metastatic
nonsquamous NSCLC. J Clin Oncol 2019; 39(Suppl): abstr 9013.
97. Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F et al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. N
Engl J Med 2018; 378: 2288–2301.
97a. Reck M, Mok TSK, Nishio M et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer
(IMpower150): key subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR mutations or baseline liver metastases in a randomised, open-
label phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 387–401.
98. Papadimitrakopoulou V, Cobo M, Bordon R et al. IMPOWER132: PFS and safety results with 1L atezolizumab +
carboplatin/cisplatin + pemetrexed in stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. IASLC 19th World Conference on Lung Cancer 2018;
abstr. OA05.07.
98a. West H, McCleod M, Hussein M et al. Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy
compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer
(IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 924–937.
99. Paz-Ares LG, Luft A, Vicente D et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl
J Med 2018 [Epub ahead of print]. 2018; 379: 2040–2051.
100. Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Vynnychenko I et al. IMpower131: primary PFS and safety analysis of a randomized phase III
study of atezolizumab þ carboplatin þ paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel vs carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel as 1L therapy in advanced
squamous NSCLC. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(18 Suppl): LBA9000.
101. Brahmer JR, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG et al. Progression after the next line of therapy (PFS2) and updated OS
among patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% enrolled in KEYNOTE-024. J Clin
Oncol 2017; 35: 9000.
102. Ramalingam SS, Hellmann MD, Awad MM et al. Abstract CT078: tumor mutational burden (TMB) as a biomarker for
clinical benefit from dual immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab (nivo) + ipilimumab (ipi) in first-line (1L) non-small cell
lung cancer (NSCLC): identification of TMB cutoff from CheckMate 568. Cancer Res 2018; 78: CT078.
103. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52
randomised clinical trials. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. BMJ 1995; 311: 899–909.
104. NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced
non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled
trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 4617–4625.
105. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy and supportive care versus supportive care alone for
advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; CD007309.
106. Delbaldo C, Michiels S, Syz N et al. Benefits of adding a drug to a single-agent or a 2-agent chemotherapy regimen in
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2004; 29: 2470–484.
107. Pujol JL, Barlesi F, Daures JP. Should chemotherapy combinations for advanced non-small cell lung cancer be platinum-
based? A meta-analysis of phase III randomized trials. Lung Cancer 2006; 51: 335–345.
108. Park JO, Kim SW, Ahn JS et al. Phase III trial of two versus four additional cycles in patients who are nonprogressive
after two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy in non small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5233–5239.
109. Rossi A, Chiodini P, Sun JM et al. Six versus fewer planned cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy for non-
small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1254–1262.
110. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung
111. Grossi F, Aita M, Defferrari C et al. Impact of third-generation drugs on the activity of first-line chemotherapy in advanced
non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analytical approach. Oncologist 2009; 14: 497–510.
112. de Castria TB, da Silva EM, Gois AF, Riera R. Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with third-generation drugs for
advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; CD009256.
113. Socinski MA, Bondarenko I, Karaseva NA et al. Weekly nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus solvent-
based paclitaxel plus carboplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: final results of a
phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2055–2062.

114. Paz-Ares L, Mezger J, Ciuleanu TE et al. Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients
with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.
Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 328–337.
115. Thatcher N, Hirsch FR, Luft AV et al. Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin
alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label,
randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 763–774.
116. Paz-Ares L, Socinski MA, Shahidi J et al. Correlation of EGFR-expression with safety and efficacy outcomes in SQUIRE:
a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study of gemcitabine-cisplatin plus necitumumab versus gemcitabine-cisplatin
alone in the first-line treatment of patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 1573–
1579.
117. Li M, Zhang Q, Fu P et al. Pemetrexed plus platinum as the first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung
cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2012; 7: e37229.
118. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus
pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3543–
3551.
119. Scagliotti G, Hanna N, Fossella F et al. The differential efficacy of pemetrexed according to NSCLC histology: a review of
two phase III studies. Oncologist 2009; 14: 253–263.
120. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Zielinski C et al. Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best
supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. Lancet 2009; 374: 1432–1440.
121. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC et al. Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N
Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2542–2550.
122. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G et al. BEYOND: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase III study of
first-line carboplatin/paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or placebo in Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous
non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 2197–2204.
123. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P et al. Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as
first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: aVAil. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1227–1234.
124. Lima AB, Macedo LT, Sasse AD. Addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2011; 6: e22681.
125. Soria JC, Mauguen A, Reck M et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, phase II/III trials adding
bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 20–30.
126. Besse B, Le Moulec S, Mazieres J et al. Bevacizumab in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer and
asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases (BRAIN): a nonrandomized, phase II study. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 1896–1903.
127. Cappuzzo F, Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L et al. Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a
multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 521–529.
128. Cicenas S, Geater SL, Petrov P et al. Maintenance erlotinib versus erlotinib at disease progression in patients with
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who have not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy (IUNO study). Lung
Cancer 2016; 102: 30–37.
129. Paz-Ares LG, de Marinis F, Dediu M et al. PARAMOUNT: final overall survival results of the phase III study of
maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo immediately after induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced
non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 2895–2902.
130. Paz-Ares L, de Marinis F, Dediu M et al. Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo
plus best supportive care after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell
lung cancer (PARAMOUNT): a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 247–255.
131. Barlesi F, Scherpereel A, Rittmeyer A et al. Randomized phase III trial of maintenance bevacizumab with or without
pemetrexed after first-line induction with bevacizumab, cisplatin, and pemetrexed in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell
lung cancer: aVAPERL (MO22089). J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3004–3011.
132. Barlesi F, Scherpereel A, Gorbunova V et al. Maintenance bevacizumab-pemetrexed after first-line cisplatin-pemetrexed-
bevacizumab for advanced nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer: updated survival analysis of the AVAPERL (MO22089)
randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1044–1052.
133. Patel JD, Socinski MA, Garon EB et al. PointBreak: a randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin and
bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin and bevacizumab
followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol
2013; 31: 4349–4357.

134. Perol M, Chouaid C, Perol D et al. Randomized, phase III study of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy versus
observation, with predefined second-line treatment, after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy in advanced non-
small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 3516–3524.
135. Pirker R, Pereira JR, Szczesna A et al. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung
cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 1525–1531.
136. Gridelli C, Ardizzoni A, Le Chevalier T et al. Treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with ECOG
performance status 2: results of an European Experts Panel. Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 419–426.
137. Quoix E, Zalcman G, Oster JP et al. Carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy compared with
monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: iFCT-0501 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011;
378: 1079–1088.
138. Bronte G, Rolfo C, Passiglia F et al. What can platinum offer yet in the treatment of PS2 NSCLC patients? A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015; 95: 306–317.
139. Zukin M, Barrios CH, Pereira JR et al. Randomized phase III trial of single-agent pemetrexed versus carboplatin and
pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance
status of 2. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 2849–2853.
140. Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C et al. Chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the
Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) phase III randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 362–372.
141. Spigel D, Schwartzberg L, Waterhouse D et al. P3.02c-026 is nivolumab safe and effective in elderly and PS2 patients
with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)? Results of CheckMate 153. J Thorac Oncol 12: S1287–S1288.
142. Popat S, Ardizzoni A, Ciuleanu T et al. 1303PD Nivolumab in previously treated patients with metastatic squamous
NSCLC: results of a European single-arm, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 171) including patients aged ≥70 years and with poor
performance status. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(Suppl 5): v460-v496.
143. Kudoh S, Takeda K, Nakagawa K et al. Phase III study of docetaxel compared with vinorelbine in elderly patients with
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group Trial (WJTOG 9904). J Clin Oncol
2006; 24: 3657–3663.
144. Santos FN, de Castria TB, Cruz MR, Riera R. Chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly
population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD010463.
145. Fiteni F, Anota A, Bonnetain F et al. Health-related quality of life in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung
cancer comparing carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy with monotherapy. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 861–
872.
146. Corre R, Greillier L, Le Caer H et al. Use of a comprehensive geriatric assessment for the management of elderly
patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the phase III randomized ESOGIA-GFPC-GECP 08-02 study. J Clin Oncol
2016; 34: 1476–1483.
147. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung
148. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung
149. Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-
cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017; 389: 255–265.
149a. Fehrenbacher L, von Pawel J, Park K et al. Updated efficacy analysis including secondary population results for OAK: a
randomized phase III study of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung
cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2018; 13: 1156–1170.
150. Ferrara R, Mezquita L, Auclin E et al. Immunosenescence and immune-checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung
cancer patients: does age really matter? Cancer Treat Rev 2017; 60: 60–68.
151. Herbst R, Garon E, Kim D-W et al. OA03.07 KEYNOTE-010: durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated,
PD-L1-expressing NSCLC who completed pembrolizumab. J Thoracic Oncol 2017; 12: S254–S255.
152. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R et al. Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in
patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2095–
2103.
153. Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN et al. Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients
with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. The TAX 320
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 2354–2362.
154. Gridelli C, Gallo C, Di Maio M et al. A randomised clinical trial of two docetaxel regimens (weekly vs 3 week) in the
second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. The DISTAL 01 study. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 1996.

155. Schuette W, Nagel S, Blankenburg T et al. Phase III study of second-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung
cancer with weekly compared with 3-weekly docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8389–8395.
156. Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV et al. Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with
non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1589–1597.
157. Garon EB, Ciuleanu TE, Arrieta O et al. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line
treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre,
double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2014; 384: 665–673.
158. Reck M, Paz-Ares L, Bidoli P et al. Outcomes in patients with aggressive or refractory disease from REVEL: a
randomized phase III study of docetaxel with ramucirumab or placebo for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung
cancer. Lung Cancer 2017; 112: 181–187.
159. Reck M, Kaiser R, Mellemgaard A et al. Docetaxel plus nintedanib versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with
previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (LUME-Lung 1): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet
Oncol 2014; 15: 143–155.
160. Novello S, Kaiser R, Mellemgaard A et al. Analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the LUME-Lung 1 trial: a
randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of second-line nintedanib in patients with advanced non-small
cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51: 317–326.
161. Cortot AB, Audigier-Valette C, Molinier O et al. Weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus docetaxel as second or third-
line treatment in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results from the phase III study IFCT-1103
ULTIMATE. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 9005.
162. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J
Med 2005; 353: 123–132.
163. Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S et al. Efficacy and safety of erlotinib versus chemotherapy in second-line treatment of
patients with advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer with poor prognosis (TITAN): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase
3 study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 300–308.
164. Karampeazis A, Voutsina A, Souglakos J et al. Pemetrexed versus erlotinib in pretreated patients with advanced non-
small cell lung cancer: a Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG) randomized phase 3 study. Cancer 2013; 119: 2754–
2764.
165. Garassino MC, Martelli O, Broggini M et al. Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced
non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 981–
988.
166. Zhao N, Zhang XC, Yan HH et al. Efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors versus chemotherapy as
second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with wild-type EGFR: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled
clinical trials. Lung Cancer 2014; 85: 66–73.
167. Tomasini P, Brosseau S, Mazieres J et al. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus chemotherapy in EGFR wild-type pre-
treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer in daily practice. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700514.
168. Soria JC, Felip E, Cobo M et al. Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous
cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 897–907.
169. Felip E, Hirsh V, Popat S et al. Symptom and quality of life improvement in LUX-Lung 8, an open-label phase III study of
second-line afatinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung after first-line platinum-
based chemotherapy. Clin Lung Cancer 2018; 19: 74–83.
170. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying
responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2129–2139.
171. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy.
Science 2004; 304: 1497–1500.
172. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med
2009; 361: 947–957.
173. Han JY, Park K, Kim SW et al. First-SIGNAL: first-line single-agent iressa versus gemcitabine and cisplatin trial in never-
smokers with adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1122–1128.
174. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR.
N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 2380–2388.
175. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European
patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised
phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 239–246.
176. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with
metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3327–3334.

177. Wu YL, Zhou C, Hu CP et al. Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.
Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 213–222.
178. Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Usui K et al. First-line gefitinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring
epidermal growth factor receptor mutations without indication for chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 1394–1400.
179. Park K, Yu CJ, Kim SW et al. First-line erlotinib therapy until and beyond response evaluation criteria in solid tumors
progression in Asian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: the
ASPIRATION Study. JAMA Oncol 2016; 2: 305–312.
180. Mok TSK, Kim S-W, Wu Y-L et al. Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor
mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer resistant to first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): overall survival and biomarker
analyses. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 4027–4034.
181. Park K, Tan EH, O’Byrne K et al. Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive
non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 577–
589.
182. Paz-Ares L, Tan EH, O’Byrne K et al. Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-
small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 270–277.
183. Yang JC, Wu YL, Schuler M et al. Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung
adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet
Oncol 2015; 16: 141–151.
184. Wu YL, Cheng Y, Zhou X et al. Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-
positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1454–
1466.
185. Mok TS, Cheng Y, Zhou X et al. Improvement in overall survival in a randomized study that compared dacomitinib with
gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and EGFR-activating mutations. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 2244–
2250.
186. Cross DA, Ashton SE, Ghiorghiu S et al. AZD9291, an irreversible EGFR TKI, overcomes T790M-mediated resistance to
EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer. Cancer Discov 2014; 4: 1046–1061.
187. Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N
Engl J Med 2018; 378: 113–125.
187a. Planchard D, Boyer MJ, Lee JS et al. Postprogression outcomes for osimertinib versus standard-of-care EGFR-TKI in
patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25: 2058–
2063.
187b. AstraZeneca press release. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2019/tagrisso-significantly-
improves-overall-survival-in-the-phase-iii-flaura-trial-for-1st-line-egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer-09082019.html.
188. Soria JC, Wu YL, Nakagawa K et al. Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutation-
positive non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet
Oncol 2015; 16: 990–998.
189. Nakamura A, Morita S, Hosomi Y et al. Phase III study comparing gefitinib monotherapy (G) to combination therapy with
gefitinib, carboplatin, and pemetrexed (GCP) for untreated patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
with EGFR mutations (NEJ009). J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(Suppl): abstr 9005.
189a. Noronha V, Joshi A, Patil VM et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing gefitinib to gefitinib with pemetrexed-
carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced untreated EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer (gef vs gef+C). J Clin
Oncol 2019; 37(Suppl): abstr 9001.
190. Seto T, Kato T, Nishio M et al. Erlotinib alone or with bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-
squamous non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (JO25567): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase
2 study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1236–1244.
191. Yamamoto N, Seto T, Nishio M et al. Erlotinib plus bevacizumab (EB) versus erlotinib alone (E) as first-line treatment for
advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): survival follow-up results of JO25567.
J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(Suppl): abstr 9007.
192. Rosell R, Dafni U, Felip E et al. Erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and
activating EGFR mutations (BELIEF): an international, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 435–
444.
193. Furuya N, Saito H, Watanabe K et al. Phase III study comparing bevacizumab plus erlotinib to erlotinib in patients with
untreated NSCLC harbouring activating EGFR mutations: NEJ026. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(Suppl): abstr 9006.
193a. Nakagawa K, Garon EB, Seto T et al. RELAY: a multinational, double-blind, randomized phase 3 study of erlotinib
(ERL) in combination with ramucirumab (RAM) or placebo (PL) in previously untreated patients with epidermal growth factor

receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm) metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(Suppl): abstr
9000.
194. Yu HA, Arcila ME, Rekhtman N et al. Analysis of tumor specimens at the time of acquired resistance to EGFR-TKI
therapy in 155 patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 2240–2247.
195. Mok TS, Wu YL, Ahn MJ et al. Osimertinib or platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med
2017; 376: 629–640.
196. Mok T, Ahn M-J, Han J-Y et al. CNS response to osimertinib in patients (pts) with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC:
data from a randomized phase III trial (AURA3). J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 9005.
196a. Mazières J, Drilon A, Lusque A et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and
oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1321–1328.
197. Camidge DR, Bang YJ, Kwak EL et al. Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung
cancer: updated results from a phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 1011–1019.
198. Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Solomon BJ et al. Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung
cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 1004–1012.
199. Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim DW et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl JMed
2014; 371: 2167–2177.
200. Soria JC, Tan DSW, Chiari R et al. First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged
non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 2017; 389: 917–929.
201. Cho BC, Kim DW, Bearz A et al. ASCEND-8: a randomized phase 1 study of ceritinib, 450 mg or 600 mg, taken with a
low-fat meal versus 750 mg in fasted state in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged metastatic non-
small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12: 1357–1367.
202. Hida T, Nokihara H, Kondo M et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (J-
ALEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017; 390: 29–39.
203. Camidge DR. Updated efficacy and safety data from the global phase III ALEX study of alectinib (ALC) vs crizotinib (CZ)
in untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC. J Clin Oncol 2018; 35(Suppl): 9064.
203a. Camidge DR, Dziadziuszko R, Peters S et al. Updated efficacy and safety data and impact of the EML4-ALK fusion
variant on the efficacy of alectinib in untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the global phase III ALEX
study. J Thorac Oncol 2019; 14: 1233-1243.
204. Shaw AT, Kim DW, Nakagawa K et al. Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J
Med 2013; 368: 2385–2394.
205. Costa DB, Kobayashi S, Pandya SS et al. CSF concentration of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor crizotinib. J
Clin Oncol 2011; 29: e443–e445.
206. Shaw AT, Kim TM, Crino L et al. Ceritinib versus chemotherapy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung
cancer previously given chemotherapy and crizotinib (ASCEND-5): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet
Oncol 2017; 18: 874–886.
207. Novello S, Mazières J, Oh IJ et al. Alectinib versus chemotherapy in crizotinib-pretreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase
(ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from the phase III ALUR study. Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 1409–1416.
208. de Castro J, Novello S, Mazieres J et al. 1346 PCNS efficacy results from the phase III ALUR study of alectinib vs
chemotherapy in previously treated ALKþ NSCLC. Ann Oncol 2017; 28(Suppl 5): v460–v496.
209. Hochmair MJ, Tiseo M, Reckamp KL et al. 97P Brigatinib in crizotinib-refractory ALKþ NSCLC: updates from the pivotal
randomized phase 2 Trial (ALTA). Ann Oncol 2017; 28(Suppl 2): ii28–ii51.
209a. Kim DW, Tiseo M, Ahn MJ et al. Brigatinib in patients with crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive
non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 2490–2498.
210. Shaw AT, Felip E, Bauer TM et al. Lorlatinib in non-small-cell lung cancer with ALK or ROS1 rearrangement: an
international, multicentre, open-label, single-arm first-in-man phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1590–1599.
211. Shaw AT, Martini J-F, Besse B et al. Abstract CT044: efficacy of lorlatinib in patients (pts) with advanced ALK-positive
non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ALK kinase domain mutations. Cancer Res 2018; 78: CT044.
211a. Solomon BJ, Besse B, Bauer TM et al. Lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a
global phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1654-1667. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: e10.212. Felip E, Bauer T,
Solomon B et al. MA07.11 safety and efficacy of lorlatinib (PF-06463922) in patients with advanced ALK+ or ROS1+ non-
small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12: S383–S384.
212a. Shaw AT, Solomon BJ, Besse B et al. ALK resistance mutations and efficacy of lorlatinib in advanced anaplastic
lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1370–1379.

213. Shaw AT, Bauer TM, Takahashi T et al. 1380TiP A randomized, open-label comparison of lorlatinib versus crizotinib as
first-line treatment for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2017;
28(Suppl 5): v460–v496.
214. Popat S, Tiseo M, Gettinger S et al. ALTA-1L (ALK in lung cancer trial of BrigAtinib in 1st Line): a randomized, phase 3
trial of brigatinib (BRG) versus crizotinib (CRZ) in tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)–naive, advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase
(ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Ann Oncol 2016; 27(Suppl 6): 1289TiP.
215. Camidge DR, Kim HR, Ahn M-J et al. Brigatinib versus crizotinib in ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J
Med 2018 [Epub ahead of print]. 2018; 29: 2027–2039.
216. Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ et al. Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:
1963–1971.
217. Moro-Sibilot D, Faivre L, Zalcman G et al. Crizotinib in patients with advanced ROS1-rearranged non-small cell lung
cancer (NSCLC). Preliminary results of the ACSE phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 8065.
218. Mazieres J, Zalcman G, Crino L et al. Crizotinib therapy for advanced lung adenocarcinoma and a ROS1 rearrangement:
results from the EUROS1 cohort. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 992–999.
219. Goto K, Yang JC-H, Kim D-W et al. Phase II study of crizotinib in east Asian patients (pts) with ROS1-positive advanced
non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 9022.
220. Lim SM, Kim HR, Lee JS et al. Open-label, multicenter, phase II study of ceritinib in patients with non-small-cell lung
cancer harboring ROS1 rearrangement. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 2613–2618.
221. Davare MA, Vellore NA, Wagner JP et al. Structural insight into selectivity and resistance profiles of ROS1 tyrosine
kinase inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112: E5381–E5390.
221a. Drilon A, Ou SI, Cho BC et al. Repotrectinib (TPX-0005) is a next-generation ROS1/TRK/ALK inhibitor that potently
inhibits ROS1/TRK/ALK solvent- front mutations. Cancer Discov 2018; 8: 1227–1236.
221b. Cho BC, Drilon AE, Doebele RC et al. Safety and preliminary clinical activity of repotrectinib in patients with advanced
ROS1 fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (TRIDENT-1 study). J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(Suppl): abstr 9011.
222. Barlesi F, Mazieres J, Merlio JP et al. Routine molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer:
results of a 1-year nationwide programme of the French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT). Lancet 2016; 387: 1415–
1426.
223. Kris MG, Johnson BE, Berry LD et al. Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted
drugs. JAMA 2014; 311: 1998–2006.
224. Paik PK, Arcila ME, Fara M et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with lung adenocarcinomas harboring BRAF
mutations. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2046–2051.
225. Gautschi O, Milia J, Cabarrou B et al. Targeted therapy for patients with BRAF-mutant lung cancer: results from the
European EURAF Cohort. J Thorac Oncol 2015; 10: 1451–1457.
226. Hyman DM, Puzanov I, Subbiah V et al. Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N
Engl J Med 2015; 373: 726–736.
227. Planchard D, Kim TM, Mazieres J et al. Dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung
cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 642–650.
228. Planchard D, Besse B, Groen HJM et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAF(V600E)-
mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 984–993.
229. Planchard D, Smit EF, Groen HJM et al. Updated survival of patients (pts) with previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant
advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received dabrafenib (D) or D + trametinib (T) in the phase II BRF113928
study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 28(Suppl 5): 9075.
230. Planchard D, Smit EF, Groen HJM et al. Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously untreated BRAF(V600E)-
mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1307–1316.
231. Lipson D, Capelletti M, Yelensky R et al. Identification of new ALK and RET gene fusions from colorectal and lung cancer
biopsies. Nat Med 2012; 18: 382–384.
232. Michels S, Scheel AH, Scheffler M et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of RET rearranged lung cancer in European
Patients. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 122–127.
233. Gautschi O, Milia J, Filleron T et al. Targeting RET in patients with RET-rearranged lung cancers: results from the global,
multicenter RET registry. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 1403–1410.
234. Drilon A, Bergagnini I, Delasos L et al. Clinical outcomes with pemetrexed-based systemic therapies in RET-rearranged
lung cancers. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 1286–1291.
235. Lee SH, Lee JK, Ahn MJ et al. Vandetanib in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer-harboring
RET rearrangement: a phase II clinical trial. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 292–297.

236. Yoh K, Seto T, Satouchi M et al. Vandetanib in patients with previously treated RET-rearranged advanced non-small-cell
lung cancer (LURET): an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 42–50.
237. Drilon AESV, Oxnard GR et al. A phase 1 study of LOXO-292, a potent and highly selective RET inhibitor, in patients with
RET-altered cancers. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(Suppl); abstr 102.
237a. Subbiah V, Gainor JF, Rahal R et al. Precision targeted therapy with BLU-667 for RET-Driven Cancers. Cancer Discov
2018; 8: 836–849.
237b. Subbiah V, Velcheti V, Tuch BB et al. Selective RET kinase inhibition for patients with RET-altered cancers. Ann Oncol
2018; 29:1869–1876.
238. Spigel DR, Edelman MJ, O’Byrne K et al. Results from the phase III randomized trial of onartuzumab plus erlotinib versus
erlotinib in previously treated stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer: mETLung. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 412–420.
239. Yoshioka H, Azuma K, Yamamoto N et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of erlotinib with
or without a c-Met inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ 197) in Asian patients with previously treated stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous nonsmall-
cell lung cancer harbouring wild-type epidermal growth factor receptor (ATTENTION study). Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 2066–2072.
240. Frampton GM, Ali SM, Rosenzweig M et al. Activation ofMET via diverse exon 14 splicing alterations occurs in multiple
tumor types and confers clinical sensitivity toMET inhibitors. Cancer Discov 2015; 5(8): 850–859.
241. Drilon AE, Camidge DR, Ou S-HI et al. Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in patients (pts) with advanced MET exon 14-
altered non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 108.
242. Awad MM, Leonardi GC, Kravets S et al. Impact of MET inhibitors on survival among patients (pts) with MET exon 14
mutant (METdel14) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 8511.
243. Arcila ME, Chaft JE, Nafa K et al. Prevalence, clinicopathologic associations, and molecular spectrum of ERBB2 (HER2)
tyrosine kinase mutations in lung adenocarcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 4910–4918.
244. Mazieres J, Barlesi F, Filleron T et al. Lung cancer patients with HER2 mutations treated with chemotherapy and HER2-
targeted drugs: results from the European EUHER2 cohort. Ann Oncol 2016; 27(2): 281–286.
245. Hyman D, Piha-Paul SA, Won H et al. HER kinase inhibition in patients with HER2- and HER3-mutant cancers. Nature
2018; 554: 189–194.
246. Kosaka T, Tanizaki J, Paranal RM et al. Response heterogeneity of EGFR and HER2 exon 20 insertions to covalent
EGFR and HER2 inhibitors. Cancer Res 2017; 77: 2712.
247. Smit EF, Peters S, Dziadziuszko R et al. A single-arm phase II trial of afatinib in pretreated patients with advanced
NSCLC harboring a HER2 mutation: the ETOP NICHE trial. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 9070.
248. Robichaux JP, Elamin YY, Tan Z et al. Mechanisms and clinical activity of an EGFR and HER2 exon 20–selective kinase
inhibitor in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Med 2018; 24(5): 638–646.
249. Li BT, Shen R, Buonocore D et al. Ado-trastuzumab emtansine for patients with HER2 mutant lung cancers: results from
a phase II basket trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36: 2532–2537.
250. Stinchcombe T, Stahel RA, Bubendorf L et al. Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1)
in patients (pts) with previously treated HER2-overexpressing locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer
(mNSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 8509.
251. Ou SI, Schrock AB, Bocharov EV et al. HER2 transmembrane domain (TMD) mutations (V659/G660) that stabilize homo-
and heterodimerization are rare oncogenic drivers in lung adenocarcinoma that respond to afatinib. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12:
446–457.
252. Stransky N, Cerami E, Schalm S et al. The landscape of kinase fusions in cancer. Nat Commun 2014; 5: 4846.
252a. Cocco E, Scaltriti M, Drilon A. NTRK fusion-positive cancers and TRK inhibitor therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2018; 15:
731–747.
253. Amatu A, Sartore-Bianchi A, Siena S. NTRK gene fusions as novel targets of cancer therapy across multiple tumour
types. ESMO Open 2016; 1: e000023.
254. Drilon A, Siena S, Ou SI et al. Safety and antitumor activity of the multitargeted Pan-TRK, ROS1, and ALK inhibitor
entrectinib: combined results from two phase I trials (ALKA-372-001 and STARTRK-1). Cancer Discov 2017; 7: 400–409.
255. Hyman DM, Laetsch TW, Kummar S et al. The efficacy of larotrectinib (LOXO-101), a selective tropomyosin receptor
kinase (TRK) inhibitor, in adult and pediatric TRK fusion cancers. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(18 Suppl): LBA2501.
256. Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S et al. Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion–positive cancers in adults and children. N
Engl J Med 2018; 378: 731–739.
257. Stevens R, Macbeth F, Toy E et al. Palliative radiotherapy regimens for patients with thoracic symptoms from non-small
cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 1: CD002143.

258. Reveiz L, Rueda JR, Cardona AF. Palliative endobronchial brachytherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2012; 12: CD004284.
259. George R, Jeba J, Ramkumar G et al. Interventions for the treatment of metastatic extradural spinal cord compression in
adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD006716.
260. Nayar G, Ejikeme T, Chongsathidkiet P et al. Leptomeningeal disease: current diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.
Oncotarget 2017; 8: 73312–73328.
261. Chamberlain MC, Sandy AD, Press GA. Leptomeningeal metastasis: a comparison of gadolinium-enhanced MR and
contrast-enhanced CT of the brain. Neurology 1990; 40: 435–438.
262. Collie DA, Brush JP, Lammie GA et al. Imaging features of leptomeningeal metastases. Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 765–771.
263. Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D et al. Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accurate and facile
diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 419–425.
264. Mulvenna P, Nankivell M, Barton R et al. Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in
treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy
(QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2004–2014.
265. Tsao MN, Lloyd N, Wong RK et al. Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain
metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; CD003869.
266. Vecht CJ, Hovestadt A, Verbiest HB et al. Dose-effect relationship of dexamethasone on Karnofsky performance in
metastatic brain tumors: a randomized study of doses of 4, 8, and 16 mg per day. Neurology 1994; 44: 675–680.
267. Li J, Bentzen SM, Renschler M, Mehta MP. Regression after whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases
correlates with survival and improved neurocognitive function. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1260–1266.
268. Brown PD, Pugh S, Laack NN et al. Memantine for the prevention of cognitive dysfunction in patients receiving whole-
brain radiotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neuro Oncol 2013; 15: 1429–1437.
269. Gondi V, Pugh SL, Tome WA et al. Preservation of memory with conformal avoidance of the hippocampal neural stem-
cell compartment during whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases (RTOG 0933): a phase II multi-institutional trial. J Clin
Oncol 2014; 32: 3810–3816.
270. Mahajan A, Ahmed S, McAleer MF et al. Post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery versus observation for completely
resected brain metastases: a single-centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1040–1048.
271. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Walsh JW et al. A randomized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metastases to the brain. N
Engl J Med 1990; 322: 494–500.
272. Vecht CJ, Haaxma-Reiche H, Noordijk EM et al. Treatment of single brain metastasis: radiotherapy alone or combined
with neurosurgery? Ann Neurol 1993; 33: 583–590.
273. Mintz AH, Kestle J, Rathbone MP et al. A randomized trial to assess the efficacy of surgery in addition to radiotherapy in
patients with a single cerebral metastasis. Cancer 1996; 78: 1470–1476.
274. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a
randomized trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 1485–1489.
275. Aoyama H, Shirato H, Tago M et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic
radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006; 295: 2483–2491.
276. Kocher M, Soffietti R, Abacioglu U et al. Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or
surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 134–
141.
277. Sahgal A, Aoyama H, KocherMet al. Phase 3 trials of stereotactic radiosurgery with or without whole-brain radiation
therapy for 1 to 4 brain metastases: individual patient data meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91: 710–717.
278. Ernst-Stecken A, Ganslandt O, Lambrecht U et al. Phase II trial of hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for brain
metastases: results and toxicity. Radiother Oncol 2006; 81: 18–24.
279. Patil CG, Pricola K, Sarmiento JM et al. Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) alone versus WBRT and radiosurgery for
the treatment of brain metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; CD006121.
280. Soon YY, Tham IW, Lim KH et al. Surgery or radiosurgery plus whole brain radiotherapy versus surgery or radiosurgery
alone for brain metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; CD009454.
281. Robinet G, Thomas P, Breton JL et al. Results of a phase III study of early versus delayed whole brain radiotherapy with
concurrent cisplatin and vinorelbine combination in inoperable brain metastasis of non-small-cell lung cancer: Groupe
Francais de Pneumo-Cancerologie (GFPC) Protocol 95-1. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 59–67.
282. Lim SH, Lee JY, Lee MY et al. A randomized phase III trial of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus observation for
patients with asymptomatic cerebral oligo-metastases in non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 762–768.

283. Goldberg SB, Gettinger SN, Mahajan A et al. Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer
and untreated brain metastases: early analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 976–
983.
284. Rangachari D, Yamaguchi N, VanderLaan PA et al. Brain metastases in patients with EGFR-mutated or ALK-rearranged
non-small-cell lung cancers. Lung Cancer 2015; 88: 108–111.
285. Baik CS, Chamberlain MC, Chow LQ. Targeted therapy for brain metastases in EGFR-mutated and ALK-rearranged non-
small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2015; 10: 1268–1278.
286. Zimmermann S, Dziadziuszko R, Peters S. Indications and limitations of chemotherapy and targeted agents in non-small
cell lung cancer brain metastases. Cancer Treat Rev 2014; 40: 716–722.
287. Lanuti M. Surgical management of oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Surg Clin 2016; 26: 287–294.
288. Novoa NM, Varela G, Jimenez MF. Surgical management of oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis
2016; 8(Suppl 11): S895–S900.
289. Eberhardt WE, Mitchell A, Crowley J et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the M
descriptors in the forthcoming eighth edition of the TNM classification of lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2015; 10: 1515–1522.
290. Downey RJ, Ng KK, Kris MG et al. A phase II trial of chemotherapy and surgery for non-small cell lung cancer patients
with a synchronous solitary metastasis. Lung Cancer 2002; 38: 193–197.
291. De Ruysscher D, Wanders R, van Baardwijk A et al. Radical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer patients with
synchronous oligometastases: long-term results of a prospective phase II trial (Nct01282450). J Thorac Oncol 2012; 7: 1547–
1555.
292. Gomez DR, Blumenschein GR Jr, Lee JJ et al. Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation
for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: a multicentre,
randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 1672–1682.
293. David EA, Clark JM, Cooke DT et al. The role of thoracic surgery in the therapeutic management of metastatic non-small
cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12: 1636–1645.
294. Kimura M, Tojo T, Naito H et al. Effects of a simple intraoperative intrathoracic hyperthermotherapy for lung cancer with
malignant pleural effusion or dissemination. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010; 10: 568–571.
295. Wolf AS, Flores RM. Extrapleural pneumonectomy for pleural malignancies. Thorac Surg Clin 2014; 24: 471–475.
296. Shaw P, Agarwal R. Pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; CD002916.
297. Dresler CM, Olak J, Herndon JE II et al. Phase III intergroup study of talc poudrage vs talc slurry sclerosis for malignant
pleural effusion. Chest 2005; 127: 909–915.
298. Davies HE, Mishra EK, Kahan BC et al. Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for
relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012; 307: 2383–
2389.
299. Pilling JE, Dusmet ME, Ladas G, Goldstraw P. Prognostic factors for survival after surgical palliation of malignant pleural
effusion. J Thorac Oncol 2010; 5: 1544–1550.
300. Van Breussegem A, Hendriks JM, Lauwers P, Van Schil PE. Salvage surgery after high-dose radiotherapy. J Thorac Dis
2017; 9(Suppl 3): S193–S200.
301. Duchateau N, Van Bouwel E, Van Schil PE. Salvage operation in case of oligometastatic disease. Ann Thorac Surg
2017; 103: e409–e411.
302. David EA, Andersen SW, Beckett LA et al. A model to predict the use of surgical resection for advanced-stage non-small
cell lung cancer patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104: 1665–1672.
303. Ashworth AB, Senan S, Palma DA et al. An individual patient data metaanalysis of outcomes and prognostic factors after
treatment of oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2014; 15: 346–355.
304. Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR. Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 8–10.
305. Palma DA, Salama JK, Lo SS et al. The oligometastatic state – separating truth from wishful thinking. Nat Rev Clin Oncol
2014; 11: 549–557.
306. Detterbeck FC, Franklin WA, Nicholson AG et al. The IASLC lung cancer staging project: background data and proposed
criteria to distinguish separate primary lung cancers from metastatic foci in patients with two lung tumors in the forthcoming
eighth edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 651–665.
307. Kozower BD, Larner JM, Detterbeck FC, Jones DR. Special treatment issues in non-small cell lung cancer: diagnosis and
management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest
2013; 143(5 Suppl): e369S–e399S.

308. Tonnies M, Pfannschmidt J, Bauer TT et al. Metastasectomy for synchronous solitary non-small cell lung cancer
metastases. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 249–256.
309. Griffioen GH, Lagerwaard FJ, Haasbeek CJ et al. Treatment of multiple primary lung cancers using stereotactic
radiotherapy, either with or without surgery. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107: 403–408.
310. Chang JY, Liu YH, Zhu Z et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy: a potentially curable approach to early stage multiple
primary lung cancer. Cancer 2013; 119: 3402–3410.
311. Collen C, Christian N, Schallier D et al. Phase II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy to primary tumor and metastatic
locations in oligometastatic nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1954–1959.
312. Iyengar P, Wardak Z, Gerber DE et al. Consolidative radiotherapy for limited metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a
phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: e173501.
313. deSouza NM, Liu Y, Chiti A et al. Strategies and technical challenges for imaging oligometastatic disease:
recommendations from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer imaging group. Eur J Cancer 2018;
91: 153–163.
314. Chow E, Zeng L, Salvo N et al. Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases. Clin
Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012; 24: 112–124.
315. SzeWM, Shelley M, Held I, Mason M. Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction
radiotherapy—a systematic review of the randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; CD004721.
316. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian NS et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in the treatment of
skeletal metastases in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma and other solid tumors: a randomized, Phase III, double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial. Cancer 2004; 100: 2613–2621.
317. Henry DH, Costa L, Goldwasser F et al. Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the
treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma. J
Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 1125–1132.
318. Scagliotti GV, Hirsh V, Siena S et al. Overall survival improvement in patients with lung cancer and bone metastases
treated with denosumab versus zoledronic acid: subgroup analysis from a randomized phase 3 study. J Thorac Oncol 2012; 7:
1823–1829.
319. Henry D, Vadhan-Raj S, Hirsh V et al. Delaying skeletal-related events in a randomized phase 3 study of denosumab
versus zoledronic acid in patients with advanced cancer: an analysis of data from patients with solid tumors. Support Care
Cancer 2014; 22: 679–687.
320. Temel JS, Greer JA, El-Jawahri A et al. Effects of early integrated palliative care in patients with lung and GI cancer: a
randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 834–841.
321. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N
Engl JMed 2010; 363: 733–742.
322. Cherny NI, Dafni U, Bogaerts J et al. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 2340–
2366.
323. Horn L, Spigel DR, Vokes EE et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-
cell lung cancer: two-year outcomes from two randomized, open-label, phase III trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057). J
Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 3924–3933.
234. Dykewicz CA. Summary of the guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections among hematopoietic stem cell
transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 139–144.

Table 1. A personalised medicine synopsis table for metastatic NSCLC
Biomarker Method Use LoE,

GoR
EGFR mutation Any appropriate, validated To select those patients I, A
method, subject to external with EGFR-sensitising
quality assurance mutations most likely to
respond to EGFR TKI
therapy
ALK Any appropriate, validated To select those patients I, A
rearrangement method, subject to external with ALK gene
quality assurance. FISH is rearrangements most likely
the historical standard but to respond to ALK TKI
IHC is now becoming the therapy
primary therapy-determining
test, provided the method is
validated against FISH or
some other orthogonal test
approach. NGS is an
emerging technology
ROS1 FISH is the trial-validated To select those patients II, A
rearrangement standard. IHC may be used with ROS1 gene
to select patients for rearrangements most likely
confirmatory FISH testing to respond to ROS1 TKI
but currently lacks therapy
specificity. NGS is an
emerging technology.
External quality assurance
is essential
BRAF mutation Any appropriate, validated To select those patients II, A
method, subject to external with BRAF V600-
quality sensitising
assurance mutations most likely to
respond to BRAF inhibitor,
with or without MEK
inhibitor therapy
PD-L1 expression IHC to identify PD-L1 To enrich for those I, A
expression at the patients more likely to
appropriate level and on the benefit from anti-PD-1 or
appropriate cell anti-PD-L1 therapy. For
population(s) as determined pembrolizumab, testing is
by the intended drug and a companion diagnostic for
line of therapy. Only specific nivolumab and
trial assays are validated. atezolizumab, testing is
Internal and external quality complementary
assurance are essential
ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; FISH, fluorescent in situ hybridisation; GoR,
grade of recommendation; IHC, immunohistochemistry; LoE, level of evidence; MEK, mitogen-activated protein kinase
kinase; NGS, next-generation sequencing; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1;
PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Table 2. Clinical classification UICC TNM 8 [79]
Primary tumour (T)

TX Primary tumour cannot be assessed, or tumour proven by the presence of
malignant cells in sputum or bronchial washings but not visualised by imaging or
bronchoscopy
T0 No evidence of primary tumour
Tis Carcinoma in situa
T1 Tumour 3 cm or less in greatest dimension, surrounded by lung or visceral
pleura, without bronchoscopic evidence of invasion more proximal than the
lobar bronchus (i.e. not in the main bronchus)b
T1mi Minimally invasive adenocarcinomac
T1a Tumour 1 cm or less in greatest dimensionb
T1b Tumour more than 1 cm but not more than 2 cm in greatest dimension b
T1c Tumour more than 2 cm but not more than 3 cm in greatest dimension b
T2 Tumour more than 3 cm but not more than 5 cm; or tumour with any of the
following featuresd
-Involves main bronchus regardless of distance to the carina, but without
involvement of the carina
-Invades visceral pleura
-Associated with atelectasis or obstructive pneumonitis that extends to the hilar
region either involving part of or the entire lung
T2a Tumour more than 3 cm but not more than 4 cm in greatest dimension
T2b Tumour more than 4 cm but not more than 5 cm in greatest dimension
T3 Tumour more than 5 cm but not more than 7 cm in greatest dimension or one
that directly invades any of the following: parietal pleura, chest wall (including
superior sulcus tumours) phrenic nerve, parietal pericardium; or separate
tumour nodule(s) in the same lobe as the primary
T4 Tumour more than 7 cm or of any size that invades any of the following:
diaphragm, mediastinum, heart, great vessels, trachea, recurrent laryngeal
nerve, oesophagus, vertebral body, carina; separate tumour nodule(s) in a
different ipsilateral lobe to that of the primary
Regional lymph nodes (N)
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0 No regional lymph node metastases
N1 Metastasis in ipsilateral peribronchial and/or ipsilateral hilar lymph nodes and
intrapulmonary nodes, including involvement by direct extension
N2 Metastasis in ipsilateral mediastinal and/or subcarinal lymph node(s)
N3 Metastasis in contralateral mediastinal, contralateral hilar, ipsilateral or
contralateral scalene, or supraclavicular lymph node(s)
Distant metastasis (M)
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis
M1a Separate tumour nodule(s) in a contralateral lobe; tumour with pleural or
pericardial nodules or malignant pleural or pericardial effusion e
M1b Single extrathoracic metastasis in a single organf
M1c Multiple extrathoracic metastasis in a single or multiple organs
aTis
includes adenocarcinoma in situ and squamous carcinoma in situ.
bTheuncommon superficial spreading tumour of any size with its invasive component limited to the bronchial wall, which
may extend proximal to the main bronchus, is also classified as T1a.

cSolitary adenocarcinoma (not more than 3 cm in greatest dimension), with a predominantly lepidic pattern and not more
than 5 mm invasion in greatest dimension in any one focus.
dT2 tumours with these features are classified T2a if 4 cm or less, or if size cannot be determined and T2b if greater than
4 cm but not larger than 5 cm.

eMost pleural (pericardial) effusions with lung cancer are due to tumour. In a few patients, however, multiple microscopic
examinations of pleural (pericardial) fluid are negative for tumour, and the fluid is non-bloody and is not an exudate.
Where these elements and clinical judgment dictate that the effusion is not related to the tumour, the effusion should be
excluded as a staging descriptor.
fThis includes involvement of a single non-regional node.
TNM, tumour, node and metastasis; UICC, Union for International Cancer Control.
Reprinted from [79] with permission from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Table 3. Staging and stage grouping UICC TNM 8 [79]
Occult carcinoma TX N0 M0
Stage 0 Tis N0 M0
Stage IA T1 N0 M0
Stage IA1 T1mi N0 M0
T1a N0 M0
Stage IA2 T1b N0 M0
Stage IA3 T1c N0 M0
Stage IB T2a N0 M0
Stage IIA T2b N0 M0
Stage IIB T1a-c T2a,b N1 M0
T3 N0 M0
Stage IIIA T1a-c T2a,b N2 M0
T3 N1 M0
T4 N0, N1 M0
Stage IIIB T1a-c T2a,b N3 M0
T3, T4 N2 M0
Stage IIIC T3, T4 N3 M0
Stage IV Any T Any N M1
Stage IVA Any T Any N M1a, M1b
Stage IVB Any T Any N M1c
TNM, tumour, node and metastasis; UICC, Union for International Cancer Control.
Reprinted from [79] with permission from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Table 4. Summary of recommendations
Diagnosis
• Bronchoscopy is a technique ideally suited to central lesions and can be used with bronchial washing, brushing,
bronchial and transbronchial biopsy
• EBUS and/or EUS allows evaluation of regional lymph nodes
• Transthoracic fine needle aspiration and/or core biopsy, passing a needle through the parenchyma under
imaging guidance (typically CT), is indicated in case of mid to peripheral lesions
• In presence of a pleural effusion, thoracentesis could represent both a diagnostic tool and a palliative treatment
• More invasive, surgical approaches (mediastinoscopy, mediastinotomy, thoracoscopy etc.) in the diagnostic
workup can be considered when the previously described techniques cannot allow for an accurate diagnosis
• With systematic collaboration and constant communication between pathologists and procedure performers,
diagnostic yields will be significantly greater than with blind biopsies
Pathology/molecular biology
• Adequate tissue material for histological diagnosis and molecular testing should be obtained to allow for
individual treatment decisions
• Pathological diagnosis should be made according to the 2015 WHO classification of lung tumours
• Specific subtyping of all NSCLCs is necessary for therapeutic decision making and should be carried out
wherever possible. IHC stains should be used to reduce the NSCLC-NOS rate to fewer than 10% of cases
diagnosed [IV, A]
• EGFR mutation status should be systematically analysed in advanced NSCC [I, A]. Test methodology should
have adequate coverage of mutations in exons 18–21, including those associated with resistance to some
therapies [III, B]. At a minimum, when resources or material are limited, the most common activating mutations
(exon 19 deletion, exon 21 L858R point mutation) should be determined [I, A]
• The availability of TKIs effective against T790M-mutant recurrent disease makes T790M testing on disease
relapse mandatory [I, A]
• All patients with a negative cfDNA blood test still require tissue biopsy [II, A]
• Testing for ALK rearrangement should be systematically carried out in advanced non-squamous NSCLC [I, A]
• Detection of the ALK translocation by FISH remains a standard, but IHC with high-performance ALK antibodies
and validated assays may be used for screening [III, A] and have recently been accepted as an equivalent
alternative to FISH for ALK testing
• Testing for ROS1 rearrangement should be systematically carried out in advanced NSCLC [III, A]. Detection of
the ROS1 translocation by FISH remains a standard; IHC may be used as a screening approach [IV, A]
• BRAF V600 mutation status should be systematically analysed in advanced NSCLC for the prescription of
BRAF/MEK inhibitors [II, A]
• Molecular EGFR and ALK testing are not recommended in patients with a confident diagnosis of SCC, except in
unusual cases, e.g. never/former light smokers or long-time ex-smokers [IV, A]
• If available, multiplex platforms (NGS) for molecular testing are preferable [III, A]. Whatever testing modality is
used, it is mandatory that adequate internal validation and quality control measures are in place and that
laboratories participate in, and perform adequately in, external quality assurance schemes for each biomarker
test [III, A]
• PD-L1 IHC should be systematically determined in advanced NSCLC [I, A]
• Testing is required for pembrolizumab therapy but may also be informative when nivolumab or atezolizumab are
used [I, A]
Staging and risk assessment

• A complete history including a precise smoking history and comorbidities, weight loss, PS and physical
examination must be recorded
• Laboratory: standard tests including routine haematology, renal and hepatic functions and bone biochemistry
tests are required
• Routine use of serum tumour markers, such as CEA, is not recommended [IV, B]
• Contrast-enhanced CT scan of the chest and upper abdomen including the liver and the adrenal glands should
be carried out at diagnosis
• Imaging of CNS should be considered at diagnosis for all patients with metastatic disease [IV, B] and is required
for patients with neurological symptoms or signs [IV, A]. MRI is more sensitive than CT scan [III, B]
• If bone metastases are clinically suspected, bone imaging is required [IV, B]

• Bone scan or PET, ideally coupled with CT, can be used for detection of bone metastasis [IV, B]. PET-CT is the
most sensitive modality in detecting bone metastasis [II, B]
• NSCLC is staged according to the UICC system (8th edition) and is grouped into the stage categories shown in
Tables 2 and 3
• In the presence of a solitary metastatic site on imaging studies, efforts should be made to obtain a cytological or
histological confirmation of stage IV disease [IV, A]
• Response evaluation is recommended after 2–3 cycles of ChT or immunotherapy, using the same initial
radiographic investigation that demonstrated tumour lesions [IV, B]. The same procedure and timing (every 6–9
weeks) should be applied for the response evaluation in patients treated with targeted therapies and/or
immunotherapy [IV, B]. Follow-up with PET is not routinely recommended, due to its high sensitivity and
relatively low specificity [IV, C]
• Measurements and response assessment should follow RECIST v1.1 [IV, A]. The adequacy of RECIST in
evaluating the response to EGFR or ALK TKI in respective genetically driven NSCLC is debatable [IV, B]
• In the case of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, RECIST should be used, although irRECIST, iRECIST,
imRECIST may have a role in the overall assessment of therapy [IV, B]
Management of advanced/metastatic disease

• The treatment strategy should consider the histology, molecular pathology, age, PS, comorbidities and the
patient’s preferences
• Systemic therapy should be offered to all stage IV patients with PS 0–2 [I, A]
• In any stage of NSCLC, smoking cessation should be highly encouraged, because it improves the outcome [II,
A]
First-line treatment of EGFR- and ALK-negative NSCLC, PD-L1 ≥ 50%

• Pembrolizumab is considered a standard first-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1
expression ≥ 50% who do not have contraindications to use of immunotherapy [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5]
First-line treatment of NSCLC without actionable oncogenic driver regardless of PD-L1 status
• ChT with platinum doublets should be considered in all stage IV NSCLC patients without an actionable
oncogenic driver, without major comorbidities and PS 0–2 [I, A]
• Platinum-based doublets are the recommended ChT option in all stage IV NSCLC patients with no
contraindications to platinum compounds [I, A]
• Four cycles of platinum-based doublets followed by less toxic maintenance monotherapy [I, A], or 4 cycles in
patients not suitable for maintenance monotherapy [I, A], up to a maximum of 6 [IV, B], is currently
recommended
• The carboplatin/nab-P regimen could be considered a chemotherapeutic option in advanced NSCLC patients,
particularly in patients with greater risk of neurotoxicity, pre-existing hypersensitivity to paclitaxel or
contraindications for standard paclitaxel premedication [I, B]
• Combinations of platinum-based ChT and anti-PD-(L1) inhibitors have reproducibly demonstrated superiority to
standard platinum-based ChT. In the absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and
accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based ChT, this strategy will be preferred to platinum-
based ChT in patients with PS 0-1 and PD-L1 < 50%
• Nivolumab plus ipilimumab represents an optional treatment regimen for patients with NSCLC with a high TMB
[I, A; not EMA-approved]
First-line treatment of SCC

• Platinum-based doublets with a third-generation cytotoxic agent (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes) are
recommended in advanced SCC patients without major comorbidities and PS 0–2 [I, A]
• The addition of necitumumab to cisplatin/gemcitabine has not been adopted as a standard in Europe for
advanced SCC and its use should be carefully evaluated [I, C; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 1]
• Combination of pembrolizumab and carboplatin with paclitaxel or nab-P is a standard choice in patients with
metastatic squamous NSCLC [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4]
• The use of atezolizumab with carboplatin and nab-P today represents an option in patients with metastatic
squamous NSCLC [I, B; not EMA-approved]
• Other combinations of platinum-based ChT and anti-PD-(L1) inhibitors will demonstrate superiority to standard
platinum-based ChT. In the absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and accessibility of

anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based ChT, this strategy should be preferred to platinum-based ChT in
patients with PS 0-1 and PD-L1 < 50%
• Nivolumab plus ipilimumab represents an optional treatment regimen for patients with SCC with a high TMB [I,
A; not EMA-approved]
First-line treatment of NSCC

• Pemetrexed-based combination ChT is preferred to gemcitabine- or docetaxel-based combinations in patients
with non-squamous tumours [II, A]
• Pemetrexed use is restricted to NSCC in any line of treatment in advanced disease [II, A]
• The combination of carboplatin with pemetrexed can be an option in patients with a contraindication to cisplatin
[II, B]
• Pembrolizumab in combination with pemetrexed and a platinum-based ChT should be considered a standard
option in metastatic non-squamous NSCLC [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4]
• Atezolizumab in combination with pemetrexed and a platinum-based ChT is a therapeutic option in metastatic
non-squamous NSCLC [I, B; not EMA-approved]
• Combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab with carboplatin and paclitaxel is a therapeutic option in patients
with PS 0-1 with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, in the absence of contraindications to use of immunotherapy
[I, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 3], and more specifically [III, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 3] for EGFR and [III, B; MCBS v1.1
score: 3] for ALK-exploratory subgroups
• Combination of atezolizumab and carboplatin/nab-P followed by maintenance atezolizumab represents a new
standard treatment opportunity [I, A; MCBS v1.1 score: 3]
• Other combinations of platinum-based ChT and anti-PD-(L1) inhibitors will demonstrate superiority to standard
platinum-based ChT. In the absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and accessibility of
anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based ChT, this strategy should be preferred to platinum-based ChT in
patients with PS 0-1 and PD-L1 < 50%
• Nivolumab plus ipilimumab represents an optional treatment regimen for patients with NSCC with a high TMB [I,
A; not EMA-approved]
• If PD-(L)1 is not available for ChT combinations, bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel/carboplatin may be
offered in the absence of contraindications in patients with advanced NSCC and PS 0-1 (bevacizumab should be
given until progression) [I, A]
• Bevacizumab might be considered with platinum-based regimens beyond paclitaxel/carboplatin in absence of
contraindications [II, B]
Maintenance
• Maintenance ChT should be offered only to patients with PS 0–1 after first-line ChT. Decisions about
maintenance should consider histology, response to platinum-doublet ChT and remaining toxicity after first-line
ChT, PS and patient’s preference
• In patients with NSCC and PS 0–1, pemetrexed switch maintenance should be considered in patients having
disease control following 4 cycles of non-pemetrexed-containing platinum-based ChT [I, B]
• Pemetrexed continuation maintenance should be considered in patients having disease control following 4
cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed [I, A]
• Continuation maintenance with gemcitabine is an option in NSCLC patients treated with 4 cycles of
cisplatin/gemcitabine [I, C]
• Maintenance treatment with erlotinib is only recommended for NSCC patients with an EGFR-sensitising mutation
[III, B]
PS 2 and beyond
• ChT prolongs survival and improves QoL in NSCLC patients with PS 2 when compared with BSC [I, A]
• Platinum-based (preferably carboplatin) combination ChT should be considered in eligible PS 2 patients [I, A]
Single-agent ChT with gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel [I, B] or pemetrexed (restricted to NSCC) [II, B] is an
alternative treatment option
• The use of checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced NSCLC and PS 2 can be considered [III, B]
• Poor PS (3–4) patients should be treated with BSC only in the absence of molecularly targetable alterations,
such as EGFR mutations, ALK or ROS1 rearrangements or BRAF V600 mutation [III, B]

Elderly patients
• Immunotherapy should be considered according to standard recommendations in elderly patients [III, A]
• Carboplatin-based doublet ChT is recommended in eligible elderly patients with PS 0–2 and with adequate
organ function [I, A]
• For those patients not eligible for doublet ChT, single-agent ChT remains the standard of care [I, B]
Second-line treatment of NSCLC without actionable oncogenic driver

• Patients clinically or radiologically progressing after first-line therapy with PS 0–2 should be offered second-line
therapy irrespective of administration of maintenance treatment [I, A]
• In patients with progression after first-line immunotherapy with pembrolizumab, platinum-based ChT is
recommended as second-line treatment option [V, B]
• There is a general trend across each of the phase III studies in second-line (nivolumab, pembrolizumab and
atezolizumab versus docetaxel) for enriched efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in patients with higher PD-L1
expression compared with those with no/less PD-L1 expression. However, unselected patients may still have
improved survival and tolerability with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents compared with docetaxel [I, A]
• PD-L1 and PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab) are the treatment of choice for most
patients with advanced, previously treated, PD-L1-naive NSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 expression [I, A]
• Nivolumab is recommended in both squamous [I, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 5] and non-squamous NSCLC [I,
A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 5]
• Pembrolizumab is recommended in patients with previously treated NSCLC with PD-L1 expression > 1% [I, A;
ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5]
• Atezolizumab is recommended in patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one or two prior lines of
ChT [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 5]
• In patients not suitable for immunotherapy, second-line ChT is recommended. Comparable options as second-
line therapy consist of pemetrexed, for NSCC only, or docetaxel, with a more favourable tolerability profile for
pemetrexed [I, B]
• Treatment may be prolonged if disease is controlled and toxicity acceptable [II, B]
• Nintedanib/docetaxel is a treatment option in patients with adenocarcinoma progressing after previous ChT or
immunotherapy [II, B]
• Ramucirumab/docetaxel is a treatment option in patients with NSCLC progressing after first-line ChT or
immunotherapy with PS 0–2 [I, B]
• Combination of paclitaxel and bevacizumab is another treatment option [I, C] but it is not EMA-approved
• Erlotinib represents a potential second/third-line treatment option in particular for patients not suitable for
immunotherapy or second-line ChT in unknown EGFR status or EGFR WT tumours [II, C]
• In patients with advanced SCC with PS 0–2 unfit for ChT or immunotherapy, afatinib is a potential option with
unknown EGFR status or EGFR WT patients [I, C; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 2]
First-line treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC

• Patients with a tumour with a sensitising EGFR mutation should receive first-line EGFR TKIs including erlotinib,
gefitinib or afatinib [I, A], or dacomitinib [I, B; MCBS v1.1 score: 3]. None of the four EGFR TKIs is consensually
considered as a preferred option [IV, C]
• First-line osimertinib is now considered one of the options for patients with a tumour with sensitising EGFR
mutations [I, A; MBCS score v1.1 score: 4]
• All patients should be considered for EGFR TKIs irrespective of clinical parameters, including PS, gender,
tobacco exposure, histology and line of therapy [I, A]
• Erlotinib/bevacizumab represents a front-line treatment option in patients with EGFR-mutated tumours [II, B;
ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 3]
• Ramucirumab with erlotinib is associated with longer PFS compared with erlotinib and placebo at the first
interim analysis but data are still immature [II, B; not EMA-approved]
• Addition of carboplatin and pemetrexed to gefitinib represents a first-line option in patients with EGFR-mutated
tumours [I, B; not EMA-approved]
• Patients who have radiological progression with ongoing clinical benefit may continue with EGFR TKI [II, A]
• In EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients with localised distant progression and ongoing systemic control, continuation
of treatment with EGFR TKI in combination with local treatment of progressing metastatic sites may be
considered [III, B]

Second-line treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC

• EGFR TKI should be stopped at the time when patient starts ChT for treatment of TKI resistance [I, A]
• All tumours with clinical evidence of EGFR TKI resistance, not previously treated with osimertinib, should be
tested for presence of EGFR exon 20 T790M mutation [I, A]
• Liquid biopsy can be used as the initial test for detection of T790M mutation, and if tested negative, re-biopsy
should be attempted if feasible [II, A]
• Osimertinib is the standard therapy for patients whose tumours are tested positive for T790M either in liquid
biopsy or re-biopsy, if not received previously [I, A; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4]
• In EGFR-mutated NSCLC with CNS disease, osimertinib is highly active
• Platinum-based doublet is the standard therapy for patients whose tumour is tested T790M negative in either re-
biopsy or in liquid biopsy (only when re-biopsy is not feasible) [I, A]
• Combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab with carboplatin and paclitaxel should be considered as a
therapeutic option in patients with EGFR-mutated tumour, PS 0–1, in absence of contraindications to use of
immunotherapy after targeted therapies have been exploited [III, A; not EMA-approved]
First-line treatment of ALK-rearranged NSCLC

• Patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC should receive first-line ALK TKI including crizotinib [I, A; ESMO-MBCS
v1.1 score: 4], ceritinib [I, B; ESMO-MCBS v1.1 score: 4], alectinib [I, A] or brigatinib [I, B; not EMA-approved]
• Alectinib is associated with longer PFS and lower toxicity than crizotinib and showed activity against CNS
disease in patients previously untreated with ALK-positive NSCLC [I, A]
• Brigatinib is associated with longer PFS than crizotinib at the first interim analysis and showed activity against
CNS disease in previously untreated patients with ALK-positive NSCLC [I, B; not EMA-approved]
• In patients with CNS involvement, front-line use of ALK TKIs is effective, and alectinib [III, A], brigatinib [III, B] or
ceritinib [IV, B] are recommended. Ceritinib represents a better treatment strategy than ChT [I, B] and
presumably crizotinib [IV, B]; alectinib represents a better treatment option than crizotinib [I, A]; brigatinib
represents a better treatment option than crizotinib [I, B; not EMA-approved]
• In ALK-rearranged NSCLC patients with localised distant progression and ongoing systemic control, continuation
of treatment with ALK TKI in combination with local treatment of progressing metastatic sites may be considered
[III, B]
Second and further lines of treatment of ALK-rearranged NSCLC

• Any patient with NSCLC harbouring an ALK fusion should receive a new generation ALK TKI as next-line
therapy, if not received previously [I, A]
• Ceritinib and alectinib are recommended in patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC who progress on
treatment with or are intolerant to crizotinib [I, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 4]
• Brigatinib represents an additional treatment option at crizotinib resistance [III, A; MCBS score v1.1 score: 3]
• Lorlatinib shows efficacy among patients with ALK mutations at crizotinib resistance [III, A; MCBS score v1.1
score: 3]
• In patients with ALK-positive NSCLC progressing on crizotinib with CNS progression, treatment should be a
next-generation ALK TKIs [II, A]
• In patients who progress after a second-generation ALK TKI, the next-generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib is a
option if available [III, A; MCBS score v1.1 score: 3]
Treatment of ROS1-rearranged NSCLC

• Crizotinib is recommended in the first-line setting in patients with stage IV NSCLC with ROS1 rearrangement [III,
A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 3]
• In patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC, who have not received crizotinib in the first-line setting, single-agent
crizotinib may be offered as second-line therapy [III, A]
• Ceritinib might be considered in crizotinib-naive patients but is currently not approved by the EMA [III, C]
• If patients have received crizotinib in the first-line setting, then they may be offered platinum-based ChT therapy
in the second-line setting [IV, A], or preferably inclusion in clinical trials using new generation inhibitors
Treatment of BRAF-mutated NSCLC

• Patients with stage IV NSCLC with BRAF V600 mutation should be exposed in first or second line to BRAF/MEK
inhibition using dabrafenib/trametinib [III, A; ESMO-MBCS v1.1 score: 2]

• If patients have received BRAF/MEK inhibition in the first-line setting, then they may be offered platinum-based
ChT in the second-line setting [IV, A]
Patients with NSCLC with other actionable oncogenic driver

• Targeting RET is not currently routinely recommended and recruitment into open trials is encouraged [III, C]
• Targeting MET amplification is not currently routinely recommended and recruitment into open trials is
encouraged [III, C]
• Targeting METex14 variants (while evidence of benefit is stronger) is not currently routinely recommended and
recruitment into open trials is encouraged [III, C]
• Crizotinib has demonstrated potential clinical efficacy for METex14 variant NSCLC that needs to be confirmed
[III, C]
• Given the paucity of robust data, targeting HER2 dysregulation is not currently recommended and recruitment
into open trials is encouraged [III, C]
• Targeting NRTK fusions is not currently recommended and recruitment into open trials is encouraged [III, C]
Role of RT in stage IV
• EBRT is indicated in cases of haemoptysis and symptomatic airway obstruction [III, B]
• RT can achieve symptom control for a variety of clinical scenarios including haemoptysis, symptomatic airway
obstruction, painful chest wall disease and bone metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, soft tissue or neural
invasion [II, B]
• Administration of high-dose RT does not result in greater levels of palliation [II, B]
• EBRT alone is more effective for palliation than EBB alone [II, B]
• For patients previously treated by EBRT who are symptomatic from recurrent endobronchial central obstruction,
EBB may be considered in selected cases [III, C]
• Neurological symptoms from spinal cord compression can be relieved by early RT [II, B]
Brain metastases
• WBRT can be considered in selected patients, contingent on prognostic factors of better survival [III, C]. WBRT
should not be offered in RPA class III patients in view of the dismal prognosis [I, A]; only BSC is recommended
• The most frequent WBRT schedules are 20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions, with no difference in
outcome [I, A]
• For most patients with symptomatic brain metastases and/or significant oedema, dexamethasone or equivalent
corticosteroid is recommended [III, A]
• Neuroprotective agents are not recommended for routine use [II, C]
• Hippocampus avoidance WBRT is not currently recommended as a standard treatment [III, C]
• In case of single brain metastases surgical resection can be considered [III, B]
• Postoperative WBRT or SRS is recommended after surgical resection [I, A]
• In the case of a limited number of metastasis, SRS alone is the recommended treatment in patients with RPA
class I–II [III, B]
• SRS alone, without WBRT but with close MRI brain imaging follow-up, is an alternative strategy [III, B]
• The indication for SRS is based on total tumour volume rather than numbers of metastases, as the risk of
radionecrosis increases with tumour volume [III, C]
• In patients with asymptomatically detected CNS metastases at presentation, systemic therapy with deferred RT
should be considered due to similar intracranial and extracranial response [II, B]
• In patients with an actionable oncogenic driver (e.g. EGFR, ALK) and clinically asymptomatic brain metastases,
next-generation TKIs may restore control of brain disease and delay cranial RT [II, A]
• There is currently limited trial data demonstrating safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with small-
volume untreated CNS metastases [III, B]
LM carcinomatosis
• A high index of suspicion should be borne for LM involvement especially in patients with actionable oncogenic
drivers having TKI treatment [V]. CSF sampling is diagnostic of LMD but limited by low sensitivity, albeit with
high specificity [IV, A]
• Patients with actionable oncogenic drivers and LMD can be treated with CNS-penetrant next-generation TKIs [III,
B]

• ChT and bevacizumab may have activity both extracranially and intracranially, and also in the context of LMD
[IV, C]
• Intra-CSF pharmacotherapy can be considered contingent on clinical factors [V, C]
• In exceptional cases, focal RT can be considered for circumscribed, notably symptomatic, lesions [V, C]
Surgery in stage IV
• Surgery may be indicated for diagnosis, evaluation of response to systemic therapy and palliation
• Highly selected patients may be considered for lung resection with therapeutic intent or even for a salvage
procedure [IV, C]
• When metastatic disease is suspected on PET scanning, invasive surgical procedures such as incisional
biopsies, mediastinoscopy, thoracoscopy (VATS) or laparoscopy may be required to obtain relevant biopsy
samples. Adequate samples should be provided to the pathologist for detailed routine staining, IHC and
molecular genetic testing [III, B]
• Persisting or recurrent pleural effusions are usually managed by pleurodesis to improve dyspnoea. Talc is the
preferred agent and thoracoscopic poudrage may be better than injection of talc slurry in patients with primary
lung cancer [II, B]
• In case of a trapped lung by a thickened visceral pleural peel, indwelling pleural catheters or pleuroperitoneal
shunts provide symptomatic relief [IV, B]
Treatment of oligometastatic disease

• Stage IV patients with one to three synchronous metastases at diagnosis may experience long-term DFS
following systemic therapy and local consolidative therapy (high-dose RT or surgery) [III, B]. Because of the
limited evidence, these patients should be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumour board [II, B], and inclusion
in clinical trials is preferred
• Although operative risk is low and long-term survival may be achieved, current evidence for surgery in
oligometastatic disease is limited, and the relative contribution of surgery versus RT as local treatment modality
has not been established yet
• Stage IV patients with limited metachronous metastases may be treated with a radical local therapy (high-dose
RT or surgery) and may experience long-term DFS [IV, B]. However, this is based mainly on retrospective data
and inclusion in clinical trials is preferred
• Stage IV patients with driver mutations, with oligoprogression while on molecular-targeted therapy, may be
treated with a radical local treatment (high-dose RT or surgery) and may experience long-term DFS [IV, C].
However, this is based mainly on retrospective data and inclusion in clinical trials is preferred
• Solitary lesions in the contralateral lung should, in most cases, be considered as synchronous secondary
primary tumours and, if possible, treated with curative-intent therapy [IV, B]
Bone metastases
• Zoledronic acid reduces SREs (pathological fracture, radiation/surgery to bone or spinal cord compression) [II, B]
and is recommended in stage IV bone metastatic disease [I, B]
• Denosumab shows a trend towards superiority to zoledronic acid in lung cancer in terms of SRE prevention [II,
B] and is recommended in selected patients with advanced lung cancer with bone metastases [I, B]
• In the case of uncomplicated painful bone metastases, single fraction EBRT is the recommended treatment on
the basis of non-inferiority to multiple fraction RT [I, A]
Role of minimally invasive procedures in stage IV NSCLC

• In case of symptomatic major airways obstruction or post-obstructive infection, endoscopy debulking by laser,
cryotherapy or stent placement may be helpful [III, C]
• Endoscopy is useful in the diagnosis and treatment (endobronchial or by guiding endovascular embolisation) of
haemoptysis [III, C]
• Vascular stenting might be useful in NSCLC-related superior vena cava compression [III, B]
Palliative care in stage IV NSCLC

• Early palliative care intervention is recommended, in parallel with standard oncological care [I, A]

Follow-up
• Close follow-up, at least every 6–12 weeks after first-line therapy, is advised to allow for early initiation of
second-line therapy but should depend on individual retreatment options [III, B]
ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; BSC, best supportive care; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; cfDNA, cell-free DNA; ChT, chemotherapy;
CNS, central nervous system; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; CT, computed tomography; DFS, disease-free survival; EBB, endobronchial
brachytherapy; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; EBUS, endobronchial ultrasound; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; EMA,
European Medicines Agency; ESMO-MCBS, European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; EUS,
endoscopic ultrasound; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; FISH, fluorescent in situ hybridisation; HER2, human epidermal growth factor
receptor 2; IHC, immunohistochemistry; imRECIST, immune-modified RECIST; iRECIST, immune RECIST; irRECIST, immune-related
RECIST; LM, leptomeningeal; LMD, leptomeningeal disease; MEK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging;
nab-P, albumin-bound paclitaxel; nab-PC, albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin; NGS, next-generation sequencing; NSCC, non-squamous
cell carcinoma; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; NSCLC-NOS, non-small cell lung cancer-not otherwise specified; PD-1, programmed
cell death protein 1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PET, positron emission tomography; PFS, progression-free survival; PS,
performance status; QoL, quality of life; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours; RPA, recursive partitioning analysis; RT,
radiotherapy; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; SRE, skeletal-related event; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor;
TMB, tumour mutational burden; UICC, Union for International Cancer Control; VATS, video-assisted thorascopic surgery; WBRT, whole-
brain radiotherapy; WHO, World Health Organization; WT, wild-type.

Table 5. ESMO-MCBS table for new therapies/indications in NSCLCa
Therapy Disease setting Trial Control Absolute HR (95% CI) QoL/toxicity ESMO-MCBS
survival scoreb
gain
Afatinib, an Advanced Afatinib versus erlotinib as Erlotinib, as second- OS gain: OS: HR for death Similar toxicity profile 2 (Form 2a)
irreversible second-line treatment of line treatment of 1.1 0.81 (0.69–0.95) Improved overall
ErbB family patients with advanced patients with months health-related QoL
blocker squamous cell carcinoma of advanced SCC of
the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an the lung
open-label randomised Control median OS:
controlled phase III trial 6.8 months
[168, 169]
Phase III
NCT01523587
Alectinib, potent Advanced Alectinib versus chemotherapy ChT (pemetrexed or PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.15 (0.08– Improved toxicity 4 (Form 2b)
ALK tyrosine in crizotinib-pretreated ALK- docetaxel) in 8.2 0.29) profile
kinase positive non-small-cell lung previously treated months
inhibitor cancer: results from the ALK-rearranged
phase III (ALUR study) patients
[207] Control PFS
Phase III (investigator
NCT02604342 assessment): 1.4
months
Alectinib, potent Advanced Alectinib versus crizotinib in Crizotinib in Estimated PFS (independent Improved toxicity 4 (Form 2b)
ALK tyrosine untreated ALK-positive untreated, ALK- based review profile
kinase NSCLC (J-ALEX) [202] rearranged on UL committee-
inhibitor Phase III patients PFS assessed): HR
NCT02075840 Control PFS, gain: 0.34 (0.21–0.54)
independent 8.7
review committee- months
assessed: 10.4
months
Atezolizumab, Advanced Atezolizumab versus Docetaxel in OS gain: OS: HR 0.73 (0.62– Improved toxicity 5 (Form 2a)
humanised docetaxel in patients with squamous or non- 4.2 0.87) profile
engineered previously treated NSCLC squamous months
IgG1 (OAK): a phase III, open- patients stage IIIB
monoclonal label, multicentre or IV who had

antibody randomised controlled trial received one to

targeting PD- [149, 149a] two previous
L1 Phase III cytotoxic ChT
NCT02008227 regimens
Control OS: 9.6
months
Atezolizumab Advanced Atezolizumab for first-line Bevacizumab, PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.62 Similar toxicity 3 (Form 2a)
with treatment of metastatic non- paclitaxel and 1.5 (0.52–0.74)
combination squamous NSCLC [97] carboplatin months
chemotherapy Phase III Control PFS: 6.8 OS: HR 0.78 (0.64–
and NCT02366143 months OS gain: 0.96)
bevacizumab Control OS: 14.7 4.5
WT population months months
per primary
endpoint
Atezolizumab Advanced Atezolizumab for first-line Bevacizumab, PFS gain PFS: HR 0.59 (0.37– Similar toxicity 3 (Form 2b)
with treatment of metastatic non- paclitaxel and 3.1 0.94)
combination squamous NSCLC [97a] carboplatin months
chemotherapy Phase III
and NCT02366143 Control PFS: 6.1
bevacizumab months
in EGFR
mutation
Atezolizumab in Advanced Atezolizumab in combination Carboplatin plus PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.64 (0.54– 3 (Form 2a)
combination with carboplatin plus nab- nab-paclitaxel 1.5 0.77)
with paclitaxel chemotherapy months
carboplatin compared with Control PFS: 5.5 OS: HR 0.79 (0.64–
and nab- chemotherapy alone as months OS gain: 0.98)
paclitaxel first-line treatment for 4.7
metastatic non-squamous Control OS: 13.9 months
non-small-cell lung cancer months
(IMpower130): a
multicentre, randomised,
open-label, phase 3 trial
[98a]
Phase III
NCT02367781

Bevacizumab, a Advanced Erlotinib alone or with Erlotinib alone as a PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.54 (0.36– Deteriorated toxicity 3 (Form 2b)
humanised bevacizumab as first-line first-line therapy 6.3 0.79) profile not reaching
anti-VEGF therapy in patients with until disease months the toxicity
monoclonal advanced non-squamous progression or thresholds for
antibody, in NSCLC harbouring EGFR unacceptable penalty
combination mutations (JO25567): an toxicity No improvement in
with erlotinib open-label, randomised, Control median PFS: QoL
multicentre, phase II study 9.7 months
[190]
Phase II
Japan Pharmaceutical
Information Center, number
Japic CTI-111390
Brigatinib Advanced Brigatinib in patients with Single arm ORR: 54% Tolerable toxicity 3 (Form 3)
crizotinib-refractory mPFS (180 mg): DoR: 11.1
anaplastic lymphoma 12.9 months months
kinase–positive non–small- PFS: 12.0
cell lung cancer: a months
randomized, multicenter
phase II trial [209a]
Phase II
NCT02737501
Ceritinib, potent Advanced Ceritinib versus chemotherapy ChT, pemetrexed or PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.49 (0.36– Similar treatment 4 (Form 2b)
and selective in patients with ALK- docetaxel 3.8 0.67) related serious
oral tyrosine rearranged NSCLC (investigator months adverse events
kinase previously given choice), in Improved overall
inhibitor of chemotherapy and crizotinib patients with ALK- health-related QoL
ALK (ASCEND-5): a rearranged stage
randomised, controlled, IIIB or IV
open-label, phase III trial Control PFS: 1.6
[206] months
Phase III
NCT01828112
Ceritinib, potent Advanced First-line ceritinib versus Platinum-based ChT PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.55 (0.42– Delayed deterioration 4 (Form 2b)
and selective platinum-based in untreated 8.5 0.73) in overall health-
oral tyrosine chemotherapy in advanced patients stage months related QoL
kinase ALK-rearranged NSCLC IIIB/IV ALK-
inhibitor of (ASCEND-4): a rearranged non-
ALK

randomised, open-label, squamous

phase III study [200] NSCLC
Phase III Control PFS: 8.1
NCT01828099 months
Crizotinib, a Advanced First-line crizotinib versus Pemetrexed plus PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.45 (0.35– Improved QoL 4 (Form 2b)
small- chemotherapy in ALK- platinum ChT 3.9 0.60)
molecule positive lung cancer [199] Control PFS: 7.0 months
tyrosine Phase III months
kinase NCT01154140
inhibitor of
ALK, ROS1
and MET
Crizotinib, a Advanced Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged Cohort study: 50 72% ORR: 72% (58–84) 3 (Form 3)
small- NSCLC [216] patients (86% had achieve mPFS: 19.2
molecule Phase I (expansion cohort) received at least d an months (14.4–
tyrosine NCT000585195 one previous line) overall NR)
kinase (no control) respons
inhibitor of e
ALK, ROS1
and MET
Dacomitinib Advanced Dacomitinib versus gefitinib Gefitinib PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.59 (0.47– No improvement in 3 (Form 2a)
as first-line treatment for 5.5 0.74) QoL
patients with EGFR- Control PFS: 9.2 months Increased toxicity
mutation-positive non-small- months OS: HR 0.76 (0.58–
cell lung cancer (ARCHER OS gain: 0.99)
1050): a randomised, open- Control OS: 26.8 7.3
label, phase 3 trial [184, months months
185]
Phase III
NCT01774721
Dabrafenib, a Advanced Dabrafenib plus trametinib in Cohort study: 36 Independe ORR: 64% (46–79) Serious adverse 2 (Form 3)
selective patients with previously patients (no nt events: 57%
inhibitor of untreated BRAF V600E- control) review mPFS: 10.9 months
mutated forms mutant metastatic NSCLC: committ (7.0–16.6)
of BRAF an open-label, phase II trial ee-
kinase and [230] assess
trametinib, a Phase II ed
MEK1/MEK2 NCT01336634 confirm
inhibitor ed
overall

respons
e: 64%
mPFS:
10.9
months
Dabrafenib, a Advanced Dabrafenib plus trametinib in Cohort study: 57 Independe ORR: 63.2% (49.3– Serious adverse 2 (Form 3)
selective patients with previously patients (no nt 75.6) events: 56%
inhibitor of treated BRAF V600E- control) review
mutated forms mutant metastatic NSCLC: committ mPFS: 9.7 months
of BRAF an open-label, multicentre ee– (6.9–19.6)
kinase and phase II trial [228] assess
trametinib, a Phase II ed
MEK1/MEK2 NCT01336634 confirm
inhibitor ed
overall
respons
e:
63.2%
mPFS: 9.7
months
Erlotinib, an Advanced Erlotinib as maintenance Placebo, as PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.71 (0.62– Deteriorated toxicity 1 (Form 2b)
EGFR TKI treatment in advanced maintenance 1.2 0.82) profile
NSCLC: a multicentre, treatment in weeks
randomised, placebo- advanced NSCLC
controlled phase III study Control PFS: 11.1
[127] weeks
Phase III
NCT00556712
Lorlatinib Advanced ALK resistance mutations and Cohort study:139 ORR: 40% 3 (Form 3)
monotherapy efficacy of lorlatinib in patients had (95% CI
treatment of adult advanced anaplastic received ≥ 1 32%–
patients with lymphoma kinase-positive generation ALK 49%)
ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer TKI (EXP3B to
advanced [212a] EXP5) mDOR:
NSCLC whose Phase I/II 7.1
disease has NCT01970865 months
progressed after (95% CI
alectinib or 5.6–24.4)
ceritinib as the
first ALK TKI

therapy, or mPFS:
crizotinib and at 6.9
least one other months
ALK TKI (95% CI
5.4–8.2)
Necitumumab, a Advanced Necitumumab plus Gemcitabine and OS gain: OS: HR for death Deteriorated toxicity 1 (Form 2a)
second- gemcitabine and cisplatin cisplatin as first- 1.6 0.84 (0.74–0.96) profile
generation, versus gemcitabine and line therapy in months
recombinant, cisplatin alone as first-line patients with
human IgG1 therapy in patients with stage IV SCC
EGFR stage IV squamous NSCLC Control OS: 9.9
antibody in (SQUIRE): an open-label, months
combination randomised, controlled
with phase III trial [115]
gemcitabine Phase III
and cisplatin NCT00981058
Nivolumab, a Advanced Nivolumab versus docetaxel in Docetaxel in patients OS gain: OS: HR for death Improved toxicity 5 (Form 2a)
fully human advanced non-squamous with NSCC that 2.8 0.73 (0.60–0.89) profile
IgG4 PD-1 NSCLC (Checkmate 057) had progressed months
immune [148, 323] during or after 2-year
checkpoint Phase III platinum-based survival
inhibitor NCT01673867 doublet ChT gain:
antibody Control OS: 9.4 13%
months
Nivolumab, a Advanced Nivolumab versus docetaxel in Docetaxel in patients OS gain: OS: HR for death Improved toxicity 5c (Form 2a)
fully human advanced squamous-cell with advanced 3.2 0.59 (0.44–0.79) profile
IgG4 PD-1 NSCLC (Checkmate 017) SCC who have months
immune [147] disease 2-year
checkpoint Phase III progression survival
inhibitor NCT01642004 during or after gain:
antibody first-line ChT 15%
Control OS: 6
months
Osimertinib, oral, Advanced Osimertinib in untreated Gefitinib or erlotinib PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.46 (0.37– Improved toxicity 4 (Form 2b)
irreversible EGFR-mutated advanced in patients with 8.7 0.57) profile
EGFR TKI, NSCLC [187] previously months
selective for Phase III untreated, EGFR
both EGFR NCT02296125 mutation (exon 19
and T790M deletion or
L858R)

resistance Control PFS: 10.2

mutations months
Osimertinib, oral, Advanced Osimertinib or platinum- Pemetrexed plus PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.30 (0.23– Improved toxicity 4 (Form 2b)
irreversible pemetrexed in EGFR either carboplatin 5.7 0.41) profile
EGFR TKI, T790M-positive lung cancer or cisplatin in months Improved patient-
selective for [195] patients with reported outcomes
both EGFR Phase III T790M-positive,
and T790M NCT02151981 who had disease
resistance progression after
mutations first-line EGFR
TKI therapy
Control PFS: 4.4
months
Pembrolizumab, Advanced Pembrolizumab versus Docetaxel in patients 2-year OS OS: HR 0.71 (0.58– Improved toxicity 5 (Form 2a)
an anti-PD-1 docetaxel for previously with previously rates of 0.88) profile
monoclonal treated, PD-L1-positive, treated, PD-L1- 14.5%
antibody advanced NSCLC positive, for
(KEYNOTE-010): a advanced NSCLC docetax
randomised controlled trial Control OS: 8.5 el
[63] months versus
Phase III 30.1%
NCT01905657 for
pembrol
izumab
(2
mg/kg)
Pembrolizumab, Advanced Pembrolizumab versus ChT for Investigator’s choice PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.50 (0.37– Improved toxicity 5d (Form 2a)
humanised, PDL1-positive NSCLC [62, of platinum-based 4.3 0.68) profile
IgG4 63a, 94] ChT in stage IV months OS:HR 0.63 (0.47–
monoclonal Phase III untreated patients OS gain: 0.86)
antibody NCT02142738 with PD-L1 15.8
against PD-1 expression on at months
least 50% of
tumour cells
Control PFS: 6
months
OS: 14.2 months
Pembrolizumab, Advanced Pembrolizumab/pemetrexed Control PFS: 4.9 PFS gain: PFS HR: 0.52 (0.43– Similar toxicity 4 (Form 2a)e, f
an anti-PD-1 with platinum ChT in months 3.9 0.64)
monoclonal metastatic non-squamous months

antibody in NSCLC without EGFR or Control OS: 11.3 OS: HR 0.49 (0.38–
patients with ALK mutations [96, 96a] months OS gain 0.64)
advanced or Phase III estimat
mNSCLC who NCT02578680 ed
have not based
previously on the
received 95% UL
systemic of HR:
therapy for >6
advanced months
disease
Pembrolizumab Advanced A study of carboplatin- Carboplatin and PFS gain: PFS: HR 0.56 (0.45– Similar toxicity; 4 (Form 2a)
with paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel either paclitaxel or 1.6 0.70) discontinuation of
combination chemotherapy with or nab-paclitaxel months treatment due to
chemotherapy without pembrolizumab (mk- OS: HR 0.64 (0.49– toxicity of
3475) in adults with first line Control PFS: 4.8 OS gain: 0.85) pembrolizumab
metastatic squamous non- months 4.6 combination (13.3%
small cell lung cancer (MK- months versus 6.4%)
3475-407/KEYNOTE-407) Control OS: 11.3
[99] months
Phase III
NCT02775435
Ramucirumab, a Advanced Ramucirumab plus docetaxel Placebo plus OS gain: OS: HR for death No change 1 (Form 2a)
human IgG1 versus placebo plus docetaxel in 1.4 0.86 (0.75–0.98)
monoclonal docetaxel for second-line patients with SCC months
antibody that treatment of stage IV or NSCC who had
targets the NSCLC after disease progressed during
extracellular progression on platinum- or after a first-line
domain of based therapy (REVEL): a platinum-based
VEGFR2, in multicentre, double-blind, ChT regimen
combination randomised phase III trial Control OS: 9.1
with docetaxel [157] months
Phase III
NCT01168973
a
EMA approvals since January 2016.
b
ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 [322]. The scores have been calculated by the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and validated by the ESMO Guidelines Committee.
c
EMA approval, October 2015.
d
Updated OS currently available in abstract form only.
e
QoL data currently available in abstract form only.
f
Two-year survival data currently available in abstract form only.

ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; ChT, chemotherapy; CI, confidence interval; DoR, duration of response; EGFR, endothelial growth factor receptor; EMA, European Medicines Agency; ESMO-MCBS, ESMO-
Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; HR, hazard ratio; IgG, immunoglobulin G; mDOR, median duration of response; mPFS, medical progression-free survival; NR, not reached; NSCC, non-squamous cell carcinoma;
NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; QoL, quality of
life; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; UL, upper limit; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; VEGFR2, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2; WT, wild-type.

Table 6. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation (adapted from the Infectious
Diseases Society of America-United States Public Health Service Grading Systema)
Levels of evidence
I Evidence from at least one large randomised, controlled trial of good methodological quality (low
potential for bias) or meta-analyses of well-conducted randomised trials without heterogeneity
II Small randomised trials or large randomised trials with a suspicion of bias (lower methodological
quality) or meta-analyses of such trials or of trials with demonstrated heterogeneity
III Prospective cohort studies
IV Retrospective cohort studies or case–control studies
V Studies without control group, case reports, expert opinions
Grades of recommendation
A Strong evidence for efficacy with a substantial clinical benefit, strongly recommended
B Strong or moderate evidence for efficacy but with a limited clinical benefit, generally recommended
C Insufficient evidence for efficacy or benefit does not outweigh the risk or the disadvantages (adverse
events, costs, ...), optional
D Moderate evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, generally not recommended
E Strong evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, never recommended
aBy permission of the Infectious Diseases Society of America [324].

Figure 1. Treatment algorithm for stage IV SCC.
aMolecular testing is not recommended in SCC, except in those rare circumstances when SCC is found in a never-, long-time
ex- or light-smoker (< 15 pack-years).
bIn absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with
platinum-based ChT, this strategy will be preferred to platinum-based ChT in patients with PS 0-1 and PD-L1 < 50%.
Alternatively, if TMB can accurately be evaluated, and conditioned by the registration and accessibility, nivolumab plus
ipilimumab should be preferred to platinum-based standard ChT in patients with NSCLC with a high TMB.
cESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for new therapy/indication approved by the EMA since 1 January 2016. The score has been
calculated by the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and validated by the ESMO Guidelines Committee.
dNot EMA-approved.
ePS > 2 patients were not enrolled in available clinical trials. In the absence of contraindications and conditioned by the
registration and accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based ChT, this strategy might be chosen by analogy
to PS 0–1 patients based on investigator opinion. Elderly patients are under-represented in available clinical trials, and frail or
comorbid patients ≥ 70 years old shall be evaluated with caution.
ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; BSC, best supportive care; ChT, chemotherapy; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor;
EMA, European Medicines Agency; IO, immuno-oncology; Mb, megabase; MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit
Scale; nab-P, albumin-bound paclitaxel; nab-PC, albumin-bound paclitaxel and carboplatin; NSCLC, non-small cell lung
cancer; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PS, performance status; SCC, squamous
cell carcinoma; TMB, tumour mutation burden.

Figure 2. Treatment algorithm for stage IV NSCC, molecular tests negative (ALK/BRAF/EGFR/ROS1).
aIn absence of contraindications and conditioned by the registration and accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with
platinum-based ChT, this strategy will be preferred to platinum-based ChT in patients with PS 0-1 and PD-L1 < 50%.
Alternatively, if TMB can accurately be evaluated, and conditioned by the registration and accessibility, nivolumab plus
ipilimumab should be preferred to platinum-based standard ChT in patients with NSCLC with a high TMB.
bESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for new therapy/indication approved by the EMA since 1 January 2016. The score has been
cNot EMA-approved.
dPS > 2 patients were not enrolled in available clinical trials. In the absence of contraindications and conditioned by the
registration and accessibility of anti-PD-(L)1 combinations with platinum-based ChT, this strategy might be chosen by analogy
to PS 0–1 patients based on investigator opinion. Elderly patients are under-represented in available clinical trials, and frail or
comorbid patients ≥ 70 years old should be evaluated with caution.
ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; BSC, best supportive care; ChT, chemotherapy; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor;
EMA, European Medicines Agency; IO, immuno-oncology; Mb, megabase; MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale;
nab-P, albumin-bound paclitaxel; nab-PC, albumin-bound paclitaxel and carboplatin; NSCC, non-squamous cell carcinoma;
NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PS,
performance status; TMB, tumour mutation burden.

Figure 3. Treatment algorithm for stage IV NSCC, molecular tests positive (ALK/BRAF/EGFR/ROS1).
aESMO-MCBS v1.1 score for new therapy/indication approved by the EMA since 1 January 2016. The score has been
bPreferred option.
cNot EMA-approved.
dMCBS score for the combination of bevacizumab with gefitinib or erlotinib.
ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; EMA, European Medicines Agency; MCBS,
ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; NSCC, non-squamous cell carcinoma.

Figure 4. Treatment algorithm for stage IV lung carcinoma with EGFR-activating mutation.
bPreferred option [187b].
cMCBS score for the combination of bevacizumab with gefitinib or erlotinib.
dNot EMA-approved.
cfDNA, cell-free DNA; ChT, chemotherapy; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; EMA, European Medicines Agency;
MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; PS, performance status; RT, radiotherapy.

Figure 5. Treatment algorithm for stage IV lung carcinoma with ALK translocation.
bPreferred option [203a].
cNot EMA-approved.
ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; ChT, chemotherapy; EMA, European Medicines Agency; MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude of
Clinical Benefit Scale; RT, radiotherapy; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Figure 6. Treatment algorithm for stage IV lung carcinoma with ROS1 translocation.
ChT, chemotherapy; MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Figure 7. Treatment algorithm for stage IV lung carcinoma with BRAF V600 mutation.
ChT, chemotherapy; MCBS, ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; MEK, mitogen-activated protein kinase.

ESMO CPG MNSCLC 18SEPT2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESMO CPG MNSCLC 18SEPT2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESMO CPG MNSCLC 18SEPT2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Updated version published 18 September 2019 by the ESMO Guidelines Committee

CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice

Incidence and epidemiology

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 1

Diagnosis and pathology/molecular biology

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 2

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 3

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 4

Staging and risk assessment

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 5

Management of advanced/metastatic NSCLC

First-line treatment of EGFR- and ALK-negative NSCLC, PD-L1 ≥ 50%

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 6

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 7

First-line treatment of NSCLC without actionable oncogenic driver, with contraindications to

First-line treatment of SCC

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 8

First-line treatment of NSCC

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 9

Second-line treatment of NSCLC without actionable oncogenic driver

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 10

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 11

Treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 12

Beyond first-line treatment

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 13

Treatment of ALK-rearranged NSCLC

Beyond first-line treatment

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 14

Treatment of ROS1-rearranged NSCLC

Treatment of BRAF-mutated NSCLC

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 15

Treatment of NSCLC with other actionable oncogenic drivers

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 16

Role of radiotherapy in stage IV NSCLC

Focus on brain metastases

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 17

Role of surgery in stage IV NSCLC

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 18

Treatment of oligometastatic disease

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 19

Focus on bone metastases

Role of minimally invasive procedures in stage IV NSCLC

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 20

Role of palliative care in stage IV NSCLC

Follow-up, long-term implications and survivorship

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 21

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 22

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 23

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 24

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 25

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 26

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 27

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 28

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 29

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 30

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 31

© European Society for Medical Oncology 2019. All rights reserved. 32