Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40785843›Full record

ReviewJTO clinical and research reports2025

Phase 3 Trials of Neoadjuvant, Perioperative, and Adjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy for Resectable, Early-Stage NSCLC: Comprehensive Review and Detailed Analysis.

Jay M Lee, Alessandro Brunelli, Amy L Cummings, Enriqueta Felip, Catherine A Shu, Benjamin J Solomon, Masahiro Tsuboi, Heather Wakelee, Anjali Saqi, Yi-Long Wu and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JTO clinical and research reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jay M LeeDivision of Thoracic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Alessandro BrunelliDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Amy L CummingsDivision of Thoracic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Enriqueta FelipOncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Catherine A ShuDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Benjamin J SolomonPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Masahiro TsuboiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Heather WakeleeDivision of Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
Anjali SaqiDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Yi-Long WuGuangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Pao-Chen LiProduct Development Clinical Oncology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, California.
Barbara J GitlitzProduct Development Clinical Oncology, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phase 3 trials of neoadjuvant, perioperative, and adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy (ICI-CT) in resectable early-stage NSCLC (eNSCLC) have reported that all three approaches confer an event-free or disease-free survival benefit over CT alone, with acceptable safety profiles. All three strategies are approved standards of care for eNSCLC. This review provides a detailed analysis of these phase 3 ICI-CT trials and addresses the considerations regarding the selection of each approach, including protocol schema and baseline patient and tumor differences, preoperative staging, surgical outcomes, efficacy end points, safety, treatment disposition, and the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) efficacy biomarker. The differences between regimens and study populations among these ICI-CT trials hamper cross-trial comparisons and highlight the need for head-to-head trials. Patients achieving pathologic complete response with neoadjuvant ICI-CT have better survival outcomes irrespective of subsequent treatment, but the optimal number of preoperative ICI-CT cycles needed to achieve pathologic complete response has not been defined. The choice between a neoadjuvant or perioperative versus adjuvant treatment approach involves a risk-benefit assessment of the potential for preoperative attrition to surgery, postoperative attrition to ICI-CT, and the anticipated toxicity profile. Current limitations of invasive lymph node staging mean that adjuvant ICI remains an important treatment strategy, but preoperative node staging is imperative. Future studies that identify the safety and toxicity contributions of each treatment phase in perioperative trials will confirm whether a pre- or postoperative ICI approach is superior, whether there is added benefit to adjuvant after neoadjuvant ICI-CT, and which patients will benefit the most from each approach.

Indexed as

Early-stage lung cancerImmune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapyPD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor therapyPre- and postoperative treatmentTreatment strategy

Identifiers

PMID40785843
PMCPMC12332858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.