Selected phase III trials

TrialNumber of patients/characteristicsInterventionHistologies (SCC/adeno)ResultsMain conclusion of the study
CRT followed by surgery vs. definitive RT
NCT00002550, 2009 [10]

N = 429 pts

Stage IIIA (T1–3, pN2)

Stage IIIB excluded

Arm 1: CRT and surgery

Arm 2: CRT and definitive RT

CT (cis-etoposide)

30%/38%

5-year PFS 22.4% (arm 1) vs. 11.1%

mOS 23.6 months (arm 1) vs. 22.2 months, HR: 0.87, NS

No significant survival advantage of surgery compared to RT-CT
Induction CT, RT-CT followed by surgery vs. RT-CT
ESPATUE, 2015 [11]

N = 161 pts, potentially resectable

Stage IIIA (34%)

Stage IIIB (65%)

TNM 6th

Induction CT (×3 cis-paclitaxel) followed by CRT (cis-vinorelbin) and if resectable: CRT vs. surgery (arm1/2)39%/47%No difference in 5-year OS or PFSNo significant survival advantage of adding surgery to CT and RT-CT, but underpowered trial
CT before and after RT
PROCLAIM, 2016 [16]

N = 598 pts, unresectable

Stage IIIA (47%)

Stage IIIB (52%)

TNM 6th

Arm 1: CT (cis-pem) ×3 + TRT followed by pem ×4

Arm 2: CT (cis-etoposide) ×2 + TRT followed by platinum-based CT

-/75%No difference in OSCis-etoposide or cis-pem can be considered with concomitant RT for adenocarcinoma
Adjuvant immunotherapy post-RT-CT
PACIFIC, 2022 [17, 18]

N = 713 pts, unresectable

Stage IIIA (53%)

Stage IIIB (44%)

Durvalumab vs. placebo after ≥ 2 cycles of CRT without progression, for 12 months46%/54%

5-year OS 42.9% for durvalumab vs. 33.4%, HR: 0.72

5-year PFS 33.1% vs. 19%, HR: 0.55

Significant improvement in OS/PFS with durvalumab post CRT
Adjuvant immunotherapy
IMpower010, 2023 [26]

N = 1,005 pts, completely resected

Stage II (52%)

Stage IIIA (48%)

PD-L1 ≥ 50% (23%)

TNM 7th

Adjuvant platinum-based CT

Adjuvant: atezolizumab for 1 year vs. BSC40%/48%mOS not estimable in ITT population, but trend shown in PD-L1 ≥ 50%, HR: 0.43Significant improvement in DFS with atezolizumab post-surgery, regardless of PD-L1 status
PEARLS/Keynote-091, 2022 [25]

N = 1178 pts, completely resected

Stade IB (14%), stage II (57%), stage IIIA (29%)

TNM 7th

PD-L1 TPS < 1% (39%), 1–49% (32%), ≥ 50% (28%)

Adjuvant CT mandatory for stage II/IIIA

Adjuvant: pembrolizumab vs. placebo for 1 year35%/64%

mDFS 53.6 months for pembrolizumab group vs. 42 months, HR: 0.76

mOS not reached in either group

Improvement of DFS with adjuvant pembrolizumab regardless of PD-L1 expression

No requirement for EGFR/ALK testing (limitation)

Adjuvant targeted therapies
ADAURA, 2023 [41, 42]

N = 682 pts, completely resected, EGFR positive

Stage IB (32%), II (34%), IIIA (35%)

Adjuvant CT recommended for stage II–IIIA

Osimertinib adjuvant for 3 years vs. placebo-/97%5-year OS 88% in the osimertimib group vs. 78%, HR: 0.49Adjuvant osimertinib improves DFS and OS compared to placebo, in resected EGFR mutated NSCLC
ALINA, 2023 [44]

N = 257 pts, completely resected, ALK positive

Stage IB–IIIA

Alectinib adjuvant for 2 years vs. CTNAmDFS: NR vs. 44.4 months in stage II–IIIA, HR: 0.24Adjuvant alectinib improves DFS compared to adjuvant platinum-based CT, in resected EGFR mutated NSCLC
Neo-adjuvant CT-immunotherapy
CheckMate-816, 2022 [30]

N = 773 pts, resectable

Stage IB or II (35%)

Stage IIIA (64%)

TNM 7th

PD-L1 < 1% (43%), 1–49% (27%), ≥ 50% (22%)

Platinum-based CT +/– nivolumab ×3, followed by surgery50%/49%

mEFS 31.6 months in nivolumab group vs. 20.8 months, HR: 0.63

pCR: 24% in the nivolumab group vs. 2.2%

Significant improvement in EFS and pCR with neoadjuvant CT + nivolumab

No higher incidence/greater severity of AE with nivolumab

Perioperative CT-immunotherapy
Keynote-671, 2023 [32, 33]

N = 797 pts, resectable

Stage II–IIIB

Cis-based CT + pembrolizumab vs. placebo for 4 neoadjuvant cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant pembrolizumab vs. placebo for 1 yearNA

36-months EFS 54.3% in the pembrolizumab group vs. 35.4%

36-months OS 71.3% vs. 64%, HR 0.72.

pCR 18.1% vs. 4%

Perioperative pembrolizumab improves OS, EFS and pathological response
CheckMate-77T, 2023 [31]

N = 461 pts, resectable

Stage II–IIIB

Platinum-based CT + nivolumab vs. placebo for 4 neoadjuvant cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab vs. placebo for 1 year51%/49%

mEFS NR vs. 18.4 months, HR: 0.58

pCR 25.3% vs. 4.7%

MPR 35.4% vs. 12.1%

Perioperative immunotherapy improves EFS and pathological response
AEGEAN, 2023 [34, 35]

N = 802 pts, resectable

Stage II–IIIB

Platinum-based CT + durvalumab vs. placebo for 4 neoadjuvant cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant durvalumab vs. placebo for 1 year46.2%/53%

mEFS in mITT: NR vs. 25.9 months. HR: 0.68

pCR: 17.2% vs. 4.3%. Difference in pCR: 13.0%

Perioperative immunotherapy improves EFS and pathological response
NEOTORCH, 2023 [36]

N = 404 pts, resectable

Stage III

Platinum-based CT + toripalimab or placebo for 3 neoadjuvant cycles

Followed by surgery and platinum-based CT + toripalimab or placebo for 1 adjuvant cycles

Followed by toripalimab vs. placebo) for 12 adjuvant cycles

77%/32%

mEFS: NR vs. 15.1 months. HR: 0.40

MPR 48.5% vs. 8.4%

Perioperative immunotherapy improves EFS and pathological response

CRT: chemo-RT; CT: chemotherapy; Adeno: adenocarcinoma; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; AE: adverse event; BSC: best supportive care; Cis: cisplatin; EFS: event-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; NS: not significative; nSCC: non-squamous cell carcinoma; OS: overall survival; pCR: pathological complete response; Pem: pemetrexed; PFS: progression-free survival; pts: patients; TRT: thoracic radiation therapy; DFS: disease-free survival; MPR: major pathological response; PD-L1: programmed cell death ligand-1; EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor; ALK: anaplastic lymphoma kinase; mDFS: median disease-free survival; pN2: pathologic N2 stage; mOS: median overall survival; mEFS: median event-free survival; NR: not reported; ITT: intention to treat; mITT: modified intention to treat; TPS: tissue proportion score; NA: not available; + or –: with or without