Adagrasib with or without Cetuximab in Colorectal Cancer with Mutated KRAS G12C.

BACKGROUND: Adagrasib, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of mutant KRAS G12C protein, has shown clinical activity in pretreated patients with several tumor types, including colorectal cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that combining a KRAS G12C inhibitor with an epidermal growth factor receptor antibody could be an effective clinical strategy. METHODS: In this phase 1-2, open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial, we assigned heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with mutant KRAS G12C to receive adagrasib monotherapy (600 mg orally twice daily) or adagrasib (at the same dose) in combination with intravenous cetuximab once a week (with an initial loading dose of 400 mg per square meter of body-surface area, followed by a dose of 250 mg per square meter) or every 2 weeks (with a dose of 500 mg per square meter). The primary end points were objective response (complete or partial response) and safety. RESULTS: As of June 16, 2022, a total of 44 patients had received adagrasib, and 32 had received combination therapy with adagrasib and cetuximab, with a median follow-up of 20.1 months and 17.5 months, respectively. In the monotherapy group (43 evaluable patients), a response was reported in 19% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 8 to 33). The median response duration was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 8.3), and the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 8.3). In the combination-therapy group (28 evaluable patients), the response was 46% (95% CI, 28 to 66). The median response duration was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.7 to not estimable), and the median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 8.1). The percentage of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 34% in the monotherapy group and 16% in the combination-therapy group. No grade 5 adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adagrasib had antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with mutant KRAS G12C, both as oral monotherapy and in combination with cetuximab. The median response duration was more than 6 months in the combination-therapy group. Reversible adverse events were common in the two groups. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics; KRYSTAL-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.).

Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. INTERPRETATION: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. FUNDING: Novocure.

Advancing immunotherapy in small cell lung cancer.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a rapidly progressive neuroendocrine carcinoma that, until recently, had a very small armamentarium of effective treatments. Advances in DNA sequencing and whole transcriptomics have delineated key subtypes; therefore, SCLC is no longer viewed as a homogeneous cancer. Chemoimmunotherapy with PD1 blockade is now the standard of care for advanced disease, and ongoing research efforts are moving this strategy into the limited stage setting. Combination strategies of immunotherapy with radiation are also under active clinical trial in both limited and extensive stage disease. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a rapidly progressive neuroendocrine carcinoma that, until recently, had a very small armamentarium of effective treatments. Chemoimmunotherapy with immune check point inhibitors is now the standard of care for advanced disease. This comprehensive review provides an overview of current treatment strategies for SCLC, unmet needs in this patient population, and emerging treatment strategies incorporating immunotherapy that will hopefully further improve outcomes for patients.

Emerging therapeutic strategies for enhancing sensitivity and countering resistance to programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

The availability of agents targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint has transformed treatment of advanced and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, a substantial proportion of patients treated with these agents do not respond or experience only a brief period of clinical benefit. Even among those whose disease responds, many subsequently experience disease progression. Consequently, novel approaches are needed that enhance antitumor immunity and counter resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors, thereby improving and/or prolonging responses and patient outcomes, in both PD-(L)1 inhibitor-sensitive and inhibitor-resistant NSCLC. Mechanisms contributing to sensitivity and/or resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors in NSCLC include upregulation of other immune checkpoints and/or the presence of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, which represent potential targets for new therapies. This review explores novel therapeutic regimens under investigation for enhancing responses to PD-(L)1 inhibitors and countering resistance, and summarizes the latest clinical evidence in NSCLC.

A phase 2 trial of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor: Big Ten Cancer Research Consortium BTCRC-LUN15-029.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy using a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) alone or in combination with chemotherapy is the standard of care for treatment-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver mutations for which targeted therapies have been approved. It is unknown whether continuing CPI treatment beyond disease progression results in improved outcomes. METHODS: Patients who experienced progressive disease (PD) after a clinical benefit from chemotherapy plus a CPI were enrolled. Patients received pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus next-line chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). Key secondary end points included the overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. The authors' hypothesis was that continuing pembrolizumab beyond progression would improve the median PFS to 6 months in comparison with a historical control of 3 months with single-agent chemotherapy alone. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and February 2020, 35 patients were enrolled. The patient and disease characteristics were as follows: 51.4% were male; 82.9% were current or former smokers; and 74.3%, 20%, and 5.7% had adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and NSCLC not otherwise specified, respectively. The null hypothesis that the median PFS would be 3 months was rejected (p < .05). The median PFS was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-8.0 months). The median OS was 24.5 months (95% CI, 15.6-30.9 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (60%), anemia (54.3%), and nausea (42.9%). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus next-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who experienced PD after a clinical benefit from a CPI was associated with statistically significant higher PFS in comparison with historical controls of single-agent chemotherapy alone.

Safety and efficacy of durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation in Black patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The PACIFIC trial established consolidative durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation as standard-of-care in patients with stage III or unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Black patients, however, comprised just 2% (n = 14) of randomized patients in this trial, warranting real-world evaluation of the PACIFIC regimen in these patients. METHODS: This single-institution, multi-site study included 105 patients with unresectable stage II/III NSCLC treated with concurrent chemoradiation followed by durvalumab between 2017 and 2021. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥3 pneumonitis-free survival (PNFS) were compared between Black and non-Black patients using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients with a median follow-up of 22.8 months (interquartile range, 11.3-37.3 months) were identified for analysis, including 57 Black (54.3%) and 48 (45.7%) non-Black patients. The mean radiation prescription dose was higher among Black patients (61.5 ± 2.9 Gy vs. 60.5 ± 1.9 Gy; p = .031), but other treatment characteristics were balanced between groups. The median OS (not-reached vs. 39.7 months; p = .379) and PFS (31.6 months vs. 19.3 months; p = .332) were not statistically different between groups. Eight (14.0%) Black patients discontinued durvalumab due to toxicity compared to 13 (27.1%) non-Black patients (p = .096). The grade ≥3 pneumonitis rate was similar between Black and non-Black patients (12.3% vs. 12.5%; p = .973), and there was no significant difference in time to grade ≥3 PNFS (p = .904). Three (5.3%) Black patients and one (2.1%) non-Black patient developed grade 5 pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and tolerability of consolidative durvalumab after chemoradiation appears to be comparable between Black and non-Black patients.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2021.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and their respective biomarkers.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as "preferred interventions," whereas others are categorized as either "other recommended interventions" or "useful under certain circumstances."

Expansion of pharmacist clinical services to optimize the management of immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities.

INTRODUCTION: The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized cancer treatment and is now a part of the treatment paradigm for several malignancies. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors are generally well tolerated, treatment is associated with immune-related adverse events, some serious and potentially life threatening. Early identification and prompt appropriate management of immune-related adverse events are crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality. The complexity and severity of immune-related adverse events require interdisciplinary collaboration to optimize care. Patient and caregiver education and continued communication between patients and members of the oncology care team are vital for timely recognition and successful management of immune-related adverse events. The objective of this program is to provide a proof of concept; a pharmacist-led immune checkpoint inhibitor management program will increase early recognition and management of immune-related adverse events through patient and caregiver education and proactively assessing patients for toxicities. METHODS: At the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, we developed and implemented a pharmacist-driven program, referred to as the immune checkpoint inhibitor program, which aimed to ensure patient and caregiver education and continuous monitoring of immune-related adverse events. This program utilized pharmacist-patient encounters to improve patient and caregiver education and follow-up monitoring. The design and implementation are detailed. Pharmacist interventions and patient outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: At interim analysis, 47 patients were enrolled in the program and pharmacists completed 34 interventions on 26 patients. Pharmacists are well positioned to educate patients and caregivers on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and provide proactive monitoring to detect immune-related adverse events. We hypothesize that the interventions made by pharmacist may lead to earlier recognition and treatment of immune-related adverse events.

Implementing value assessment in oncology practice: A single-center experience.

Cancer treatment costs in the United States are rising. Evidence suggests that increased costs do not always correlate with improved outcomes. Several organizations have developed tools and frameworks to assess cancer treatment value; however, many centers have reported difficulty in implementing these tools and effectively incorporating value-based decision making into clinical practice. After evaluating existing frameworks, the Carbone Cancer Center at UW Health set out to create a value-based tool that could be used to inform the decisions of clinicians and patients. This tool was piloted in metastatic or advanced non-small cell lung cancer, specifically in the second-line setting to assess the value of immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab, atezolizumab, and pembrolizumab. The results of the pilot suggest that atezolizumab is the best value of the three agents in this patient population. Challenges and opportunities for improvement that were identified during the pilot process have helped refine the tool for use in a variety of disease states within oncology.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 5.2018.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on targeted therapies and immunotherapies for metastatic NSCLC, because therapeutic recommendations are rapidly changing for metastatic disease. For example, new recommendations were added for atezolizumab, ceritinib, osimertinib, and pembrolizumab for the 2017 updates.

Health Literacy and Health-Related Quality of Life Among a Population-Based Sample of Cancer Patients.

Health-related quality of life is an important outcome in cancer care. A few studies indicate that health literacy influences cancer patients' health-related quality of life, but additional investigation is needed. The authors examined the relation between health literacy and health-related quality of life among cancer patients. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with cancer patients in Wisconsin during 2006-2007. Data on sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, health-related quality of life, and health literacy were obtained from the state's cancer registry and a mailed questionnaire. Regression analyses were used to characterize the association between health-related quality of life and health literacy. The study sample included 1,841 adults, newly diagnosed with lung, breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer in 2004 (response rate = 68%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Adjusting for confounders, higher health literacy was associated with greater health-related quality of life (p < .0001). Controlling for covariates, we found significant differences between those in the highest and lowest health literacy categories (p < .0001) and in the physical (p < .0001), functional (p < .0001), emotional (p < .0001), and social (p = .0007) well-being subscales. These associations exceeded the minimally important difference threshold for overall health-related quality of life and functional well-being. Health literacy is positively and independently associated with health-related quality of life among cancer patients. These findings support adoption of health literacy best practices by cancer care systems.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After Platinum-Doublet Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multiregional Chart Review in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

PURPOSE: To characterize treatment patterns and real-world clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) who developed progression on an anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1, herein referred to as anti-PD-(L)1, and platinum-doublet chemotherapy. METHODS: Eligible oncologists/pulmonologists in the United States, Europe (France, Germany, and United Kingdom), and Japan completed electronic case report forms for patients with mNSCLC (no evidence of EGFR/ALK/ROS1 alterations). Eligible patients had disease progression on/after an anti-PD-(L)1 and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (received concurrently or sequentially), initiated a subsequent line of therapy (LOT) between 2017 and 2021, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2 at this subsequent LOT initiation (index date). Overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) after index were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 160 physicians (academic, 54.4%; community, 45.6%) provided deidentified data from 487 patient charts (United States, 141; Europe, 218; Japan, 128; at mNSCLC diagnosis: median age 66 years, 64.7% male, 81.3% nonsquamous, 86.2% de novo mNSCLC; at line of interest initiation: 86.0% ECOG 0-1, 39.6% liver metastases, 18.9% brain metastases, 79.1% smoking history). The most common treatment regimens upon progression after anti-PD-(L)1/platinum-doublet chemotherapy were nonplatinum chemotherapy (50.5%), nonplatinum chemotherapy plus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor (12.9%), and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (6.6%). Median OS was 8.8 months (squamous, 7.8 months; nonsquamous, 9.5 months). Median TTD was 4.3 months (squamous, 4.1 months; nonsquamous, 4.3 months). Median rwPFS was 5.1 months (squamous, 4.6 months; nonsquamous, 5.4 months). CONCLUSION: In this multiregional, real-world analysis of pooled patient chart data, patients with mNSCLC who had disease progression after anti-PD-(L)1/platinum-doublet chemotherapy had poor clinical outcomes with various treatment regimens, demonstrating an unmet clinical need for effective options after failure on anti-PD-(L)1 and platinum-doublet chemotherapy treatments.

DNA topoisomerase II inhibition potentiates osimertinib's therapeutic efficacy in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer models.

Development of effective strategies to manage the inevitable acquired resistance to osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR inhibitor for the treatment of EGFR-mutant (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is urgently needed. This study reports that DNA topoisomerase II (Topo II) inhibitors, doxorubicin and etoposide, synergistically decreased cell survival, with enhanced induction of DNA damage and apoptosis in osimertinib-resistant cells; suppressed the growth of osimertinib-resistant tumors; and delayed the emergence of osimertinib-acquired resistance. Mechanistically, osimertinib decreased Topo IIα levels in EGFRm NSCLC cells by facilitating FBXW7-mediated proteasomal degradation, resulting in induction of DNA damage; these effects were lost in osimertinib-resistant cell lines that possess elevated levels of Topo IIα. Increased Topo IIα levels were also detected in the majority of tissue samples from patients with NSCLC after relapse from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. Enforced expression of an ectopic TOP2A gene in sensitive EGFRm NSCLC cells conferred resistance to osimertinib, whereas knockdown of TOP2A in osimertinib-resistant cell lines restored their susceptibility to osimertinib-induced DNA damage and apoptosis. Together, these results reveal an essential role of Topo IIα inhibition in mediating the therapeutic efficacy of osimertinib against EGFRm NSCLC, providing scientific rationale for targeting Topo II to manage acquired resistance to osimertinib.

Combining Dual Checkpoint Immunotherapy with Ablative Radiation to All Sites of Oligometastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Toxicity and Efficacy Results of a Phase 1b Trial.

PURPOSE: Ablative local treatment of all radiographically detected metastatic sites in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increases progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prior studies demonstrated the safety of combining stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with single-agent immunotherapy. We investigated the safety of combining SBRT to all metastatic tumor sites with dual checkpoint, anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4), and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) immunotherapy for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a phase 1b clinical trial in patients with oligometastatic NSCLC with up to 6 sites of extracranial metastatic disease. All sites of disease were treated with SBRT to a dose of 30 to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Dual checkpoint immunotherapy was started 7 days after completion of radiation using anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) immunotherapy for a total of 4 cycles followed by durvalumab alone until progression or toxicity. RESULTS: Of the 17 patients enrolled in this study, 15 patients received at least 1 dose of combination immunotherapy per protocol. The study was closed early (17 of planned 21 patients) due to slow accrual during the COVID-19 pandemic. Grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events were observed in 6 patients (40%), of which only one was possibly related to the addition of SBRT to immunotherapy. Median PFS was 42 months and median OS has not yet been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering ablative SBRT to all sites of metastatic disease in combination with dual checkpoint immunotherapy did not result in excessive rates of toxicity compared with historical studies of dual checkpoint immunotherapy alone. Although the study was not powered for treatment efficacy results, durable PFS and OS results suggest potential therapeutic benefit compared with immunotherapy or radiation alone in this patient population.

Emerging agents for the treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC without actionable genomic alterations with progression on first-line therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the world and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, have emerged as the standard of care first-line treatment option for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Despite significant improvements in patient outcomes with these regimens, primary or acquired resistance is common and most patients develop disease progression, resulting in poor survival. AREAS COVERED: We review the current treatments commonly used for NSCLC without AGAs in the first-line and subsequent settings and describe the unmet needs for these patients in the second-line setting, including a lack of standard definitions for primary and required resistance, and few effective treatment options for patients who develop progression of their disease on first-line therapy. We describe key mechanisms of resistance to ICIs and emerging therapies that are being investigated for patients who develop progression on ICIs and platinum-based chemotherapy. EXPERT OPINION: Emerging agents in development have a variety of different mechanisms of action and will likely change standard of care for second-line therapy and beyond for patients with NSCLC without AGAs in the future.

Spotlight on Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Other Lung Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

Lung neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) encompass a spectrum of neoplasms that are subdivided into the well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors comprising the low- and intermediate-grade typical and atypical carcinoids, respectively, and the poorly differentiated, high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas including large-cell neuroendocrine carcinomas and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). Here, we review the current morphological and molecular classifications of the NENs on the basis of the updated WHO Classification of Thoracic Tumors and discuss the emerging subclassifications on the basis of molecular profiling and the potential therapeutic implications. We focus on the efforts in subtyping SCLC, a particularly aggressive tumor with few treatment options, and the recent advances in therapy with the adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the frontline setting for patients with extensive-stage SCLC. We further highlight the promising immunotherapy strategies in SCLC that are currently under investigation.