Adoptive cellular immunotherapy (ACT) has revolutionized hematologic malignancies, yet translation to solid tumors has historically been limited. This landscape shifted significantly in 2024 with US Food and Drug Administration approvals of lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy for advanced melanoma, and afamitresgene autoleucel, an engineered T-cell receptor (TCR) therapy for synovial sarcoma. These approvals mark the clinical arrival of ACT for solid tumors and highlight a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape. Beyond these indications, multiple ACT platforms including TIL, TCR, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell, CAR-natural killer, and CAR-macrophage therapies are under active clinical investigation across diverse solid tumor indications. Clinical experience to date has defined key barriers to efficacy, including impaired tumor trafficking, antigen heterogeneity, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and limited cellular persistence. In parallel, rapid advances in cellular engineering are reshaping the field, with the development of armored constructs, logic-gated and multiantigen targeting strategies, innate immune–based platforms, and novel manufacturing approaches including allogeneic and in vivo cell engineering. As ACT enters clinical practice for select solid tumors, distinct toxicity profiles and logistical requirements necessitate careful patient selection and multidisciplinary coordination. Early biomarker testing, timely referral to specialized centers, and familiarity with evolving toxicity management frameworks are increasingly critical. Here, we seek to provide a practice-oriented framework for understanding emerging ACT platforms, clinical data, toxicity considerations, and implementation strategies relevant to contemporary solid tumor oncology care.
Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The “Summary of the Guidelines Updates” section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.
Ki-67 Labeling Index in Pulmonary Carcinoid Tumors: Comparison Between Small Biopsy and Resection Using Tumor Tracing and Hot Spot Methods
Context.— Pulmonary carcinoids are classified as typical or atypical by assessing necrosis and mitoses, which usually cannot be adequately assessed on small biopsies. Ki-67 is not currently used to grade pulmonary carcinoids, but it may be helpful to determine preliminary grade in biopsies. However, the rate at which Ki-67 could underestimate or overestimate grade on small biopsies has not been well studied. Objective.— To compare Ki-67 labeling obtained on small biopsies to subsequent resection. Design.— Ki-67 was performed on paired biopsy and resection specimens from 55 patients. Slides were scanned using Aperio ScanScope. Labeling index was determined using automated hot spot and tumor tracing methods. Results.— The study included 41 typical and 14 atypical carcinoids. Atypical carcinoids were larger and had more distant metastases. Death from disease occurred in 3 patients (all had atypical carcinoids). Median hot spot Ki-67 labeling index was greater in resection compared with biopsy by 0.7% (P = .02). Median tumor tracing Ki-67 was lower in resection compared with biopsy by 0.5% (P < .001). Receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed similar hot spot Ki-67 cutoffs to predict atypical histology (3.5% for biopsy, 3.6% for resection; area under the curve [AUC], 0.75 and 0.74, respectively). Different optimal cutoffs were needed for tracing method based on biopsy (2.1%; AUC, 0.75) compared with resection (1.0%; AUC, 0.67). Conclusions.— Hot spot Ki-67 tends to underestimate grade on small biopsies, whereas grade is overestimated by tumor tracing. Hot spot Ki-67 cutoff of 3.5% predicted atypical histology for both biopsy and resection. Different biopsy and resection cutoffs were necessary for tumor tracing, which would make clinical implementation more difficult.
Pathways Impacted by Genomic Alterations in Pulmonary Carcinoid Tumors