Ernani, Vinicius

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 (SCLC) is an aggressive form of lung cancer that displays rapid proliferation and early metastatic potential. It accounts for approximately 15% of lung cancers and is strongly associated with tobacco carcinogens. Despite patients' initial response to systemic therapy, the majority develop early resistance and relapse. The outcomes of patients with metastatic SCLC are poor, prompting the need for new therapies. Over the past decade, the treatment landscape for NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) has significantly changed with the immergence of novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, inroads of these therapies into SCLC have posed significant challenges due to its molecular and genomic heterogeneity. Despite the challenges of this disease, promising new first-in-class immunomodulatory agents have emerged and are currently undergoing extensive research. Herein, we review the current treatment paradigm of immunotherapy in SCLC and discuss future directions of this evolving field.

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with platinum‐etoposide is the standard first‐line therapy for patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC). The phase 3 clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES‐SCLC excluded patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2–3. Therefore, data on the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 are limited. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ES‐SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and best clinical response to therapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 0–1 vs. patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 who received chemoimmunotherapy for newly diagnosed ES‐SCLC. Results In total, 82 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation age was 68.1 ± 8.3 years. Of these, 56 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 0–1, and 26 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 2–3. The median PFS was similar regardless of ECOG PS (5.8 months [95% CI, 4.3–6.0 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.8–6.9 months] in the ECOG PS 2–3; p = .2994). The median OS was also similar regardless of ECOG PS (10.6 months [95% CI, 8.4–13.4 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 9.3 months [95% CI, 4.9–12.8 months]; p = .2718) in the ECOG PS 2‐3 group. Conclusions The study results demonstrated no significant difference in PFS or OS among the ECOG PS 2–3 and ECOG PS 0–1 groups. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should be considered for patients who have ES‐SCLC with an ECOG PS of 2–3.

AbstractBackgroundThere is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid (AC) of the lung. As such, the authors sought to understand and analyze the outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy in this patient population.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients treated with lobectomy and patients treated with sublobar resection for AC of the lung between the years 2004 and 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with χ2 tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate OS distributions, and the log‐rank test was used to compare distributions by treatment strategy. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess associations between the treatment strategy and OS. A propensity score matching method was also implemented to further eliminate treatment selection bias in the study sample.ResultsThe database identified 669 patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 lung ACs that were surgically resected. Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier survival curves did not demonstrate an OS difference between lobectomy and sublobar resection (p = .094). After propensity score matching, curves demonstrated a numerical improvement in OS with lobectomy; however, it was not statistically significant (p = .5). In a subgroup analysis, lobectomy and node‐negative disease were associated with the best OS, whereas sublobar resection and node‐positive disease were associated with the worst OS (p < .0001). Nodal involvement was associated with worse survival, regardless of surgical treatment (p < .0001).ConclusionsIn patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 ACs of the lung, lobectomy was not associated with an improvement in OS in comparison with sublobar resection.

Over the past decade, significant advances have been achieved in the diagnostic testing, treatment, and prognosis of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One of the most significant developments was the identification of specific gene alterations that define subsets of NSCLC. In 2007, ROS1 rearrangements were first described and observed in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC. Currently, crizotinib remains the therapy of choice for advanced ROS1-rearranged NSCLC without CNS metastases, while entrectinib has emerged as the preferred option for those with CNS metastases. The next-generation inhibitors under development are more potent, have better CNS efficacy, and can overcome important resistance mutations. In this review, we focus on the management of patients with advanced NSCLC harboring a ROS1 rearrangement. We aim to provide insight into the diagnosis, treatment approach, and emerging treatments in this subgroup of NSCLC.