cancers

Review
Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell
Lung Cancer—Clinical Trials Experience
Izabela Chmielewska 1, * , Katarzyna Stencel 2,3 , Ewa Kalinka 4 , Rodryg Ramlau 2,3 and Paweł Krawczyk 1

1 Chair and Department of Pneumonology, Oncology and Allergology, Medical University of Lublin,
20-059 Lublin, Poland; [email protected]
2 Chair and Department of Oncology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland;
[email protected] (K.S.); [email protected] (R.R.)
3 Department of Chemotherapy, Clinical Hospital of Lord Transfiguration, 60-659 Poznan, Poland
4 Department of Oncology, Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital—Research Institute, 90-302 Lodz, Poland;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Simple Summary: Surgical resection remains the gold standard of early-stage non-small cell lung
cancer (NSCLC) treatment. However, only a minority of resected patients remain recurrence-free
at 5 years. Systemic treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy after surgical resection has been
shown to improve survival in this setting. In the last few years, immunotherapy has established its
position in treatment of metastatic lung cancer patients. Can the phenomenal results of this treatment
be directly transferred to early NSCLC patients? Clinical trials with immunotherapy in this indication



are ongoing, some with already promising results. In order to immediately prove the efficacy of


immunotherapy in preoperative use, the surrogates of overall and progression free survival have
Citation: Chmielewska, I.;
to be validated. In this article, we review the data in support of immunotherapy in adjuvant and
Stencel, K.; Kalinka, E.; Ramlau, R.;
neoadjuvant treatment of early NSCLC patients together with new definitions of primary end points
Krawczyk, P. Neoadjuvant and
of these studies.
Adjuvant Immunotherapy in
Non-Small Cell Lung
Abstract: Across all tumor types, we observe that the role of immunotherapy has increased rapidly.
Cancer—Clinical Trials Experience.
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048. https://
Due to a number of potential advantages, it is considered in neoadjuvant treatment of localized
doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205048 tumors. In neoadjuvant settings, immunotherapy addresses micrometastatic diseases at the moment
of their formation. However, some issues concerning neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy still
Academic Editors: Rory Johnson and has to be covered. The choice of drug and use of monotherapy or combination regimens remains
Peter Kern unclear. The timing of surgery and preoperative evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy efficacy
is challenging. Although there is currently limited confirmed clinical data to support the use of
Received: 7 August 2021 immune checkpoint blockade in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, there are many studies
Accepted: 4 October 2021
exploring this strategy in NSCLC patients.
Published: 9 October 2021

Keywords: early-stage; non-small cell lung cancer; neoadjuvant; adjuvant; immunotherapy

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
1. Introduction
With an estimated 2.2 million new cancer cases and 1.8 million deaths, lung cancer
(LC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death
in 2020. In men, it is still the most frequently occurring cancer. Lung cancer remained the
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%) [1]. Non-small cell
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
lung cancer (NSCLC) constitutes about 85% of all lung cancer. Its main subtypes include
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and large cell carcinoma [2]. Approximately
conditions of the Creative Commons
20–25% of NSCLC patients are candidates for surgical resection with curative intent [2].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
However, many patients are at risk of lung cancer recurrence even after complete resection.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The 5-year survival rate in resected NSCLC patients has been reported to be over 70% in
4.0/). patients with stage I, to less than 30% in patients with stage IIIA [3]. A high proportion

Cancers 2021, 13, 5048. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13205048 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers

Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 2 of 10

of patients with resected NSCLC die of recurrent disease, suggesting that many of them
have micrometastatic disease at the time of surgical resection. Owing to advances in
epigenomic and cellular profiling of lung cancer, we have a better understanding of
carcinogenesis. This knowledge has led to the development of effective targeted therapies
and immunotherapies with survival benefits in selected subgroups [4]. In order to improve
the outcomes in early lung cancer, systemic treatment is implemented in the treatment
at different time points. Neoadjuvant therapy refers to medicines that are administered
before surgery, whereas adjuvant therapy refers to post-surgery treatment. In the era of
chemotherapy, there is a choice concerning one of them; immunotherapy, being much less
toxic, might be considered as preoperative treatment as well. There is wide discussion on
how to implement innovative treatment into early-stage settings [5].

2. Chemotherapy in Early Lung Cancer

In an attempt to improve the survival of early-stage NSCLC patients, many trials
have been conducted and some have demonstrated the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy.
The Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation (LACE) meta-analysis covered the five largest
trials evaluating adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The LACE meta-analysis included
4584 patients and had a median follow-up of 5.2 years. The results demonstrated a 5.4%
increase in the percentage of patients with more than 5 years of survival with a hazard ratio
(HR) of death at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82–0.96, p = 0.005) in favor of chemotherapy compared to
placebo [6].
Compared to the number of data for adjuvant chemotherapy, data on neoadjuvant
chemotherapy are limited. However, there are potential advantages of neoadjuvant
chemotherapy including improved tolerability, possible downstaging, and earlier treat-
ment of micrometastases. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be considered, especially
when the feasibility of surgery is unsettled. However, there are studies suggesting higher
perioperative mortality in patients undergoing pre-operative chemotherapy [7].
Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy can lower the risk of relapse, it only provides a
pathological complete response (pCR; no viable tumor cells) in 4% of patients. Nevertheless,
the five-year survival rate significantly improved in patients with pCR [8].
With wide use of screening programs based on computed tomography examination,
the proportion of early-stage NSCLC patients is increasing [9]. Since the benefits of adjuvant
and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage NSCLC patients remain low, there is a
need to find more efficient perioperative systemic treatment. Upfront treatment with
immunotherapy is a novel perspective.
With the rapid progress made in cancer immunotherapy in patients with metastatic
disease, there has been increasing interest in applying immune checkpoint blockade in
the neoadjuvant setting for earlier stage malignancies. A rational approach to improve
survival in these patients is to eradicate micrometastatic disease and potentially induce anti-
tumor immunity to minimize the risk of relapse with peri-operative regimens. The prime
advantage is that efficacy of treatment can be assessed preoperatively by sampling tumor
tissue and postoperatively by pathologic examination of the resected tumor. Preclinical
studies suggest that neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade may not only improve
surgical ability of high-risk or borderline resectable lesions, but also patients’ survival by
decreasing rate of recurrence.

3. Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Clinical Trials for NSCLC Patients

3.1. NEOSTAR
NEOSTAR was the first significant clinical trial with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in
patients with surgically resected tumors. It was a phase II trial conducted by researchers at
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. This randomized study included
two arms of patients with early-stage resectable NSCLC. The first arm received nivolumab
as single agent, the second arm received a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab.
Both regimens were delivered for three cycles and followed by surgery. The trial enrolled
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 3 of 10

44 patients who were randomly assigned to both arms [10]. 38% of patients treated with
nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a major pathologic response. Whereas, 22% of patients
who received nivolumab alone achieved a major pathologic response. The overall major
pathologic response rate across both trial arms was 24%. Taking into account only resected
tumors (37 patients), the MPR rates were even higher (24% (5/21) and 50% (8/16) of patients
treated with nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab, respectively) (Table 1). High
percentages of tumor cells with expression of PD-L1 (programmed death ligand 1) prior
therapy was positively correlated with radiographic responses and with pathologic tumor
responses at the time of surgery. Compared with nivolumab, nivolumab plus ipilimumab
resulted in higher pathologic complete response rates (10% versus 38%), less viable tumor
(median 50% versus 9%), and greater frequencies of effector, tissue-resident memory
T cells [11].

Table 1. Results of clinical trials with neoadjuvant therapy in terms of the percentage of patients who achieved MPR
and pCR.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Clinical Trials

Study Active Treatment MPR Rates CPR Rates
NEOSTAR Nivolumab vs. nivolumab + ipilimumab 24% vs. 50% 10% vs. 38%
Atezolizumab
LCMC3 19% 5%
2 cycles before surgery and 1 year after surgery
Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy Clinical Trials
Nivolumab + paclitaxel and
NADIM carboplatin every 3 weeks, followed by 83% 71%
adjuvant nivolumab for 1 year
Nivolumab + 3 cycles of chemotherapy vs.
CHECKMATE 816 36.9% vs. 8.9% 24% vs. 2.2%
3 cycles of chemotherapy

Additional NEOSTAR endpoints included treatment failure (TFs) rates and disease
control rates (DCRs). After a median follow-up of 35 months, TF was observed in 27% of
patients, of which 42% of patients had not undergone surgery. Twenty percent of patients in-
cluded in the study had relapses. Treatment failure was less frequent in smokers (HR = 0.20,
p = 0.007). Most of the patients who relapsed had genetic aberrations (8/9 patients, 89%),
the most common of which was a mutation in the EGFR gene [12].

3.2. LCMC3
LCMC3 was a multicenter trial exploring the use of neoadjuvant treatment with
atezolizumab. Patients with resectable NSCLC received 2 cycles of atezolizumab, then
underwent surgery. The treatment also included 12 months of atezolizumab post-resection
therapy. Tumor and lymph node biopsies were obtained before systemic treatment and dur-
ing surgery for biomarker assessment. Neoadjuvant monotherapy with atezolizumab led
to a major pathologic response in 19% of patients, as well as a pathologic complete response
in 5% of patients (Table 1). In general, presence of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells was
significantly associated with response. However, there were patients with major pathologic
responses whose tumors were negative for PD-L1 expression. Tumor mutation burden
(TMB) analysis revealed that median TMB was 10.4 (range: 1.5–46.5) mutations per Mb and
was not different in patients with MPR compared with patients without MPR. In summary,
the study failed to identify strong biomarkers of response to immunotherapy [13].

3.3. NEOMUN
NEOMUN study is designed to assess the antitumor activity of a neoadjuvant pem-
brolizumab. It is a single arm, prospective, phase II, ongoing study including patients
with NSCLC stage II and IIIA suitable for curative intent surgery. After two cycles of
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 4 of 10

immunotherapy, tumor resection is performed. Except the disease-free rate and overall
survival (OS), the study analyses potential predictive biomarkers as well as clinical and
pathological tumor response. Although the study will include a modest number of patients,
it will cover detailed information of tumor characteristics. This will include the tumor
microenvironment, tumor mutational burden, mutational status, other genomic alterations,
and cytokine expression levels [14].

4. Combination of Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy in Neoadjuvant Treatment in

NSCLC Patients
The combination of immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) and chemotherapy may
also offer synergistic activity, given that chemotherapy results in tumor cell death and
subsequent antigen release that can activate an immune response. Therefore, combining
cytotoxic chemotherapy with a PD-1 inhibitor may augment the antitumor response.

4.1. NADIM
The NADIM study was a phase II, single-arm, open-label multicenter study aimed to
assess the efficacy of combined neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The study
group consisted of lung cancer patients with stage III A disease. Patients were assigned
to receive three cycles of neoadjuvant treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy with
paclitaxel and carboplatin every 3 weeks, followed by adjuvant nivolumab for 1 year.
The overall response rate according to radiological criteria was 70% (21 of 30 patients)
and included three complete responses (10%) and 18 partial responses (60%). Among the
41 patients who underwent resection, 83% achieved major pathologic response, and 17%
had less than 10% of residual viable tumor tissue. The rate of MPR in this study was quite
high, particularly in patients with stage III A NSCLC [15,16].

4.2. CheckMate 816

CheckMate 816 is an ongoing phase III study evaluating nivolumab plus ipilimumab,
nivolumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy, and platinum-doublet chemotherapy as
neoadjuvant treatment for early-stage NSCLC. This is the largest study with neoadjuvant
therapy, and it is planning to enroll approximately 642 patients with early-stage (stages
IB-IIIA) resectable NSCLC. The study will focus on event-free survival and pCR rates, as
well as overall survival and MPR (Table 1). The estimated primary completion date is May
2023; however, the early results regarding surgical outcomes are promising [17]. Definitive
surgery rates were 83% in patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. 75% in
patients who received chemotherapy alone. Reasons for cancelled surgery were disease
progression, patients’ refusal, unresectability, and decreased lung function. It is important
to note that adverse events (AEs) were responsible for delays of surgery in six patients
in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm, and in nine patients in the chemotherapy arm.
Although R0 resection was achieved in the same percentage of patients from both groups,
the median residual viable tumor (RVT) cells in the primary tumor bed were 10% in
patients treated with combination therapy vs. 74% in patients who received chemotherapy
alone. The data from CheckMate 816 support nivolumab plus chemotherapy as a potential
neoadjuvant option for patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC [18].

4.3. IMpower 030

The combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy demonstrated significant activity
in the neoadjuvant setting in the phase II study. Treatment response was seen regardless of
PD-L1 score [19]. The results were encouraging enough to move forward and implement a
phase III study. IMpower 030 is an ongoing study designed for patients with stage II to IIIB
NSCLC eligible for resection with curative intent. Patients are randomized to receive four
cycles of neoadjuvant atezolizumab or placebo in combination with chemotherapy chosen
by the investigator, followed by adjuvant atezolizumab treatment for 16 cycles. Patients
from the control arm receive the best supportive care after surgery and are subjected to
observation. Major pathological response (10% residual viable tumor tissue at the time
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 5 of 10

of resection) is proposed as one of the endpoints, together with overall survival and
disease-free survival. The study also focuses on biomarkers [20].

4.4. CheckMate 77T

CheckMate 77T is the newest phase III trial assessing a combination of chemother-
apy and immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for NSCLC patients. The study is
designed to enroll over 450 patients with resectable stage IIA–IIIB NSCLC. Patients will be
randomized to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy
followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab. Study endpoints include OS, pathological
complete response, and MPR. The estimated time of results is May 2023 [21].

4.5. AEGAN
The AEGEAN study is constructed to assess the activity and long-term clinical out-
comes of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy prior to surgery, as well as further
administration of durvalumab. This is a phase III, randomized study which is focused on
the efficacy of neoadjuvant combinations in terms of major pathological response [22].

5. Adjuvant Immunotherapy in NSCLC Patients

5.1. IMpower010
IMpower010 is a phase III, global, multicenter, open-label, randomized study eval-
uating the efficacy and safety of adjuvant atezolizumab compared with best supportive
care (BSC) in NSCLC patients in stage IB-IIIA. All patients after surgical resection received
up to four cycles of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study randomized more
than 1000 patients with a ratio of 1:1 to receive up to 16 cycles of atezolizumab or BSC. The
IMpower010 study showed for the first time that treatment with atezolizumab following
surgery and chemotherapy reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death. Immunother-
apy reduced the risk of disease relapse by 34% (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50–0.88) in stage II-IIIA
NSCLC patients with expression of PD-L1 on ≥1% of tumor cells compared with BSC. In all
randomized stage II-IIIA study participants, regardless of PD- L expression, atezolizumab
reduced the risk of disease recurrence or death by 21% (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64–0.96)
after a median follow-up of 32.2 months. In this population, atezolizumab compared to
BSC increased median DFS by seven months (42.3 months versus 35.3 months) (Table 1).
Although the addition of up to one year of immunotherapy following chemotherapy led to
a higher number of AEs compared with BSC, safety data in this study were consistent with
the known safety profile of atezolizumab and no new safety signals were identified [23].

5.2. NADIM-ADJUVANT
The NADIM study is aimed at evaluating safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in
the adjuvant setting in completely resected, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC patients. This study
is ongoing, an open-labeled, randomized, two-arm, phase III, multicenter clinical trial.
Patients in the experimental arm receive nivolumab at a dose of 360 mg plus paclitaxel
at a dose of 200 mg/m2 plus carboplatin at a dose of AUC5 for 4 cycles every 21 days
(+/− 3 days). Maintenance adjuvant treatment includes 6 cycles of nivolumab at a dose
of 480 mg every 4 weeks (+/− 3 days). Patients randomized to the control arm will
receive chemotherapy alone. The primary objective is to evaluate DFS, MPR and pCR
(Table 1) [24].

6. Predictive Biomarkers for Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Immunotherapies

6.1. Pathological Outcomes
First of all, the standardized definition of MPR and pCR is necessary to use it consis-
tently in clinical trials with immunotherapy. Correlation of MPR and pCR with DFS and
OS in these trials will help to determine if MPR or pCR predicts survival. To understand
the mechanism of tumor resistance, it is crucial to examine not only pre-surgery specimens
but also residual tumors [25].
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 6 of 10

However, there still are challenges with using this metric for immunotherapy efficacy
assessment. First, it is not considered a validated surrogate endpoint in clinical trials and,
therefore, it is not currently used for drug approvals. Moreover, the optimal cut point
may differ by histology, such as being different for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell
carcinoma. This has potential implications for using this in trials that enroll patients of both
histological types. Finally, there are some emerging data that MPR may have different value
after immunotherapy than after chemotherapy. MPR and pCR measures are yet to prove a
direct link to prolongation of overall survival. The pCR indicates that there are no cancer
cells after the surgery. It seems to be easier to define pCR than MPR for a pathologist [26,27].
MPR is relatively more challenging, because it is described by the presence of some
remaining cancer cells [8]. The pathologist experience might be crucial in defining 10%
or less of viable cancer cells in the specimen (Tables 1 and 2). Tumor heterogeneity of the
remaining tumor tissue may not reflect the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment [28]. The
important point is that none of the described studies are personalizing neoadjuvant therapy.
Patients are not qualified for adjuvant or neoadjuvant immunotherapy based on molecular
markers. There is still an unmet need for developing biomarkers for treatment in this area.
The biomarkers would allow us to identify which patients have micrometastatic disease
and, therefore, are likely to benefit from the neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Moreover, the
selection of best regimen could be based on predictive biomarkers depending on the risk
of relapse and treatment efficacy [29].

Table 2. Surrogate measures of efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment.

major pathologic response is currently defined as an “estimated size of viable tumor divided by the size of the
MPR
tumor bed” of 10% or less
CPR or pCR complete pathologic response was defined as the absence of tumor cells in all resected specimens
Tumor bed applies to the location of the pretreated tumor and includes viable tumor, necrotic areas, and stroma

6.2. PD-L1 Expression

The PD-L1 expression on neoplastic cells is the best-studied biomarker used in the
qualification of patients for immunotherapy. The choice of the type of first-line immunother-
apy in patients with advanced NSCLC depends on PD-L1 expression. Pembrolizumab
monotherapy is used in patients with PD-L1 expression on more than 50% of tumor
cells [30]. In the remaining patients, combination therapy with pembrolizumab and
chemotherapy could be used. PD-L1 expression has been assessed in clinical trials with
adjuvant or neoadjuvant immunotherapy. However, patients were enrolled in the studies
regardless of PD-L1 expression. Some studies have shown that patients with PD-L1 ex-
pression on tumor cells may benefit more from such treatment [31,32]. Although PD-L1
expression is not considered as a prognostic factor, it was associated with tumor grading in
early lung cancer not treated with neoadjuvant treatment [33].

6.3. Circulating Tumor DNA

DNA released from damaged or apoptotic tumor cells present in blood plasma, re-
ferred to here as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), can be isolated and utilized in planning
cancer treatment. Freely circulating DNA analysis is one of the promising biomarkers
in qualification to adjuvant or neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Diehl et al. found that the
majority of the patients had significantly decreased or absent ctDNA in peripheral blood
after surgery. Moreover, all patients with detectable ctDNA after surgery had a relapse,
while those without detectable ctDNA remained in remission [34]. In patients with disease
progression, there was an increase in ctDNA levels. In contrast, patients in remission of
disease had stable or low ctDNA levels. These observations suggested the use of ctDNA
to measure early molecular response during neoadjuvant therapy. Additionally, ctDNA
levels after surgery can predict which patients are likely to recur as a result of presence of
molecular residual disease [35]. This rapid decline of ctDNA levels may be employed to
monitor disease recurrence before radiological progression appears [36]. There are several
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 7 of 10

new preclinical methods trying to identify the optimal early cancer detection method. One
of them is the surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) immunomagnetic assay, which
is able to detect as few as five tumor cells in 5 mL of blood in lung cancer patients [37].

6.4. Radiological Response

Due to the challenges associated with assessing radiological response in immunother-
apy, there is an urgent clinical need for imaging-derived biomarkers not only in metastatic
changes but also in early lung cancer, especially in clinical trials.
PET/CT has a significant role in TNM staging in early lung carcinoma, due to its
ability to differentiate the tumor mass from the surrounding inflammatory reaction. Us-
ing PERCIST criteria, described in detail by Osman and Korashi, can change the TNM
assessment in up to 40% of bronchogenic cancers [38]. PET/CT examinations could help to
assess an early response, also in terms of hyperprogression or pseudoprogression. Lang
et al. suggest that standardized response criteria such as PERCIST, analogous to RECIST,
may be helpful in that field [39].
An interesting approach has been provided in a study by Nakajima et al. In this
study, an association between MPR and radiomic features (RF) in [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose
([18F]-FDG) PET and standard CT examinations has been obtained. The authors analyzed
PET and CT scans at baseline and after ICIs therapy in early-stage NSCLC patients. There
was a significant increase in tumor heterogeneity in CT images in NSCLC patients after
ICIs therapy with major pathologic response. This association may reflect increased T cell
infiltration or tumor necrosis. In contrast, most [18F]-FDG-based RFs did not distinguish
MPR vs. non-MPR tumors, although the sample size was limited [40].

7. Conclusions
In parallel to extending the knowledge in carcinogenesis, new strategies have been
implemented in early lung cancer treatment. Some of the studies targeted therapies in
patients with genomic alterations either in the advance stage or already registered, e.g.,
osimertinib based on ADURA trial [41]. A different approach is present in the CANOPY-A
and CANOPY N trials where the use of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab with
or without pembrolizumab is being investigated [42,43]. In this review, we focused on
immune checkpoint inhibitors. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy had encouraging activity
and demonstrated favorable safety in patients with resectable early-stage non-small cell
lung cancer patients. Dissemination of T lymphocytes from the primary tumor may control
microscopic metastatic disease. This approach has the potential to improve survival rates
in resectable early-stage NSCLC patients according to clinical trials results. Current data,
though very limited, suggests that combined immunotherapy is the most active approach.
There are several limitations of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in neoadjuvant
settings. The treatment is better tolerated than chemotherapy; however, immune adverse
reaction onset cannot be predicted. Severe pneumonitis, although extremely rare, can
deplete the rate of surgical patients. The results of completed studies are encouraging;
however, the early phases and small groups should be taken into account. More biomarker
research is needed to design personalized treatment strategies. The most effective strategy,
adjuvant, neoadjuvant or combined neoadjuvant plus adjuvant immunotherapy regimens,
remains unclear. Several clinical studies are dedicated to define the best sequence of
treatment (Figure 1) .
Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy following neoadjuvant treatment may
not be required in most cases. However, much of the important data will be available in
the next few years. They will cover the question whether MPR is an adequate surrogate for
long-term survival in early-stage NSCLC patients undergoing neoadjuvant immunotherapy.
Although major pathologic response and complete pathologic response have been the most
commonly used in neoadjuvant trials, the ideal endpoint for neoadjuvant drug approval
in NSCLC remains unclear, and there is no consensus whether pCR or mPR is a better
endpoint for neoadjuvant trials.
 adjuvant settings. The treatment is better tolerated than chemotherapy; however, immune
adverse reaction onset cannot be predicted. Severe pneumonitis, although extremely rare,
can deplete the rate of surgical patients. The results of completed studies are encouraging;
however, the early phases and small groups should be taken into account. More bi-
omarker research is needed to design personalized treatment strategies. The most effec-
tive strategy, adjuvant, neoadjuvant or combined neoadjuvant plus adjuvant immuno-
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 therapy regimens, remains unclear. Several clinical studies are dedicated to define the best 8 of 10
sequence of treatment (Figure 1)

Figure 1. The use immunotherapy

Figure 1. The use of neoadjuvant of neoadjuvant immunotherapy
in NSCLC in NSCLC patients
patients.
Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy following neoadjuvant treatment
Author Contributions:may Conceptualization,
not be required in mostI.C.,
cases.K.S., writing—original
However, draft
much of the important preparation,
data I.C., K.S.,
will be available
writing—review and in the next few
editing, years.
R.R., They
E.K., willsupervision.
P.K., cover the question
Allwhether
authorsMPR is an read
have adequate
and surrogate
agreed to the
for long-term survival in early-stage NSCLC patients undergoing neoadjuvant immuno-
published version of the manuscript.
therapy. Although major pathologic response and complete pathologic response have
been the most commonly used in neoadjuvant trials, the ideal endpoint for neoadjuvant
Funding: This research received no external funding.
drug approval in NSCLC remains unclear, and there is no consensus whether pCR or mPR
is a better endpoint for neoadjuvant trials.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.C., K.S., writing—original draft preparation, I.C., K.S.,
References writing—review and editing, R.R., E.K., P.K., supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020:
GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71,
209–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. de Groot, P.M.; Wu, C.C.; Carter, B.W.; Munden, R.F. The epidemiology of lung cancer. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2018, 7,
220–233. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Asamura, H.; Goya, T.; Koshiishi, Y.; Sohara, Y.; Eguchi, K.; Mori, M.; Nakanishi, Y.; Tsuchiya, R.; Shimokata, K.;
Inoue, H.; et al. A Japanese Lung Cancer Registry Study: Prognosis of 13,010 Resected Lung Cancers. J. Thorac. Oncol.
2008, 3, 46–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Salehi-Rad, R.; Li, R.; Paul, M.K.; Dubinett, S.M.; Liu, B. The Biology of Lung Cancer: Development of More Effective Methods for
Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Clin. Chest Med. 2020, 41, 25–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Bai, R.; Li, L.; Chen, X.; Chen, N.; Song, W.; Cui, J. Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Immunotherapy: Opening New Horizons for
Patients with Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 575472. [CrossRef]
6. Pignon, J.P.; Tribodet, H.; Scagliotti, G.V.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Shepherd, F.; Stephens, R.; Dunant, A.; Torri, V.; Rosell, R.;
Seymour, L.; et al. Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: A pooled analysis by the LACE collaborative group. J. Clin. Oncol.
2008, 26, 3552–3559. [CrossRef]
7. Yendamuri, S.; Groman, A.; Miller, A.; Demmy, T.; Hennon, M.; Dexter, E.; Picone, A.; Nwogu, C.; Dy, G.-K. Risk and benefit of
neoadju- vant therapy among patients undergoing resection for non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2018, 53,
656–663. [CrossRef]
8. Hellmann, M.D.; Chaft, J.E.; William, W.N., Jr.; Rusch, V.; Pisters, K.; Kalhor, N.; Pataer, A.; Travis, W.D.; Swisher, S.;
Kris, M.G.; et al. Pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable non-small-cell lung cancers: Proposal for
the use of major pathological response as a surrogate endpoint. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, e42–e50. [CrossRef]
9. Taiwo, E.O.; Yorio, J.T.; Yan, J.; Gerber, D.E. How have we diagnosed early-stage lung cancer without radiographic screening?
A contemporary single-center experience. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52313. [CrossRef]
10. Cascone, T.; William, W.N.; Weissferdt, A.; Lin, H.Y.; Leung, C.H.; Carter, B.W.; Fossella, F.V.; Mott, F.; Papadimitrakopoulou, V.;
Blumenschein, G.R., Jr.; et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab (N) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) for resectable non-small cell lung
cancer (NSCLC): Clinical and correlative results from the NEOSTAR study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 8504. [CrossRef]
11. Cascone, T.; William, W.N., Jr.; Weissferdt, A.; Leung, C.H.; Lin, H.Y.; Pataer, A.; Godoy, M.; Carter, B.W.; Federico, L.;
Reuben, A.; et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in operable non-small cell lung cancer: The phase 2
randomized NEOSTAR trial. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 504–514. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Zhou, N.; Sepesi, B.; Leung, C.H.; Lin, H.Y.; William, W.N.; Weissferdt, A.; Pataer, A.; Godoy, M.; Fossella, F.V.;
Blumenschein, G.; et al. Impact of genomic aberrations and additional therapies on survival outcomes of patients with
operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the NEOSTAR study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 8542. [CrossRef]
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 9 of 10

13. Kwiatkowski, D.J.; Rusch, V.W.; Chaft, J.E.; Johnson, B.E.; Nicholas, A.; Wistuba, I.I.; Merritt, R.; Lee, J.M.; Bunn, P.A.;
Tang, Y.; et al. Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Interim analysis and biomarker data
from a multicenter study (LCMC3). J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 8503. [CrossRef]
14. Eichhorn, F.; Klotz, L.V.; Bischoff, H.; Thomas, M.; Lasitschka, F.; Winter, H.; Hoffmann, H.; Eichhorn, M.E. Neoadjuvant
anti-programmed Death-1 immunotherapy by Pembrolizumab in resectable nodal positive stage II/IIIa non-small-cell lung
cancer (NSCLC): The NEOMUN trial. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 413. [CrossRef]
15. Provencio, M.; Nadal, E.; Insa, A.; Campelo, R.G.; Casal, J.; Domine, M.; Majem, M.; Rodriguez-Abreu, D.; Martinez-Marti, A.;
De Cas- tro Carpeno, J.; et al. OA13.05 NADIM Study: Updated Clinical Research and Outcomes. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019,
14, S241. [CrossRef]
16. Provencio-Pulla, M.; Nadal-Alforja, E.; Cobo, M.; Insa, A.; Costa Rivas, M.; Majem, M.; Rodriguez-Abreu, D.; Lopez-Vivanco, G.;
Domine, M.; Del Barco Morillo, E.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemo/immunotherapy for the treatment of stages IIIA resectable non-
small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A phase II multicenter exploratory study—NADIM study-SLCG. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018,
36, 8521. [CrossRef]
17. Forde, P.M.; Chaft, J.E.; Felip, E.; Broderick, S.; Girard, N.; Awad, M.M.; Kerr, K.; Blackwood-Chirchir, A.; Yang,
R.; Geese, W.J.; et al. CheckMate 816: A Phase 3 Trial of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab or Chemotherapy
vs Chemotherapy in Early-Stage NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2017, 13, S831–S832.
18. Spicer, J.; Wang, C.; Tanaka, F.; Saylors, G.B.; Chen, K.-N.; Liberman, M.; Vokes, E.E.; Girard, N.; Lu, S.; Provencio, M.; et al.
Surgical outcomes from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial: Nivolumab (NIVO) + platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo)
vs chemo alone as neoad- juvant treatment for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2021,
39 (Suppl. 15), 8503. [CrossRef]
19. Shu, C.A.; Grigg, C.; Chiuzan, C.; Garofano, R.F.; Patel, V.; Hernandez, S.; Negri, T.; Sacher, A.G.; Smith-Marrone, S.;
Stoopler, M.; et al. Neoadjuvant atezolizumab+ chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Clin. Oncol.
2018, 36, 8532. [CrossRef]
20. Peters, S.; Kim, A.W.; Solomon, B.; Gandara, D.R.; Dziadziuszko, R.; Brunelli, A.; Garassino, M.C.; Reck, M.; Wang, L.; To, I.; et al.
Impower030: Phase III study evaluating neoadjuvant treatment of resectable stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (nsclc) with
ate- zolizumab (atezo) + chemotherapy. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30 (Suppl. 2), ii26–ii30. [CrossRef]
21. Cascone, T.; Provencio, M.; Sepesi, B.; Lu, S.; Aanur, N.; Li, S.; Spicer, J.; Checkmate, T. A phase III trial of neoadjuvant
nivolumab (NIVO) plus chemotherapy (chemo) followed by adjuvant nivo in resectable early-stage NSCLC. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020,
38, TPS9076. [CrossRef]
22. Heymach, J.; Taube, J.; Mitsudomi, T.; Harpole, D.; Aperghis, M.; Trani, L.; Powell, M.; Dennis, P.; Reck, M. P1.18-02 The AEGEAN
Phase 3 Trial of Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Durvalumab in Patients with Resectable Stage II/III NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019, 14,
S625–S626. [CrossRef]
23. Wakelee, H.A.; Altorki, N.K.; Zhou, C.; Csoszi, T.; Vynnychenko, I.O.; Goloborodko, O.; Luft, A.; Akopov, A.; Martinez-Marti, A.;
Kenmotsu, H.; et al. IMpower010: Primary results of a Phase III global study of atezolizumab versus best supportive care after
adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 8500. [CrossRef]
24. Calvo, V.; Domine, M.; Sullivan, I.; Gonzalez-Laribba, J.-L.; Ortega, A.L.; Bernabe, R.; Sala, M.A.; Campos, B.; De Castro, J.;
Martil- Martorell, P.; et al. A phase III clinical trial of adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoimmunotherapy for stage IB-IIIA
completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients nadim-adjuvant: New adjuvant trial of chemotherapy versus
chemoimmunotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, TPS8581. [CrossRef]
25. Blumenthal, G.M.; Bunn, P.A., Jr.; Chaft, J.E.; McCoach, C.; Parez, E.A.; Scagliotti, G.V.; Carbone, D.P.; Aerts, H.; Aisner, D.;
Bergh, J.; et al. Current Status and Future Perspectives on Neoadjuvant Therapy in Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2018, 13,
1818–1831. [CrossRef]
26. Pataer, A.; Kalhor, N.; Correa, A.M.; Raso, M.G.; Erasmus, J.J.; Kim, E.S.; Behrens, C.; Lee, J.J.; Roth, J.A.; Stewart, D.J.; et al.
Histopathologic response criteria predict survival of patients with resected lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J. Thorac.
Oncol. 2012, 7, 825–832. [CrossRef]
27. Weissferdt, A.; Pataer, A.; Vaporciyan, A.A.; Correa, A.M.; Sepesi, B.; Moran, C.A.; Wistuba, I.I.; Roth, J.A.; Shewale, J.B.;
Heymach, J.V.; et al. Agreement on Major Pathological Response in NSCLC Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Clin.
Lung Cancer 2020, 21, 341–348. [CrossRef]
28. Ling, Y.; Li, N.; Li, L.; Guo, C.; Wei, J.; Yuan, P.; Tan, F.; Tao, X.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; et al. Different pathologic responses to neoadju-
vant anti-PD-1 in primary squamous lung cancer and regional lymph nodes. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 2020, 4, 32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Kang, J.; Zhang, C.; Zhong, W.-Z. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer: State of the art. Cancer Commun.
2021, 41, 287–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Reck, M.; Rodríguez-Abreu, D.; Robinson, A.G.; Hui, R.; Csoszi, T.; Fulop, A.; Gottfried, M.; Peled, N.; Tafreshi, A.; Cuffe, S.; et al.
Five-Year Outcomes with Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with PD-L1 Tumor
Proportion Score ≥ 50%. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 2339–2349. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Tsao, M.S.; Le Teuff, G.; Shepherd, F.A.; Landais, C.; Hainaut, P.; Filipits, M.; Pirker, R.; Chevalier, T.L.; Graziano, S.; Kratze, R.; et al.
PD-L1 protein expression assessed by immunohistochemistry is neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit from adjuvant
chemotherapy in re-sected non-small cell lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 882–889. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 2021, 13, 5048 10 of 10

32. Zaric, B.; Brcic, L.; Buder, A.; Brandstetter, A.; Buresch, J.O.; Traint, S.; Kovacevic, T.; Stojsic, V.; Perin, B.; Pirker, R.; et al. PD-1
and PD-L1 Protein Expression Predict Survival in Completely Resected Lung Adenocarcinoma. Clin. Lung Cancer 2018, 19,
e957–e963. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. D’Arcangelo, M.; D’Incecco, A.; Ligorio, C.; Damiani, S.; Puccetti, M.; Bravaccini, S.; Terracciano, L.; Bennati, C.; Minuti, G.;
Vecchiarelli, S.; et al. Programmed death ligand 1 expression in early stage, resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget 2019,
10, 561–572. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Diehl, F.; Schmidt, K.; Choti, M.A.; Romans, K.; Goodman, S.; Li, M.; Thornton, K.; Agrawal, N.; Sokoll, L.; Szabo, S.A.; et al.
Circulating mutant DNA to assess tumor dynamics. Nat. Med. 2008, 14, 985–990. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Cheng, F.; Su, L.; Qian, C. Circulating tumor DNA: A promising biomarker in the liquid biopsy of cancer. Oncotarget 2016, 7,
48832–48841. [CrossRef]
36. Nagasaka, M.; Uddin, M.H.; Al-Hallak, M.N.; Rahman, S.; Balasubramanian, S.; Sukari, A.; Azmi, A.S. Liquid biopsy for therapy
monitoring in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Mol. Cancer 2021, 20, 82. [CrossRef]
37. Czaplicka, M.; Niciński, K.; Nowicka, A.; Szymborski, T.; Chmielewska, I.; Trzcińska-Danielewicz, J.; Girstun, A.; Kamińska, A.
Effect of Varying Expression of EpCAM on the Efficiency of CTCs Detection by SERS-Based Immunomagnetic Optofluidic Device.
Cancers 2020, 12, 3315. [CrossRef]
38. Osman, A.M.; Korashi, H.I. PET/CT implication on bronchogenic carcinoma TNM staging and follow-up using RECIST/PERCIST
criteria: A comparative study with CT. Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2020, 51, 16. [CrossRef]
39. Lang, D.; Wahl, G.; Poier, N.; Graf, S.; Kiesl, D.; Lamprecht, B.; Gabriel, M. Impact of PET/CT for Assessing Response to
Immunotherapy—A Clinical Perspective. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3483. [CrossRef]
40. Nakajima, E.C.; Leal, J.P.; Fu, W.; Wang, H.; Chaft, J.E.; Hellmann, M.D.; Pomper, M.; Forde, P.M. CT and PET radiomic features
associated with major pathologic response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 9031. [CrossRef]
41. Wu, Y.-L.; Tsuboi, M.; He, J.; John, T.; Grohe, C.; Majem, M.; Goldman, J.W.; Laktionov, K.; Kim, S.-W.; Kato, T.; et al. Osimertinib
in Resected EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1711–1723. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Garon, E.; Ardizzoni, A.; Barlesi, F.; Cho, B.; De Marchi, P.; Goto, Y.; Lu, S.; Paz-Ares, L.; Spigel, D.; Thomas, M.; et al. P2.01-02
CANOPY-A: A Phase 3 Study of Canakinumab as Adjuvant Therapy in Patients with Surgically Resected NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol.
2019, 14, S638–S639. [CrossRef]
43. Garrido, P.; Pujol, L.J.; Kim, E.S.; Lee, M.J.; Tsuboi, M.; Gómez-Rueda, A.; Benito, A.; Moreno, N.; Gorospe, L.; Dong, T.; et al.
Canakinumab with and without pembrolizumab in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: CANOPY-N study design.
Future Oncol. 2021, 17, 1459–1472. [CrossRef] [PubMed]