Contrary to its role in lung cancer, PD-L1 expression does not predict benefit from immunotherapy in mesothelioma. Data from major trials shows similar outcomes regardless of PD-L1 status, leading clinicians to omit this test entirely and streamline treatment decisions.
Data from the Checkmate 743 trial shows that patients who stopped dual immunotherapy (Nivo/Ipi) due to toxicity can still achieve long-term benefits. A third of these patients had an ongoing response at three years, despite stopping treatment after only four months on average, providing confidence in the regimen.
While the feared side effect of severe lung inflammation (pneumonitis) did not increase, other immune-mediated adverse events did. This led to higher rates of treatment discontinuation in the experimental arm, potentially negating any benefits of the concurrent approach and contributing to the trial's failure.
Clinicians ordering "NGS for lung" often misunderstand that Next-Generation Sequencing alone does not cover all actionable biomarkers, such as PD-L1 or HER2. This requires pathologists to interpret the clinician's intent and order a more comprehensive and appropriate test panel.
Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
An expert argues forcefully that the PD-L1 biomarker should be "ditched" in bladder cancer. Citing its repeated failure to predict overall survival benefit across multiple major trials, it is deemed an oversimplified and unreliable tool that leads to both over- and under-treatment of patients.
The success of perioperative osimertinib means oncologists cannot choose the optimal strategy (targeted therapy vs. chemoimmunotherapy) for resectable lung cancer without first knowing the patient's EGFR, ALK, and PD-L1 status. This elevates biomarker profiling from a metastatic-setting tool to a critical first step in early-stage disease.
For patients with very high-burden or symptomatic mesothelioma, clinicians may deviate from standard guidelines. They may choose chemo-immunotherapy to maximize the chance of a rapid response, viewing it as their single best opportunity to control the disease, especially if the patient's condition is precarious.
Frontline treatment selection hinges on histology. Non-epithelioid mesothelioma responds poorly to chemotherapy, making dual immunotherapy (Nivo/Ipi) the clear choice. For epithelioid cases, chemo-immunotherapy is a strong option, especially for symptomatic patients, due to its higher and faster response rate.
While checkpoint inhibitors are standard for dMMR endometrial cancer, a clear clinical boundary is emerging for the pMMR subgroup. Based on trial data showing no benefit for fully resected disease (e.g., B21 trial), oncologists are not offering immunotherapy to pMMR patients without measurable disease, avoiding significant toxicity without proven efficacy.
In the increasingly common scenario of a patient with multiple positive biomarkers, a clear hierarchy exists for treatment decisions. Based on the robustness and maturity of clinical trial data, HER2-directed therapy is the top priority, followed by PD-L1 immunotherapy, with Claudin-18.2 targeting considered third.