Home > News > Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies in the Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer
Read Time: 18 mins

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies in the Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Published Online: January 25th 2017 European Oncology & Haematology, 2017;13(1):35–52 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/EOH.2017.13.01.35
Authors: Tu Nguyen-Ngoc, Martin Reck, Daniel SW Tan, Solange Peters
Quick Links:
Article Information

In the last decade, the emergence of targeted therapies has changed the treatment paradigm for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The growing availability of therapies targeting specific genetic alterations, such as epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements, have led to changes in the guidelines to reflect the need for molecular profiling. More recently, immunotherapeutic approaches have been investigated in the treatment setting of NSCLC, and these may provide superior outcomes and have substantially better tolerability compared to chemotherapy. Immunotherapies currently available for NSCLC include the checkpoint inhibitors anti PD-1 antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Several other anti PD-L1 compounds such as atezolizumab, durvalumab and avelumab are also very advanced in clinical investigation, in monotherapy as well as in combination with immune priming phase activators anti-CTLA4 ipilimumab and tremelimumab, across all treatment lines. The challenge facing oncologists is identifying which therapy is best suited to the individual patient.


Non-small cell lung cancer, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors, immunotherapy


Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide1 and remains one of the major therapeutic challenges in oncology. Traditionally, lung cancer is subdivided based on histology: small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have completely different molecular and therapeutic profiles. The most common class is NSCLC, accounting for 85% of all cases.2 The prognosis of NSCLC dramatically changed following the discovery of genetic alterations affecting oncogenes, called drivers, including epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutations, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement, ROS1 or RET rearrangements, MET mutations or amplification, as well as BRAF or HER2 mutations (see Figure 1). The ability to target tumours at the molecular level has led to a paradigm shift in the management of patients with these mutations.

The availability of new therapies with differing modes of action is potentially confusing, not only for primary care physicians but also for medical oncologists. Furthermore, unmet needs remain in the treatment of NSCLC, including the development of resistance to targeted therapies and the fact that not all molecular subtypes are actionable to date. Furthermore, a large group of patients does not suffer from tumours characterised by oncogenic alterations, with the vast majority deprived of any actionable genetic change. These patients are currently treated by chemotherapy. There is a need for new treatments for these patients, and immunotherapy represents a promising approach, but also confers a challenge: identifying patients who will benefit optimally from these treatments. This article aims to discuss the use of targeted therapies and immunotherapy in the setting of NSCLC.

Targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer

Standard-of-care molecular characterisation of advanced NSCLC is performed by analysis of activating mutations of EGFR (in exons 19 and 21) and detection of an ALK rearrangement.3 Such screening of NSCLC patients for driver mutations have been standardised and validated.4 However, mutations on the EGFR gene are seen in fewer than 10% of NSCLC patients in Western populations,5,6 although this is higher (up to 50%) in Asian populations.5,7 The mutation has been reported with a higher frequency in non-smokers, women, and presence of adenocarcinoma.6 Clinical trials of approved targeted therapies for NSCLC are summarised in Table 1. The use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended as first-line therapy

for patients with an EGFR driver mutation, following an accumulation of evidence of superiority compared with chemotherapy. The first EGFR TKI was gefitinib8–11 followed by erlotinib12–14 and the second-generation TKI afatinib.15,16 In addition, dacomitinib is being evaluated as first-line therapy.17 However, despite high response rates, resistance to EGFR inhibitors invariably ensues in the majority of patients. One of the most common mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance has been attributed to a single recurrent missense mutation: T790M within the EGFR kinase domain, which occurs in around half of resistant cases.18,19 Other mutations exist, including EGFR point mutations, EGFR amplification, bypass tracks and 15–20% unknown mechanisms.20 Several other agents are in clinical development.

Second-generation irreversible pan-HER EGFR TKIs, such as afatinib,21 dacomitinib22 and neratinib,23 do not seem to be highly effective after progression on first-generation TKI. As a result, third-generation EFGR inhibitors have been developed that selectively target EGFR-activating mutations (del19 and L858R), preserving their affinity in the presence of the T790M resistance mutation, but relatively sparing of EGFR wild type (WT) kinase. The most advanced of these are osimertinib (AZD9291)24 and rociletinib (CO-1686).25 In a phase I study, osimertinib showed a response rate of 61% and a progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.6 months among 127 T790M-positive patients previously treated with EGFR TKIs.26 The latest data from the two phase II studies (AURA extension and AURA2) showed a consistent efficacy and tolerability profile.27 Osimertinib received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2015 and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2015 for EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC progressing after prior therapy with an EGFR TKI. Results of the confirmatory AURA3 phase III study are pending.

Rociletinib has also shown high efficacy (objective response rate [ORR] 59%, PFS 13.1 months) in T790M-mutated patients in a phase I/II study.28 However, due to a high proportion of unconfirmed responses, rociletinib has not received FDA approval yet and development has been halted. Interestingly, osimertinib and rociletinib also seem active in T790Mnegative NSCLC with lower response rates than in T790M-positive NSCLC. Unfortunately, resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs occurs and new mechanisms of resistance have been found,29,30 which may differ for osimertinib, rociletinib and other agents in development. Of note, a few cases of NSCLC progressing after rociletinib have been shown to respond to osimertinib.31 Osimertinib and rociletinib are currently being tested in the first-line setting against first-generation TKIs. The results of these trials are eagerly awaited, as osimertinib have shown promising high efficacy (ORR 75%, 72% of PFS at 12 months) in preliminary data of first-line cohorts.32,33 The right sequence of EGFR TKIs is thus a big challenge. The choice may be guided by response to brain metastases: osimertinib and rociletinib appear to have almost as high efficacy in patients with brain metastases than without.34,35 Other agents in clinical development include HM6171336 and EGF816.37

The ALK fusion gene is present in about 5% of NSCLC cases. The ALK inhibitor crizotinib received FDA approval in 2013, and has demonstrated ORR of over 70% in phase III studies in both first- and second-line settings.38,39 However, again, resistance inevitably develops after less than a year.20 Increased understanding of the mechanism of resistance has led to the development of second-generation ALK inhibitors. Ceritinib40–43 and alectinib44–47 are effective in more than 50% of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to crizotinib, and have received FDA approval in this second-line treatment setting.

In addition, ceritinib and alectinib have demonstrated remarkable activity in patients with brain metastases.40,48–55 By contrast, studies of crizotinib showed low brain response rates.56 In recent phase I/II clinical trials, the dual ALK/EGFR inhibitor brigatinib (AP26113), showed significant antitumour activity in ALK-positive NSCLC patients with brain metastasis following crizotinib.57 Subsequently, the large (n=222) phase II ALTA trial recruited advanced ALK+ NSCLC patients whose disease progressed on crizotinib and who had received no other ALK TKI. Recently presented data showed that brigatinib gave substantial responses.58 A phase III study is planned, and brigatinib and has received breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA.59 Other second-generation ALK inhibitors in clinical development include the dual ALK/ROS 1 inhibitor lorlatinib (PF-06463922), which has demonstrated durable clinical responses in a phase I/II study of ALK+ and ROS1+ NSCLC patients, most of whom had CNS metastases and had received at least one prior TKI;60 X-396;61 ASP3026;62 TSR-011;63 CEP28122/CEP-37440; and entreclinib.

Second-generation ALK inhibitors are also promising as first-line treatment options. The phase III J-ALEX study randomised patients without prior ALK inhibitor treatment to alectinib or crizotinib. Recently released data from this study shows that alectinib demonstrated significantly prolonged PFS compared with crizotinib and was well tolerated.64 This study was specific for Japanese patients only, and was selecting patients based on stringent ALK positivity criteria (ALK centralised testing, immunohistochemistry [IHC] and fluorescence in situ hybridisation [FISH] or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]). Around half of the patients had received one prior line of chemotherapy. Of note, slightly more patients in the crizotinib group had brain metastases at baseline. Ceritinib40,65 and brigatinib66 are also further currently being investigated as frontline therapy in ALK-positive NSCLC. Current available data on ALK inhibitors are summarised in Table 1.

Although ALK inhibitors are generally well tolerated, they target multiple pathways, and have the potential for a wide range of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), including gastrointestinal AEs and hepatotoxicity.67 In addition, individual drugs present with very different toxicity profiles, such as the report of interstitial lung disease (ILD) on brigatinib; increase

in creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and muscular AEs on alectinib; QT increase on crizotinib and ceritinib, and more gastrointestinal AEs on ceritinib than on other ALK inhibitors. However, the majority of toxicities are reversible, manageable with proactive monitoring and treatment, and not severe if treated promptly.67

It must be noted that resistance to second-generation ALK inhibitors also occurs and novel ALK mutations have been detected.68 In addition, new mutations may confer sensitivity to other ALK inhibitors.69 Ideally, subsequent biopsies should be performed in order to determine the optimum sequencing of ALK inhibitors. However, very few centres perform repeat biopsies at relapse. Determining optimal sequencing of ALK inhibitors in the clinic is an important emerging question that warrants further study. Among other gene mutations in NSCLC, the most important include ROS1 fusions, for which crizotinib was approved after demonstrating an ORR of 72% in patients with advanced ROS1-rearranged NSCLC.70 Mutations of the BRAF gene have been identified in up to 3% of patients with NSCLC.71 Monotherapy with dabrafenib demonstrated a disease control rate of 53% at 12 weeks and a median duration of response of 9.9 months in previously treated patients.72 This agent has been shown to be even more effective when combined with trametinib.73 In addition, in a phase II study, 42% of a cohort with NSCLC showed a response to vemurafenib.74 Resistance mechanisms to this MAPK pathway multilevel inhibition are under investigation.

Other oncogenic alterations are currently being investigated; these include RET fusions, neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor type 1 (NTFK1) fusions, MET mutations or amplification, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification, as well as human EGFR 2 (HER2) mutations.75

In summary, targeted therapies offer the opportunity to target specific genetic driver alterations, but they have limitations. Known mutations are not present in many cases: genetic changes have been identified in patients with non-squamous NSCLC, while EGFR and ALK mutations are rarely seen in squamous NSCLC.76 To date, no targeted interventions are available for patients with squamous NSCLC. In addition, a relatively small proportion of Caucasian patients with non-squamous NSCLC harbour EGFR mutations. Although 65% of patients present with a tumour characterised by an oncogenic alteration, many are still not treatable. More importantly, targeted therapies are not curative in patients with metastatic NSCLC and disease inevitably progresses after a median of 8–12 months, highlighting the urgent need for additional, more effective strategies. Current therapeutic approaches are therefore developing in another direction, utilising the immune response in solid tumours.

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer
Although NSCLC was not believed to be an immunogenic malignancy due to lack of efficacy of immunomodulatory cytokines such as interleukin 2 (IL-2) and interferon (IFN), and of early vaccines,77–79 recent data demonstrating the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors have established the importance of the immune response in NSCLC (see Table 2). In addition, neoantigen-reactive tumour-infiltrating T cell lymphocytes (TILs), which can potentially induce tumour regression, were identified in NSCLC.80,81

Inhibitory immune checkpoints are inhibitory signalling pathways that down-modulate the immune system responses of T cells, blocking the inappropriate recognition of normal tissue by activated immune cells and preventing autoimmunity.82 Various checkpoint molecules have been identified, including cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1), T-cell immunoglobulin domain and mucin domain-3 (TIM-3), and lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), among others.82

The use of CTLA-4 inhibitors is widespread in immunotherapy, and while the efficacy of ipilimumab (Yervoy®, Bristol‑Myers Squibb, New York, US) in melanoma is well established,83 its potential in NSCLC has not yet been fully explored. In a phase II trial, ipilimumab, in combination with first-line chemotherapy, improved PFS in patients with metastatic NSCLC.84 In a phase II study, tremelimumab did not demonstrate superiority over best supportive care in NSCLC patients but a partial response rate was seen in 4.8% versus 0% with best supportive care, suggesting that combined therapeutic approaches with tremelimumab warrant further investigation.85

Many cells, including T cells, B cells, natural killer (NK) cells, NKT cells, dendritic cells (DCs), and macrophages, express the transmembrane protein PD-1. Cancer cells can affect the binding of the PD-1 receptor to one of two ligands, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2, on activated T cells, rendering the cell unable to exert its immunologic actions and thus enabling tumour cells to evade immunological surveillance.86,87 Therapeutic PD-1 blockade using the anti-PD 1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol‑Myers Squibb, New York, US) has demonstrated efficacy in patients with refractory NSCLC. In March 2015, nivolumab became the first immunotherapy to be approved for NSCLC, when it received FDA approval for squamous cell NSCLC; in October, this approval was expanded to include non-squamous NSCLC. Nivolumab has also received approval from the EMA for squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

Regulatory approval was based on data from the phase III CheckMate 017 trial in previously treated patients with squamous cell NSCLC, showing that nivolumab significantly improved overall survival compared with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level.88,89 The Checkmate 057 study found that nivolumab also improved survival over docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-squamous cell NSCLC, with striking survival and response benefit in patients with PD-L1 expression greater than 1%, but equivalent overall survival to docetaxel in the patients who were PD-L1 negative.89,90

A phase II study of nivolumab in refractory patients with squamous cell NSCLC, CheckMate 063, included patients who had received two or more previous treatments; two-thirds of patients had progressed following three systemic regimens. Although the response rate was only 14.5%, almost all responders had ongoing responses (median duration of response not reached).91 Nivolumab was associated with two treatment-associated deaths caused by pneumonia and ischaemic stroke that occurred in patients with multiple comorbidities in the setting of progressive disease.91 However, other AEs associated with nivolumab are manageable.92

Data are also emerging for other anti–PD-1 agents. In October 2015, pembrolizumab (Keytruda®, Merck & Co., Inc., New Jersey, US) received accelerated FDA approval for the treatment of NSCLC after failure of first-line therapy that includes platinum-based chemotherapy or after anti-EGFR or anti-ALK therapy in oncogene-addicted NSCLC patients with appropriate mutations, and with 50% PDL-1 expression or more. In a phase I study (KEYNOTE-001) in patients with advanced NSCLC, pembrolizumab showed a response rate of 19.4%, a duration of response of 12.5 months, as well as a tolerable toxicity profile.93 Recent long-term data (median follow-up duration 23.1 months) showed that the overall survival was 22.1 months for treatment-naive patients and 10.6 months for previously treated patients. The survival benefit seems to raise with increasing PD-L1 positivity (that is, patients with PD-L1 ≥1%).94 In an open-label, phase II/III study KEYNOTE-010, patients with PD-L1 positive (PD-L1 ≥1%) NSCLC were randomised to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel and for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (in patients with PD-L1 >1% only),95 leading to EMA registration this year.

It is worth noting that histology is not useful for selecting patients for immunotherapy: clinical trial data have indicated that these agents have similar efficacy for both squamous and non-squamous NSCLC.96,97

PD-L1 is one of two ligands that interact with PD-1 (another one is PD-L2) to render T cells ineffective, and is expressed on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells. To date, no significant difference in activity or toxicity profile has been observed between anti-PD1 and anti- PD-L1 compounds. Differential activity attributable to the mechanism of action might be observed in the combination setting in the future

though. Anti-PD-L1 agents are also in active clinical development. These include atezolizumab (MPDL3280A),98 durvalumab (MEDI4736),99 and avelumab (MSB0010718C).100,101 Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) has shown clinical efficacy in both chemotherapy-naïve and previously treated NSCLC.102 In the phase II POPLAR trial, atezolizumab significantly improved overall survival and overall response rates versus docetaxel in patients with non-squamous and squamous NSCLC with strong PD-L1 expression.103 Extended follow-up revealed further separation later in the OS curves and increased benefit with atezolizumab versus docetaxel.104 In the phase II BIRCH trial, atezolizumab also met its primary endpoint in patients with strong PD-L1 expression.105 In the recently presented phase III OAK trial, atezolizumab showed an improved overall survival versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after one or two prior chemotherapy. Interestingly, the OS benefit was seen regardless of PD-L1 expression, histology, sex or smoking status.106 In October 2016, atezolizumab received FDA approval for the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC whose disease progressed during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.

In the first-line setting, two phase III clinical trials testing anti-PD-1 monotherapy have been recently presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2016: CheckMate 026 and KEYNOTE-024. CheckMate 026 investigated the efficacy of nivolumab compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 expression (defined as present in ≥5% tumour cells). The trial did not meet its primary endpoint, which was defined as PFS assessed by an independent radiology review committee in patients with ≥5% PD-L1 expression, while all patients with ≥1% PD-L1 could be enrolled: the median PFS was 4.2 months with nivolumab compared with 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15).107 The median OS was similar in both arms (14.4 months versus 13.2 months, HR 1.02), possibly reflecting the high rate of crossover to immunotherapy on the chemotherapy arm (60.4%). KEYNOTE-024 investigated the efficacy of pembrolizumab compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression (defined as present in ≥ 50% of tumour cells, which represented about 30% of patients).108 The trial met its primary endpoint, showing an improved PFS with pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy (10.3 months versus 6.0 months, HR 0.50). A significant benefit in response rates, duration of response and overall survival (not reached in both arms, HR 0.60) was observed, even though the crossover rate was high (44% from chemotherapy to pembrolizumab). This is a landmark result in highly selected PD-L1 positive patients that will change clinical practice in the first-line setting. More studies are required to confirm these findings in patients with high PD-L1 expression, as well as in those with lower PD-L1 expression. The result of the phase III KEYNOTE-042 (first-line pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy)109 are awaited. Moreover, more research is needed to assess the difference with CheckMate 026 results and whether more stringent selection of patients may also confer a benefit of nivolumab compared to chemotherapy.

Combined immunotherapeutic approaches
Combined therapeutic strategies involving immunotherapy is an area of considerable interest. At present, there is no approved biomarker for response to anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 agents. The majority of PD-L1 positive patients do not respond to checkpoint inhibitors. Furthermore, more than half of patients with NSCLC have tumours that are PD-L1 negative, some of which have responded to checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, PD-L1 expression is not the only factor determining response. Immunotherapy combinations may be employed in PD-L1 negative or undetermined tumours and may involve chemotherapy and other approaches, for example, antiangiogenic compounds or radiotherapy. Tumour-specific antigen released during chemotherapy-induced tumour necrosis may increase tumour-specific immunity and therefore enhance the efficacy of ipilimumab or other immunotherapeutics.

Several clinical studies are investigating combined approaches. As discussed earlier, ipilimumab has shown efficacy in treating patients with metastatic NSCLC in combination with first-line chemotherapy84 and is currently being investigated in squamous NSCLC in a phase III trial.110 A phase III study is investigating the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC.111 The phase II KEYNOTE-021 cohort G study was recently presented at ESMO 2016, assessing the efficacy of adding pembrolizumab to carboplatin-pemetrexed compared to carboplatinpemetrexed in first-line untreated advanced non-squamous NSCLC. The pembrolizumab combination showed a significant increase in ORR (55% versus 29%, p=0.0016) compared to chemotherapy alone. A higher response rate (80%) was observed in a few patients with ≥50% PD-L1 expression treated with the combination. The pembrolizumab combination also improved PFS (13.0 months versus 8.9 months, HR 0.53) compared to chemotherapy alone, while OS seemed similar (HR 0.90). Grade ≥3 treatment-AEs occurred more frequently with the combination, but this did not seem to impact on treatment discontinuation nor treatment-related deaths.112 Results of phase III trials are awaited to confirm the efficacy of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line setting, such as the ongoing phase III KEYNOTE-189 trial (platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy plus or minus pembrolizumab in first line advanced non-squamous NSCLC)113 and KEYNOTE-407 (carboplatin with paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel plus or minus pembrolizumab in first line metastatic squamous NSCLC).114

Another promising combination is that of immunotherapy and radiotherapy: ionising radiation generates inflammatory signals that may enable activation of tumour-specific T cells.115 A case study has found that radiotherapy can elicit an immune-mediated abscopal (that is, away from the target) effect in NSCLC, when combined with ipilimumab.116 Preclinical data have suggested that targeting both PD-L1 and CTLA- 4 may have additive or synergistic effects,117 leading to a number of clinical studies. The phase I/II KEYNOTE-021 study is evaluating pembrolizumab in combination with standard therapies (including cohorts with pembrozilumab plus ipilimumab) compared to standard chemotherapy. In the phase I KEYNOTE-021 cohort D, this combination regime was feasible and has demonstrated clinical efficacy regardless of pembrozilumab dose or PD-L1 status in treatment-naive advanced NSCLC.118 However, in the follow-up phase I/II KEYNOTE-021 cohort D plus H, this combination has shown a similar response rate (24%) than pembrolizumab alone, with more treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs (24%).119 The CheckMate 012 trial is investigating the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC. In a recent presentation, response rates of 13% to 39% were reported, with median duration of response not reached yet (median follow-up 16.6 months).120 CheckMate 227 is investigating nivolumab with or without ipilimumab, compared with standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy with or without nivolumab depending on the PD-L1 status in the first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.121 In a phase I study, the combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab showed a manageable tolerability profile, with antitumour activity in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, irrespective of PD-L1 status.122 This combination is now being investigated in a phase III study, MYSTIC, comparing to durvalumab monotherapy or standard chemotherapy in first line advanced NSCLC.123

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG3; CD223) is a co-inhibitory receptor expressed in activated T cells, Tregs, DCs and NK cells.52 Further work is needed to characterize LAG3 in NSCLC; an ongoing phase I study is investigating the role of BMS-986016, a LAG3 mAb with or without nivolumab in advanced solid tumours.124 OX40 is a co-stimulatory receptor that is transiently expressed by T cells upon antigen recognition. A phase Ib study is investigating the combination of atezolizumab and MOXR0916, a mAb that targets OX40, in patients with advanced solid tumours, including NSCLC. Preliminary data show that the combination is well tolerated.125

Rationale for selecting targeted and immunotherapies in non-small cell lung cancer
Targeted and immune-oncological approaches should not be regarded as competitive options for NSCLC; both should be considered as an option for treatment in any patient based on the patient’s disease characteristics. Targeted therapies are associated with higher response rates than immunotherapy – response rates typically exceed 50%, while up to 25% is more typical for immunotherapy. This reflects the different principles and mechanisms of actions of the two approaches. As of yet, immunotherapy should not be considered as first-line therapy in patients with oncogene driver/target mutations. The labels for nivolumab and pembrolizumab state that EGFR and ALK patients should be treated with targeted drugs first and fail before immunotherapy is considered.126,127

Since immune checkpoint inhibitors are highly active in a select group of patients, there is a need for predictive biomarkers. Certain gene mutations, including EGFR or ALK, are more prevalent in non-smokers, whereas the majority of patients with NSCLC are smokers.128 Anti-PD-1/anti- PD-L1 agents appear to be most effective in smokers, in whom somatic gene mutations are more abundant.129 Patients with no smoking history might present with a lower response rate to PD-1 pathway blockade, despite the facts that only a few patients have been reported to date, and that some long-lasting benefit has also been observed in some of these patients.130 It has thus been hypothesised that immunotherapeutic approaches are less effective in never-smokers with NSCLC as well as in patients with EGFR and ALK aberrations. Smoking history, as an indirect reflection of the patient mutation load, may therefore be useful in clinical decision-making.

In general, NSCLC is associated with a high mutation burden, especially in smokers,131–135 but there is a large variability within both tumour types and patients. Interestingly, the high mutation burden of NSCLC may correlate with higher neoantigen quantities,80,136 and with improved outcome under anti-PD-1 therapy.80 Moreover, neoantigen-specific T-cell reactivity was correlated with tumour regression after anti-PD-1 therapy, suggesting that anti-PD-1 therapy might enhance neoantigen-reactive T cells in NSCLC.80

Expression of PD-L1 has been associated with a higher response rate and overall survival in anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 mAb treatment in some cases of non-squamous NSCLC.90,98,137–139 However, the use of PD-L1 as biomarker is limited by the fact that PD-L1-negative tumours have responded to anti-PD-L1 treatment, and heterogeneity in tumour expression of PD-L1 exists.140,141 Further studies are required to determine the value of this marker in prediction of response to treatments targeting this pathway. Measurement of TILs subpopulations is also a potentially useful strategy under investigation for predicting response to checkpoint inhibitors.142

There is a lack of clear knowledge of the activity of immunotherapy in oncogene addiction, that is, dependence of cancer cells on a single oncogenic protein for sustaining growth and proliferation. A recent study found that median PD-1 expression was highest in males, in current smokers, in individuals with adenocarcinoma histology, in EGFR wild type ALK negative patients, and in patients harbouring KRAS mutations. By contrast, PD-L1 expression was highest in females, in never/former smokers, in adenocarcinoma histology, in patients harbouring EGFR mutations, and in patients with ALK translocations.143

Combined targeted and immune-oncological approaches
Targeted therapy and immunotherapy may have complementary roles in cancer treatment. It has been postulated that tumour cell death resulting from targeted therapies causes antigen release. These antigens are taken up by antigen-presenting cells that activate T cells, leading to the upregulation of CTLA-4 and PD-1. Immune checkpoint therapy prevents attenuation of T cell responses, allowing T cells to kill tumour cells.144 Combined targeted and immune-oncologic approaches therefore offer the potential to extend the duration of treatment response and delay development of resistance. The association between PD-L1 and the presence of EGFR mutations suggests that combination of PD-1 blockade and EGFR TKIs may be a promising therapeutic strategy.143,145

It is essential to evaluate doses and dosing schedules in the evaluation of combined therapeutic regimes. Although toxicities may be nonoverlapping, it is impossible to predict whether activity and risks might be attenuated in combined approaches. In two clinical trials of BRAF inhibitors in melanoma, liver toxicity due to the combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab led to discontinuation of the trial,146 while the combination of dabrafenib and ipilimumab appears to be well-tolerated.147 Recently, two clinical trials of the combination of osimertinib and durvalumab were halted following reports of ILD.148 A recent analysis of these data found that the combined ILD rate of 38% with five cases of grades 3/4 reported for the combination was much greater than either sole agent.149 However, there was no apparent increase in the severity of ILD, and tumour response rate suggests encouraging clinical activity of osimertinib plus durvalumab in EGFRmutant NSCLC. According to the authors, the tolerability and safety of combining these agents warrants further investigation.149

The combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapies is also potentially useful for patients with oncogenic alterations who are refractory to targeted treatment and do not present a treatable oncogenic resistance mediating alteration (such as T790M for EGFR TKI). However, it is important to establish the correct sequence of treatments; it is not known whether combined regimens should be employed as first-line therapy or in treatment-refractory patients.

Future perspectives
Among future strategies, the combination of vaccines and checkpoint inhibitors may be promising: cancer vaccine-based immunotherapy may overcome the resistance of certain cancers to immune checkpoint inhibitors, while immune checkpoint inhibitors may enhance the efficacy of the cancer-vaccine therapies. As an example, a recently initiated phase Ib/II study will investigate vaccination with viagenpumatucel-L (HS-110) in combination with multiple treatment regimens including nivolumab.150 In addition, molecular approaches to NSCLC are an area of active clinical development. These include targeting cancer stem cells,151 adoptive cell therapy with gene-modification of peripheral T-cell with engineered T cell receptors or chimeric antigen receptors.152,153

Summary and concluding remarks The one-size-fits all approach to cancer therapeutics is no longer applicable to NSCLC. We are moving into an era of personalised treatment of NSCLC. In addition to histological subtyping, NSCLC should now be further sub-classified by driver mutation if present. Optimal management of NSCLC in the future will require screening for a range of biomarkers that help to predict sensitivity to targeted therapy; point mutations and rearrangements in specific genes including HER2, BRAF, NUT, MET, ROS1, DDR2, FGFR1 and KRAS, might potentially provide useful information for clinical decision making.154

The subset of patients with treatable oncogenic alterations should receive appropriate targeted therapies. Within this group, specific resistance mechanisms have been identified; however, these can be treated specifically. The majority of patients with NSCLC are still not defined by treatable oncogenic alterations. Such patients may be treated using chemotherapy but are ideal candidates for immune-oncologic treatment. The PD-1 inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, have shown a survival benefit in NSCLC. However, not all patients respond to immunotherapy and at present, the reliability and availability of predictive biomarkers is poor. There is an urgent need to identify high precision biomarkers to select patients for immune-oncologic treatment. Expression of PD-L1 has been associated with higher response rate and overall survival in several clinical trials evaluating anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 mAbs, but further studies are needed to establish its potential role as a predictive biomarker.

Finally, the combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapies is currently an area of active clinical research. These two distinct approaches – one that targets the cancer and the other that targets the patient – may ultimately merge to provide an individualised approach to NSCLC therapy

Article Information:

Tu Nguyen-Ngoc is supported by the Leenaards Foundation. Martin Reck has received personal honoraria for lectures and consultancy from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Lilly, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis and Celgene. Daniel SW Tan has been an advisor and consultant to Novartis, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merrimack and Pfizer, received travel funding and honorarium from Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer- Ingelheim and Ariad, and received research funding from Novartis, GSK, Bayer and AstraZeneca. Solange Peters has provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Eli Lilly and Company Oncology, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, Morphotek, Merrimack, Merck Serono, Amgen, Clovis and Tesaro, for which she received honoraria. This study involves a review of the literature and did not involve any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Solange Peters, Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. E: solange.peters@chuv.ch


The publication of this article was supported by Novartis. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Novartis. The authors provided Novartis with the opportunity to review the article for scientific accuracy before submission. Any resulting changes were made at the author’s discretion.

Open Access

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, adaptation and reproduction provided the original author(s) and source are given appropriate credit.




1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A, Cancer statistics, 2016, CA Cancer J Clin, 2016;66:7-30. 2. Navada S, Lai P, Schwartz AG, et al., Temporal trends in small cell lung cancer: analysis of the national Surveillance Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) database [abstract 7082], J Clin Oncol, 2006;24(suppl):384S. 3. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, et al., Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology,J Mol Diagn, 2013;15:415–53. 4. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, et al., Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology, J Thorac Oncol, 2013;8:823–59. 5. Pao W, Miller VA, Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, small-molecule kinase inhibitors, and non-small-cell lung cancer: current knowledge and future directions, J Clin Oncol, 2005;23:2556–68. 6. Boch C, Kollmeier J, Roth A, et al., The frequency of EGFR and KRAS mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): routine screening data for central Europe from a cohort study, BMJ Open, 2013;3: pii: e002560. 7. Shi Y, Au JS, Thongprasert S, et al., A prospective, molecular epidemiology study of EGFR mutations in Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology (PIONEER), J Thorac Oncol, 2014;9:154–62. 8. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al., Gefitinib or carboplatinpaclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma, N Engl J Med, 2009;361:947–57. 9. Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Maemondo M, et al., Updated overall survival results from a randomized phase III trial comparing gefitinib with carboplatin-paclitaxel for chemo-naive non-small cell lung cancer with sensitive EGFR gene mutations (NEJ002), Ann Oncol, 2013;24:54–9. 10. Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, et al., Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2010;11:121–8. 11. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al., Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR, N Engl J Med, 2010;362:2380–8. 12. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, et al., Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutationpositive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, Lancet Oncol, 2011;12:735–42. 13. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al., Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2012;13:239–46. 14. Wu YL, Zhou C, Liam CK, et al., First-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses from the phase III, randomized, open-label, ENSURE study, Ann Oncol, 2015;26:1883–9. 15. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, et al., Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, J Clin Oncol, 2013;31:3327–34. 16. Wu YL, Zhou C, Hu CP, et al., Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2014;15:213–22. 17. NCT01774721, ARCHER-1050: A Study of Dacomitinib vs. Gefitinib in 1st-Line Treatment Of Advanced NSCLC. (ARCHER 1050). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01774721 (accessed 17 April 2016). 18. Kobayashi S, Boggon TJ, Dayaram T, et al., EGFR mutation and resistance of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib, N Engl J Med, 2005;352:786–92. 19. Pao W, Miller VA, Politi KA, et al., Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain, PLoS Med, 2005;2:e73. 20. Camidge DR, Pao W, Sequist LV, Acquired resistance to TKIs in solid tumours: learning from lung cancer, Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2014;11:473–81. 21. Miller VA, Hirsh V, Cadranel J, et al., Afatinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): a phase 2b/3 randomised trial, Lancet Oncol, 2012;13:528–38. 22. Reckamp KL, Giaccone G, Camidge DR, et al., A phase 2 trial of dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an oral, irreversible pan-HER (human epidermal growth factor receptor) inhibitor, in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after failure of prior chemotherapy and erlotinib, Cancer, 2014;120:1145–54. 23. Sequist LV, Besse B, Lynch TJ, et al., Neratinib, an irreversible pan-ErbB receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor: results of a phase II trial in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, J Clin Oncol, 2010;28:3076–83. 24. Cross DA, Ashton SE, Ghiorghiu S, et al., AZD9291, an irreversible EGFR TKI, overcomes T790M-mediated resistance to EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer, Cancer Discov, 2014;4:1046–61. 25. Walter AO, Sjin RT, Haringsma HJ, et al., Discovery of a mutantselective covalent inhibitor of EGFR that overcomes T790Mmediated resistance in NSCLC, Cancer Discov, 2013;3:1404–15. 26. Janne PA, Yang JC, Kim DW, et al., AZD9291 in EGFR inhibitor-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2015;372:1689–99. 27. Yang JC, Ramalingam, S.S., Janne, P.A. et al, Osimertinib (AZD9291) in pre-treated pts with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: updated Phase I and pooled Phase II results, Presented at: European Lung Cancer Conference; 13–16 April 2016, Geneva. Switzerland, LBA2. 28. Sequist LV, Soria JC, Goldman JW, et al., Rociletinib in EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2015;372:1700–9. 29. Ayeni D, Politi K, Goldberg SB, Emerging Agents and New Mutations in EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancer, Clin Cancer Res, 2015;21:3818–20. 30. Tan CS, Cho BC, Soo RA, Next-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor -mutant non-small cell lung cancer, Lung Cancer, 2016;93:59–68. 31. Sequist LV, Piotrowska Z, Niederst MJ, et al., Osimertinib Responses After Disease Progression in Patients Who Had Been Receiving Rociletinib, JAMA Oncol, 2016;2:541–3. 32. Ramalingam SS, Yang, JC, Lee CK, Osimertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC: updated efficacy and safety results from two Phase I expasnsion cohorts, Presented at the European Lung Cancer Conference (ELCC), 2016 in Geneva, Switzerland. Abstract LBA1_PR, 2016. 33. Yang J, Ramalingam SS, Janne PA, et al., Osimertinib (AZD9291) in pre-treated pts with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: updated Phase 1 (P1) and pooled Phase 2 (P2) results, J Thorac Oncol, 2016;11:(4 Suppl):S152-3. 34. 34. Camidge DR, Activity of rociletinib in EGFR mutant NSCLC patients with a history of CNS involvement, Presented at the 16th World Conference on Lung Cancer, September 6–9 1015, Denver, USA. Abstract 965. 35. Ahn JS, Tsai, CM, Yang JCH, et al., AZD9291 activity in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases: data from Phase II studies, European J Cancer, 2015;51:(Suppl 3); S625–S6. 36. Kim DW, Lee DH, Kang JH, et al., Clinical activity and safety of HM61713, an EGFR-mutant selective inhibitor, in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts) with EGFR mutations who had received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), J Clin Oncol, 2014;32:Abstract 8011. 37. Tan DS, Yang JC, Leighl NB, et al., Updated results of a phase 1 study of EGF816, a third-generation, mutant-selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring T790M, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9044. 38. Shaw AT, Kim DW, Nakagawa K, et al., Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2013;368:2385–94. 39. Solomon BJ, Mok T, Kim DW, et al., First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2014;371:2167–77. 40. Kim DW, Mehra R, Tan DS, et al., Activity and safety of ceritinib in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-1): updated results from the multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2016;. 41. Shaw AT, Kim DW, Mehra R, et al., Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2014;370:1189–97. 42. Mok T, Spigel D, Felip E, et al., ASCEND-2: A single-arm, openlabel, multicenter phase II study of ceritinib in adult patients (pts) with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy and crizotinib (CRZ). J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): abstr 8059). 43. Crino L, Ahn MJ, De Marinis F, et al., Multicenter Phase II Study of Whole-Body and Intracranial Activity With Ceritinib in Patients With ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy and Crizotinib: Results From ASCEND-2, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34:2866–73. 44. Ou SH, Ahn JS, De Petris L, et al., Alectinib in Crizotinib- Refractory ALK-Rearranged Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Global Study, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34:661–8. 45. Barlesi F, Dingemans AC, Ou I, et al., 3101 Updated efficacy and safety results from a global phase 2, open-label, single-arm study (NP28673) of alectinib in crizotinib-refractory ALK+ nonsmall- cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Eur J Cancer, 2015;51:P S635. 46. Shaw AT, Gandhi L, Gadgeel S, et al., Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2016;17:234–42. 47. Seto T, Kiura K, Nishio M, et al., CH5424802 (RO5424802) for patients with ALK-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AF-001JP study): a single-arm, open-label, phase 1-2 study, Lancet Oncol, 2013;14:590–8. 48. Felip E, Orlov S, Park K, et al., ASCEND-3: A single-arm, openlabel, multicenter phase II study of ceritinib in ALKi-naïve adult patients (pts) with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(suppl): abstr 8060. 49. Gadgeel SM, Gandhi L, Riely GJ, et al., Safety and activity of alectinib against systemic disease and brain metastases in patients with crizotinib-resistant ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (AF-002JG): results from the dose-finding portion of a phase 1/2 study, Lancet Oncol, 2014;15:1119–28. 50. Ou SH, Sommers KR, Azada MC, et al., Alectinib induces a durable (>15 months) complete response in an ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer patient who progressed on crizotinib with diffuse leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, Oncologist, 2015;20:224–6. 51. Gainor JF, Sherman CA, Willoughby K, et al., Alectinib salvages CNS relapses in ALK-positive lung cancer patients previously treated with crizotinib and ceritinib, J Thorac Oncol, 2015;10:232–6. 52. Gandhi L, Shaw A, Gadgeel SM, et al., A phase II, open-label, multicenter study of the ALK inhibitor alectinib in an ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) U.S./Canadian population who had progressed on crizotinib (NP28761), J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl):abstr 8019. 53. Tan CS, Araujo A, Signorovitch JE, et al., Comparative efficacy of ceritinib and crizotinib in previously treated crizotinib-naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): An adjusted indirect comparison, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33:(Suppl): abstr 8058. 54. Felip E, Orlov K, Park K, et al., Phase 2 study of ceritinib in previously treated ALKi-naïve patients (pts) with ALK-rearranged (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): whole body efficacy in all pts and in pts with baseline brain metastases (BM), Ann Oncol, 2016;27(Suppl 6): 1208O. 55. Scagliotti G, Kim TM, Crino L, et al., Ceritinib vs chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with CT and crizotinib (CRZ): results from the confirmatory phase 3 ASCEND-5 study, Presented at the 2016 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, 7-11 October 2016, Copenhagen; Abstract LBA42_PR. 56. Costa DB, Shaw AT, Ou SH, et al., Clinical Experience With Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Rearranged Non- Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Brain Metastases, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33:1881–8. 57. Kerstein D, Gettinger S, Gold K, et al., LBA4 - Evaluation of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor brigatinib [AP26113] in patients (Pts) with ALK+ non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases, Presented at ESMO 2015, Abstr LBA4, 2015. 58. Kim D-W, Tiseo, M, Ahn, M-J, et al., Brigatinib (BRG) in patients (pts) with crizotinib (CRZ)-refractory ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): First report of efficacy and safety from a pivotal randomized phase (ph) 2 trial (ALTA), J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9007. 59. Camidge DR, Bazenhova L, Salgia R, et al., Safety and efficacy of brigatinib (AP26113) in advanced malignancies, including ALK+ non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): abstr 8062. 60. Solomon BJ, Bauer TM, Felip E, et al., Safety and efficacy of lorlatinib (PF-06463922) from the dose-escalation component of a study in patients with advanced ALK+ or ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9009. 61. Horn L, Infante JR, Blumenschein GR, et al., A phase I trial of X-396, a novel ALK inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors, J Clin Oncol, 2014;33:5s. 62. Maitland ML, Ou S-H, Tolcher AW, et al., Safety, activity, and pharmacokinetics of an oral anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, ASP3026, observed in a “fast follower” phase 1 trial design, J Clin Oncol, 2014;32:5s. 63. Weiss GJ, Sachdev JC, Infante JR, et al., Phase (Ph) 1/2 study of TSR-011, a potent inhibitor of ALK and TRK, including crizotinibresistant ALK mutations, J Clin Oncol, 2014;32(suppl): abstr e19005. 64. Nokihara H, Hida T, Kondo M, et al., Alectinib (ALC) versus crizotinib (CRZ) in ALK-inhibitor naive ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (ALK+ NSCLC): Primary results from the J-ALEX study, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9008. 65. Shaw A, Tan DSW, Crino L, et al., Two Phase III studies evaluating ceritinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-rearraged non-small cell lung cancer: ASCEND 4 and ASCEND 5, Ann Oncol, 2014;25(Suppl 4): iv469. 66. NCT02737501, ALTA-1L Study: A Phase 3 Study of Brigatinib Versus Crizotinib in ALK-positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients (ALTA-1L). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT02737501 (accessed 23 November 2016). 67. Rothenstein JM, Letarte N, Managing treatment-related adverse events associated with Alk inhibitors, Curr Oncol, 2014;21:19–26. 68. Katayama R, Friboulet L, Koike S, et al., Two novel ALK mutations mediate acquired resistance to the next-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib, Clin Cancer Res, 2014;20:5686–96. 69. Ou SH, Milliken JC, Azada MC, et al., ALK F1174V mutation confers sensitivity while ALK I1171 mutation confers resistance to alectinib. The importance of serial biopsy post progression, Lung Cancer, 2016;91:70–2. 70. Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ, et al., Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2014;371:1963–71. 71. Chen D, Zhang LQ, Huang JF, et al., BRAF mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis, PLoS One, 2014;9:e101354. 72. Planchard D, Min Kim T B, Mazieres J, et al., Dabrafenib in patients with BRAFV600E-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2016;17:642–50. 73. Planchard D, Besse B, Groen HJ, et al.,Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with previously treated BRAF(V600E)- mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre phase 2 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2016,17:984-93. 74. Hyman DM, Puzanov I, Subbiah V, et al., Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations, N Engl J Med, 2015;373:726–36. 75. McCoach CE, Doebele RC, The minority report: targeting the rare oncogenes in NSCLC, Curr Treat Options Oncol, 2014;15:644–57. 76. Rekhtman N, Paik PK, Arcila ME, et al., Clarifying the spectrum of driver oncogene mutations in biomarker-verified squamous carcinoma of lung: lack of EGFR/KRAS and presence of PIK3CA/ AKT1 mutations, Clin Cancer Res, 2012;18:1167–76. 77. Giaccone G, Bazhenova LA, Nemunaitis J, et al., A phase III study of belagenpumatucel-L, an allogeneic tumour cell vaccine, as maintenance therapy for non-small cell lung cancer, Eur J Cancer, 2015;51:2321–9. 78. Butts C, Socinski MA, Mitchell PL, et al., Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-smallcell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, Lancet Oncol, 2014;15:59–68. 79. Vansteenkiste J, Zielinski M, Linder A, et al., Adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapy in resected non-small-cell lung cancer: phase II randomized study results, J Clin Oncol, 2013;31:2396–403. 80. 79. DuPage M, Cheung AF, Mazumdar C, et al., Endogenous T cell responses to antigens expressed in lung adenocarcinomas delay malignant tumor progression, Cancer Cell, 2011;19:72–85. 81. 80. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, et al., Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer, Science, 2015;348:124–8. 82. Pardoll DM, The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy, Nat Rev Cancer, 2012;12:252–64. 83. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al., Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma, N Engl J Med, 2010;363:711–23. 84. Lynch TJ, Bondarenko I, Luft A, et al., Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study, J Clin Oncol, 2012;30:2046–54. 85. Zatloukal P, Heo DS, Park K, et al., Randomized phase II clinical trial comparing tremelimumab (CP-675,206) with best supportive care following first-line platinum-based therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, J Clin Oncol, 2009;27:15s (suppl; abtr 8071). 86. Tumeh PC, Harview CL, Yearley JH, et al., PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance, Nature, 2014;515:568–71. 87. Chen DS, Irving BA, Hodi FS, Molecular pathways: nextgeneration immunotherapy-inhibiting programmed death-ligand 1 and programmed death-1, Clin Cancer Res, 2012;18:6580–7. 88. Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al., Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, N Engl J Med, 2015;373:123–35. 89. Borghaei H, Brahmer JR, Horn L, et al., Nivolumab (nivo) vs docetaxel (doc) in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC: CheckMate 017/057 2-y update and exploratory cytokine profile analyses, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9025. 90. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al., Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, N Engl J Med, 2015;373:1627–39. 91. Rizvi NA, Mazieres J, Planchard D, et al., Activity and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, for patients with advanced, refractory squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 063): a phase 2, single-arm trial, Lancet Oncol, 2015;16:257–65. 92. Gangadhar TC, Vonderheide RH, Mitigating the toxic effects of anticancer immunotherapy, Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2014;11:91–9. 93. Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R, et al., Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, N Engl J Med, 2015;372:2018–28. 94. Hui R, Gandhi L, Costa EC, et al., Long-term OS for patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the KEYNOTE-001 study of pembrolizumab (pembro), J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9026. 95. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al., Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced nonsmall- cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2016;387:1540–50. 96. Soria JC, Flatten O, Felip E, et al., LBA 33: Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab (Pembro; MK-3475) for Patients (Pts) With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Enrolled in KEYNOTE-001, European J Cancer, 2015; 51:Suppl 3: S1–S810. 97. Hellmann M D, Efficacy of pembrolizumab in key subgroups of patients with advanced NSCLC, J Thorac Oncol, 2015;10(Suppl 2): MINI03.5. 98. Horn L, Spigel D, Gettinger SN et al., Clinical activity, safety and predictive biomarkers of the engineered antibody MPDL3280A (anti-PDL1) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): update from a phase Ia study, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): abstr 8029. 99. Rivzi NA, Brahmer JR, Ou S-H I, et al., Safety and clinical activity of MEDI4736, an anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): abstr 8032. 100. Gulley JL, Spigel D, Kelly K, et al., Avelumab (MSB0010718C), an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in advanced NSCLC patients: A phase 1b, open-label expansion trial in patients progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): abstr 8034. 101. Verschraegen CF, Chen F, Spigel DR, et al., Avelumab (MSB0010718C; anti-PD-L1) as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor phase 1b trial: Safety, clinical activity, and PD-L1 expression, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9036. 102. Spigel DR, Chaft JE, Gettinger SN, et al., Clinical activity and safety from a phase II study (FIR) of MPDL3280A (anti-PDL1) in PD-L1–selected patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): abstr 8028. 103. Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, et al., Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated nonsmall- cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2016;387:1837–46. 104. Smith DA, Vansteenkiste JF, Fehrenbacher L, et al., Updated survival and biomarker analyses of a randomized phase II study of atezolizumab vs docetaxel in 2L/3L NSCLC (POPLAR), J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 9028. 105. Besse B, Johnson M, Janne PA, et al., 16LBA Phase II, single-arm trial (BIRCH) of atezolizumab as first-line or subsequent therapy for locally advanced or metastatic PD-L1-selected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Eur J Cancer, 2015;51:(Suppl 3): S717–8. 106. Barlesi F, Park K, Ciadiello F, Primary analysis from OAK, a randomized phase III study comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in 2L/3L NSCLC, Presented at the 2016 European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, 7-11 October 2016, Copenhagen; Abstract LBA44_PR, 2016. 107. Socinski MA, Creelan B, Horn L, et al., CheckMate 026: A Phase 3 Trial of Nivolumab vs Investigator’s Choice (IC) of Platinum- Based Doublet Chemotherapy (PT-DC) as First-Line Therapy for Stage IV/Recurrent Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) − Positive NSCLC, Ann Oncol, 2016;27. 108. Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al., Pembrolizumab or Chemotherapy in PD-L1–Positive Non– Small-Cell Lung Cancer, N Engl J Med, 2016;epub DOI: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1606774. 109. NCT02220894, Study of MK-3475 (Pembrolizumab) Versus Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Participants With PD-L1- positive Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MK-3475-042/KEYNOTE-042). Available at: https://clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/show/NCT02220894 (accessed 26 Fenruary 2016). 110. NCT01285609, Trial in Squamous Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Subjects Comparing Ipilimumab Plus Paclitaxel and Carboplatin Versus Placebo Plus Paclitaxel and Carboplatin. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01285609 (accessed 11 December 2015). 111. Mok T, Cappuzzo F, Jotte RM, et al., 356TiP - Phase III clinical trials of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC, Ann Oncol, 2015;26(Suppl 9):103–6. 112. Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, et al., Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study, Lancet Oncol, 2016;17:1497–508. 113. NCT02578680, Study of Platinum+Pemetrexed Chemotherapy With or Without Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Participants With First Line Metastatic Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MK-3475-189/KEYNOTE-189). Available at: https://clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/show/NCT02578680 (accessed 26 May 2016). 114. NCT02775435, A Study of Carboplatin-Paclitaxel/Nab-Paclitaxel Chemotherapy With or Without Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Adults With First Line Metastatic Squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MK-3475-407/KEYNOTE-407). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02775435 (accessed 23 November 2016). 115. Sharon E, Polley MY, Bernstein MB, et al., Immunotherapy and radiation therapy: considerations for successfully combining radiation into the paradigm of immuno-oncology drug development, Radiat Res, 2014;182:252–7. 116. Golden EB, Demaria S, Schiff PB, et al., An abscopal response to radiation and ipilimumab in a patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, Cancer Immunol Res, 2013;1:365–72. 117. Stewart R, Mullins S, Watkins A, et al., Preclinical modelling of immune checkpoint blockade (P2012), J Immunol, 2013;190 (1 Meeting Abstracts): Abstract 214.7. 118. Patnaik A, Socinski MA, Gubens MA, et al., Phase 1 study of pembrolizumab (pembro; MK-3475) plus ipilimumab (IPI) as second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): KEYNOTE-021 cohort D, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33:suppl; abstr 8011. 119. Gubens MA, Sequist LV, Stevenson J, et al., Phase I/II study of pembrolizumab (pembro) plus ipilimumab (ipi) as second-line therapy for NSCLC: KEYNOTE-021 cohorts D and H, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34:supple; abstr 9027. 120. Hellmann MD, Gettinger S, Goldman JW, et al., CheckMate 012: Safety and efficacy of first-line (1L) nivolumab (nivo; N) and ipilimumab (ipi; I) in advanced (adv) NSCLC, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 3001. 121. NCT02477826, An Open-Label, Trial of Nivolumab, or Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab, or Nivolumab Plus Platinum-doublet Chemotherapy Versus Platinum Doublet Chemotherapy in Subjects With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (CheckMate 227). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/ show/NCT02477826 (accessed 26 February 2016). 122. Antonia S, Goldberg SB, Balmanoukian A, et al., Safety and antitumour activity of durvalumab plus tremelimumab in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a multicentre, phase 1b study, Lancet Oncol, 2016;17(3):299–308. 123. NCT02453282, Phase III Open Label First Line Therapy Study of MEDI 4736 With or Without Tremelimumab Versus SOC in Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). (MYSTIC). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02453282 (accessed 26 May 2016). 124. NCT01968109, Safety Study of Anti-LAG-3 With and Without Anti-PD-1 in the Treatment of Solid Tumors. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968109 (accessed 26 May 2016). 125. Infante JR, Hansen AR, Pishvaian MJ et al., A phase Ib dose escalation study of the OX40 agonist MOXR0916 and the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors, J Clin Oncol, 2016;34(Suppl): abstr 101. 126. Merck, Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) for injection, for intravenous use. Available at: www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_ circulars/k/keytruda/keytruda_pi.pdf (accessed 11 July 2016). 127. BMS, Opdivo (nivolumab) for intarvenous use. Available at: https://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_opdivo.pdf (accessed 11 July 2016). 128. Chan BA, Hughes BG, Targeted therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: current standards and the promise of the future, Transl Lung Cancer Res, 2015;4:36–54. 129. Soria JC, Cruz C, Bahleda R, et al., Clinical activity, safety and biomarkers of PD-L1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): additional analyses from a clinical study of the engineered antibody MPDL3280A (anti-PDL1), Eur J Cancer, 2013;49(Suppl):abstract 3408. 130. Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Borghaei H, et al., Phase III, randomized trial (CheckMate 057) of nivolumab (NIVO) versus docetaxel (DOC) in advanced non-squamous cell (non-SQ) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2015;33(Suppl): Abstr LBA109. 131. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P, et al., Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancerassociated genes, Nature, 2013;499:214–8. 132. Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge DC, et al., Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer, Nature, 2013;500:415–21. 133. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, et al., Cancer genome landscapes, Science, 2013;339:1546–58. 134. Govindan R, Ding L, Griffith M, et al., Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers, Cell, 2012;150:1121–34. 135. Lee W, Jiang Z, Liu J, et al., The mutation spectrum revealed by paired genome sequences from a lung cancer patient, Nature, 2010;465:473–7. 136. Rooney MS, Shukla SA, Wu CJ, et al., Molecular and genetic properties of tumors associated with local immune cytolytic activity, Cell, 2015;160:48–61. 137. Carbognin L, Pilotto S, Milella M, et al., Differential Activity of Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab and MPDL3280A according to the Tumor Expression of Programmed Death-Ligand-1 (PD-L1): Sensitivity Analysis of Trials in Melanoma, Lung and Genitourinary Cancers, PLoS One, 2015;10:e0130142. 138. Rizvi NA, Garon EB, Leighl N, et al., Optimizing PD-L1 as a biomarker of response with pembrolizumab (pembro; MK-3475) as first-line therapy for PD-L1-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): updated data from KEYNOTE-001, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33:suppl; abstr8026. 139. Gandini S, Massi D, Mandala M, PD-L1 expression in cancer patients receiving anti PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 2016;100:88–98. 140. Teixido C, Karachaliou N, Gonzalez-Cao M, et al., Assays for predicting and monitoring responses to lung cancer immunotherapy, Cancer Biol Med, 2015;12:87–95. 141. Hussein M, McCleod J, Chandler G, et al., ORAL02.02 Safety and Efficacy on nivolimumab in an ongoing trail of a PD-L1 +/- patient population with metastatic no small cell lung cancer, Presented at the 16th World Conference on Lung Cancer; September 6-9, 2015; Denver, CO, US, 2015. 142. Schalper KA, Brown J, Carvajal-Hausdorf D, et al., Objective measurement and clinical significance of TILs in non-small cell lung cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst, 2015;107. 143. D’Incecco A, Andreozzi M, Ludovini V, et al., PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in molecularly selected non-small-cell lung cancer patients, Br J Cancer, 2015;112:95–102. 144. Sharma P, Allison JP, Immune checkpoint targeting in cancer therapy: toward combination strategies with curative potential, Cell, 2015;161:205–14. 145. Akbay EA, Koyama S, Carretero J, et al., Activation of the PD-1 pathway contributes to immune escape in EGFR-driven lung tumors, Cancer Discov, 2013;3:1355–63. 146. Ribas A, Hodi FS, Callahan M, et al., Hepatotoxicity with combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab, N Engl J Med, 2013;368:1365–6. 147. 146. Puzanov I, Callahan MK, Linette GP, et al., Phase 1 study of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (D) with or without the MEK inhibitor trametinib (T) in combination with ipilimumab (Ipi) for V600E/K mutation–positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma (MM), J Clin Oncol, 2014;32:5s (suppl; abstr 2511). 148. AstraZeneca pauses two lung cancer drug combination trials, October 9 2015. Available at: www.reuters.com/article/usastrazeneca- cancer-idUSKCN0S31AW20151009 (accessed 1 March 2016). 149. Ahn M, Yang J, Yu H, et al., Osimertinib combined with durvalumab in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: Results from the TATTON phase Ib trial, Presented at ELCC 2016, Abstr 136O, 2016. 150. NCT02439450, Study of Combination Therapies With Viagenpumatucel-L (HS-110) in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02439450 (accessed 1 March 2016). 151. Wu X, Chen H, Wang X, Can lung cancer stem cells be targeted for therapies?, Cancer Treat Rev, 2012;38:580–8. 152. Guo Y, Wang Y, Han W, Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Modified T Cells for Solid Tumors: Challenges and Prospects, J Immunol Res, 2016;2016:3850839. 153. Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP, Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer, Science, 2015;348:62–8. 154. Thunnissen E, van der Oord K, den Bakker M, Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer. A review, Virchows Arch, 2014;464:347–58. 155. Kim DW, Ahn MJ, Shi Y, et al., Results of a global phase II study with crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), J Clin Oncol, 2012;30(Suppl): abstr 7533. 156. NCT02041533, An Open-Label, Randomized, Phase 3 Trial of Nivolumab Versus Investigator’s Choice Chemotherapy as First- Line Therapy for Stage IV or Recurrent PD-L1+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (CheckMate 026). Available at: https://clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/show/NCT02041533 (accessed 26 February 2016). 157. Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al., Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for PD-L1-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, N Engl J Med, 2016: [epub ahead of print]. 158. Patnaik A, Socinski M, Gubens MA, et al., Phase 1 study of pembrolizumab (pembro; MK-3475) plus ipilimumab (IPI) as second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): KEYNOTE-021 cohort D, J Clin Oncol, 2015;33:(Suppl; abstr 8011).

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Lung Cancer
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72