MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neoadjuvant durvalumab (D) + chemotherapy (CT) + novel anticancer agents and adjuvant D ± novel agents in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Updated outcomes from NeoCOAST-2.

2025· article· en· W4410820423 on OpenAlexaff
Tina Cascone, Florian Guisier, Amelia Insa, Moïshe Liberman, Olivier Bylicki, Lorenzo Livi, Thomas Egenod, R. Corre, Agata A. Bielska, Alula Yohannes, Yun He, Adam Dowson, Lara McGrath, Gozde Kar, Rakesh Kumar, Italia Grenga, Jonathan Spicer, Patrick M. Forde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDurvalumabChemotherapyAdjuvantOncologyAdjuvant chemotherapyCisplatinLung cancerInternal medicineCancerRadiologyImmunotherapyBreast cancerNivolumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8046 Background: Perioperative CT + immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has improved outcomes in resectable NSCLC but most patients (pts) still do not experience pathological complete response (pCR) and long-term benefit. We report final pCR rates, ongoing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) findings, and updated safety data from Arms 1/2/4 of NeoCOAST-2 (NCT05061550), a phase 2 platform study evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant D ± novel agent-based combinations in pts with untreated Stage IIA–IIIB resectable NSCLC. Methods: Pts were stratified by PD-L1 expression (<1% vs ≥1%) and randomized to neoadjuvant D + platinum-doublet CT + oleclumab (anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody [mAb]) then adjuvant D + oleclumab (Arm 1), neoadjuvant D + platinum-doublet CT + monalizumab (anti-NKG2A mAb) then adjuvant D + monalizumab (Arm 2), or neoadjuvant D + single-agent platinum CT + Dato-DXd (TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugate [ADC]) then adjuvant D (Arm 4). Neoadjuvant therapy was given Q3W for 4 cycles. Adjuvant therapy was given for up to 1 year or until disease progression. Primary endpoints were pCR rate by blinded independent pathology review and safety and tolerability. Key secondary endpoints included major pathological response (mPR) rate, ctDNA clearance, and feasibility of surgery. Results: As of Dec 19 2024, 202 pts were randomized (Arms 1/2/4, N=76/72/54). Among dosed pts with confirmed NSCLC, pCR and mPR rates were numerically higher in Arm 4 vs Arms 1/2 overall and in pts with a PD-L1 TPS <1% or ≥1% (Table). Rates of ctDNA clearance in the neoadjuvant period were higher in Arm 4 vs Arms 1/2, and higher in pts with pCR vs non-pCR and with mPR vs non-mPR across arms. Among dosed pts, 69/74 (93.2%) pts in Arm 1, 66/71 (93.0%) pts in Arm 2, and 51/54 (94.4%) pts in Arm 4 underwent surgery; overall, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 36.5%, 40.8%, and 20.4% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: All arms show that novel perioperative combinations may improve pCR rates and maintain tolerability and feasibility of surgery in resectable NSCLC. The final analysis of pCR and mPR rates in Arm 4 is the first for an ADC in this setting and confirms the encouraging efficacy and manageable safety profile of D + CT + Dato-DXd. Presurgical ctDNA clearance is associated with pathological responses. Clinical trial information: NCT05061550 . Arm 1 Arm 2 Arm 4 Overall, n (%) [95% CI]pCRmPR n=74 15 (20.3) [11.8–31.2] 31 (41.9) [30.5–53.9] n=70 18 (25.7) [16.0–37.6] 35 (50.0) [37.8–62.2] n=54 19 (35.2) [22.7–49.4] 34 (63.0) [48.7–75.7] PD-L1 TPS <1%, n (%)pCRmPR n=25 4 (16.0) 10 (40.0) n=28 5 (17.9) 10 (35.7) n=16 5 (31.3) 10 (62.5) PD-L1 TPS ≥1%, n (%)pCRmPR n=49 11 (22.4) 21 (42.9) n=42 13 (31.0) 25 (59.5) n=38 14 (36.8) 24 (63.2)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→