An updated review on systemic therapy for brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer

Introduction

Brain metastases (BrM) are common, found in 15–20% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients at initial diagnosis and 30–40% later in the disease course (1,2). Historically, treatment strategies for BrM included surgery and radiation therapy (RT), with limited utilization of systemic chemotherapies, which were thought to be too large or hydrophilic to cross the blood-brain barrier. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the mainstay of current RT protocols, produces local control rates up to almost 90% for NSCLC BrM (3). But, neurotoxic sequelae, such as radiation necrosis and neurocognitive changes, can still occur (3). Over the past 20 years, as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) replaced chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion positive (ALK+) NSCLC, there has been a shift in strategy. In some cases, the central nervous system (CNS) activity of these drugs may allow clinicians and patients to defer surgery or radiation and their associated toxicities.

Since Riess et al. 2013 (4), several newer CNS penetrant therapies have emerged for the treatment of NSCLC BrM including TKIs, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (1). Despite the increased availability of new targeted treatments, data for CNS-specific outcomes in NSCLC clinical trials is limited. Encouragingly, over the past decade, an increasing number of studies allow patients with CNS disease to enroll, but lack of uniform entry criteria, imaging protocols, and outcome measures still hinders direct drug-to-drug and drug to local therapy comparisons (1).

This article summarizes the development of selected CNS active therapies in NSCLC since our last review. We have selected several trials assessing EGFR, ALK, RET, ROS1, NTRK TKIs, ADCs and anti-PD1 inhibitors. While exciting progress has been made, more work is needed to define BrM response, and clearly integrate new therapies into treatment plans that include a combination of systemic therapy, RT, and surgery.

EGFR-TKIs

EGFR-TKIs have become the standard of care for newly diagnosed EGFRm NSCLC, replacing up-front platinum-based chemotherapy. First-generation TKIs erlotinib and gefitinib showed activity against both systemic and CNS disease, but prospective trials of these drugs did not routinely include BrM patients, let alone previously untreated BrM. Some literature suggests there is no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between NSCLC patients without versus with BrM on 1^st generation drugs [median 23.7 vs. 22.3 months, P=0.82 (5)]. However, subsequent generations of TKIs were developed with both better systemic and CNS efficacy, and with more routine inclusion of BrM in more recent trials (6-8), we have a better understanding of CNS drug activity in NSCLC BrM patients.

The LUX-LUNG trials (8) compared second-generation TKI afatanib against chemotherapy (cisplatin-pemetrexed in LUX-LUNG 3 and cisplatin-gemcitabine in LUX-Lung 6). Stable asymptomatic BrM were included; 12.2% and 13.5% of patients in LUX-LUNG 3 and LUX-Lung 6 respectively. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was improved in the afatanib arms compared to chemotherapy in BrM patients, but not statistically significant, limited by small sample sizes in both trials (Table 1). Translating these data to clinical practice is challenging, as patients with symptomatic BrM and leptomeningeal disease were excluded. Inclusion of BrM patients pretreated with RT also clouds the interpretation of any reported response rates.

Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, was compared against first generation TKIs (erlotinib or gefitinib) in the pivotal FLAURA trial (6) for newly diagnosed EGFRm NSCLC patients. mPFS was improved for patients with BrM (15.2 vs. 9.6 months; Table 1). Secondary analyses for CNS-specific outcomes showed CNS-mPFS was not reached with osimertinib. Furthermore, CNS progression was reduced in the osimertinib arm compared to the first-generation TKI arm (20% vs. 39%, Table 1) (9). The inclusion of stable BrM post-RT in FLAURA makes interpreting CNS endpoints challenging. To address this, the phase II single arm OCEAN study (10) treated RT-naïve EGFRm NSCLC BrM patients with osimertinib monotherapy. Patients were divided into a T790M vs. TKI-naïve cohorts, and both multiple and symptomatic BrM were allowed. Response rates (RR) to osimertinib in the BrM cohort were 66.7% and 70% using PAREXEL and RECIST criteria, respectively, with a mPFS of 25.2 months across 39 BrM patients (Table 1).

The FLAURA 2 trial (7) compared upfront osimertinib monotherapy against osimertinib with pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy. mPFS favored the osimertinib-chemo combination group (24.9 vs. 13.8 months, Table 1). In a secondary CNS-specific analysis, CNS-PFS was prolonged in the combination arm compared to monotherapy (20.1 vs. 13.9 for all BrM, 30.2 vs. 27.6 months for measurable BrM) (11). CNS-ORR was similar between both arms (73% vs. 69% for all BrM, 88% vs. 87% for measurable BrM), although a larger difference was seen for the CNS complete response (CR) rate (59% vs. 43% for all BrM, 48% vs. 16% for measurable BrM) (11). Notably, combination osimertinib-chemotherapy led to a higher rate of grade 3 (G3) adverse events (AEs) compared to monotherapy (49% vs. 13% for any possibly causally related AE), and more frequent discontinuation compared to osimertinib alone (45% vs. 6%) (10). Therefore, in clinical practice, prolonged CNS-PFS must be weighed against the higher risk of toxicity with combination osimertinib-chemotherapy.

Resistance to osimertinib is often mediated by MET amplification. Amivantamab, a bispecific antibody targeting MET and EGFR, has been studied as monotherapy and in combination with third-generation EGFR-TKI Lazertinib (ami/laz). The MARIPOSA trial (12) demonstrated improved PFS in BrM patients treated with ami/laz vs. osimertinib (18.3 vs. 13 months) (Table 1). The follow-up MARIPOSA-2 study (13) compared ami/laz/chemotherapy vs. ami/chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy for patients who progressed on osimertinib. BrM patients comprised 41–46% of the cohorts. mPFS was 8.3, 6.3, and 4.2 months in the ami/laz/chemotherapy, ami/chemo, and chemotherapy groups, respectively (Table 1). G3 AE’s occurred at a higher rate with ami/laz, including mucositis, nausea, fatigue, infusion reactions, transaminitis and rash (14). In clinical practice, these toxicities often limit use of ami/laz.

As more EGFR-TKIs are developed, clinicians are faced with increasingly complex treatment decisions, including how to incorporate targeted therapies into the greater treatment schema of surgery and RT. Optimal treatment timing and effective combinatorial strategies with locoregional therapy are not clearly defined with a paucity of randomized prospective trials directly comparing systemic therapy to RT. TURBO (15) is the latest large, retrospective study to evaluate upfront targeted therapy compared to combination targeted therapy and radiotherapy for NSCLC BrM patients. This study included treatment-naïve EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC patients who received a first-line TKI alone vs. TKI + SRS. In patients with BrM ≥1 cm, mPFS was increased in the TKI + SRS group (Table 1). CNS PFS was increased in TKI + SRS vs. TKI alone (26 vs. 20 months), though not statistically significant. No OS benefit was seen (41 vs. 40 months). These results suggest that TKI + SRS may improve local control, but not necessarily survival for patients with larger symptomatic BrM. In contrast, TKI alone may be appropriate for patients with asymptomatic CNS disease. Several current prospective studies investigating upfront TKI vs. SRS will help better inform optimal treatment sequencing, including NCT 03769103, 03497767 and 05987644.

To summarize, osimertinib is the current drug of choice in newly diagnosed NSCLC with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic BrM for whom radiosurgery may be deferred until time of progression. Osimertinib with platinum-pemetrexed per FLAURA2 is usually only considered as first-line therapy for patients with a heavier burden of CNS disease given the side effect profile. Patients who develop asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic CNS progression on early generation TKIs may be switched to osimertinib monotherapy. If BrM progress on osimertinib, double or pulse dose osimertinib can be considered. Alternatively, pemetrexed/bevacizumab or amivantamab/lazertinib can be added per MARIPOSA, and/or SRS. As the latter treatment regimens are associated with a higher degree of toxicities, they are typically reserved for patients with substantial burden of disease or for the next line setting. Large/or severely symptomatic lesions that need to be addressed with surgery and post-operative SRS are usually treated with TKI thereafter. With increasing treatment combinations, multidisciplinary discussions amongst neuro-oncology, medical oncology, neurosurgery, and radiation oncology are crucial to determine an individualized treatment approach for each patient.

ALK-TKIs

ALK fusions occur in around 5% of NSCLC patients and are associated with a higher incidence of BrM. Crizotinib was the first ALK-TKI to receive approval, and though some CNS efficacy was reported, the CNS was often the site of first recurrences. The second-generation ALK-TKI alectinib was studied against crizotinib in the J-ALEX (16) and ALEX (17) trials, which improved mPFS in ALK+ NSCLC patients. Patients with stable BrM were allowed in both trials and had higher CNS-response rate (CNS-RR) in the alectinib arm of ALEX compared to crizotinib (81% vs. 50% for measurable baseline BrM, 59% vs. 26% for all BrM) and longer time to CNS progression in J-ALEX (Table 2). These results were reproduced in the ALESIA trial (18), which confirmed superior PFS for BrM patients with alectinib vs. crizotinib (mPFS not estimable vs. 10.7 months respectively; Table 2) in an Asian population. Brigatinib, another 2^nd generation ALK-TKI, was studied in ALTA-1L (19) for advanced NSCLC patients. 12-month survival without intracranial disease progression was improved in the BrM patients treated with brigatinib vs. crizotinib (67%, vs. 21%).

Lorlatinib is a 3^rd generation ALK-TKI that can overcome resistance to earlier generation ALK-TKIs. The CROWN trial (20) compared lorlatinib to crizotinib in ALK+ NSCLC patients and allowed asymptomatic treated or untreated BrM. In patients with measurable CNS disease, mPFS was not reached in lorlatinib arm vs. 6 months with crizotinib (Table 2). Lorlatinib also led to a higher intracranial overall response rate (IC-ORR) of 66% vs. 20% for measurable disease, and a longer intracranial duration of response (DOR) (NR vs. 10.2 months). Notably, 77% of patients treated with lorlatinib experienced G3/4 AEs versus 57% of patients in the crizotinib arm. The majority of side effects from lorlatinib included hypertriglyceridemia and hypertension; dose reduction occurred in 23% of patients and temporary discontinuation in 62% of patients. Perhaps unsurprisingly, increased CNS penetration from lorlatinib also produces a higher rate of neurologic side effects affecting mood, cognition, and/or speech (21). Given this tradeoff between increased intracranial efficacy and CNS toxicities, lorlatinib is used with close attention to side effects and a low threshold for dose reduction; in select patients, a second-generation ALK TKI may be used prior to lorlatinib.

In clinical practice, newly diagnosed ALK+ NSCLC BrM patients who have asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic disease may be treated upfront with a 2^nd or 3^rd generation ALK-TKI, in which case SRS may be deferred until evidence of progression. If patients progress on a 2^nd generation ALK-TKI without significant worsening of BrM symptoms, lorlatinib should be considered with careful monitoring of neurologic side effects that may develop. Large and/or significantly symptomatic CNS lesions usually will require discussion of locoregional therapy that can be followed by TKI.

RET TKIs

RET fusions (RET+) occur in 1–2% of patients with NSCLC. RET TKIs are effective in these patients, including those with BrM. The randomized Phase 3 trial LIBRETTO-431 (22) examined selpercatinib vs. platinum-based chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in patients with advanced RET+ NSCLC (24.8 vs. 11.2 months). Within the subgroup of 29 patients with measurable BrM, the selpercatinib group had higher IC-RR than control (82% vs. 58%). Pralsetinib was studied in the ARROW trial (23) in patients with RET+ NSCLC. Of the ten patients with evaluable BrM, 70% experienced an intracranial response, including three patients with CR. Median DOR was 10.5 months, with 71% of responses still ongoing at 6 months and 36% at 12 months.

ROS1 TKIs

Several TKIs with activity against ROS1 rearrangements have been developed in recent years. Despite the systemic efficacy of crizotinib, a first generation ROS1 TKI, activity against BrM is much more limited (24). Subsequent ROS1 TKIs have since showed improved CNS activity. A combined analysis of 3 clinical trials evaluating entrectinib (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1 and STARTRK-2) incorporated 25 metastatic ROS1+ NSCLC patients with measurable baseline BrM and reported an IC-ORR of 80% with median IC-DOR of 12.9 months (25). Modest response was also seen in patients previously treated with crizotinib who had CNS progression (25). Repotrectinib, a separate next-generation ROS1/NTRK TKI with better CNS penetration, also yielded intracranial responses in the TRIDENT-1 trial (26). ROS1+ NSCLC patients with asymptomatic BrM were allowed, and 9 patients with measurable BrM were included in the analysis. IC-RR was 89% in ROS1-TKI naive patients and 38% in pretreated patients.

NTRK TKIs

NTRK gene fusions, targeted by TKIs such as entrectinib and larotrectinib, occur in <1% of NSCLC patients (27). Entrectinib, previously mentioned as a ROS1+ TKI, also targets NTRK and ALK. An integrated analysis of the ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1 and STARTRK-2 studies included 22 patients with advanced NTRK+ NSCLC and patients with other histologies (27). Overall IC-ORR was 63.6% for the 11 patients with measurable baseline BrM from all histologies, and specifically 80% for the five NSCLC patients. CNS efficacy of larotrectinib has been demonstrated in case reports, even achieving complete intracranial response in one patient with NTRK+ NSCLC and multiple BrM (28). A smaller study also confirmed intracranial response in 4 out of 5 patients with NTRK+ solid cancers and BrM (29).

ADCs

ADCs represent a novel class of compounds that have substantially transformed the treatment landscape for various cancers, including NSCLC. ADCs are composed of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a potent cytotoxic agent with molecular weights in the hundreds of thousands of kDa. ADCs were presumed not to have CNS activity based on their size. However, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), an ADC consisting of a HER2-directed monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase I inhibitor, demonstrated clear and durable activity in HER2+ breast cancer BrM patients. In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, metastatic HER2+ breast cancer patients with stable and pretreated BrM had superior mPFS (15 vs. 3 months) and OS (not reached vs. 25.1 months) when treated with T-DXd vs. ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). IC-ORR was almost doubled with T-DXd (65.7% vs. 34.3%) (30). T-DXd also proved beneficial for patients with active BrM per the phase 2 DEBBRAH and TUXEDO-1 trials (IC-ORR rates of 44–73%), and the phase 3/4 DESTINY-Breast12 trial (CNS-ORR for active BrM =62.3%) (30-34).

T-DXd has also been studied in HER2-altered NSCLC. Although most studies included BrM, they were not intentionally designed to evaluate intracranial endpoints; as a result, reported outcomes are retrospective and less rigorous than in breast cancer trials. In DESTINY-Lung01, T-DXd led to durable responses in patients with refractory metastatic HER2-mutant (HER2m) and HER2-overexpressing NSCLC. 36% of HER2m patients had stable asymptomatic BrM, over half of whom had not received radiotherapy. ORR and mPFS in the BrM patients were relatively similar compared to the overall cohort (54.5% vs. 55%, 7.1 vs. 8.2 months) (35). Results were encouraging in the HER2-overexpressing BrM cohort as well, with ORR 50% and mOS not reached in the 5.4 mg/kg dosing group (36). The subsequent DESTINY-Lung02 confirmed efficacy of T-DXd in HER2m NSCLC patients with stable BrM, with ORR 60% and 45.5% in the 5.4 and 6.4 mg/kg cohort, respectively (37). As neither of these trials reported CNS-specific outcomes and incorporated BrM patients with variable pre-enrollment RT histories, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about CNS activity. The upcoming DESTINY-Lung04 trial will evaluate both systemic and intracranial efficacy of first-line T-DXd in advanced HERm NSCLC patients compared against standard-of-care.

HER3 is overexpressed in NSCLC and portends worse outcomes (38). Patritumab-deruxtecan is an ADC comprised of an anti-HER3 antibody combined with a topoisomerase I inhibitor. In the phase 2 HERTHENA-Lung01 trial, HER3-DXd was studied in advanced EGFRm NSCLC patients pretreated with EGFR-TKI and platinum-based chemotherapy. 30 asymptomatic BrM patients without prior RT were included. CNS-ORR was 33.3%, suggestive of some degree of intracranial activity (39). The subsequent HERTHENA-Lung02 study compared HER3-DXd against platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced pre-treated NSCLC patients, with stable BrM allowed. Although there was a small yet nonsignificant trend towards prolonged IC-PFS in the HER3-DXd arm (5.4 vs. 4.2 months), the trial did not reach its OS endpoint on the most recent follow-up (mOS 16 vs. 15.9 months) (40). Efficacy of HER3-DXd for leptomeningeal disease also appears to be modest based on the TUXEDO-3 trial, with IC-ORR reported as 11.1% (41). As none of these trials specifically selected for patients with HER3 alterations, activity of HER3-DXd for HER3-altered tumors with BrM is yet to be determined.

Sacituzumab-govitecan (SG) and datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) are both Trop-2 directed ADC’s containing topoisomerase I inhibitor payloads. Initially FDA-approved for metastatic triple negative breast cancer, SG was then studied in the EVOKE-01 trial, which did not demonstrate significant OS benefit for metastatic refractory NSCLC patients. Despite including a small portion of stable BrM, no CNS outcomes were described (42). Dato-DXd, which has a more potent payload and longer half-life than SG (43), has yielded more encouraging results for BrM patients. The TROPION-Lung01 study demonstrated improved PFS for Dato-DXd when compared to docetaxel in advanced NSCLC. Subgroup analysis of the 170 patients with previously treated or inactive BrM demonstrated continued PFS benefit in the Dato-DXd arm (HR =0.64), although other CNS-specific outcomes were not reported (44).

Dato-DXd remains effective even after treatment with targeted therapy, making it an important next-line agent to consider for patients who have progressed on EGFR or ALK TKI. In the TROPION-Lung05 trial, advanced NSCLC patients with driver mutations previously treated with targeted therapy and platinum chemotherapy were treated with Dato-DXd. Notably over half of the patients had baseline stable BrM, 28% of which were untreated. Exploratory analysis showed promising CNS efficacy with IC-ORR 22% and disease control rate 72% (45).

The emergence of ADCs represents an exciting novel therapeutic class for NSCLC BrM patients. Newer ADCs, such as HER3-DXd and Dato-DXd, may become important next-line considerations for patients who progress after TKI therapy.

Anti-PD1

ICIs have demonstrated modest efficacy in NSCLC BrM, although reporting of intracranial outcomes remains limited. Most studies report sustained systemic PFS and OS benefit for BrM patients treated with ICI, with few comments on actual intracranial outcome measures, making it difficult to weigh systemic therapy alone against local CNS treatments. A small study of pembrolizumab in non-PD-L1 expression-selected patients, demonstrated a CNS RR of 33% (46). Combination therapies have also shown some benefit. First-line nivolumab (nivo) and ipilimumab (ipi) improved survival when compared to platinum-doublet chemotherapy for NSCLC patients without driver mutations per the CheckMate 227 Part 1 trial, with asymptomatic and pretreated BrM allowed (47). Post-hoc exploratory analysis at 5 years demonstrated some OS benefit for the patients with baseline BrM (17.4 vs. 13.7 months, HR =0.63), mildly improved 5-year IC-PFS in the combination ipi/nivo arm (16% vs. 6%), as well as a reduction in the development of new BrM when compared to chemotherapy (4% vs. 20%). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 77% of the patients in the ipi/nivo arm vs. 76% in the chemotherapy arm, raising the concern that drug toxicities should be heavily considered in the treatment calculus for our NSCLC BrM patients (47). With an intracranial response rate limited to around 33% (46), ICIs appear to be less effective than upfront RT, which achieves much higher local control rates of around 90% (3). Furthermore, whereas SRS results in similar local control for the treatment of BrM and lung metastases (3,48), ICI results in an inferior overall response rate in brain compared to lung metastases (49). Therefore, combination ICI and RT remains the most common approach for patients with non-driver mutation NSCLC, particularly those with elevated expression of PD-L1. The optimal timing of ICI plus SRS, and head-to-head comparisons of ICI vs. SRS vs. ICI + SRS, have yet to be prospectively studied. One retrospective series that evaluated SRS followed by ICI within 90 days in NSCLC BrM patients reported superior OS and intracranial control in patients with higher PD-L1 expression (50). Notably, elevated PD-L1 expression was also associated with a higher rate of symptomatic radiation necrosis, which should be factored into treatment decisions.

Conclusions

Since our prior review of CNS active drugs for NSCLC BrM, the treatment landscape has greatly evolved. Patients and providers have access to new, more effective systemic medications that can help delay or defer local CNS treatments such as surgery and radiation. CNS active drugs can also prevent new BrM, making it even more important for patients and clinicians to understand the growing number of treatment options. While progress has been made, studies that compare drug-to-drug or drug-to-local therapy efficacy specifically in BrM, are rare. Well-designed prospective randomized trials that enroll BrM patients, including those with active and untreated BrM, and intentionally assess CNS-specific outcomes are urgently needed.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Peer Review File: Available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-2025-1434/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-2025-1434/coif). S.N. has received consulting fees, payment for educational events, and support for travel from Daiichi-Sankyo. She has consulted for EnClear. She has received research support from Plus Therapuetics. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Nagpal S, Milano MT, Chiang VL, et al. Executive summary of the American Radium Society appropriate use criteria for brain metastases in epidermal growth factor receptor mutated-mutated and ALK-fusion non-small cell lung cancer. Neuro Oncol 2024;26:1195-212. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Owen S, Souhami L. The management of brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol 2014;4:248. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Ene CI, Abi Faraj C, Beckham TH, et al. Response of treatment-naive brain metastases to stereotactic radiosurgery. Nat Commun 2024;15:3728. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Riess JW, Nagpal S. EGFR mutation status and brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer: an understudied problem. Transl Cancer Res 2013;2:54-56.
5. Averbuch I, Tschernichovsky R, Yust-Katz S, et al. Converging survival trends in non-small cell lung cancer patients with and without brain metastasis receiving state-of-the-art treatment. J Neurooncol 2024;166:461-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;378:113-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Planchard D, Jänne PA, Cheng Y, et al. Osimertinib with or without Chemotherapy in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2023;389:1935-48. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Schuler M, Wu YL, Hirsh V, et al. First-Line Afatinib versus Chemotherapy in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Common Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Gene Mutations and Brain Metastases. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:380-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Reungwetwattana T, Nakagawa K, Cho BC, et al. CNS Response to Osimertinib Versus Standard Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; Epub ahead of print. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Yamaguchi H, Wakuda K, Fukuda M, et al. A Phase II Study of Osimertinib for Radiotherapy-Naive Central Nervous System Metastasis From NSCLC: Results for the T790M Cohort of the OCEAN Study (LOGIK1603/WJOG9116L). J Thorac Oncol 2021;16:2121-32. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Jänne PA, Planchard D, Kobayashi K, et al. CNS Efficacy of Osimertinib With or Without Chemotherapy in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:808-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Felip E, Cho BC, Gutiérrez V, et al. Amivantamab plus lazertinib versus osimertinib in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with biomarkers of high-risk disease: a secondary analysis from MARIPOSA. Ann Oncol 2024;35:805-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Passaro A, Wang J, Wang Y, et al. Amivantamab plus chemotherapy with and without lazertinib in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib: primary results from the phase III MARIPOSA-2 study. Ann Oncol 2024;35:77-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Yu HA, Chen MF, Hui AB, et al. A phase 2 study of amivantamab plus lazertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer and active central nervous system disease. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:8517. [Crossref]
15. Pike LRG, Miao E, Boe LA, et al. Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors With and Without Up-Front Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases From EGFR and ALK Oncogene-Driven Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (TURBO-NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2024;42:3606-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Hida T, Nokihara H, Kondo M, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (J-ALEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017;390:29-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, et al. Alectinib versus Crizotinib in Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377:829-38. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Zhou C, Kim SW, Reungwetwattana T, et al. Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated Asian patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ALESIA): a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet Respir Med 2019;7:437-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Camidge DR, Kim HR, Ahn MJ, et al. Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2027-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Shaw AT, Bauer TM, de Marinis F, et al. First-Line Lorlatinib or Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2018-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Dagogo-Jack I, Abbattista A, Murphy JF, et al. Factors Associated With Developing Neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Lorlatinib After Progression on Other Targeted Therapies. J Thorac Oncol 2023;18:67-78. [Crossref] [PubMed]
22. Zhou C, Solomon B, Loong HH, et al. First-Line Selpercatinib or Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab in RET Fusion-Positive NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2023;389:1839-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Griesinger F, Curigliano G, Thomas M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pralsetinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer including as first-line therapy: update from the ARROW trial. Ann Oncol 2022;33:1168-78. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. Patil T, Smith DE, Bunn PA, et al. The Incidence of Brain Metastases in Stage IV ROS1-Rearranged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Rate of Central Nervous System Progression on Crizotinib. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:1717-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Drilon A, Chiu CH, Fan Y, et al. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Entrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive NSCLC. JTO Clin Res Rep 2022;3:100332. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Drilon A, Camidge DR, Lin JJ, et al. Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2024;390:118-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Demetri GD, De Braud F, Drilon A, et al. Updated Integrated Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Entrectinib in Patients With NTRK Fusion-Positive Solid Tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2022;28:1302-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Rosen EY, Schram AM, Young RJ, et al. Larotrectinib Demonstrates CNS Efficacy in TRK Fusion-Positive Solid Tumors. JCO Precis Oncol 2019;3:PO.19.00009.
29. Drilon AE, DuBois SG, Farago AF, et al. Activity of larotrectinib in TRK fusion cancer patients with brain metastases or primary central nervous system tumors. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:2006. [Crossref]
30. Hurvitz SA, Kim SB, Chung WP, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients with brain metastases from the randomized DESTINY-Breast03 trial. ESMO Open 2024;9:102924. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Bartsch R, Berghoff AS, Furtner J, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-positive breast cancer with brain metastases: a single-arm, phase 2 trial. Nat Med 2022;28:1840-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Pérez-García JM, Vaz Batista M, Cortez P, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with central nervous system involvement from HER2-positive breast cancer: The DEBBRAH trial. Neuro Oncol 2023;25:157-66. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. Hurvitz SA, Hegg R, Chung WP, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: updated results from DESTINY-Breast03, a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023;401:105-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
34. Marhold M, Vaz Batista M, Blancas I, et al. TUXEDO-4: phase II study of trastuzumab-deruxtecan in HER2-low breast cancer with new or progressing brain metastases. Future Oncol 2025;21:1065-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
35. Li BT, Smit EF, Goto Y, et al. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in HER2-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2022;386:241-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
36. Smit EF, Felip E, Uprety D, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (DESTINY-Lung01): primary results of the HER2-overexpressing cohorts from a single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2024;25:439-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Goto K, Goto Y, Kubo T, et al. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients With HER2-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Primary Results From the Randomized, Phase II DESTINY-Lung02 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:4852-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
38. Yi ES, Harclerode D, Gondo M, et al. High c-erbB-3 protein expression is associated with shorter survival in advanced non-small cell lung carcinomas. Mod Pathol 1997;10:142-8. [PubMed]
39. Yu HA, Goto Y, Hayashi H, et al. HERTHENA-Lung01, a Phase II Trial of Patritumab Deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:5363-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
40. Mok TSK, Yu HA, Lim SM, et al. Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in resistant EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after a third-generation EGFR TKI: The phase 3 HERTHENA-Lung02 study. J Clin Oncol 2025;43:8506. [Crossref]
41. Preusser M, Garde-Noguera J, García-Mosquera JJ, et al. Patritumab deruxtecan in leptomeningeal metastatic disease of solid tumors: the phase 2 TUXEDO-3 trial. Nat Med 2025;31:2797-805. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Paz-Ares LG, Juan-Vidal O, Mountzios GS, et al. Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III EVOKE-01 Study. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:2860-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
43. Okajima D, Yasuda S, Maejima T, et al. Datopotamab Deruxtecan, a Novel TROP2-directed Antibody-drug Conjugate, Demonstrates Potent Antitumor Activity by Efficient Drug Delivery to Tumor Cells. Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20:2329-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Ahn MJ, Tanaka K, Paz-Ares L, et al. Datopotamab Deruxtecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III TROPION-Lung01 Study. J Clin Oncol 2025;43:260-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Lisberg A, Ahn MJ, Kitazono S, et al. Intracranial efficacy of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients (pts) with previously treated advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/m NSCLC) with actionable genomic alterations (AGA): Results from TROPION-Lung05. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:8593. [Crossref]
46. Goldberg SB, Gettinger SN, Mahajan A, et al. Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer and untreated brain metastases: early analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:976-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
47. Reck M, Ciuleanu TE, Lee JS, et al. Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC and Baseline Brain Metastases From CheckMate 227 Part 1. J Thorac Oncol 2023;18:1055-69. [Crossref] [PubMed]
48. Singh D, Chen Y, Hare MZ, et al. Local control rates with five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic cancer to the lung. J Thorac Dis 2014;6:369-74. [PubMed]
49. Wang Q, Fang Y, Li C, et al. Differential organ-specific tumor response to first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in non-small cell lung cancer-a retrospective cohort study. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2023;12:312-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
50. Adib E, Nassar AH, Bou Farhat E, et al. PD-L1, Tumor Mutational Burden, and Outcomes in NSCLC With Brain Metastases: A Brief Report. JTO Clin Res Rep 2025;6:100797. [Crossref] [PubMed]