ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2026
Improving neoadjuvant and perioperative therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, comprising an anti-PD-(L)1 antibody and platinum-doublet chemotherapy, given alone or as part of a perioperative regimen with the addition of adjuvant anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, has become the standard of care for patients with early-stage, resectable non-oncogene-driven non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This approach has demonstrated substantial increases in pathological response rates and improvements in long-term outcomes, including overall survival. However, these advances have largely been achieved through uniform treatment application across biologically heterogeneous tumours. As a result, a central challenge in contemporary perioperative management is how to identify which patients require escalation or de-escalation of treatment following surgery and which individuals could safely avoid unnecessary treatment. In this Review, we summarize current evidence supporting pathological response, and particularly pathological complete response (pCR), as a robust and clinically meaningful surrogate for durable benefit in patients with NSCLC. We then consider how complementary tools, including circulating tumour DNA, radiomics and metabolic imaging approaches, and baseline molecular and immune biomarkers, can be integrated to refine patient selection and dynamically adapt perioperative strategies. Finally, we describe potential therapeutic strategies to intensify perioperative treatment in biologically high-risk populations, with the dual objective of increasing the likelihood of a pCR and improving disease control in patients with an insufficient pathological response.
Identifiers
42380613What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.