Case Report: Ivonescimab in EGFR-mutant lung cancer with baseline malignant pleural effusion and acquired complex resistance

Background: Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) presenting with malignant pleural effusion (MPE) at diagnosis have a poor prognosis. Options are limited after EGFR-TKI resistance. Ivonescimab, a PD-1/VEGFA bispecific antibody, is effective in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, but its efficacy in patients with baseline MPE and complex acquired resistance remains unclear.

Case presentation: A 55-year-old man was diagnosed with LUAD and significant MPE, featuring an EGFR exon 19 deletion and over 20 co-mutations. The patient eventually developed resistance to both first-line gefitinib and later almonertinib. Repeat genomic testing of pleural fluid upon progression revealed persistent alterations in 12 genes, including the original EGFR sensitizing mutation, TP53, AKT2, RARA, and SETD2, alongside newly acquired mutations in CHEK1, CUL3, DNMT1, HMCN1, and TBX3, and RB1 copy number loss, in the absence of typical resistance mechanisms such as T790M or MET amplification or histologic transformation to small cell lung cancer. PD-L1 expression on the effusion cell blocks was positive (TPS 40%, CPS 41). He received ivonescimab monotherapy, achieving disease control for nearly 5 months before transitioning to ivonescimab plus pemetrexed with continued benefit and a manageable safety profile.

Conclusion: This case illustrates the potential benefit of ivonescimab in patients with EGFR-mutant LUAD and baseline MPE who develop complex, non-canonical resistance to EGFR-TKIs. These findings support further clinical evaluation of ivonescimab in this poor-prognosis subgroup and highlight the importance of repeated molecular profiling in guiding treatment strategy.

Introduction

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related incidence and mortality worldwide (1), with pathological types commonly classified into two major categories: small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (2) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (3). NSCLC accounts for over 80% of lung cancer cases (4). Precision medicine for NSCLC, driven by advances in and the clinical application of diverse targeted therapies and immunotherapies, now encompasses the management of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) (5, 6). Approximately 40% of patients with lung cancer develop pleural effusions (7), and the proportion of patients with MPE approaches 50% even among those with the adenocarcinoma subtype (8). MPE is a well-established predictor of poor prognosis, particularly when present at initial diagnosis (7–9). Moreover, evidence suggests that patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer have a higher incidence of MPE than those with wild-type EGFR (10–12). For patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who develop MPE, treatment strategies involving third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) or sequential first- followed by third-generation EGFR-TKIs have been shown to further extend survival (10). Nonetheless, acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs remains a major clinical challenge (13). Collective data from pivotal trials demonstrate that the median progression-free survival (PFS) with approved third-generation EGFR-TKIs remains under two years, underscoring the fundamental limitation of ultimately inevitable treatment resistance (14). Upon disease progression, the prognosis for patients with MPE deteriorates significantly (15, 16).

Although intrapleural perfusion with chemotherapy or antiangiogenic agents is commonly used for local control of MPE (17), adding such perfusion to ongoing EGFR-TKI therapy after effusion recurrence may not improve survival and can increase treatment-related toxicity (18). For instance, in patients with acquired T790M mutation, combination therapy with an EGFR-TKI and bevacizumab was associated with a significantly longer PFS compared to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (median PFS 6.9 vs. 4.6 months; P = 0.022), whereas T790M-negative patients derived less benefit (15). Moreover, the development of MPE upon gradual progression during EGFR-TKI therapy is a negative predictor of outcomes for subsequent treatment with EGFR-TKI plus bevacizumab (19).

Tumor cells within MPE can express programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-L1), and patients with PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥1%) effusions may derive better clinical benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) than those with PD-L1 negative disease (20). Nevertheless, the presence of MPE is itself associated with worse outcomes following ICI therapy in LUAD, even among patients with PD-L1 positive (TPS>1) tumors (21). Furthermore, one study reported no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between EGFR/ALK-positive patients with MPE exhibiting PD-L1 TPS <50% versus ≥50% (21.0 vs. 20.5 months; P = 0.21) (22). These conflicting results highlight the uncertainty regarding the efficacy of ICIs in EGFR-mutant patients with MPE after EGFR-TKI failure.

Ivonescimab is a novel bispecific antibody targeting both programmed death-1 (PD-1) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, designed to simultaneously inhibit immune checkpoints and block angiogenesis. In patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progressed on EGFR-TKIs, ivonescimab combined with chemotherapy had demonstrated longer PFS compared to regimens such as chemotherapy plus amivantamab and lazertinib or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and bevacizumab (23). In May 2024, ivonescimab in combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin received its first approval in China for the treatment of EGFR-mutant locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC following EGFR-TKI progression (24). Additionally, in previously untreated, PD-L1 positive advanced NSCLC, ivonescimab monotherapy resulted in significantly longer PFS compared to pembrolizumab (25), leading to its approval by the NMPA in April 2025 for first-line treatment of PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥1%) disease. These advances underscore the transformative potential of ivonescimab in managing EGFR-TKI–resistant and/or PD-L1–positive NSCLC.

However, the efficacy of ivonescimab in managing EGFR-TKI–resistant NSCLC with MPE, particularly in cases exhibiting complex molecular features such as high PD-L1 expression and numerous co-occurring genomic alterations, remains unestablished. Here, we present a unique case of a patient with baseline MPE and a high-complexity tumor mutational profile who, after developing resistance to sequential first- and third-generation EGFR-TKIs, achieved sustained disease control with ivonescimab-based therapy. This case provides critical early insight into the potential role of dual PD-1 and VEGFA blockade in overcoming resistance in molecularly complex NSCLC with MPE and underscores the need for further investigation into biomarker-driven treatment strategies for this challenging patient population.

Case report

A 55-year-old male presented in March 2020 with a 3-month history of irritative cough and acute dyspnea. Chest CT revealed a left hilar mass with large pleural effusion and atelectasis. Following therapeutic thoracentesis, bronchoscopic biopsy on April 7, 2020 confirmed adenocarcinoma. Cytologic examination of pleural fluid revealed atypical cells. Comprehensive next-generation sequencing (NGS) (425+ gene panel; Genecast Biotech Ltd, China) of pleural fluid, FFPE tissue, and peripheral blood identified an EGFR exon 19 deletion (p.E746_A750delELREA) with allele frequencies of 2.51% in pleural fluid and 18.92% in tissue. Testing detected 24 additional somatic alterations (including AKT2, BRCA1, MYC, and TP53) (Supplementary Table 1), with no mutations in matched blood. The tumor was microsatellite-stable with high tumor mutational burden (TMB). Final staging was cT2aN2M1a (Stage IVA).

The patient received two cycles of intrapleural cisplatin (April 2020) followed by recombinant human endostatin, concurrently initiating gefitinib (250 mg orally, once daily; Figure 1A). Surveillance CT on April 6, 2023 showed new left pleural effusion, indicating progression (Figure 1B). Repeat liquid biopsy (peripheral blood) NGS (identical panel) revealed no detectable mutations. Therapy was switched to almonertinib (110 mg orally, once daily), with subsequent imaging on October 8, 2023 demonstrating marked effusion reduction, indicating treatment response.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Treatment timeline, disease course, and adverse events. (A) Diagnostic and therapeutic timeline for the patient. (B) Representative serial chest CT images comparing the dynamic changes of the primary lung lesion and malignant pleural effusion. The red boxes highlight the target lesions evaluated for treatment response before and after therapy with ivonescimab plus pemetrexed. (C) Histopathological and immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses. Top panel: H&E staining and IHC (original magnification × 40) for TTF-1 of the initial diagnostic biopsy (FFPE tissue). Middle panel: H&E staining and IHC for TTF-1 of pleural effusion cytology samples after disease progression on almonertinib. Bottom panel: H&E staining and IHC (original magnification × 200) for PD-L1 (clone 22C3) on cell block sections derived from malignant pleural effusion after almonertinib progression (Tumor Proportion Score, TPS = 40%). (D) Line graph depicting the trend of serum thyroid function biomarkers over time before and after the initiation of combination therapy with ivonescimab and pemetrexed. (E) Line graph showing the trends of key laboratory safety parameters (creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase) over time.

On January 12, 2025, CT showed recurrent large left pleural effusion with atelectasis, indicating progression. Repeated NGS of pleural fluid confirmed persistence of the EGFR exon 19 deletion (allele frequency 37.3%), along with mutations in AKT2, EGFR, RARA, SETD2, and TP53, among others (Supplementary Table 1), and newly acquired mutations in CHEK1, CUL3, DNMT1, HMCN1, and TBX3. PD-L1 expression on MPE cell blocks was high (TPS 40%; CPS 41) (Figure 1C), with low TMB. The patient received intrapleural recombinant human endostatin (a fixed dose of 30 mg) on January 16, 2025, and cisplatin (a fixed dose of 30 mg) on January 20 and 23, 2025 for symptomatic control. Given progression on almonertinib and PD-L1 positivity, combination therapy with ivonescimab and chemotherapy was recommended. However, due to concerns regarding toxicity, the patient elected to proceed with ivonescimab monotherapy. He received 7 cycles of ivonescimab (20 mg/kg IV Q3W) from January to June 2025, achieving stable disease. Subsequent CT on June 30, 2025, showed an interval increase in both the caliper and extent of a pre-existing strand-like parenchymal opacity in the left lung, indicating progression. The patient then consented to combined therapy, receiving 3 cycles of ivonescimab (20 mg/kg IV Q3W) plus pemetrexed (500mg/m² IV Q3W). The most recent CT in August 2025 showed stable disease, with no new metastases on brain MRI or abdominal CT. The patient remains on combination therapy.

Ivonescimab monotherapy was well-tolerated without significant toxicities. Following initiation of combination therapy, he developed asymptomatic hypothyroidism (Grade 2, CTCAE v5.0) (Figure 1D), managed successfully with levothyroxine without treatment interruption. No other significant treatment-related adverse events were observed in leukocyte count, liver, or renal function throughout the treatment course, demonstrating a favorable safety profile (Figure 1E).

Discussion

This case demonstrates that ivonescimab can induce meaningful disease control in a patient with EGFR-mutant LUAD, MPE, and a highly complex genomic profile (>20 mutations, PD-L1 TPS 40%) following resistance to sequential EGFR-TKIs. Therapy was well-tolerated overall. Previous studies have suggested a negative correlation between PD-L1 expression in malignant effusions—particularly on immune cells—and patient prognosis (26–28). Furthermore, VEGF within malignant serous cavities is a key driver of effusion formation and is significantly associated with poorer outcomes in lung cancer (29). Given that MPE constitutes an immunosuppressive microenvironment potentially modulated by VEGF (30, 31), the dual targeting of VEGFA and PD-1 by ivonescimab may produce synergistic effects, reversing local immune suppression.

This case utilized two anti-angiogenic drugs: recombinant human endostatin and ivonescimab. Historically, agents like recombinant human endostatin and bevacizumab have been used to manage NSCLC-related MPE. As a cornerstone anti-angiogenic therapy, bevacizumab is frequently used for MPE, and intrapleural infusion may be more effective and safer than intravenous delivery (32). A meta-analysis confirmed that intracavitary bevacizumab plus cisplatin yields a superior overall response rate compared to cisplatin monotherapy, without a significant rise in toxicity (33). Regarding combination strategies, bevacizumab plus EGFR-TKI improves PFS versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in T790M-positive patients with MPE, whereas no such benefit was seen in T790M-negative patients (15). Importantly, MPE is an independent adverse prognostic factor for EGFR-mutant patients with gradual progression receiving original TKI plus bevacizumab (19), and bevacizumab combined with osimertinib may not extend PFS in treatment-naïve patients with MPE (34). Collectively, these findings underscore the need for more effective anti-angiogenic strategies, particularly in T790M-negative cases like ours.

Elevated levels of VEGF and endostatin in pleural effusion are positively correlated with poor prognosis in lung cancer (35). Recombinant human endostatin has been validated to inhibit both angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in MPE (36). Consistent with this, intrapleural administration of recombinant human endostatin combined with cisplatin has demonstrated higher MPE control rates and improved quality of life compared to cisplatin alone (37–39). Based on this evidence, the combination was employed as a local therapy for MPE in the present case.

However, a well-recognized limitation of anti-angiogenic therapy is the dissociation between PFS and OS, wherein PFS improvement does not reliably translate into an OS benefit. This phenomenon is frequently observed with intravenous anti-angiogenic agents in patients with acquired EGFR-TKI resistance (40–42). A potential strategy to overcome this limitation may lie in combining anti-angiogenic agents with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy. Several randomized controlled trials indicate that such triple-therapy regimens improve OS in advanced NSCLC compared to anti-angiogenics plus chemotherapy or immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (43–45). A retrospective analysis further supports the efficacy of the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ABCP) regimen in NSCLC patients with MPE (46). Nevertheless, the OS benefit of this triple combination remains controversial specifically in the EGFR-TKI-resistant population (40, 47, 48).

The HARMONi-A study established that ivonescimab combined with chemotherapy significantly improved both PFS and OS, versus chemotherapy alone, in EGFR-positive NSCLC patients after progression on a third-generation EGFR-TKI, while maintaining a manageable safety profile (49, 50). The high concordance of PD-L1 expression between histologic specimens and MPE cell blocks (51) further implies that ivonescimab’s activity may extend to primary and occult metastatic lesions. Collectively, these factors likely contributed to the nearly five months of disease control and only slow progression of the primary lesion observed with ivonescimab monotherapy in this case. Nevertheless, it is premature to conclude that ivonescimab overcomes the PFS-OS dissociation typical of traditional anti-angiogenic agents in patients with MPE. This hypothesis requires validation through larger real-world datasets and dedicated randomized controlled trials.

The high PD-L1 expression observed in the malignant pleural effusion cells predominantly originated from the tumor cells themselves, as indicated by the near-identical TPS and CPS scores. This finding strengthens the rationale for PD-1/PD-L1 axis inhibition in this patient, as the target ligand is abundantly present on the malignant cells. Although the prognostic implications of PD-L1 expression specifically on tumor cells versus immune cells within MPE remain unresolved, this case demonstrates that ivonescimab can yield substantial clinical benefit in a patient with tumor cell-positive PD-L1 expression. High PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥1%) on MPE cell blocks may thus represent a potential positive predictive biomarker for ivonescimab response.

Interestingly, the onset of hypothyroidism (Grade 2) occurred only after initiating combination therapy with ivonescimab and pemetrexed, not during ivonescimab monotherapy. This pattern of toxicity may represent a first clinical observation specific to ivonescimab-based combinations. Previous studies have reported an increased incidence of hypothyroidism when ICIs are combined with chemotherapy with or without antiangiogenic agents in chemotherapy-naïve, EGFR-TKI-resistant NSCLC patients (52); however, the synergistic mechanism underlying this endocrine immune-related adverse event remains unclear.

Bioinformatic analysis revealed the 25 initial alterations formed a closely interrelated network by STRING database (53) (Figure 2A) and were enriched in key cancer pathways (e.g., “MicroRNAs in cancer,” “Pathways in cancer”), underscoring their oncogenic relevance. Two separate liquid biopsies derived from peripheral blood before initial treatment and after gefitinib resistance showed no detectable mutations, suggesting that circulating tumor DNA from peripheral blood has lower sensitivity compared to testing of primary tumor tissue or pleural effusion cells. This is consistent with previous research findings (54).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Molecular profiling of genetic alterations. (A) Protein-protein interaction network and top 8 enriched KEGG pathways of 25 genes mutated before initial treatment (analyzed via STRING). (B) Comparison of variant allele frequencies for 5 key driver genes before gefitinib treatment and after resistance to almonertinib. (C) Protein interaction network and top 8 KEGG pathways of 12 co-mutated or loss-of-function genes detected in malignant pleural effusion after almonertinib resistance (STRING analysis). (D) Mutation spectrum and frequency of the 12 altered genes within a LUAD cohort from the cBioPortal database (13 studies; n=6,229).

Longitudinal genomic profiling revealed dynamic clonal evolution under therapeutic pressure, exemplified by the acquisition of an RB1 copy number loss and a substantial increase in the variant allele frequencies of key driver mutations (e.g., in AKT2, EGFR, RARA, SETD2, and TP53), alongside a decrease in TMB (Figure 2B). Notably, no on-target (e.g., T790M, C797X) or common off-target (e.g., MET amplification, ERBB2 amplification) resistance mechanisms were identified (13). The emergence of an RB1 deletion, a known risk factor for EGFR-TKI resistance (55), suggests that resistance may have been mediated through bypass signaling pathways rather than primary EGFR-dependent mechanisms. Previous studies have demonstrated that co-inactivation of tumor suppressor genes, such as TP53 and RB1, significantly shortens both PFS and OS in EGFR-TKI-treated patients (56). Although co-occurring RB1 and TP53 alterations are classically associated with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) transformation (13, 57), immunohistochemical analysis of the pleural effusion cytology in this case confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma. Thus, the genomic profile derived from the MPE cells must be interpreted with caution regarding this potential transition. In addition to RB1 loss, new mutations emerged in CHEK1, CUL3, DNMT1, HMCN1, and TBX3. The spectrum of mutations acquired after almonertinib resistance formed a highly interconnected protein network, enriched in key pathways relevant to NSCLC and other malignancies (Figure 2C).

Interrogation of the cBioPortal database (58) (https://www.cbioportal.org/) (across 13 LUAD studies, n=6,229) revealed no identical genetic alteration profile, and 58.3% (7/12) of the assessed alterations occurred at a population frequency of less than 5% (Figure 2D), highlighting the exceptional molecular complexity and individualized nature of treatment resistance in this case. Emerging evidence implicates CHEK1, CUL3, and DNMT1 dysregulation in the progression of EGFR-mutant NSCLC (59–61). Mechanistically, DNMT1 overexpression can activate NF-κB to drive EGFR-TKI resistance, an effect reversible upon DNMT1 inhibition (60). CHEK1 dysfunction, as a DNA damage repair gene, is frequently linked to poor prognosis in NSCLC (62). While CUL3 mutations may compromise its tumor-suppressor function and promote progression (63), the roles of HMCN1 and TBX3 are less defined. Studies in breast and renal cell carcinomas suggest HMCN1 mutations may influence energy metabolism and anti-tumor immunity, though these associations await functional validation (64, 65). TBX3 acts as an oncogene; its overexpression or mutation enhances activity to promote proliferation, angiogenesis, and evasion of apoptosis and senescence (66), and is associated with progression or short-lived response to first-line immunotherapy in metastatic non-squamous NSCLC (67). Despite these insights, the specific contributions of HMCN1 and TBX3 to TKI resistance remain largely unexplored, warranting dedicated mechanistic investigation.

However, that ivonescimab-based therapy still elicited a clinical response in this high-risk molecular context is therefore particularly notable. To our knowledge, this is the first detailed report of successful ivonescimab application—both as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy—in a patient with de novo MPE and a profoundly complex genomic background following sequential EGFR-TKI failure. Evidence suggests that TP53 mutations can promote the upregulation of VEGF-A expression in NSCLC (68). Furthermore, the altered activity of key tumor suppressor genes including TP53, Rb1, CUL3, and CHEK1, has been associated with elevated PD-L1 expression (69–72). Given this interconnected dysregulation, the dual-targeted mechanism of ivonescimab may potentially reverse the immunosuppressive effects driven by the inactivation of these tumor suppressor genes. Our findings advocate for comprehensive molecular profiling of MPE-derived cells (including NGS and PD-L1 testing) to guide therapeutic decisions in EGFR-TKI-resistant LUAD. Ivonescimab, by simultaneously targeting the tumor vasculature and immune microenvironment, represents a compelling therapeutic strategy for this challenging patient population. Larger prospective clinical trials are urgently needed to validate the efficacy of ivonescimab in this molecularly defined subset.

This single-case report is limited in its generalizability, as the findings are derived from an individual patient experience. A key consideration is the treatment sequence. Although the patient met the eligibility criteria for the phase 3 HARMONi-A trial, which established the superiority of ivonescimab combined with pemetrexed and carboplatin over chemotherapy alone in this setting (49, 50), he declined combination chemotherapy due to profound concerns regarding toxicity—a common challenge in real-world practice. Given the high PD-L1 expression observed in his MPE and the proven efficacy of ivonescimab monotherapy in PD-L1-positive NSCLC (25), he opted for ivonescimab monotherapy. This deviation from the standard protocol precludes direct efficacy comparisons but uniquely demonstrates the standalone activity of dual PD-1/VEGF blockade, which conferred nearly five months of disease control in this molecularly complex case. We acknowledge that upfront combination therapy might have yielded a more robust initial response. This case underscores the tension between protocol-driven care and patient-centered decision-making. Furthermore, this case supports the use of ivonescimab plus pemetrexed as a viable sequential strategy after monotherapy progression, demonstrating a manageable safety profile and sustained clinical benefit.

Second, the retrospective design of this report made it unfeasible to prospectively collect critical immunophenotyping data from the malignant effusion. As a result, detailed information on immune cell subset distribution and cytokine milieu before and after treatment is unavailable. This gap precludes a definitive assessment of the drug’s effect on the local tumor microenvironment and remains a central uncertainty in our mechanistic interpretation.

Third, the diagnosis of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma was unequivocally based on cytology and IHC of the malignant effusion. Despite this, the co-inactivation of RB1 and TP53—a genomic hallmark highly associated with small cell transformation—introduces a note of diagnostic uncertainty. While our diagnostic methods are standard, they cannot definitively exclude the possibility of an occult or focal small cell component that was not sampled in the effusion. An image-guided re-biopsy, though precluded in this case by the primary lesion’s size and location, would have been the only way to fully resolve this genomic ambiguity.

Finally, as with all single-case reports, the findings are inherently preliminary and hypothesis-generating. They require validation in larger, prospective cohorts but offer valuable early insight into a potential therapeutic strategy for this molecularly defined, high-risk population.

In conclusion, this case offers two critical insights for managing EGFR-mutant lung cancer with MPE and complex resistance within the continuously changing treatment landscape (14). First, it underscores the imperative for repeated molecular profiling at progression, preferably using MPE-derived samples rather than plasma, to identify non-canonical resistance mechanisms and assess PD-L1 status. This precision approach is paramount in the current era of immuno-oncology (73), where therapeutic strategies are increasingly biomarker-driven. Second, it contributes preliminary yet promising evidence that ivonescimab—a bispecific antibody targeting both PD-1 and VEGF—is associated with clinically meaningful disease control in this high-risk population, even in a monotherapy setting. This finding aligns with the growing importance of bispecific antibodies in NSCLC, as evidenced by their role in redefining frontline standards for classic EGFR mutations (74) and addressing challenging subgroups with rare co-mutations (75). When the standard ivonescimab-chemotherapy combination is declined, monotherapy may represent a viable alternative. These findings highlight the potential therapeutic value of ivonescimab in this context and call for its formal evaluation in prospective, biomarker-defined cohorts.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University Ethics Committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

ZM: Conceptualization, Visualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft. HJ: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – original draft. LZ: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. QR: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. GS: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. LL: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. XJ: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. HY: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. YB: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. MM: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. SH: Formal Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the Zunyi Municipal Bureau of Industry, Science and Technology Project (Grant Number: Zunshi Kehe HZ (2025) 141) and the Science and Technology Fund of Guizhou Provincial Health Commission (gzwjk2025-120) and (gzwjkj2019-1-081).

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.During the preparation of this work, the authors used DeepSeek (DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp) solely for the purpose of language translation and polishing. All translated content was thoroughly reviewed, fact-checked, and corrected by the authors. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the final content, including all scientific facts, citations, and data presentation. No generative AI was used to create or substantiate any scientific content, analysis, or conclusions in this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1725067/full#supplementary-material.

References

1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2024) 74:229–63. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Das S and Samaddar S. Recent advances in the clinical translation of small-cell lung cancer therapeutics. Cancers (Basel). (2025) 17:255. doi: 10.3390/cancers17020255

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, and Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. (2024) 74:12–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21820

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Barta JA, Powell CA, and Wisnivesky JP. Global epidemiology of lung cancer. Ann Glob Health. (2019) 85:8. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2419

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Su PL, Furuya N, Asrar A, Rolfo C, Li Z, Carbone DP, et al. Recent advances in therapeutic strategies for non-small cell lung cancer. J Hematol Oncol. (2025) 18:35. doi: 10.1186/s13045-025-01679-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Ge S, Zhao Y, Liang J, He Z, Li K, Zhang G, et al. Immune modulation in Malignant pleural effusion: from microenvironment to therapeutic implications. Cancer Cell Int. (2024) 24:105. doi: 10.1186/s12935-024-03211-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Porcel JM, Gasol A, Bielsa S, Civit C, Light RW, and Salud A. Clinical features and survival of lung cancer patients with pleural effusions. Respirology. (2015) 20:654–9. doi: 10.1111/resp.12496

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Roberts ME, Neville E, Berrisford RG, Antunes G, and Ali NJ. Management of a Malignant pleural effusion: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax. (2010) 65:ii32–40. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.136994

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Wu SG, Yu CJ, Tsai MF, Liao WY, Yang CH, Jan IS, et al. Survival of lung adenocarcinoma patients with Malignant pleural effusion. Eur Respir J. (2013) 41:1409–18. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00069812

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Yang Q, Wang Z, Fu Q, Hu X, Chen L, Chen W, et al. EGFR mutations in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and Malignant pleural effusion: a propensity score-matched analysis of a single-center database. Transl Lung Cancer Res. (2024) 13:2435–47. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-24-757

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Zou J, Bella AE, Chen Z, Han X, Su C, Lei Y, et al. Frequency of EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinoma with Malignant pleural effusion: Implication of cancer biological behaviour regulated by EGFR mutation. J Int Med Res. (2014) 42:1110–7. doi: 10.1177/0300060514539273

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Smits AJ, Kummer JA, Hinrichs JW, Herder GJ, Scheidel-Jacobse KC, Jiwa NM, et al. EGFR and KRAS mutations in lung carcinomas in the Dutch population: increased EGFR mutation frequency in Malignant pleural effusion of lung adenocarcinoma. Cell Oncol (Dordr). (2012) 35:189–96. doi: 10.1007/s13402-012-0078-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Passaro A, Jänne PA, Mok T, and Peters S. Overcoming therapy resistance in EGFR-mutant lung cancer. Nat Cancer. (2021) 2:377–91. doi: 10.1038/s43018-021-00195-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Zhou F, Guo H, Xia Y, Le X, Tan DSW, Ramalingam SS, et al. The changing treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2025) 22:95–116. doi: 10.1038/s41571-024-00971-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Jiang T, Li A, Su C, Li X, Zhao C, Ren S, et al. Addition of bevacizumab for Malignant pleural effusion as the manifestation of acquired EGFR-TKI resistance in NSCLC patients. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:62648–57. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16061

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Kawamura T, Kenmotsu H, Kobayashi H, Omori S, Nakashima K, Wakuda K, et al. Negative impact of Malignant effusion on osimertinib treatment for non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutation. Invest New Drugs. (2020) 38:194–201. doi: 10.1007/s10637-019-00808-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Li Z, Deng J, Yan F, Liu L, Ma Y, and Sun J. Efficacy of hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy for initially diagnosed lung cancer with symptomatic Malignant pleural effusion. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:12071. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39211-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Wang W, Jiang X, Zhang Y, Song Y, and Song Z. Intracavitary chemotherapy with epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) is not superior to TKI monotherapy in controlling Malignant pleural effusion recurrence in EGFR-mutated lung cancer patients. J Thorac Dis. (2019) 11:3712–20. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.09.36

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Long J, Lei S, Wu Z, Xiong S, Wang C, Huang L, et al. Efficacy and safety of original EGFR-TKI combined with bevacizumab in advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients harboring EGFR-mutation experiencing gradual progression after EGFR-TKI treatment: a single-arm study. Ann Transl Med. (2022) 10:1334. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-6101

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Ma H, Jia J, Sun Z, Xiao X, Liang S, Zhao L, et al. The detection of PD-L1 expression on liquid-based cytology in pleural effusion of lung adenocarcinoma and its prognostic evaluation: Between paired liquid-based cytology and cell block samples. Diagn Cytopathol. (2024) 52:235–42. doi: 10.1002/dc.25276

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Shibaki R, Murakami S, Shinno Y, Matsumoto Y, Goto Y, Kanda S, et al. Malignant pleural effusion as a predictor of the efficacy of anti-PD-1 antibody in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. (2019) 10:815–22. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.13004

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Song Z, Cheng G, and Zhang Y. PD-L1 expression in Malignant pleural effusion samples and its correlation with oncogene mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis. (2020) 12:1385–92. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.02.06

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Zhang W, Xiong J, Li Y, Nie J, Zhao W, Guo Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of distinct regimens for individuals with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ther Adv Med Oncol. (2025) 17:17588359251338046. doi: 10.1177/17588359251338046

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Dhillon S. Ivonescimab: first approval. Drugs. (2024) 84:1135–42. doi: 10.1007/s40265-024-02073-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Xiong A, Wang L, Chen J, Wu L, Liu B, Yao J, et al. Ivonescimab versus pembrolizumab for PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (HARMONi-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study in China. Lancet. (2025) 405:839–49. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(24)02722-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Tseng YH, Ho HL, Lai CR, Luo YH, Tseng YC, Whang-Peng J, et al. PD-L1 expression of tumor cells, macrophages, and immune cells in non-small cell lung cancer patients with Malignant pleural effusion. J Thorac Oncol. (2018) 13:447–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.10.034

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Gu D, Hu L, Huang S, and Guo L. Expression and clinical significance of programmed death ligand-1 evaluated by 22C3 antibody in pleural effusion metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Cytojournal. (2024) 21:70. doi: 10.25259/Cytojournal_59_2024

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Xu J, Han X, Liu C, Gao N, Zhao J, Zhang X, et al. PD-L1 expression in pleural effusions of pulmonary adenocarcinoma and survival prediction: a controlled study by pleural biopsy. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:11206. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29156-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Hsu IL, Su WC, Yan JJ, Chang JM, and Lai WW. Angiogenetic biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer with Malignant pleural effusion: correlations with patient survival and pleural effusion control. Lung Cancer. (2009) 65:371–6. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.12.007

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Mulet M, Zamora C, Porcel JM, Nieto JC, Pajares V, Muñoz-Fernandez AM, et al. Platelet factor 4 regulates T cell effector functions in Malignant pleural effusions. Cancer Lett. (2020) 491:78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.06.014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Wada J, Suzuki H, Fuchino R, Yamasaki A, Nagai S, Yanai K, et al. The contribution of vascular endothelial growth factor to the induction of regulatory T-cells in Malignant effusions. Anticancer Res. (2009) 29:881–8.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

32. Nie K, Zhang Z, You Y, Zhuang X, Zhang C, and Ji Y. A randomized clinical study to compare intrapleural infusion with intravenous infusion of bevacizumab in the management of Malignant pleural effusion in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. (2020) 11:8–14. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.13238

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Han X, Qin S, Liu S, and Li Z. Intracavitary perfusion with bevacizumab plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone for Malignant pleural effusion in lung cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol. (2025) 23:278. doi: 10.1186/s12957-025-03887-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Hibino M, Hiranuma O, Takemura Y, Katayama Y, Chihara Y, Harada T, et al. Osimertinib and bevacizumab cotreatment for untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC with Malignant pleural or pericardial effusion (SPIRAL II): A single-arm, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial. JTO Clin Res Rep. (2022) 3:100424. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100424

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Zhang Y, Yu LK, Lu GJ, Xia N, Xie HY, Hu W, et al. Prognostic values of VEGF and endostatin with Malignant pleural effusions in patients with lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2014) 15:8435–40. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.19.8435

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Ma X, Yao Y, Yuan D, Liu H, Wang S, Zhou C, et al. Recombinant human endostatin endostar suppresses angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis of Malignant pleural effusion in mice. PloS One. (2012) 7:e53449. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053449

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Jie Wang X, Miao K, Luo Y, Li R, Shou T, Wang P, et al. Randomized controlled trial of endostar combined with cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced Malignant pleural effusion of lung adenocarcinoma. J buon. (2018) 23:92–7.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

38. Wang CQ, Huang XR, He M, Zheng XT, Jiang H, Chen Q, et al. Intrapleural administration with rh-endostatin and chemical irritants in the control of Malignant pleural effusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. (2021) 11:649999. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.649999

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Hu Y, Zhou Z, and Luo M. Efficacy and safety of endostar combined with cisplatin in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with Malignant pleural effusion: A meta-analysis. Med (Baltimore). (2022) 101:e32207. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000032207

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Park S, Kim TM, Han JY, Lee GW, Shim BY, Lee YG, et al. Randomized study of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in patients with EGFR- or ALK-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (ATTLAS, KCSG-LU19-04). J Clin Oncol. (2024) 42:1241–51. doi: 10.1200/jco.23.01891

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Zhou Q, Xu CR, Cheng Y, Liu YP, Chen GY, Cui JW, et al. Bevacizumab plus erlotinib in Chinese patients with untreated, EGFR-mutated, advanced NSCLC (ARTEMIS-CTONG1509): A multicenter phase 3 study. Cancer Cell. (2021) 39:1279–91.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.07.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Yang Y, Wang L, Li X, Zhang S, Yu J, Nie X, et al. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with EGFR-TKIs in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Thorac Cancer. (2022) 13:31–7. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.14214

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Socinski MA, Nishio M, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Orlandi F, Stroyakovskiy D, et al. IMpower150 final overall survival analyses for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in first-line metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol. (2021) 16:1909–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.07.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Reck M, Mok TSK, Nishio M, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Orlandi F, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower150): key subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR mutations or baseline liver metastases in a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. (2019) 7:387–401. doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(19)30084-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Lee KH, Lee JS, Sugawara S, Kang JH, Kim HR, Inui N, et al. First-line nivolumab plus platinum chemotherapy and bevacizumab for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: A 3-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomized TASUKI-52 trial. Lung Cancer. (2025) 201:108109. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2025.108109

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Hisakane K, Atsumi K, Seike M, and Hirose T. Utility of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel combination for the treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients with Malignant pleural effusion. Transl Lung Cancer Res. (2024) 13:2106–15. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-24-347

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Zhou C, Dong X, Chen G, Wang Z, Wu X, Yao Y, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: the randomized double-blind phase 3 IMpower151 trial. Nat Med. (2025) 31:2375–84. doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03658-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Lu S, Wu L, Jian H, Cheng Y, Wang Q, Fang J, et al. Sintilimab plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer with disease progression after EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy (ORIENT-31): second interim analysis from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. (2023) 11:624–36. doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(23)00135-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Zhang L, Fang W, Zhao Y, Luo Y, Yang R, Huang Y, et al. 1348 Final overall survival analysis of HARMONi-A study comparing ivonescimab plus chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in patients with EGFR+ NSCLC progressed on EGFR-TKI treatment. J ImmunoTherapy Cancer. (2025) 13:A1592. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2025-SITC2025.1348

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Fang W, Zhao Y, Luo Y, Yang R, Huang Y, He Z, et al. Ivonescimab plus chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR variant: A randomized clinical trial. Jama. (2024) 332:561–70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.10613

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Grosu HB, Arriola A, Stewart J, Ma J, Bassett R, Hernandez M, et al. PD-L1 detection in histology specimens and matched pleural fluid cell blocks of patients with NSCLC. Respirology. (2019) 24:1198–203. doi: 10.1111/resp.13614

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Huang L, Zhang S, Sun L, Ma J, and Han C. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor-resistant chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis based on eight randomized trials. JCO Precis Oncol. (2025) 9:e2400907. doi: 10.1200/po-24-00907

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Szklarczyk D, Kirsch R, Koutrouli M, Nastou K, Mehryary F, Hachilif R, et al. The STRING database in 2023: protein-protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest. Nucleic Acids Res. (2023) 51:D638–d46. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac1000

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Wang S, Chen H, Zhong J, Qin H, Bai H, Zhao J, et al. Comparative study of EGFR mutations detected in Malignant pleural effusion, plasma and tumor tissue in patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung. Lung Cancer. (2019) 135:116–22. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.05.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Zhang YC, Chen ZH, Zhang XC, Xu CR, Yan HH, Xie Z, et al. Analysis of resistance mechanisms to abivertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with EGFR T790M-positive non-small cell lung cancer from a phase I trial. EBioMedicine. (2019) 43:180–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.04.030

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Stockhammer P, Grant MJ, Wurtz A, Foggetti G, Expósito F, Gu J, et al. Association of alterations in multiple tumor suppressor genes with poor outcomes in patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:9104–. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.9104

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Nambirajan A, Rathor A, Baskarane H, Gs A, Khurana S, Sushmitha S, et al. Baseline retinoblastoma transcriptional corepressor 1 (Rb1) functional inactivation is a pre-requisite but not sufficient for small-cell histological transformation in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant lung adenocarcinomas post-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Virchows Arch. (2025) 487:639–48. doi: 10.1007/s00428-025-04054-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. de Bruijn I, Kundra R, Mastrogiacomo B, Tran TN, Sikina L, Mazor T, et al. Analysis and visualization of longitudinal genomic and clinical data from the AACR project GENIE biopharma collaborative in cBioPortal. Cancer Res. (2023) 83:3861–7. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-23-0816

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Hatano H, Yoshida T, Higashiyama R, Torasawa M, Uehara Y, and Ohe Y. EGFR, TP53, and CUL3 triple mutation in non-small cell lung cancer and its potentially poor prognosis: A case report and database analysis. Thorac Cancer. (2025) 16:e15523. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.15523

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Lin S, Ruan H, Qin L, Zhao C, Gu M, Wang Z, et al. Acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC mediates epigenetic downregulation of MUC17 by facilitating NF-κB activity via UHRF1/DNMT1 complex. Int J Biol Sci. (2023) 19:832–51. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.75963

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Attiogbe MKI, Huang TT, Zhao HY, Wang HY, Cao L, Yan PP, et al. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZZC4 overcomes acquired resistance to gefitinib. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. (2025) 497:117280. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2025.117280

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Wang L, Ma Y, Han W, Yang Q, and Jamil M. Whole Exome Sequencing reveals clinically important pathogenic mutations in DNA repair genes across lung cancer patients. Am J Cancer Res. (2023) 13:4989–5004.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

63. Dorr C, Janik C, Weg M, Been RA, Bader J, Kang R, et al. Transposon mutagenesis screen identifies potential lung cancer drivers and CUL3 as a tumor suppressor. Mol Cancer Res. (2015) 13:1238–47. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.Mcr-14-0674-t

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Oliveira RC, Cavalcante GC, and Soares-Souza GB. Exploring aerobic energy metabolism in breast cancer: A mutational profile of glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. Int J Mol Sci. (2024) 25:12585. doi: 10.3390/ijms252312585

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Gong Z, Wu X, Guo Q, Du H, Zhang F, and Kong Y. Comprehensive analysis of HMCN1 somatic mutation in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Genes (Basel). (2022) 13:1282. doi: 10.3390/genes13071282

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Khan SF, Damerell V, Omar R, Du Toit M, Khan M, Maranyane HM, et al. The roles and regulation of TBX3 in development and disease. Gene. (2020) 726:144223. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2019.144223

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Ding H, Yuan M, Yang Y, and Xu XS. Longitudinal genomic profiling using liquid biopsies in metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC following first line immunotherapy. NPJ Precis Oncol. (2025) 9:5. doi: 10.1038/s41698-024-00797-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Schwaederlé M, Lazar V, Validire P, Hansson J, Lacroix L, Soria JC, et al. VEGF-A expression correlates with TP53 mutations in non-small cell lung cancer: implications for antiangiogenesis therapy. Cancer Res. (2015) 75:1187–90. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.Can-14-2305

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Serra P, Petat A, Maury JM, Thivolet-Bejui F, Chalabreysse L, Barritault M, et al. Programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is associated with RAS/TP53 mutations in lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. (2018) 118:62–8. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.02.005

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Jin Y, Xue Q, Shen X, Zheng Q, Chen H, Zhou X, et al. PD-L1 expression and comprehensive molecular profiling predict survival in nonsmall cell lung cancer: A real-world study of a large chinese cohort. Clin Lung Cancer. (2022) 23:43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.08.009

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Permata TBM, Hagiwara Y, Sato H, Yasuhara T, Oike T, Gondhowiardjo S, et al. Base excision repair regulates PD-L1 expression in cancer cells. Oncogene. (2019) 38:4452–66. doi: 10.1038/s41388-019-0733-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Jiang X, Xu Y, Ren H, Jiang J, Wudu M, Wang Q, et al. KLHL18 inhibits the proliferation, migration, and invasion of non-small cell lung cancer by inhibiting PI3K/PD-L1 axis activity. Cell Biosci. (2020) 10:139. doi: 10.1186/s13578-020-00499-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Wang J, Chen Q, Shan Q, Liang T, Forde P, and Zheng L. Clinical development of immuno-oncology therapeutics. Cancer Lett. (2025) 617:217616. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2025.217616

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Yang JC, Lu S, Hayashi H, Felip E, Spira AI, Girard N, et al. Overall survival with amivantamab-lazertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. (2025) 393:1681–93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2503001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

75. Feng D, Jiang H, Chen G, Guan W, Yi L, Zhu Y, et al. Case report: Therapeutic response of front-line cadonilimab plus chemotherapy on patient with advanced lung adenocarcinoma harboring STK11 genetic aberration. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1485358. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1485358

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar