4.7 Article

ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 466-487

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.02.003

Keywords

consensus; lung cancer; treatment; testing; targeted therapy; EGFR

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) conducted a virtual consensus-building process in 2021 to discuss the management of EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. The experts developed recommendations on various topics, including tissue and biomarkers analyses, early and locally advanced disease, metastatic disease, clinical trial design, patient's perspective, and miscellaneous.
The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available