Ryan Scott is an Associate Editor of CURE; she joined MJH Life Sciences in 2021. In addition to writing and editing timely news and article coverage, she manages CURE's

social media accounts; check us out @curetoday across platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, X, and Instagram! She also attends conferences live and virtually to conduct video interviews and produce written coverage. Email: rscott@mjhlifesciences.

Ryan Scott

During June, investigators reported new data that has advanced the treatment landscape for lung cancer, including new FDA approvals and priority reviews.

During the month of June, investigators reported new data that has advanced the treatment landscape for lung cancer. These updates include new FDA approvals, priority reviews and expanded treatment options that may improve patient outcomes.

Moreover, June brought insights from clinical trials such as the COCOON trial, which showed how a new skin care regimen can reduce the negative impact of dermatologic side effects in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Additionally, investigators highlighted the phase 3 LAURA trial, which established a new standard treatment for patients with unresectable, locally advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

As these developments and treatment breakthroughs continue to provide hope and improved care for patients, be sure to read on for more detailed information on these important updates below.

A New Regimen Eases Dermatologic Side Effects After Treatment

entitled COCOON dermatologic management (DM)

 helped reduce the negative impact on quality of life caused by side effects from the treatment combination of Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw) and Lazcluze (lazertinib) for those with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These results come from the phase 2 COCOON trial, which was presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting.

By day 15 of treatment cycle three, patients who followed the COCOON DM routine had lower Skindex-16 scores — indicating fewer skin-related quality-of-life issues — compared with those who received standard skin care. Patients using COCOON DM also showed improvements in emotional well-being, daily functioning, and symptom control.

“At this analysis, which evaluated the first 12 weeks of treatment, [patients] in the COCOON DM arm experienced lower severity of dermatologic symptoms and a reduced impact on quality of life in the standard-of-care dermatologic management arm,” lead study author Jill Feldman, founder of EGFR Registers, a patient advocacy group in Deerfield, Illinois, wrote with coauthors. “Most [patients] in the COCOON DM arm reported mild or no dermatologic symptoms. This benefit was consistently observed across the first [approximately] 10 weeks of treatment.”

The LAURA Trial May Lead to a New Era of Care

osimertinib (Tagrisso) has emerged as a new standard treatment

 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC that has an EGFR mutation. This is based on improved survival outcomes seen in the phase 3 LAURA trial, according to Dr. Suresh Ramalingam, a medical oncologist and executive director of the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University.

To share more details, Ramalingam participated in an interview with CURE where he explained the most important 

 and what they mean for patients. He also discussed 

how Tagrisso is leading to new treatment strategies

 for this group of patients, as well as what 

types of side effects patients may experience

“While we have good treatments now and still have work to do, our current position offers much more hope to patients than where we were five to ten years ago,” Ramalingam emphasized the interview.

Ramalingam also serves as the associate vice president for cancer of Woodruff Health Sciences Center and holds the Roberto C. Goizueta Distinguished Chair for Cancer Research. Recently, in May of 2025, Ramalingam was also listed on the TIME100 Health 2025 list for his contributions to lung cancer research.

FDA Grants Priority Review to A New Drug Combo

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

 for the combination of Zepzelca (lurbinectedin) and Tecentriq (atezolizumab) as a first-line maintenance treatment for people with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. This would apply to patients whose cancer has not worsened after initial treatment with Tecentriq, Paraplatin (carboplatin), and Vepesid (etoposide), according to a news release from Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

The FDA has granted the application priority review, which is given to treatments that may offer meaningful improvements for serious conditions. A decision from the FDA is expected by October 7, 2025.

“The FDA's Priority Review designation for Zepzelca in combination with Tecentriq as a first-line maintenance treatment highlights the urgent need for new approaches and the potential benefit of Zepzelca for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, a disease with limited therapeutic options and high unmet need,” Dr. Rob Lannone, executive vice president, global head of research and development, and chief medical officer of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, said in the news release. “We are pleased to have received this review designation after presenting the IMforte trial data at ASCO 2025 with simultaneous publication in The Lancet. Together, these milestones bring us a step closer to potentially offering patients a new first-line maintenance option that could help extend the time they live without their disease progressing.”

FDA Approves Ibtrozi for ROS1+ Advanced NSCLC

 for adults with NSCLC that is locally advanced or has spread (metastatic) and tests positive for a ROS1 gene change, according to a news release from the regulatory agency.

The approval is based on results from two clinical trials, called TRUST-I and TRUST-II, which studied the drug in patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC. Both trials were conducted at multiple centers and did not include a placebo or comparison treatment.

For patients who had not received any prior treatment, the overall response rate — meaning how many people saw their tumors shrink — was 90% in TRUST-I and 85% in TRUST-II. In these groups, 72% and 63% of patients, respectively, had responses that lasted at least 12 months. For those who had previously received a ROS1-targeted treatment, the response rate was 52% in TRUST-I and 62% in TRUST-II. Among these patients, 74% and 83%, respectively, had responses that lasted at least 6 months.

FDA Approves Datroway for EGFR+ Advanced Lung Cancer

the FDA granted accelerated approval to Datroway

 (datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk) for adults with NSCLC that is locally advanced or metastatic and has an EGFR mutation. This approval is for patients whose cancer has worsened after receiving both an EGFR-targeted treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy.

The effectiveness of Datroway was studied in a combined group of 114 patients from two clinical trials: TROPION-Lung05 and TROPION-Lung01. All patients had advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC and had already been treated with the therapies mentioned above. They received Datroway at the recommended dose.

The main goals of the study were to see how many patients responded to treatment (overall response rate) and how long those responses lasted (duration of response). The results showed that 45% of patients had their tumors shrink, and the median length of response was 6.5 months. These outcomes were assessed by an independent review team using standard criteria.

“Dermatologic prophylaxis and impact on patient-reported outcomes in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC treated with amivantamab plus lazertinib: Results from the phase 2 COCOON trial” by Dr. J. Feldman, et al., 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting.

“Tagrisso demonstrated overwhelming efficacy benefit for patients with unresectable, Stage III EGFR-mutated lung cancer in LAURA Phase III trial.” News release. AstraZeneca. Accessed June 30, 2025.

“Zepzelca® (lurbinectedin) and Atezolizumab (Tecentriq®) Combination Granted U.S. FDA Priority Review for First-Line Maintenance Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.” News release. Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Accessed June 30, 2025.

“FDA Approves Taletrectinib for ROS1-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed June 30, 2025.

“Datopotamab Deruxtecan in Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With Actionable Genomic Alterations: Results From the Phase II TROPION-Lung05 Study,” by Dr. Jacob Sands, et al., 

“FDA grants Accelerated Approval to Datopotamab Deruxtecan-dlnk for EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed June 30, 2025.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don’t forget to 

subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Articles

June saw significant advancements in lung cancer treatment, including new FDA approvals and priority reviews. The COCOON trial introduced a skin care regimen that mitigates dermatologic side effects in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients. The LAURA trial established osimertinib as a new standard for unresectable, locally advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The FDA granted priority review to a Zepzelca and Tecentriq combination for small cell lung cancer. Additionally, Ibtrozi and Datroway received FDA approval for ROS1-positive and EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, respectively, based on promising clinical trial results.

June Lung Cancer Highlights: Top 5 Updates Patients Should Know 

Bonnie Annis is a breast cancer survivor, diagnosed in 2014 with stage 2b invasive ductal carcinoma with metastasis to the lymph nodes.

Americans like to eat and it’s no wonder that they do. Every single time we turn on the television, commercials prod us to try the newest food products. Many advertisements found on cable or streaming services focus on unhealthy foods like sweets and fast foods. Those tantalizing marketing ads make us salivate.

During the summer, I start to become more aware of the excess weight I’m carrying. Being physically active is more challenging when the temperatures soar and every extra pound seems heavier than normal.

Today, I was helping my husband with some yard work. It was 90 degrees outside, I was “sweating like a pig” and felt yucky. Over the course of a few years, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more sedentary, and the pounds have slowly crept on. I hadn’t realized it during the cooler months but today was a different story. I knew I had to do something about it. Not only was I concerned about feeling better, but I was also concerned about the possibility of excess weight contributing to a recurrence of breast cancer. After 11 years of living cancer free, I never want to risk having it come back into my life.

I remember reading several medical articles about studies done on postmenopausal women, particularly those who were overweight or obese. Since I fell into the postmenopausal category and I’d packed on a few pounds, I paid more attention. Studies revealed that when those factors were combined with cancers fed by estrogen (ER+), it got even more dicey. Apparently excess body fat led to more production of the hormone estrogen and that could feed cancer cells, causing them to grow.

What could I do to give myself better odds? It wasn’t hard to figure out. I needed to work on my diet and exercise. If I cut out processed foods and sweets, focusing more on healthy options like lean meats, fresh vegetables and fruits, I’d probably start to feel better. Coupling that with daily exercise, like walking, I’d burn unnecessary calories.

Women don’t like to talk about their weight but during the summer months, we often become more conscious of how we look. When it’s time to pull out the bathing suits and shorts, there’s not a lot of leeway for camouflaging those “jelly rolls.”

For many years, physicians have encouraged patients to eat healthily, exercise often and maintain a healthy weight; however, attempting to do those things isn’t always as easy as one may think. Will power requires determination but if controlling what goes in our bodies can help keep cancer at bay, shouldn’t we want to do it?

No one wants to face a cancer recurrence, but as a breast cancer survivor, I know it’s a real possibility if I don’t stay on top of things.

A recurrence of breast cancer can occur at any time to someone, but studies indicate patients who are postmenopausal and carry excess weight may be at a higher risk. If you fall into that category, like I do, I hope you’ll choose to do something about it before it’s too late. Health is really such a valuable asset. Ask any cancer survivor, we know.

Maintaining a healthy lifestyle is crucial for postmenopausal women, particularly those who are overweight, to reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence. Excess body fat can increase estrogen production, potentially fueling estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) cancer growth. Adopting a balanced diet and regular exercise can help manage weight and improve overall health. Despite the challenges of willpower, the benefits of controlling diet and physical activity are significant in preventing cancer recurrence. Awareness of one's health, especially during summer, can motivate positive lifestyle changes.

After years of survivorship, I’m realizing that shedding extra pounds may do more than improve comfort — it could reduce my risk of recurrence.

Could Shedding a Few Pounds Prevent a Breast Cancer Recurrence? 

Dr. Alexandra Zaleta discusses how most cancer patients face prior authorization delays, despite 95% being approved, highlighting the need for reform.

Many individuals receiving therapy to treat their cancer faced insurance red tape and administrative inefficiencies, resulting in time toxicities, emotional and financial strain, as well as inequities in access to care, according to research entitled ‘The Insurance Maze: How Cancer Patients Get Lost in the Red Tape of Utilization Management’, which was published in the 2025 Red Tape Report by CancerCare.

A set of insurance practices called, referred to as utilization management, is used to control costs by managing when, how and whether certain treatments are approved, and this study underscores the need to reform these practices. Prior authorization and coverage disruptions routinely interfere with patient care, taking time away from treatment and directing it towards the insurance processes. According to the research, has led to advocacy for a more meaningful, and patient-centered, approach.

This research was based on a national survey of 1,201 patients

 who had been treated for their cancer, and examined the effects of coverage changes and prior authorizations on timely access to care, revealing the real-world consequences of utilization management.

"For me, it's this contradiction: almost everyone is put through the process, and in the end, their initial doctor-prescribed care is approved. But in the meantime, they face significant care delays, time burdens, and impacts on their quality of life," Dr. Alexandra Zaleta, study author and principal investigator of the CARE Study, said in an interview with CURE. “This affects their stress levels, their finances, and their trust in the healthcare system.”

To delve deeper into this topic, Zaleta sat down for an interview with CURE to highlight survey findings, as well as explains what these delays in care indicate about the current system.

Zaleta, strategic leader and scientist, is the associate vice president of Research and Insights at CancerCare where she functions as an in-house expert on understanding challenges faced by people affected by cancer.

CURE: To begin, from your perspective, what was the most striking or concerning statistic that emerged from the survey you recently conducted and published?

: For me, the contradiction lies in these findings: almost everyone was put through prior authorization. This was a survey of individuals treated for cancer in the year before taking the survey. Eighty-five percent reported undergoing prior authorization at some point, and 76% in the last year alone. Yet, 95% of these prior authorizations were ultimately approved. The majority of these authorizations are approved, but only after a lot of people faced diagnostic and treatment delays, and tremendous burdens on their time and quality of life.

Therefore, for me, the real pain point is that almost everyone is put through this process, and the majority of the time, after appeals and everything else, their care is eventually approved. However, this approval comes only after 29% experienced delayed diagnoses, 40% had their treatment delayed, and half had to [personally] get involved in fighting the red tape. Many of these individuals lost one or more days of their lives battling a single prior authorization incident. A lot of these folks aren't just going through it once; they're facing prior authorization two, three, four, or even five times in the last year alone. Each time, they potentially have to roll up their sleeves and spend a day or multiple days, with some even reporting they had to spend a whole week or more fighting red tape. This time could have been spent focusing on their recovery and healing, which should be the top priority, or on their family and loved ones, or on other things they care about like work, other roles, or social obligations.

For me, it's this contradiction: almost everyone is put through the process, and in the end, their initial doctor-prescribed care is approved. But in the meantime, they face significant care delays, time burdens, and impacts on their quality of life. This affects their stress levels, their finances, and their trust in the healthcare system.

How would you describe prior authorization and related insurance barriers to someone who has just received a cancer diagnosis?

At its simplest level, we all know that healthcare in the U.S. is really expensive. So, at its simplest level, this is a cost-control measure implemented by insurers and other players in the space. Its stated goal is to check that the treatment a doctor prescribes is medically necessary and appropriate for the condition. That's the insurance industry's framing: to help control costs and, theoretically, ensure people receive appropriate, quality care.

However, our current pain point is that the system is being applied in a way that's widespread and inefficient, creating patient harm and potentially not even generating cost savings for people with cancer. So, while its intended purpose is to increase efficiency and help control costs, what we often see in the real world is the opposite for people living with cancer: they face inefficiencies, delays, and potentially even increased costs by the time the entire process is complete.

What does this indicate about the current system? Do you view this as evidence of unnecessary delays rather than effective cost oversight — and how do you interpret that figure?

From our perspective, it's a problem. While we understand the intended purpose of something like prior authorization, when 85% of individuals are put through this process — three-quarters in the last year alone — and 90% of those are approved out the gate, it still takes many people days or even weeks to get that first answer. The remaining individuals then have to fight for approval, extending the wait to reach that 95% approval rate by even more days, weeks, and in some cases, months, all to ultimately have their doctor-prescribed care approved.

To us, it just doesn't make sense; there's clearly a serious inefficiency in this system where the default is to put people through the prior authorization process, only to arrive at that determination. The process itself may not be very clear or transparent, so people are left trying to figure out how to navigate it. They might be calling their doctor's office for understanding, while the doctor is simultaneously working behind the scenes and also trying to support the patient and their loved ones by answering questions and easing anxieties. This is a genuinely scary and stressful process, especially since many people are caught off guard. While some are aware this might happen, either because it has before or their doctor informed them, many are not. And that, I believe, is a significant pain point. It catches people off guard.

Again, from our perspective, if 95% of these cases in the cancer context are being approved, but only after causing care delays, time burdens, and a worse quality of life, that, to me, is a system that needs reform. It simply doesn't make sense that this is the default experience for people living with cancer.

“The Health Insurance Maze: How Cancer Patients Get Lost in the Red Tape of Utilization Management” by CancerCare. 2025 Red Tape Report by CancerCare

Research highlights the challenges cancer patients face due to insurance practices like utilization management, which often lead to care delays, emotional and financial strain, and inequities in access. Despite most prior authorizations eventually being approved, the process causes significant time burdens and impacts patients' quality of life. The study, based on a national survey, underscores the need for reform in insurance practices to prioritize patient-centered care. The inefficiencies in the current system are evident, as patients frequently encounter unnecessary delays and stress, undermining trust in healthcare.

The Hidden Cost of Cancer: Time Toxicities and Insurance Delays 

Dr. Emre Yekedüz discusses how ASCO 2025 highlights precision medicine, biomarkers and the gut microbiome as keys to advancing kidney cancer care.

What is on the Horizon for Kidney Cancer?

At the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. Emre Yekedüz, a medical oncologist and research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, emphasized that the future of kidney cancer care is increasingly centered on personalization.

He pointed to ongoing efforts to match patients with treatments most likely to benefit them, particularly through the use of biomarkers and exploratory analyses across early-stage and metastatic kidney cancer trials.

He also noted growing interest in the gut microbiome’s role in kidney cancer outcomes. Although many findings still need validation, Yekedüz believes precision medicine and post-immunotherapy combination strategies are bringing new hope to patients.

Kidney cancer can develop in different parts of the kidney and includes several types. The most common in adults is renal cell carcinoma, which begins in the lining of small tubes that filter blood and help produce urine. Transitional cell cancer forms in the renal pelvis, the area in the center of the kidney where urine collects. Wilms tumor, a rare type, usually occurs in children, according to the National Cancer Institute.

What are the key themes or takeaways from the 2025 ASCO Meeting that you believe patients with kidney cancer should be most aware of?

There is a huge effort to select patients who will get more benefit from treatment. At ASCO25, there's a session on biomarkers in kidney cancer, and we’ll learn more about selecting the right patient for the right treatment. In this context, we will see results from new adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic kidney cancer trials, including exploratory analyses. We’ll also discuss the effect of the gut microbiome on kidney cancer. However, we still need more data and validation of these findings in the future.

I can say that the future is bright in kidney cancer. The new ASCO meeting will bring more hope and more options to our patients. We’ll be waiting for the next steps of early, promising data that will be presented at ASCO25. New combinations, especially after immunotherapy failure, are on the way, and precision medicine is getting stronger through exploratory analyses for selecting the right patient for the right treatment. Today, we have more hope than yesterday.

Transcript has been edited for clarity and conciseness

For more news on cancer updates, research and education,

don’t forget to subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Ryan Scott

June Lung Cancer Highlights: Top 5 Updates Patients Should Know

Could Shedding a Few Pounds Prevent a Breast Cancer Recurrence?

The Hidden Cost of Cancer: Time Toxicities and Insurance Delays

What is on the Horizon for Kidney Cancer?

Latest News