Next Article in Journal
Multi-Institutional CT Scan-Based Radiomics for Predicting Tumor PD-L1 Expression in Patients with Advanced and Limited Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
The Paradox of Senescence in Glioblastoma: SASP as an Emerging Cancer Hallmark
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 18
Issue 4
10.3390/cancers18040551
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

The Landscape of Clinical Trials in Never-Smoker Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Registered Evidence and Persistent Gaps

by
Raquel Ramos
1,2,
Carlos Sousa
1,3 and
Nuno Vale
1,2,4,*
1
PerMed Research Group, RISE-Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal
2
RISE-Health, Department of Community Medicine, Health Information and Decision (MEDCIDS), Faculty 12 of Medicine, University of Porto, Rua Doutor Plácido da Costa, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
3
Molecular Biology Department, SYNLAB Portugal, Rua Manuel Pinto de Azevedo, 401, 4100-321 Porto, Portugal
4
Laboratory of Personalized Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Health Information and Decision (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2026, 18(4), 551; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040551
Submission received: 15 January 2026 / Revised: 29 January 2026 / Accepted: 4 February 2026 / Published: 8 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Features and Immunotherapeutic Strategies in Lung Cancer)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

An increasing number of people are developing lung cancer despite never having smoked. These tumours often behave differently and may carry specific molecular changes that can potentially guide treatment. Yet, much treatment evidence has historically been derived from trials that mainly include smokers, which may not fully represent never-smokers. In this review, we examine registered clinical trials that were specifically designed for never-smokers with lung cancer. We summarize what types of treatments were tested, how patients were selected, whether molecular testing was used to guide enrolment, and how trial activity has evolved over time. We also identify key gaps and propose priorities for future studies so that never-smokers with lung cancer can benefit from evidence generated in trials tailored to their condition. Addressing these gaps is essential to ensure that never-smoker lung cancer patients benefit from evidence truly reflective of their disease biology.

Abstract

Lung cancer in never-smokers is increasingly recognized as a distinct clinical and biological entity, often enriched for actionable oncogenic alterations and characterized by molecular profiles that differ from tobacco-associated disease. However, therapeutic evidence for this growing patient population has frequently been extrapolated from trials in which smokers predominate, potentially limiting treatment optimization and biomarker-driven decision-making. In this review, we map and critically appraise clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that explicitly target never-smokers with lung cancer, focusing on therapeutic strategies, molecular stratification approaches, trial design features, and temporal trends. We discuss how eligibility definitions, histological and genomic enrichment, and endpoints have been handled across studies, and we highlight persistent gaps in dedicated trial activity, particularly in prospective biomarker-guided designs and contemporary platform strategies. Finally, we propose priorities for future trials to better reflect never-smoker lung cancer biology, improve external validity, and accelerate evidence generation for personalized therapeutic approaches in this population.

1. Lung Cancer in Never-Smokers: An Emerging Entity

Lung cancer (LC) is the most prevalent cancer worldwide, with 2022 estimates reporting approximately 2.5 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths [1]. It remains one of the most complex cancers, being characterized by a late diagnosis and poor outcomes due to its non-specific symptoms—cough, dyspnea, fatigue, chest pain, and weight loss [2]. As is already known, tobacco smoking is the strongest risk factor for LC development, accounting for nearly 80% of cases. Nonetheless, there are other causes for LC development not related to tobacco [3].
Histologically, LC is a heterogeneous disease that can be divided into two major groups: non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) [4]. Within these groups, SCLC is strongly associated with tobacco smoking, comprising 10–15% of all lung cancers. Otherwise, NSCLC is the most common lung cancer type, representing about 85% of cases. Among its subtypes, adenocarcinoma is the most common, occurring frequently among non-smoking females [5,6].
These histological and molecular differences have major therapeutic implications, supporting the shift toward biomarker-driven decision-making and, consequently, distinct patient outcomes and therapeutic approaches. In particular, once NSCLC is histologically classified, it should be further evaluated through multiple molecular methods, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC), next-generation sequencing (NGS), and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect genetic alterations with known targeted therapies [7,8]. Over the past decade, traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been increasingly complemented and, in many cases, replaced by immunotherapy and targeted therapies directed at specific molecular alterations. These agents target identifiable oncogenic drivers or biomarkers, enabling more precise and effective treatment strategies while reducing the toxicity associated with conventional approaches [9]. Moreover, these genetic alterations are different between smokers and never-smokers, which suggests different mechanisms of tumour development in these patients (Table 1) [10,11]. Specifically, tumours arising in never-smokers commonly harbour EGFR mutations, mainly L858R in the exon 21 mutation. Also, gene fusions involving ALK, ROS, or PIK3CA were identified as being more common in never-smokers. Conversely, KRAS mutations occur less frequently in this population compared with tumours from smokers [11,12,13,14].
Moreover, recent research indicates that lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) arising in never-smokers is characterized by a higher frequency of clinically actionable driver mutations than LUAD associated with smoking (78–92% versus 49.5%). Furthermore, RNA-sequencing analyses have identified distinct immune-related transcriptional subtypes in never-smoker LUADs, which differ in both the expression of therapeutically relevant immune checkpoint molecules and the composition of infiltrating immune cell populations [15]. At the same time, epigenetic mechanisms are increasingly recognized as key factors in differentiating NSCLC in smokers and never-smokers. A recent investigation provided an in-depth comparison of the epigenomic landscapes of these two patient groups, focusing on the role of DNA methylation alterations in shaping tumour phenotypes. The study identified recurrent promoter methylation changes associated with smoking status. Notably, tumours from never-smokers exhibited a higher prevalence of hypomethylated differentially methylated regions (hypoDMRs) and a greater number of consistently hypomethylated gene promoters, including ASPSCR1, TOP2A, DPP9, and USP39, previously implicated in cancer development [16].
As stated before, tobacco smoking is not the single determinant of lung cancer development, as multiple environmental and genetic factors also contribute. In reality, other risk factors are associated with this disease, namely environmental and occupational exposure, family history of lung cancer (genetic susceptibility), hormonal factors, and previous lung diseases [17,18,19]. In fact, the incidence of LC in never-smokers is around 20% and is increasing. Recent data indicate that the proportion of cases occurring in never-smokers has increased to approximately 17% in men and 24% in women [11,13].
Therefore, considering this increase in LC cases in never-smokers and the biological differences between smokers and never-smokers, it is obvious that the traditional focus on smoking is no longer enough. Accordingly, this article focuses on LC in people who have never smoked, investigating its unique characteristics, available therapies, and the respective current status of clinical trials in order to identify gaps and future directions for these patients.

2. Evolution of Therapeutic Clinical Trials in Never-Smokers

As with other diseases, several clinical trials have been conducted in LC to evaluate novel therapeutic strategies and improve patient outcomes. Over the past years, more attention has been given to the distinct clinical and biological characteristics of LC arising in never-smokers. Consequently, various clinical trials have been specifically designed to investigate therapeutic options in the never-smoker population, recognizing this group as a distinct clinical entity. Table 2 summarizes all the therapeutic clinical trials conducted in the past years that exclusively enrolled never-smokers with LC. The search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov without date restrictions. Only interventional studies were included in the analysis to examine the evolution of therapeutic strategies in this patient population, while observational and epidemiological studies were excluded. The search strategy used a combination of terms including “lung cancer”, “non-smoker”, and “never-smoker”.
All the studies presented before evaluated a range of therapeutic agents and molecular targets for a specific population of LC patients, carefully selected according to rigorous eligibility criteria. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, those criteria are similar among the studies and mainly include a confirmed diagnosis of NSCLC (locally advanced or metastatic disease), 18 years and older, and never-smokers (≤100 cigarettes in lifetime) or former light smokers (who smoked between >100 cigarettes and ≤10 pack-years and quit ≥1 year ago). Nonetheless, each trial presents some specific criteria, especially related to genetic characteristics and drug sensitivity. Specifically, some trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), namely erlotinib and gefitinib, in combination with other drugs (such as pemetrexed and bevacizumab) took into account EGFR mutations and/or tumour sensitivity to TKIs [20,25]. Another clinical trial (NCT01829217) selectively enrolled patients whose tumours were wild-type for EGFR, KRAS, and ALK or harboured a RET rearrangement, given sunitinib’s inhibitory activity against RET [24].
According to Table 2, more than half of the trials test an EGFR inhibitor—gefitinib or erlotinib—in monotherapy or in combination with an antiangiogenic drug (bevacizumab). In fact, most of them test EGFR inhibitors alone, which may reinforce the importance of TKIs in the treatment of LC. On the other hand, targeting angiogenesis also seems to be a promising therapeutic strategy, as approximately half of the studies evaluate antiangiogenic drugs. Among these, four studies investigate sorafenib or sunitinib in monotherapy. Sunitinib is currently approved for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) 1, VEGFR2, VEGFR3, PDGFR-α, PDGFR-β, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), fms-related tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), stem cell factor receptor (c-Kit), RET, MET proto-oncogene, and colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) [32]. Similarly, sorafenib is primarily used to treat renal and liver cancer, and its mechanism of action involves inhibiting tumour angiogenesis and cell proliferation by targeting VEGFR and Raf kinase [33]. Although neither sunitinib nor sorafenib is approved for the treatment of LC, several of the molecular pathways targeted by these agents are known to be active in this cancer, particularly in NSCLC, such as VEGFR and the aberrant activation of RAF/MEK/ERK [34,35]. Therefore, the evaluation of sorafenib and sunitinib in lung cancer can reasonably be considered an example of drug repurposing, as these agents are being investigated outside their original approved indications based on shared oncogenic and angiogenic mechanisms.
Thus, considering the previous analysis, it is understandable that EGFR-targeted and antiangiogenic drugs were the main therapeutic focuses of these clinical trials. This fact may be justified by EGFR’s biological relevance in LC and due to the overall dependence of the tumour on angiogenesis in all molecular subtypes. Consequently, the clinical trials can be divided into the subgroups shown in Figure 1.
Nonetheless, despite the promising research conducted in this area and the generally encouraging results obtained, most of the clinical trials are relatively old, having been conducted between 2010 and 2015. This time window coincides with the early adoption of EGFR testing and the first wave of targeted therapy approvals in NSCLC, which largely shaped research priorities during that decade. A smaller number of studies were carried out between 2017 and 2019. However, the most recent trials are NCT00445848 and NCT03786692, conducted in 2020 and 2025, respectively. This fact, combined with the small number of clinical trials performed in this specific group of patients (only 14), highlights the limited research in this area. The concentration of studies conducted between 2010 and 2015 may be related to the period during which an increasing incidence of LC among non-smokers was first recognized, leading to the understanding that this population represents a distinct clinical and molecular subgroup. Conversely, the low number of trials in other years may be due to the historically small size of this patient group, which makes research more challenging and data more limited. Also, the historical focus of lung cancer research on smoking-associated disease may have reduced prioritization and funding for trials targeting never-smokers. However, in recent years, the incidence of lung cancer among never-smokers has been rising, emphasizing the growing need for targeted research in this population. Beyond smoking status, the integration of biomarker-driven enrollment has become crucial for including never-smokers, who are often enriched for actionable molecular alterations such as EGFR or ALK, allowing for their participation in clinical trials.

3. Perspectives and Future Directions—What Comes Next?

Despite some important steps forward, existing trials in never-smoker lung cancer remain fragmented and outdated, lacking the coherence and innovation seen in broader NSCLC research. The evidence presented in Section 2 showed us that despite some efforts in improving the therapeutic options for never-smoker LC patients, these attempts are older, disorganized, and lacking in a coherent strategy. Even today, most clinical trials in LC are conducted either in smoker populations or without accounting for smoking history, treating all lung cancer patients as a homogeneous group. However, it is well established that LC is a heterogeneous disease, and smoker and never-smoker patients must be treated as different entities. Accordingly, clinical trials should be designed to reflect this distinction.
As mentioned, the number of never-smoker LC patients has increased over the years, as well as the number of deaths, with this disease being the current fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide [18]. Consequently, it is urgent to design and conduct new clinical trials specifically targeting never-smokers to better understand their tumour behaviour and discover new possible targeted therapies to improve their outcomes. On the other hand, despite this need, there remains a critical gap in the understanding of tumour genetics and molecular features in this specific population. As stated in Section 1, some genetic alterations are known to be more present in never-smokers than in smokers. However, to fully elucidate these differences and the molecular mechanisms, more translational research is needed, including comprehensive molecular profiling and multi-omics analyses—including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and epigenomics. Such efforts may lead to the identification of novel actionable targets, the validation of predictive biomarkers, and guide biomarker-based clinical trial design. Collaboration between institutions is also crucial for faster results. Ultimately, integrating these insights into clinical trial design could optimize patient selection, improve therapeutic efficacy, evaluate new or repurposed drugs beyond the conventional EGFR and antiangiogenic therapies explored in earlier trials, and accelerate the development of personalized treatment strategies for never-smoker LC patients.
On the other hand, a study performed in a large NSCLC cohort showed that never-smokers were more likely to be diagnosed at an earlier stage (stage I–II) compared with smokers, suggesting differences in clinical presentation between these groups. In this scenario, surgical resection remains the mainstay of curative treatment [7,36]. The different molecular profiles and survival statuses between smokers and never-smokers may influence postoperative risk stratification and adjuvant treatment decisions. Therefore, future perioperative and adjuvant clinical trials specifically designed for never-smokers may help refine recurrence risk assessment and guide personalized adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies in early-stage disease.
Complementarily, since NSCLC is the most common lung cancer subtype in never-smokers, it is understandable that clinical trials conducted to date have primarily focused on this histology. However, building on the improved molecular and genetic characterization efforts discussed above, it would be of interest to investigate the occurrence of SCLC in never-smokers and to explore therapeutic strategies specifically directed at this subtype.
Furthermore, in silico and computational approaches are excellent tools to improve our understanding of LC in never-smokers and to predict therapy responses. Some studies have already developed risk prediction models specifically for this population. Those are crucial to access personalized risk assessment for lung cancer, helping identify high-risk never-smoking patients and helping in the formulation of future LC screening strategies, where the inclusion of this population is vital [37]. Nevertheless, it remains important to continue research in this area to refine predictions and integrate them with molecular and therapeutic data. Moreover, in silico research focused on never-smoker LC patients remains more centred on these computational risk prediction models. Consequently, other advanced studies such as therapy response modelling, virtual trials, or even digital twin approaches are still largely unexplored in this population.
Considering the heterogeneity of lung cancer and the distinct molecular signatures in never-smokers, digital twin technology may serve as a dynamic integrative platform to simulate tumour evolution, optimize therapy, and advance precision oncology. Digital twin technology is an emerging computational approach that enables the simulation of disease progression and treatment responses through the integration of multi-level patient data. In oncology, this field is still in early development but shows potential for supporting clinical decision-making, optimizing therapeutic strategies, and guiding the design of future clinical trials. However, several challenges remain, including data heterogeneity, technical complexity, computational requirements, and ethical considerations [38,39]. Nevertheless, as the molecular and clinical characterization of lung cancer in never-smokers continues to improve, digital twin-based approaches may in the future offer a complementary framework to explore disease behaviour and personalized therapeutic strategies in this patient population.

4. Conclusions

Lung cancer remains the most prevalent and deadliest cancer worldwide. Over recent years, the epidemiological profile of this disease has been changing, with a growing proportion of cases occurring in never-smokers. This trend partly reflects the global decline in tobacco consumption but also indicates the increasing contribution of other risk factors such as air pollution (e.g., long-term exposure to PM2.5), occupational exposures, and genetic susceptibility. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the predominant type among never-smokers, whose tumours often display distinctive genetic and molecular features. Consequently, the design of therapeutic regimens tailored to these molecular characteristics is of paramount importance. Never-smoker lung cancer frequently harbours oncogenic drivers (e.g., EGFR, ALK, ROS1, RET, MET). It exhibits a distinct immune–genomic milieu compared with tobacco-associated disease, with implications for both targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These features underscore the need for comprehensive molecular profiling at diagnosis, including broad next-generation sequencing panels, optimizing therapeutic matching, and avoiding under-treatment. In parallel, improved phenotyping of environmental exposures, particularly fine particulate matter and indoor/occupational toxicants, should be integrated into clinical datasets to clarify exposure–genotype–phenotype relationships and refine risk stratification [40,41,42].
Although some clinical trials have specifically addressed never-smoker patients, most remain limited in scope and focus mainly on classical targets such as EGFR and angiogenesis. Future studies should adopt biomarker-enriched umbrella/basket designs, adaptive randomization, and pragmatic endpoints that reflect real-world effectiveness. Harmonized definitions of “never-smoker”, standardized exposure assessment, and better representation of women and diverse geographic regions will also be critical to improve external validity and equity of evidence. Given the rising incidence and mortality within this group, there is an urgent need to reinvigorate research efforts through the integration of multi-omics approaches (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics), interinstitutional collaboration, and in silico methods. Mechanistic and data-driven models can accelerate target discovery, drug repurposing, and dose optimization, while federated analytics may enable privacy-preserving learning across institutions. In parallel, investment in digital twin technologies, namely virtual, continuously updated patient models that couple tumour biology, pharmacology, and clinical trajectories, represents a promising and underexplored strategy to forecast response, personalize sequencing of therapies, and improve outcomes for never-smoker lung cancer patients.
Finally, a comprehensive agenda should align prevention and therapy, including strengthening air quality regulations and workplace safety, deploying early-detection strategies tailored to never-smokers with high non-tobacco exposure burden, and embedding longitudinal exposure metrics into clinical care. Such an integrated framework, linking exposure mitigation, precision diagnostics, and adaptive therapeutics, will be essential to bend the mortality curve for never-smoker lung cancer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, N.V.; methodology R.R.; formal analysis, R.R., C.S., and N.V.; investigation, R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.R.; writing—review and editing, C.S. and N.V.; supervision, N.V.; project administration, C.S. and N.V.; funding acquisition, N.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financed by the FEDER—Fundo Europeu de Desenvolimento Regional through COMPETE 2020—Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalization (POCI), Portugal 2020, and by Portuguese funds through the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia in a framework of the projects in CINTESIS, R&D Unit (reference UIDB/4255/2020), and within the scope of the project “RISE—LA/P/0053/2020.” N.V. would also like to thank the support from the FCT and FEDER (European Union), award number IF/00092/2014/CP1255/CT0004, PRR-09/C06-834I07/2024.P11721, 2024.18026.PEX and the Chair of Onco-Innovation at the FMUP.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

R.R. thanks FCT for the Ph.D. grant (2025.04095.BDANA).

Conflicts of Interest

Author Carlos Sousa was employed by the company SYNLAB Portugal. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
c-KITStem cell factor receptor
CSF1RColony-stimulating factor 1 receptor
FGFR1Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1
FISHFluorescence in situ hybridization
FLT3fms-related tyrosine kinase 3
GISTGastrointestinal stromal tumours
IHCImmunohistochemistry
LCLung cancer
LUADLung adenocarcinoma
NGSNext-generation sequencing
NSCLCNon-small cell lung cancer
ORRObjective response rate
OSOverall survival
PFSProgression-free survival
RCCRenal cell carcinoma
RT-PCRReal-time polymerase chain reaction
SCLCSmall-cell lung cancer
TKIsTyrosine kinase inhibitors
VEGFRVascular endothelial growth factor receptor

References

  1. Ferlay, J.E.M.; Lam, F.; Laversanne, M.; Colombet, M.; Mery, L.; Piñeros, M.; Znaor, A.; Soerjomataram, I.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today; International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2024. Available online: https://gco.iarc.who.int/today (accessed on 8 January 2026).
  2. Ruano-Raviña, A.; Provencio, M.; Calvo de Juan, V.; Carcereny, E.; Moran, T.; Rodriguez-Abreu, D.; López-Castro, R.; Cuadrado Albite, E.; Guirado, M.; Gómez González, L.; et al. Lung cancer symptoms at diagnosis: Results of a nationwide registry study. ESMO Open 2020, 5, e001021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schabath, M.B.; Cote, M.L. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Lung Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2019, 28, 1563–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zito Marino, F.; Bianco, R.; Accardo, M.; Ronchi, A.; Cozzolino, I.; Morgillo, F.; Rossi, G.; Franco, R. Molecular heterogeneity in lung cancer: From mechanisms of origin to clinical implications. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 16, 981–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nooreldeen, R.; Bach, H. Current and Future Development in Lung Cancer Diagnosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Thai, A.A.; Solomon, B.J.; Sequist, L.V.; Gainor, J.F.; Heist, R.S. Lung cancer. Lancet 2021, 398, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ramos, R.; Moura, C.S.; Costa, M.; Lamas, N.J.; Correia, R.; Garcez, D.; Pereira, J.M.; Lindahl, T.; Sousa, C.; Vale, N. Lung Cancer Therapy: The Role of Personalized Medicine. Cancers 2025, 17, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ramos, R.; Moura, C.S.; Costa, M.; Lamas, N.J.; Correia, R.; Garcez, D.; Pereira, J.M.; Sousa, C.; Vale, N. Enhancing Lung Cancer Care in Portugal: Bridging Gaps for Improved Patient Outcomes. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Araghi, M.; Mannani, R.; Heidarnejad Maleki, A.; Hamidi, A.; Rostami, S.; Safa, S.H.; Faramarzi, F.; Khorasani, S.; Alimohammadi, M.; Tahmasebi, S.; et al. Recent advances in non-small cell lung cancer targeted therapy; an update review. Cancer Cell Int. 2023, 23, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kuśnierczyk, P. Genetic differences between smokers and never-smokers with lung cancer. Front. Immunol. 2023, 14, 1063716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moorthi, S.; Paguirigan, A.; Itagi, P.; Ko, M.; Pettinger, M.; Hoge, A.C.; Nag, A.; Patel, N.A.; Wu, F.; Sather, C.; et al. The genomic landscape of lung cancer in never-smokers from the Women’s Health Initiative. JCI Insight 2024, 9, e174643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Colombino, M.; Paliogiannis, P.; Cossu, A.; Santeufemia, D.A.; Pazzola, A.; Fadda, G.M.; Pirina, P.; Fois, A.; Putzu, C.; Ginesu, G.; et al. EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, ALK, and cMET genetic alterations in 1440 Sardinian patients with lung adenocarcinoma. BMC Pulm. Med. 2019, 19, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Garrido, J.; Bernal, Y.; González, E.; Blanco, A.; Sepúlveda-Hermosilla, G.; Freire, M.; Oróstica, K.; Rivas, S.; Marcelain, K.; Owen, G.; et al. Beyond tobacco: Genomic disparities in lung cancer between smokers and never-smokers. BMC Cancer 2024, 24, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Russo, A.; Lopes, A.R.; Scilla, K.A.; Mehra, R.; Adamo, V.; Oliveira, J.; Liu, S.V.; Rolfo, C. NTRK and NRG1 Gene Fusions in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). 2020. Available online: https://pcm.amegroups.org/article/view/5551 (accessed on 15 January 2026).
  15. Devarakonda, S.; Li, Y.; Martins Rodrigues, F.; Sankararaman, S.; Kadara, H.; Goparaju, C.; Lanc, I.; Pepin, K.; Waqar, S.N.; Morgensztern, D.; et al. Genomic Profiling of Lung Adenocarcinoma in Never-Smokers. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 3747–3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Karlow, J.A.; Pehrsson, E.C.; Xing, X.; Watson, M.; Devarakonda, S.; Govindan, R.; Wang, T. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Epigenomes Exhibit Altered DNA Methylation in Smokers and Never-smokers. Genom. Proteom. Bioinform. 2023, 21, 991–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Daylan, A.E.C.; Miao, E.; Tang, K.; Chiu, G.; Cheng, H. Lung Cancer in Never Smokers: Delving into Epidemiology, Genomic and Immune Landscape, Prognosis, Treatment, and Screening. Lung 2023, 201, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. LoPiccolo, J.; Gusev, A.; Christiani, D.C.; Jänne, P.A. Lung cancer in patients who have never smoked—An emerging disease. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2024, 21, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, T.; Joubert, P.; Ansari-Pour, N.; Zhao, W.; Hoang, P.H.; Lokanga, R.; Moye, A.L.; Rosenbaum, J.; Gonzalez-Perez, A.; Martínez-Jiménez, F.; et al. Genomic and evolutionary classification of lung cancer in never smokers. Nat. Genet. 2021, 53, 1348–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lee, D.H.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, S.W.; Rodrigues-Pereira, J.; Han, B.; Song, X.Q.; Wang, J.; Kim, H.K.; Sahoo, T.P.; Digumarti, R.; et al. Three-arm randomised controlled phase 2 study comparing pemetrexed and erlotinib to either pemetrexed or erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 2013, 49, 3111–3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ahn, M.J.; Yang, J.C.; Liang, J.; Kang, J.H.; Xiu, Q.; Chen, Y.M.; Blair, J.M.; Peng, G.; Linn, C.; Orlando, M. Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with pemetrexed-cisplatin, followed sequentially by gefitinib or pemetrexed, in East Asian, never-smoker patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2012, 77, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, J.C.; Kang, J.H.; Mok, T.; Ahn, M.J.; Srimuninnimit, V.; Lin, C.C.; Kim, D.W.; Tsai, C.M.; Barraclough, H.; Altug, S.; et al. First-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by gefitinib maintenance therapy versus gefitinib monotherapy in East Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomised, phase 3 trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2014, 50, 2219–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. de Alencar, V.T.L.; Figueiredo, A.B.; Corassa, M.; Gollob, K.J.; Cordeiro de Lima, V.C. Lung cancer in never smokers: Tumor immunology and challenges for immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 984349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cooper, A.J.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kim, D.; Clifford, S.E.; Kravets, S.; Dahlberg, S.E.; Chambers, E.S.; Li, J.; Rangachari, D.; Nguyen, T.; et al. Identification of a RAS-activating TMEM87A-RASGRF1 Fusion in an Exceptional Responder to Sunitinib with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 4072–4079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. West, H.L.; Moon, J.; Wozniak, A.J.; Mack, P.; Hirsch, F.R.; Bury, M.J.; Kwong, M.; Nguyen, D.D.; Moore, D.F.; Miao, J.; et al. Paired Phase II Studies of Erlotinib/Bevacizumab for Advanced Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma or Never Smokers With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: SWOG S0635 and S0636 Trials. Clin. Lung Cancer 2018, 19, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Weiss, J.M.; Villaruz, L.C.; O’Brien, J.; Ivanova, A.; Lee, C.; Olson, J.G.; Pollack, G.; Gorman, R.; Socinski, M.A.; Stinchombe, T.E. Results of a Phase II Trial of Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Never or Former/Light Smoking Patients With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer 2016, 17, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bodor, J.N.; Patel, J.D.; Wakelee, H.A.; Levy, B.P.; Borghaei, H.; Pellini, B.; Costello, M.R.; Dowell, J.E.; Finley, G.; Huang, C.H.; et al. Phase II Randomized Trial of Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Bevacizumab With and Without Atezolizumab in Stage IV Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Who Harbor a Sensitizing EGFR Mutation or Have Never Smoked. Clin. Lung Cancer 2023, 24, e242–e246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sun, J.M.; Lee, K.H.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, D.H.; Min, Y.J.; Yun, H.J.; Kim, H.K.; Song, H.S.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, B.S.; et al. Gefitinib versus pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (KCSG-LU08-01): An open-label, phase 3 trial. Cancer 2012, 118, 6234–6242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Han, J.Y.; Park, K.; Kim, S.W.; Lee, D.H.; Kim, H.Y.; Kim, H.T.; Ahn, M.J.; Yun, T.; Ahn, J.S.; Suh, C.; et al. First-SIGNAL: First-line single-agent iressa versus gemcitabine and cisplatin trial in never-smokers with adenocarcinoma of the lung. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 1122–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jian, H.; Li, W.; Ma, Z.; Huang, J.; Feng, J.; Song, Y.; Gao, B.; Zhu, H.; Tao, M.; Bai, C.; et al. Intercalating and maintenance gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in selected advanced non-small cell lung cancer with unknown EGFR status. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Jänne, P.A.; Wang, X.; Socinski, M.A.; Crawford, J.; Stinchcombe, T.E.; Gu, L.; Capelletti, M.; Edelman, M.J.; Villalona-Calero, M.A.; Kratzke, R.; et al. Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib alone or with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients who were never or light former smokers with advanced lung adenocarcinoma: CALGB 30406 trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 2063–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Soheilifar, M.H.; Taheri, R.A.; Zolfaghari Emameh, R.; Moshtaghian, A.; Kooshki, H.; Motie, M.R. Molecular Landscape in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma: Implications for Molecular Targeted Therapy. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018, 103, 889–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ning, L.; Tian, Y.; Chen, D.; Han, J.; Xie, G.; Sun, J. Sorafenib safety evaluation: Real-world analysis of adverse events from the FAERS database. Heliyon 2024, 10, e37348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Adamopoulos, C.; Papavassiliou, K.A.; Poulikakos, P.I.; Papavassiliou, A.G. RAF and MEK Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 4633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhao, Y.; Guo, S.; Deng, J.; Shen, J.; Du, F.; Wu, X.; Chen, Y.; Li, M.; Chen, M.; Li, X.; et al. VEGF/VEGFR-Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Targeting the Tumor Microenvironment. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 18, 3845–3858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cho, J.; Choi, S.M.; Lee, J.; Lee, C.H.; Lee, S.M.; Kim, D.W.; Yim, J.J.; Kim, Y.T.; Yoo, C.G.; Kim, Y.W.; et al. Proportion and clinical features of never-smokers with non-small cell lung cancer. Chin. J. Cancer 2017, 36, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Issanov, A.; Aravindakshan, A.; Puil, L.; Tammemägi, M.C.; Lam, S.; Dummer, T.J.B. Risk prediction models for lung cancer in people who have never smoked: A protocol of a systematic review. Diagn. Progn. Res. 2024, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Giansanti, D.; Morelli, S. Exploring the Potential of Digital Twins in Cancer Treatment: A Narrative Review of Reviews. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 3574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Shen, S.; Qi, W.; Liu, X.; Zeng, J.; Li, S.; Zhu, X.; Dong, C.; Wang, B.; Shi, Y.; Yao, J.; et al. From virtual to reality: Innovative practices of digital twins in tumor therapy. J. Transl. Med. 2025, 23, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pope, C.A., III; Burnett, R.T.; Thun, M.J.; Calle, E.E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K.; Thurston, G.D. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 2002, 287, 1132–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Turner, M.C.; Andersen, Z.J.; Baccarelli, A.; Diver, W.R.; Gapstur, S.M.; Pope, C.A., III; Prada, D.; Samet, J.; Thurston, G.; Cohen, A. Outdoor air pollution and cancer: An overview of the current evidence and public health recommendations. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 460–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Turner, M.C.; Krewski, D.; Pope, C.A., III; Chen, Y.; Gapstur, S.M.; Thun, M.J. Long-term ambient fine particulate matter air pollution and lung cancer in a large cohort of never-smokers. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2011, 184, 1374–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 18 00551 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of clinical trials according to therapeutic target and treatment strategy in lung cancer. The figure summarizes the clinical trials previously identified, classified according to the main therapeutic target (EGFR or angiogenesis) and the treatment strategy employed (monotherapy or combination with other agents, including immunotherapy). The percentages indicate the proportion of clinical trials targeting a specific pathway relative to the total number of clinical trials analyzed, as well as their distribution across the different therapeutic approaches. Trials in which the combination involved only conventional chemotherapeutic agents and no other targeted therapies were included in the monotherapy group. Created in https://BioRender.com (27 January 2026).
Figure 1. Distribution of clinical trials according to therapeutic target and treatment strategy in lung cancer. The figure summarizes the clinical trials previously identified, classified according to the main therapeutic target (EGFR or angiogenesis) and the treatment strategy employed (monotherapy or combination with other agents, including immunotherapy). The percentages indicate the proportion of clinical trials targeting a specific pathway relative to the total number of clinical trials analyzed, as well as their distribution across the different therapeutic approaches. Trials in which the combination involved only conventional chemotherapeutic agents and no other targeted therapies were included in the monotherapy group. Created in https://BioRender.com (27 January 2026).
Cancers 18 00551 g001
Table 1. Prevalence of major genetic alterations in lung cancer according to smoking status [13].
Table 1. Prevalence of major genetic alterations in lung cancer according to smoking status [13].
Mutation/AlterationSmokers (%)Never-Smokers (%)
EGFR15.6%21.5%
KRAS16.3%11.5%
PIK3CA6.8%9.5%
ALK3.2%7.5%
MAP2K16.6%3.5%
MET3.4%4.5%
ROS10.6%2.5%
Table 2. Clinical trials in never-smoking lung cancer patients, showing year of last update, study phase, recruitment status, tested drugs, their targets, and the respective results.
Table 2. Clinical trials in never-smoking lung cancer patients, showing year of last update, study phase, recruitment status, tested drugs, their targets, and the respective results.
Clinicaltrials.gov IdentifierYear of Last UpdatePhaseRecruitment StatusTested Drug(s)TargetsResultsRef
NCT005501732013IICompletedPemetrexed + ErlotinibEGFRPFS: 7.4 months for Erlotinib + Pemetrexed, 3.8 months for Erlotinib, and 4.4 months for Pemetrexed; combination therapy significantly improved PFS compared to either drug alone[20]
NCT00409006 */NCT01017874 *2010/2015II/IIICompleted/CompletedChemotherapy + Gefitinib
vs.
Gefitinib monotherapy		EGFRPFS: 8.3 months for gefitinib + chemo versus 9.6 months for gefitinib alone; OS: 26.9 months for gefitinib + chemo versus 27.9 months for gefitinib alone (PFS and OS were not significantly different between treatment arms); gefitinib was not efficacious in patients with wild-type EGFR; identification of EGFR mutation status is essential for NSCLC therapy[21,22]
NCT007549232019IITerminatedSorafenibAntiangiogenicPFS in 6 months: 0% and OS: 8.8 months; did not demonstrate significant long-term control of the disease; OS was low, indicating limited effectiveness[23]
NCT018292172018IICompletedSunitinibAntiangiogenicORR: 7.7–8% (only 1 of 13 evaluable patients experienced a partial response); generally limited antitumour activity[24]
NCT004458482020IICompletedErlotinib + BevacizumabEGFR and AntiangiogenicORR: 50%; PFS: 7.4 months; OS: 29.8 months; therapy combination showed a significant efficacy in never-smoker advanced NSCLC[25]
NCT013448242017IICompletedCarboplatin + Pemetrexed + BevacizumabAntiangiogenicPFS: 12.6 months; ORR: 47%; OS: 20.3 months; combination showed activity with acceptable toxicity in these patients[26]
NCT037866922025IIRecruitingCarboplatin + Pemetrexed + Bevacizumab + AtezolizumabAntiangiogenic and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitionNo results posted[27]
NCT010661952010IIIUnknown statusGefitinib (experimental)
vs.
Pemetrexed (comparator)		EGFRPFS: 9.0 vs. 3.0 months; ORR: 58.8% vs. 22.4%; No statistically significant difference in OS; gefitinib showed superior efficacy to pemetrexed as second-line therapy[28]
NCT004302612010IICompletedSunitinibAntiangiogenicNo results posted[23]
NCT004559362010IIICompletedGefitinib
vs.
Standard Chemotherapy (Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin)		EGFROS: 22.3 vs. 22.9 (chemotherapy) months; 1-year PFS rate: 16.7% vs. 2.8% (chemotherapy); response rate: 55% vs. 46% (chemotherapy); gefitinib did not demonstrate superiority in terms of OS compared to chemotherapy[29]
NCT004567162010IICompletedSorafenibAntiangiogenicNo results posted[23]
NCT009766772014IITerminatedCarboplatin, Paclitaxel + Bevacizumab + Erlotinib HydrochlorideAntiangiogenic and EGFRPFS: 15.5 vs. 4.5 (control) months; more serious adverse events related to Erlotinib[23]
NCT014042602017IIICompletedCarboplatin + GefitinibEGFRPFS: 9.7 vs. 4.2 (control) months; OS: 20.1 vs. 15.4 (control) months; adverse events were more common in the gefitinib arm[30]
NCT001265812019IICompletedErlotinib hydrochloride alone
vs.
Erlotinib Hydrochloride + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel		EGFRPFS was similar (5.0 vs. 6.6 months); EGFR-mutant patients had a much better response[31]
* Same clinical trial in different phases (II and III). OS—overall survival; PFS—progression-free survival; ORR—objective response rate.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramos, R.; Sousa, C.; Vale, N. The Landscape of Clinical Trials in Never-Smoker Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Registered Evidence and Persistent Gaps. Cancers 2026, 18, 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040551

AMA Style

Ramos R, Sousa C, Vale N. The Landscape of Clinical Trials in Never-Smoker Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Registered Evidence and Persistent Gaps. Cancers. 2026; 18(4):551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040551

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramos, Raquel, Carlos Sousa, and Nuno Vale. 2026. "The Landscape of Clinical Trials in Never-Smoker Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Registered Evidence and Persistent Gaps" Cancers 18, no. 4: 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040551

APA Style

Ramos, R., Sousa, C., & Vale, N. (2026). The Landscape of Clinical Trials in Never-Smoker Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Registered Evidence and Persistent Gaps. Cancers, 18(4), 551. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18040551

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop