Key Takeaways
- Researchers have identified caspase-1, an inflammatory enzyme involved in activating interleukin-1β (IL-1β), as a potential target for intercepting lung cancer during its early development. In a genetically engineered Kras/Trp53-mutant mouse model, combined caspase-1 inhibition and IL-1β blockade significantly reduced lung tumor formation, with nearly 20% of treated mice showing no detectable tumor incidence at the study endpoint (Wang et al., 2026).
- This is preclinical evidence, not proof that caspase-1 inhibitors prevent lung cancer in humans. The mice developed tumors under controlled experimental conditions, and treatment began shortly after tumor initiation (Wang et al., 2026).
- There is nevertheless an intriguing human clue behind the strategy. In the large randomized CANTOS cardiovascular trial, people receiving the IL-1β-blocking antibody canakinumab developed fewer lung cancers. At the highest tested dose, incident lung cancer was approximately 67% lower than with placebo (Ridker et al., 2017).
- CANTOS was not designed as a lung-cancer prevention trial, however, and its cancer findings were exploratory. When canakinumab was subsequently tested directly in three major Phase III non-small-cell lung cancer programs—CANOPY-A, CANOPY-1, and CANOPY-2—the trials did not demonstrate their intended primary efficacy benefits (Garon et al., 2024; Paz-Ares et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2024).
- The new study asks a different question. Rather than treating established cancer with IL-1β blockade alone, researchers are investigating whether targeting caspase-1 upstream and intervening early in carcinogenesis could interrupt the process before invasive cancer becomes established (Wang et al., 2026).
- Suppressing inflammatory pathways carries potential risks. IL-1β and inflammasome signaling participate in normal immune defense, and CANTOS recorded significantly more fatal infections or sepsis among canakinumab recipients (Ridker et al., 2017).
- IL-1β biology is also context-dependent. Recent experimental evidence suggests that in some established lung cancers undergoing chemo-immunotherapy, cancer-cell-derived IL-1β can promote CXCL10 production and CD8-positive T-cell recruitment, potentially enhancing antitumor immunity rather than suppressing it (Perrichet et al., 2025).
- Nothing in this research changes current lung-cancer prevention or screening recommendations. Caspase-1 inhibition for cancer interception remains experimental.
Introduction
Preventing lung cancer from becoming an established disease would be fundamentally different from treating it after a tumor has already formed.
That possibility is behind research published in Science Advances by Cathy S. Wang and colleagues. The investigators used molecular sensors, tissue analysis, genetically engineered cancer models, and experimental drug treatment to investigate inflammatory signaling during early lung-cancer development. Their work identified an enzyme called caspase-1 as a potential target for what researchers increasingly call cancer interception (Wang et al., 2026).
The headline result is striking: simultaneously inhibiting caspase-1 and blocking the inflammatory cytokine IL-1β substantially reduced lung tumor formation in a particular genetically engineered mouse model. Nearly 20% of treated animals had no detectable tumor incidence at the study endpoint (Wang et al., 2026).
But that result does not mean scientists have developed a treatment that prevents one in five human lung cancers.
No human prevention trial of this strategy has established such a benefit. The experiment involved a specific mouse model, tumors initiated under controlled laboratory conditions, and treatment beginning shortly after tumor induction.
What makes the research unusually interesting is that this inflammatory pathway already has a complicated history in humans.
Years before the new caspase-1 study, a randomized cardiovascular trial involving thousands of people unexpectedly suggested that blocking IL-1β might dramatically reduce lung-cancer incidence. That observation helped motivate a major clinical-development program.
Then three Phase III lung-cancer trials failed to demonstrate the hoped-for benefit.
The new study therefore sits at the intersection of promising animal biology, an intriguing human prevention signal, negative Phase III treatment trials, and newer evidence suggesting that IL-1β can sometimes even support antitumor immunity.
Understanding those apparently conflicting findings is essential to understanding what scientists have—and have not—discovered.
A 2026 mouse study found that combined caspase-1 inhibition and IL-1β blockade significantly reduced lung cancer formation, but the strategy remains preclinical and has not been shown to prevent lung cancer in humans.
What Is Cancer Interception?
Cancer interception refers to identifying and disrupting biological processes occurring between cancer risk or premalignant change and the development of clinically established invasive cancer.
It occupies an important space between conventional prevention and cancer treatment.
Traditional primary prevention tries to stop cancer-promoting exposures or biological processes before cancer begins. Cancer treatment generally targets an established malignancy. Interception attempts to identify a dangerous process already underway and stop or redirect it before invasive cancer becomes clinically established.
That distinction is particularly important here.
The Wang study is not primarily asking whether caspase-1 inhibition can shrink an advanced lung tumor. It is asking whether interfering with inflammatory signaling during tumor development can make it harder for tumors to become established (Wang et al., 2026).
Why Inflammation Matters in Lung Cancer
Inflammation is not simply something that happens after cancer develops. Under certain conditions, chronic inflammatory signaling can help create an environment favorable to cancer initiation and progression.
The lung is particularly relevant because it is continuously exposed to the outside environment.
Research on pulmonary inflammasome activity has examined responses to inhaled antigens, oxidants, cigarette smoke, diesel exhaust particles, mineral fibers, and other environmental exposures (Ather et al., 2014).
One important component of this inflammatory system is the inflammasome.
Inflammasomes are intracellular protein complexes involved in recognizing cellular stress, damage, or microbial threats. Activation of certain inflammasomes can activate caspase-1, which processes precursor forms of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β and IL-18 into their biologically active forms. Caspase-1 also participates in pyroptosis, an inflammatory form of programmed cell death (Karki & Kanneganti, 2019).
In simplified form:
cellular danger or damage → inflammasome activation → caspase-1 activation → mature IL-1β and IL-18 → inflammatory signaling
The actual biology is considerably more complex, but this pathway helps explain why researchers became interested in caspase-1.
IL-1β can contribute to biological processes associated with cancer, including angiogenesis, invasion, inflammatory signaling, and remodeling of the tumor microenvironment (Pretre et al., 2022).
That raises an important question:
Could scientists intervene upstream, before a tumor becomes established, rather than waiting for cancer to develop and then treating it?
What Wang and Colleagues Actually Did
Wang and colleagues developed activity-based molecular probes designed to detect proteases involved in IL-1β activation.
They applied these technologies to a genetically engineered inflammatory lung-cancer model involving Kras and Trp53 alterations, genes with clear relevance to human cancer biology (Wang et al., 2026).
Their experiments pointed toward caspase-1.
The investigators found elevated caspase-1 expression and activity in tumor tissue. Their molecular sensors also provided evidence connecting caspase-1 activity with IL-1β signaling during tumor development (Wang et al., 2026).
Researchers then tested a combination intervention involving IL-1β blockade plus caspase-1 inhibition.
Treatment was administered shortly after tumor induction.
Lung tumor formation fell significantly, and nearly 20% of treated KPS mice showed complete ablation of detectable tumor incidence at the study endpoint (Wang et al., 2026).
That is a meaningful preclinical result.
But interpreting it requires understanding how different the experiment is from preventing naturally developing lung cancer in humans.
What Does the “Nearly 20%” Result Actually Mean?
The figure does not mean an experimental treatment has been shown to prevent 20% of lung cancers in people.
The experiment involved genetically engineered mice in which tumor development was initiated under controlled conditions, allowing researchers to begin treatment shortly afterward. Human lung cancer can instead develop over many years through complex interactions among environmental exposures, accumulated mutations, tissue damage, aging, and immune changes.
Lung cancer is also biologically diverse. A result in a specific Kras/Trp53-mutant experimental model cannot automatically be extrapolated to other forms of lung cancer or to people at risk of developing the disease.
The nearly 20% finding should therefore be understood as evidence supporting a mechanism and experimental therapeutic hypothesis—not as a human cancer-prevention rate (Wang et al., 2026).
The Unexpected Human Evidence: What CANTOS Found
The strongest human clue supporting IL-1β suppression in lung-cancer development originally came from cardiology rather than oncology.
CANTOS was a large randomized, double-blind trial studying canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-1β, in people with previous myocardial infarction and persistent systemic inflammation.
Researchers subsequently analyzed cancer outcomes.
During a median follow-up of 3.7 years, incident lung cancer was significantly less frequent among participants receiving the two higher canakinumab doses.
At 150 mg, the hazard ratio for incident lung cancer was 0.61.
At 300 mg, the hazard ratio was 0.33, corresponding to an approximately 67% relative reduction compared with placebo.
Lung-cancer mortality in the 300-mg group was also lower, with a hazard ratio of 0.23 (Ridker et al., 2017).
Those are striking numbers.
But there is an essential qualification.
CANTOS was designed primarily as a cardiovascular trial. Lung-cancer prevention was not its primary endpoint, and the investigators characterized the cancer findings as exploratory and requiring confirmation in dedicated studies (Ridker et al., 2017).
That distinction became especially important when canakinumab moved into dedicated lung-cancer trials.
What Happened in the CANOPY Phase III Trials?
The CANOPY program tested whether canakinumab could improve outcomes in several NSCLC settings.
The results provide one of the strongest reasons for caution when translating an intriguing biological observation into claims of clinical benefit.
CANOPY-A: No Significant Disease-Free Survival Benefit After Surgery
CANOPY-A evaluated canakinumab as adjuvant treatment in 1,382 patients with completely resected NSCLC who had received cisplatin-based chemotherapy.
Median disease-free survival was 35.0 months with canakinumab and 29.7 months with placebo.
However, the hazard ratio was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78–1.14; P = .258), meaning the trial did not meet its primary endpoint (Garon et al., 2024).
This illustrates an important principle in medical research:
Changing a biological pathway or biomarker is not the same as improving a clinically meaningful outcome.
CANOPY-1: No Significant Improvement With First-Line Chemo-Immunotherapy
CANOPY-1 randomized 643 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive canakinumab or placebo alongside pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy.
Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months in both groups.
Median overall survival was 20.8 months with canakinumab and 20.2 months with placebo.
The addition of canakinumab did not significantly improve progression-free or overall survival (Tan et al., 2024).
CANOPY-2: No Survival Benefit After Previous Treatment
CANOPY-2 studied canakinumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC that had progressed after platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapy.
Among 237 randomized patients, median overall survival was 10.6 months with canakinumab plus docetaxel and 11.3 months with placebo plus docetaxel.
The hazard ratio was 1.06, demonstrating no survival advantage from adding canakinumab (Paz-Ares et al., 2024).
The Phase III program therefore failed to reproduce the promise suggested by the CANTOS lung-cancer observation in patients with established NSCLC.
Why the Failed CANOPY Trials Do Not Necessarily Disprove the New Study
The key distinction is disease stage and biological timing.
CANOPY primarily asked whether blocking IL-1β improves outcomes after lung cancer is already established. Wang and colleagues are asking whether disrupting inflammatory biology during early tumor development can interfere with the process through which cancer becomes established (Wang et al., 2026).
Those are different biological questions. A pathway important during the earliest stages of carcinogenesis may become less important—or perform different functions—once an invasive tumor and its immune microenvironment have developed.
The interventions also differ. Rather than blocking IL-1β alone, Wang and colleagues identified caspase-1 upstream of IL-1β activation and tested combined caspase-1 inhibition and IL-1β blockade (Wang et al., 2026).
The CANOPY failures therefore do not prove that caspase-1 interception cannot work. They do, however, establish an important precedent:
Biologically convincing inflammatory targets in lung cancer have failed in large human trials before.
That should raise the evidentiary bar before this strategy is described as a prevention breakthrough.
Why Target Caspase-1 Instead of IL-1β Alone?
Caspase-1 sits farther upstream in inflammatory signaling.
Among its functions, caspase-1 helps convert inactive pro-IL-1β into active IL-1β. It also processes IL-18 and participates in pyroptosis (Karki & Kanneganti, 2019).
Targeting caspase-1 could therefore alter inflammatory signaling differently from neutralizing IL-1β after it has already been produced.
That broader influence is one reason caspase-1 is scientifically interesting.
It is also a reason to be cautious.
Caspase-1, IL-1β, IL-18, inflammasomes, and pyroptosis are not cancer-specific systems. They participate in normal immune responses and host defense (Ather et al., 2014; Karki & Kanneganti, 2019).
Suppressing such a pathway may therefore carry consequences beyond cancer.
Prevention Changes the Risk-Benefit Calculation
There is another important difference between treating cancer and intercepting it.
A person with metastatic cancer may reasonably accept considerable toxicity for a treatment that has a meaningful chance of extending life.
A preventive or interception treatment may be given to someone who does not have invasive cancer and may never develop it.
That creates a much higher safety threshold.
If 100 high-risk people receive a preventive treatment but only a minority would otherwise have developed cancer, treatment-related harm affects people who might never have become ill.
Successful cancer interception therefore requires more than demonstrating that a drug can suppress tumor development experimentally.
Researchers must identify a population whose absolute cancer risk is sufficiently high that the expected benefit outweighs the treatment’s harms.
That is one reason biomarkers and patient selection could become just as important as the drug itself.
The Infection Warning From CANTOS
CANTOS demonstrates why interfering with inflammatory biology is not equivalent to selectively switching off something harmful.
Although canakinumab reduced inflammatory markers and produced its intriguing lung-cancer signal, fatal infection or sepsis occurred significantly more often among participants receiving canakinumab than among those receiving placebo (Ridker et al., 2017).
That does not establish that caspase-1 inhibition would produce the same adverse effect.
The interventions are different.
But it demonstrates the underlying problem: inflammatory pathways can contribute to disease while simultaneously serving essential immune functions.
For a future interception therapy, investigators would therefore need to demonstrate not merely that lung-cancer risk falls, but that the absolute reduction in clinically meaningful cancers outweighs infections and other treatment-related harms.
Another Complication: IL-1β May Not Always Help Cancer
The biology becomes even more interesting when newer evidence is considered.
A 2025 Nature Communications study found that, under specific experimental conditions involving chemo-immunotherapy-resistant NSCLC models, cancer-cell-derived IL-1β could have an antitumor role.
Perrichet and colleagues found that IL-1β promoted cancer-cell CXCL10 production, which helped recruit CD8-positive T cells into tumors and improved responses to chemo-immunotherapy in mouse models. Their analyses of human tumor transcriptomic data also found associations between expression of components of this pathway and treatment response, although those observations do not establish that administering IL-1β would improve outcomes in patients (Perrichet et al., 2025).
This does not invalidate the Wang study.
The studies examine very different biological settings.
Wang and colleagues investigated inflammatory signaling during early tumor development.
Perrichet and colleagues studied IL-1β within established tumors exposed to chemo-immunotherapy.
Together, however, they illustrate why describing IL-1β or caspase-1 as simply “good” or “bad” for cancer is misleading.
Their effects may depend on:
- Disease stage
- Cell type producing the cytokine
- Tumor genetics
- Immune context
- Location of signaling
- Concurrent treatment
- Timing and duration of pathway activation
The clinically useful question may therefore become:
Which inflammatory pathway should be modified, in which patient, at which stage, and for how long?
That is substantially more complicated than developing a universal “lung-cancer prevention drug.”
Who Could Eventually Receive a Lung-Cancer Interception Treatment?
Even if caspase-1 inhibition eventually proves effective in humans, giving it broadly to healthy people would be difficult to justify.
The likely challenge would be identifying individuals whose risk of progression is high enough to justify pharmacological intervention.
Future candidates might potentially be selected using combinations of factors such as:
- Smoking and exposure history
- Suspicious pulmonary nodules
- Persistent premalignant airway lesions
- Tumor-associated or premalignant molecular alterations
- Imaging characteristics
- Genomic biomarkers
- Inflammatory biomarkers
These are potential research directions—not established indications for caspase-1 therapy.
The central challenge is not simply finding a drug capable of modifying inflammation.
It is finding the:
right biological lesion + right biomarker + right patient + right intervention + right moment.
What Does This Research Mean for People at Risk of Lung Cancer Today?
For patients and readers, this is one of the most important distinctions in the entire story:
The Wang study does not change current lung-cancer prevention or screening recommendations.
There is currently no established indication for people to take canakinumab, experimental caspase-1 inhibitors, or other immune-modifying drugs simply to prevent lung cancer based on this research.
Avoiding tobacco exposure remains one of the most important modifiable ways to reduce lung-cancer risk.
For people who meet current eligibility criteria, low-dose CT screening can detect lung cancer earlier, when treatment may be more effective. Screening is not the same as prevention—it attempts to find cancer early rather than prevent it from forming.
People concerned about their individual lung-cancer risk should discuss smoking history, occupational or environmental exposures, family history, and screening eligibility with a healthcare professional.
Experimental cancer-interception drugs would require prospective human trials demonstrating an acceptable balance of efficacy and safety before they could become part of routine prevention.
What Would Scientists Need to Show Next?
The next experiments matter more than the headline.
Replication in Different Models
The caspase-1 findings need testing in additional models that better represent the genetic and biological diversity of human lung cancer.
Durability
Researchers need to establish whether tumors are truly prevented or simply delayed.
If tumors emerge after treatment stops, the clinical implications would be very different.
Dose and Duration
A future prevention strategy would need to determine how much pathway inhibition is necessary and how long treatment must continue.
Long-term immune suppression would require especially careful safety evaluation.
Biomarkers
Researchers will probably need biomarkers capable of identifying people whose premalignant environment is actually driven by caspase-1/IL-1β biology.
Treating everyone at elevated lung-cancer risk would expose many people to unnecessary treatment.
Human Safety
Safety studies would need to pay particular attention to infection, immune dysfunction, and consequences of interfering with IL-1β, IL-18, pyroptosis, and related inflammatory pathways.
Clinically Meaningful Endpoints
Perhaps most importantly, future trials should not rely solely on reductions in inflammatory biomarkers.
The CANOPY experience demonstrates why.
A treatment can modify its intended biological pathway without improving outcomes that matter to patients (Garon et al., 2024; Paz-Ares et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2024).
Ultimately, researchers would need evidence that interception reduces meaningful progression toward invasive cancer with an acceptable safety profile.
Funding and Conflicts of Interest Matter—but Do Not Determine Whether a Result Is True
Translating cancer-interception research from laboratory experiments into human trials requires substantial funding, drug development, biomarker validation, manufacturing, and eventually large prospective studies.
Funding sources and competing interests therefore deserve transparency, but neither commercial nor academic funding determines whether a scientific result is valid.
The Wang research reported support from multiple sources, including Johnson & Johnson, Upstage Lung Cancer, the Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Koch Institute’s Marble Center for Cancer Nanomedicine, federal research support, and other organizations.
CANTOS, meanwhile, was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals (Ridker et al., 2017).
The subsequent history is instructive.
Commercial interest did not prevent negative results from emerging. Large Phase III studies ultimately showed that canakinumab did not provide the hoped-for clinical benefit in the tested NSCLC settings.
The useful distinction is therefore not simply “industry-funded” versus “independent.”
It is the distinction among mechanistic evidence, animal efficacy, exploratory human observations, randomized clinical trials, and demonstrated patient benefit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did scientists just discover a drug that prevents lung cancer?
No.
Scientists demonstrated that combined caspase-1 inhibition and IL-1β blockade substantially reduced tumor formation in a specific genetically engineered mouse model (Wang et al., 2026).
Whether a similar strategy prevents lung cancer safely in humans is unknown.
Does the “nearly 20%” result mean 20% of human lung cancers could be prevented?
No.
The figure describes an outcome in a particular experimental mouse model. It cannot be converted into a human prevention percentage.
What is caspase-1?
Caspase-1 is an enzyme involved in inflammatory signaling. Among other functions, it processes precursor forms of IL-1β and IL-18 into biologically active cytokines and participates in pyroptosis (Karki & Kanneganti, 2019).
What is IL-1β?
Interleukin-1β, usually abbreviated IL-1β, is a potent inflammatory signaling protein produced as part of immune and cellular stress responses.
It can contribute to tumor-promoting inflammation in some contexts, but its effects are not universally harmful. Experimental evidence suggests that its role can change depending on cancer stage, cell type, and treatment context (Pretre et al., 2022; Perrichet et al., 2025).
What is an inflammasome?
An inflammasome is a multiprotein complex inside cells that helps detect certain forms of infection, cellular damage, or stress.
Activation of some inflammasomes leads to caspase-1 activation and subsequent processing of inflammatory cytokines including IL-1β and IL-18 (Ather et al., 2014; Karki & Kanneganti, 2019).
What is pyroptosis?
Pyroptosis is an inflammatory form of programmed cell death.
Unlike apoptosis, which often occurs with relatively little inflammation, pyroptosis can release cellular contents and promote inflammatory signaling. Caspase-1 is an important component of several pyroptotic pathways (Karki & Kanneganti, 2019).
What is canakinumab?
Canakinumab is a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes IL-1β.
It produced an intriguing reduction in incident lung cancer in the exploratory cancer analysis of CANTOS, but subsequent dedicated Phase III trials did not establish it as an effective treatment for the tested NSCLC settings (Garon et al., 2024; Paz-Ares et al., 2024; Ridker et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2024).
If CANTOS showed fewer lung cancers, why didn’t the CANOPY trials work?
The trials studied different clinical situations.
CANTOS involved people without previously diagnosed cancer and unexpectedly identified fewer incident lung cancers among certain canakinumab groups.
The CANOPY trials largely involved patients who already had NSCLC.
One hypothesis is that IL-1β-related inflammation may have different functions during early carcinogenesis and established cancer. That could help reconcile the results, but it remains a hypothesis rather than a proven explanation.
Does this mean inflammation causes lung cancer?
That is too simplistic.
Chronic inflammatory signaling can contribute to carcinogenesis, but lung cancer develops through complex interactions involving genetic alterations, environmental exposures, aging, immune responses, and other biological processes.
Inflammation is one part of that system, not a single universal cause.
Should people take anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent lung cancer?
Not on the basis of this research.
The experimental intervention studied by Wang and colleagues is not an established lung-cancer prevention treatment, and suppressing inflammatory pathways can cause harm.
People should not start prescription or over-the-counter anti-inflammatory treatment specifically to prevent lung cancer based on these findings without an established medical indication.
Is lung-cancer screening the same as cancer interception?
No.
Screening attempts to detect cancer at an earlier stage.
Interception aims to disrupt a biological process before clinically established invasive cancer develops.
Both seek to reduce cancer mortality, but they intervene at different points in the disease process.
What should someone at high risk of lung cancer do now?
Current evidence supports established risk-reduction measures and appropriate screening—not experimental caspase-1 treatment.
People with a substantial smoking history or other concerns about lung-cancer risk should discuss their individual circumstances and current low-dose CT screening recommendations with a healthcare professional.
Final Thoughts
Scientists have not discovered a proven way to prevent lung cancer in people.
Wang and colleagues have instead identified caspase-1 as a plausible target for lung-cancer interception and demonstrated that combined caspase-1 inhibition and IL-1β blockade can substantially suppress tumor formation in a specific genetically engineered mouse model (Wang et al., 2026).
Human evidence involving the downstream IL-1β pathway makes that finding both more interesting and more complicated. CANTOS produced an intriguing reduction in incident lung cancer, while dedicated CANOPY trials failed to demonstrate the hoped-for benefits in established NSCLC. Other experimental evidence suggests that IL-1β can even support antitumor immunity in certain treatment contexts.
The most defensible conclusion is therefore narrow:
Caspase-1 has emerged as a plausible preclinical target for lung-cancer interception, but whether it can be targeted safely, selectively, and early enough to prevent clinically meaningful lung cancer in humans remains unknown.
Answering that question will require further preclinical research followed by carefully designed human trials.
References
Ather, J. L., Martin, R. A., Ckless, K., & Poynter, M. E. (2014). Inflammasome activity in non-microbial lung inflammation. Journal of Environmental Immunology and Toxicology, 1(3), 108–117.
Garon, E. B., Lu, S., Goto, Y., De Marchi, P., Paz-Ares, L., Spigel, D. R., et al. (2024). Canakinumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from the CANOPY-A double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00910
Karki, R., & Kanneganti, T.-D. (2019). Diverging inflammasome signals in tumorigenesis and potential targeting. Nature Reviews Cancer, 19(4), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0123-y
Paz-Ares, L., Goto, Y., Lim, D. W.-T., Halmos, B., Cho, B. C., Cobo, M., et al. (2024). Canakinumab in combination with docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer following platinum-based doublet chemotherapy and immunotherapy (CANOPY-2): A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lung Cancer, 189, 107451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107451
Perrichet, A., Lecuelle, J., Limagne, E., et al. (2025). Cancer cell-derived IL-1β reverses chemo-immunotherapy resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. Nature Communications, 16, 10244. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64839-4
Pretre, V., Papadopoulos, D., Regard, J., Pelletier, M., & Woo, J. (2022). Interleukin-1 (IL-1) and the inflammasome in cancer. Cytokine, 153, 155850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2022.155850
Ridker, P. M., MacFadyen, J. G., Thuren, T., Everett, B. M., Libby, P., Glynn, R. J., & CANTOS Trial Group. (2017). Effect of interleukin-1β inhibition with canakinumab on incident lung cancer in patients with atherosclerosis: Exploratory results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet, 390(10105), 1833–1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32247-X
Tan, D. S. W., Felip, E., de Castro, G., Jr., Solomon, B. J., Greystoke, A., Cho, B. C., et al. (2024). Canakinumab versus placebo in combination with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from the CANOPY-1 trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00980
Wang, C. S., Zhong, Q., Wang, S.-T., Martin-Alonso, C., Neaher, S., Patel, S., Parisi, T., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Sequist, L. V., Jacks, T. E., & Bhatia, S. N. (2026). Multimodal profiling of pro-inflammatory protease activity identifies caspase-1 as a target for lung cancer interception. Science Advances, 12, eadz4263. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adz4263
