After the introduction of immune checkpoint blockers (ICB), either anti-PD1 or anti-PD-L1, this strategy has been included in the therapeutic strategy of patients with an early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Stage III NSCLC remains an heterogenous disease and based on the new date with ICB we can apply this strategy either in the neoadjuvant strategy in combination with chemotherapy (CheckMate 816 trial, NADIM-2 trial) or in the adjuvant setting (IMpower 010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab, mainly restricted to tumors with high PD-L1 expression, those with PD-L1 ≥50%, and the PEARLS trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab not yet approved by health authorities). For unresectable stage III NSCLC, consolidation treatment for 1 year after radical chemo-radiotherapy is the standard of care in PD-L1 ≥1% positive tumors by the EMA or in all comers by the FDA. However, even today, it is still challenging the definition of resectability criteria in stage III NSCLC worldwide, being even more relevant after the introduction of ICB in the therapeutic strategy positively impacting in the outcome. Also, among stage III tumors considered resectable upfront there is no face-to-face trial comparing between neoadjuvant concurrent chemo-immunotherapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy followed by sequential immunotherapy for 1 year. Indeed, in the adjuvant ICB trials, probably most of patients with stage III enrolled are patients with unforeseen N2 disease that may have a different oncologic prognostic compared with those NSCLC with upfront IIIAN2. In this situation, potential treatment duration (9 weeks -3 cycles- with neoadjuvant strategy vs 1 year with adjuvant immunotherapy), percentage of R0 resection after neoadjuvant strategy, treatment compliance, and potential risk of late toxicities in prolonged treatment exposure could be factors to take into account for deciding the best approach if we want to introduce ICB in the strategy of resectable stage III NSCLC. For instance, there are no robust predictive biomarkers, and PD-L1 positive tumors obtain better benefit regardless of the strategy adjuvant or neoadjuvant. In the unresectable stage III disease, the PACIFIC trial reported that consolidation treatment with durvalumab after radical chemo-radiotherapy significantly improved the progression free survival and the overall survival compared with placebo. In the trial 48% of patients had stage IIIAN2, so not clear that these patients could be considered unresectable for all the thoracic surgeons. This may introduce a new challenge, should patients with resectable stage III NSCLC receive surgery in the immunotherapy era? What is the best local treatment strategy in this setting? Finally, we need to redefine the TNM and probably TNM is not the unique tool that we should use in the coming future for defining stage III. In this sense, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may help to define tumors with poorer prognostic in case that ctDNA is positive at baseline. Finally in the recent years we are living a wave of new tendences. After PACIFIC presentation, more physicians supported this strategy, however, after results from CheckMate 816 neoadjuvant strategy has reborn.