After describing the association of a rash on EGFR inhibitors with overall better outcomes on this class of agents, we can now take a step back and recognize that the rash can be an annoyance at the very least and sometimes a real problem. While there are no established guidelines, both treating physicians and patients have developed experience with the rash over the past few years that we should be able to use to minimize the impact for the majority of patients and reduce the proportion of people who need stop a potentially helpful agent due to this toxicity. Continue reading
While progress in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been slow, over the past few years there have been leads in management of extensive disease that have introduced a potential change in the standard of care based on better results. Extensive disease SCLC, or ED-SCLC, is defined by having cancer that has spread outside of the region that can safely be covered by a radiation port (more details and relevant figure in SCLC 101 post), and this accounts for approximately two thirds of SCLC cases. Patients can often show very rapid cancer progression and clinical deterioration, but fortunately initial treatment very often leads to rapid and dramatic improvement, although we are not able to cure ED-SCLC.
An acne-like rash or dry skin is a very common side effect of the drugs that target the epidermal growth factor receptor, with approximately 3/4 of patients who receive the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhbitor tarceva/erlotinib experiencing skin toxicity. Similar skin toxicities are also seen, but a bit less commonly, with the very similar drug iressa/gefitinib, and also frequently with erbitux/cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that is less well studied in lung cancer. But since the earliest clinical trials of these agents, there have been questions of whether the rash is something more than just a potentially problematic side effect, but rather a marker of someone likely to do well with these agents.
After several weeks of posts on other aspects of lung cancer, I am long overdue to write on small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Although it is good to see the number of SCLC cases decreasing over time, and becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of lung cancer cases overall (only about 13% in the US and steadily falling), this has translated into fewer clinical trials and less of a focus on SCLC in the lung cancer community. However, there are some promising developments that may lead to some long overdue progress in the field.
First, this post will start with some general concepts and an introduction to SCLC, and this will be followed in the next few weeks by posts describing current and emerging ideas for the basic stages of small cell lung cancer, and also a discussion of prophylactic cranial irradiation for small cell, where it has been most extensively studied. Continue reading
Just a few years ago, the only distinction in the field of lung cancer that meant anything was small cell vs. non-small cell. The different types of non-small cell, like adenocarcinoma vs. squamous cell vs. large cell, were of little interest and didn’t change management (only a very recent development). And although we often asked about smoking history, the answer never changed our treatment plan. Only in the last few years have we come to recognize that we will do better as “splitters” than as “lumpers”, by tailoring our treatment recommendations to the clinical and molecular feature of one particular patient and tumor at a time, rather than using a one size fits all approach.
First, some definitions. Although there is a little variation, most of the lung cancer research community has come around to a definition of a “never-smoker” as less than 100 cigarettes in a lifetime. A “former smoker” is more than that and has quit smoking for at least a year. A “current smoker” is anyone else, so less than a year after quitting, a patient is still considered a current smoker. Continue reading