Lung Cancer / Mesothelioma
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
Loading ...In contrast to the guidelines that exist for treating advanced lung cancer in the first-line setting for 4-6 cycles, there are really just practice patterns and good judgment to guide decisions of how long to treat in the second-line therapy. First, this is a relatively new question. As I previously mentioned when describing the history of treatment for advanced lung cancer, ten years ago there was plenty of debate about whether the benefits of treating NSCLC were sufficient to make this a standard of care. Second-line chemo for NSCLC with taxotere was first approved by the US FDA in 2000, and topotecan in 1998 for previously treated (and sensitive disease) ED-SCLC. So these are new issues.
The general issue of whether to continue second-line treatment in patients with prolonged non-progression is “we should be so lucky” – we wish we had many more patients who are doing well on second-line therapy for so long that we could ask questions of whether to take breaks on treatment or not. In the large randomized trial that directly compared taxotere to alimta in the second-line NSCLC setting (abstract here), both groups had a median number of 4 cycles administered. The median duration of a response was about 5 months for both groups, and some responses went out much further (up to about 12 months on taxotere, 15 months on alimta). Without any clear guidelines, and with not enough patients fortunate enough to still be showing response or stable disease many months into treatment, we will often continue therapy until progression. The more tolerable the treatment, the easier it is to have treatment continue for many months in the setting of ongoing stable disease. But there haven’t been enough patients available to study the question of whether there is a benefit of continuing indefinitely without a break. Patients often want to keep going, and oncologists are also pleased to have them doing well, so the default choice is to keep going unless there is a reason to stop. The even more limited number of studies of relapsed SCLC have had a similar approach of treating on an ongoing basis in the absence of progression or prohibitive toxicity, and there is a small subset of patients who continued on treatment for more than a year (for instance, in the trial showing improved quality of life with topotecan, abstract here).
This is a more common issue with EGFR inhibitors like iressa and tarceva, both because they can often be very well tolerated and amenable to chronic use, and also because there is a subset of patients who have a very prolonged response or stable disease on them. In the BR.21 trial (abstract here), the median duration of response on tarceva was about 8 months. And there are a significant minority of patients who have shown no evidence of progression on one of these agents for more than one or two years or more. In such cases, the idea of stopping effective therapy has rarely been considered, by physicians or patients. I sometimes wonder whether we could prolong the period of sensitivity to tarceva in the long-term responders by treating “intermittently”, holding it for a few months and restarting at clear progression, in order to minimize the ability of a cancer to develop resistance, but I don’t think the world is ready to pursue that concept yet.
Overall, I do approach second-line and later therapies differently than first-line, for both NSCLC and SCLC, and am happy to have patients continue on a therapy as long as they are not demonstrating progression and are able to tolerate prolonged therapy. We would all like to develop so many effective and long-lasting therapies that we need to develop strategies for chronic management. One step at a time, I suppose.
Posted in: Chemotherapy, Core Concepts, Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based therapies, Extensive Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer (ED-SCLC), Lung Cancer, Metastatic/Recurrent NSCLC, Second Line and Later, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), Second-line treatment, Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC), Stage IV/Advanced/Metastatic NSCLC, Targeted therapies, Third-line therapy and beyond, Treatment
email to a friend
printer friendly
Is there a third line developed, or does the term “second line” include all subsequent followups?
Bob Gamage
I have NSCLC and have been taking Tarceva for almost 3 years and the disease is listed as stable. I had the right upper lobe removed and endured first line chemo without success. The cancer had spread to the plura. If you have any questions for me you can contact me.
Bob
Bob (& Bob),
There absolutely is third line therapy, and beyond, and we generally term everything from second line and later as “salvage therapy”. I have been steering a bit away from that term because I imagine it may seem unpleasant to a patient or family member to hear their treatment referred to as “salvage”. Tarceva is officially approved as third-line therapy (or second-line), while the chemo agents taxotere and alimta are approved as second-line but would also be appropriate choices in the third line or later setting if patients hadn’t been treated with one of these drugs previously.
My general approach for third line or later therapy would really be identical to what I described here for second line treatment.
And for the Bob on Tarceva for 3 years, that’s terrific for you, and for the people who are on or may start tarceva who will know about your case and hope that they might do as well. Congratulations, and please keep us posted!
-Dr. West
I am glad to see genetic testing now to determine which chemo would work for each patient. This avoids the posiblilty of going through the wrong regimin and avoiding unnecessary side effects. Personally, I had kidney damage which resulted in forming stones and unbelievable sicknes which could have been avoided. The big question now is how long to stay on Tarceva and avoid the possiblility of it’s effectivness being reduced with uninterupted use.
Bob
Posts
| Core Concepts
| Subject Archives
| Monthly Archives
| Resources
| 
Donate
| Forums
| GRACE Home
Disclaimer: The information provided at GRACE is for informational purposes only. The faculty of GRACE is not providing medical advice, diagnosis or treatment and cannot replace the medical advice of your doctor or health care provider. (Full Disclaimer)
© 2007-2008 GRACE. All rights reserved.
4 Comments
Login (Must Be Logged In To Comment)