GRACE :: Lung Cancer

What I Really Do: Extensive Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer (ED-SCLC)

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

I go to many meetings in which cases are presented and medical oncologists provide their repsonses about how they’d be inclined to treat a patient. Although we bemoan the lack of much progress in managing small cell lung cancer, one of the effects of that is that there is pretty strong uniformity in how we manage it, since the standards are quite well established.

Although several years ago there was a small Japanese trial that showed a significant survival benefit for the combination of cisplatin/irinotecan compared with cisplatin/etoposide, which led to growing use of irinotecan instead of etoposide outside of the US as well, North American trials over the last few years have not shown a similar benefit (summarized in prior post here). This difference in outcomes by geography is likely real and related to relevant genetic differences in how Japanese and Caucasian patients process and respond to irinotecan vs. etoposide. The North American studies have shown that the different regimens are comparable in activity, but that irintecan is associated with significant diarrhea, while etoposide is associated with more significant drops in blood counts.

These days, the vast majority of US-based oncologists give a platinum with etoposide, fairly split between cisplatin and carboplatin. My preference has generally been to use carboplatin in a setting in which we can’t cure the cancer, and for which there is a little evidence that they produce comparable results (see prior post). In fact, historically most of the studies of ED-SCLC have used cisplatin/etoposide as the standard treatment, but one recent trial used carboplatin/etoposide and produced results every bit as good as what we see with cisplatin (see prior post). This corroborated the more limited avidence that carboplatin was a less challenging but very comparable alternative to cisplatin.

Patients with SCLC very often have a nice response to chemo, so much so that we can often tell by how a person is doing clinically that they’re responding. They may start gaining weight after weeks of weight loss, have improvement in their breathing, better energy, etc., so I don’t always scan patients after two cycles and sometimes go to three, just because there’s so little question that you;ll see a good response and want to continue. Our standard is 4 to 6 cycles, and this is dictated for me primarily by how a patient is tolerating the treatment.

The only significant change in our practice of SCLC over the last few years is that we now routinely give prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) to patients with ED-SCLC who respond to first line chemo. This is based on a study from Europe that showed a very significant reduction in the risk of brain metastases, otherwise a very common complication with SCLC, as well as as significant improvement in overall survival after PCI (see prior post). I don’t believe that this has become common practice yet, but I consider the results to be impressive enough that this is now my practice. Importantly, not every patient with SCLC is healthy enough after chemo to pursue PCI, but for the ones who still have a good performance status, had meaningful tumor shrinkage, and are inclined to pursue it, I do refer my patients to a radiation oncologist to discuss this.

At some point, we need to also deal with the treatment options for patients with relapsed SCLC, but that’s the subject for a separate post.


4 Responses to What I Really Do: Extensive Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer (ED-SCLC)

  • dbfc says:

    Thank you Dr West for your very readable summary of initial treatment for this disease. I will look forward to your thoughts on relapsed SCLC treatment. In the meantime could I ask how often you see SCLC where no obvious lung primary is found, just extensive disease in lymph nodes, bones, liver and brain?

    dbfc

  • Dr. West says:

    Not often, but SCLC is often so central that it can be hard to tell what in the mid-chest is main tumor vs. nodes, so it could be that they’ve merged into one mass. It wouldn’t affect how we treat it, as long as we were confident that the pathology showed a small cell cancer.

    -Dr. West

  • mayab8 says:

    hi again Dr West

    What, in your estimation, is considered a meaningful tumor shrinkage? For eg,is 50% meaningful?

    thank you
    Maya

  • Dr West says:

    50% shrinkage would definitely be meaningful, but I’d consider any convincing shrinkage of the disease as meaningful and would strongly consider recommending prophylactic cranial irradiation in anyone with that degree of shrinkage who continued to have a good (or especially improving) performance status.

    -Dr. West

Leave a Reply

Ask Us, Q&A
Lung/Thoracic Cancer Expert Content

Archives

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

GRACE Website Rebuild

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Watch ALK+ Lung Cancer Forum Videos

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Join the GRACE Faculty

Breast Cancer Blog
Pancreatic Cancer Blog
Kidney Cancer Blog
Bladder Cancer Blog
Head/Neck Cancer Blog
Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Subscribe to the GRACEcast Podcast on iTunes

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

Subscribe to
GRACE Notes
(Free Newsletter)

Other Resources

Share
download as a pdf file Download PDF

ClinicalTrials.gov


Biomedical Learning Institute

PeerView Press - Curriculum-Based Learning Activities