While post-operative chemotherapy for early stage NSCLC is a well-established standard for relatively healthy patients with stage II or higher resected cancers, the question of whether adjuvant chemotherapy is more likely to help or hurt a patient remains more a matter of debate. Much of the debate has focused on a threshold of tumor size, with 4 cm emerging as a cutoff, above which chemotherapy appears more likely to be helpful and is often recommended. The general concept is that adjuvant chemotherapy confers a benefit that is proportional to the risk of the cancer recurring — a higher risk cancer is more likely to have the risk reduced by chemo more than enough to counterbalance the acute and chronic side effects of adjuvant chemo. But while tumor size is certainly one of the more readily identifiable factors associated with risk of recurrence and death, it’s not the only relevant factor. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) also includes several other factors in its guidelines for consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy, even for smaller tumors, so let’s review those.
I covered the issues of tumor histology and pleural invasion in a prior post. In addition, vascular invasion, or tumor cells invading into blood vessels, is associated with increased risk. In fact, as shown in the figure to the left, T1 (smaller) cancers with vascular invasion have a worse outcome than T2 (larger) cancers that don’t have vascular invasion.
Here’s part 5 of our Santa Monica program on Molecular Markers in Advanced NSCLC, closing in on the end of the activity. In this podcast, my friend Dr. David Spigel from Sarah Cannon Cancer Center in Nashville, TN presents on the benefits as well as the challenges of new models of clinical trials in lung cancer that move away from “all comers” to smaller, more limited populations defined by molecular markers. Following his presentation, we continued our panel discussion, covering how much the transition into molecular oncology has disrupted how we do clinical research, as well as how our growing experience with molecular testing is leading us to question some of our previously held beliefs.
Below are the audio and video versions of this podcast, along with the transcript and figures for it.
Molecular Markers SM Pt 5 Spigel on Markers in Clinical Trials Audio Podcast
Molecular Markers SM Pt 5 Spigel on Markers in Clinical Trials Transcript
Molecular Markers SM Pt 5 Spigel on Markers in Clinical Trials Figs
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 24:30 — 57.3MB) | Embed
We’re heading into the season where much of the biggest news in the cancer world for the year is about to be released, in press releases and full presentations at our annual conference of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The meeting is June 1-5, in Chicago, and I’ll be presenting some of my own work and chairing an educational session on the changing relationships between patients and doctors from the growing knowledge base of patients from online sources. There will be several other presentations that may well have implications that can change how we practice and offer new treatment options.
On June 28th, at 7 PM Eastern/4 PM Pacific, we’re going to have two terrific guest faculty members leading us through the most interesting and important work: Dr. Joel Neal, Assistant Professor in Medical Oncology at Stanford, and Dr. Mark Socinski, Professor and Director of the Lung Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh. Rather than divide by cancer type, we’ll see what the most relevant ASCO presentations are and then divide them between our two great speakers. Each will speak for about 30 minutes, followed by time for a question and answer session with our live audience.
Registration is free: all you need to do to join our ASCO Lung Cancer Highlight webinar is to sign up through this link. We’ll be editing the content of the program to make it available in free podcasts, but you’ll want to be there for the live event!
Our next webinar will be with Dr. Gerard Silvestri, Professor of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine at Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. Dr. Silvestri is amazingly dynamic and gave one of my favorite talks that was turned into a podcast, on the workup of lung cancer. He’s terrific with patients and can cover difficult concepts very accessibly, really connecting with his audience.
GRACE and LUNGevity Foundation will be partnering to feature him in an upcoming webinar on Wednesday, May 30th, at 7 PM Eastern, 4 PM Pacific, where he will cover topics of pulmonary complications like pleural effusions, obstructed airways and collapsed lung lobes, and coughing up blood, and of course how these can be managed.
Here’s the next installment of the panel discussion on molecular markers from the webinar in Santa Monica with Drs. Charlie Rudin, Alice Shaw, David Spigel, and Glen Goss. We continued our animated discussion on the promise as well as the pitfalls of broadening the use of molecular markers in routine practice of managing patients with advanced NSCLC.
Below you’ll find the audio and video versions of the podcast, along with the transcript (no real figures to go with this one).
Molecular Markers SM Pt 4 Panel Discussion Audio Podcast
Molecular Markers SM Pt 4 Panel Discussion Transcript
We’ll continue with a presentation by Dr. Spigel on the value and challenges of incorporating molecular markers into the design of clinical trials in lung cancer.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 16:57 — 32.1MB) | Embed
Here is the next portion of our special webinar on molecular markers in advanced NSCLC, featuring Drs. Charlie Rudin from Johns Hopkins, Dr. Alice Shaw from Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. David Spigel from Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, and Dr. Glen Goss from the University of Ottawa and NCI-Canada’s Lung Cancer Committee.
In this continuing portion of the program, we have a debate on the merits of uniform vs. more selective testing of “druggable” mutations and consider whether it is more attractive to test for multiple markers simultaneous or perhaps sequentially, since they are typically mutually exclusive. We also discuss the challenge of the delays in treatment that may become a real clinical problem for some patients if testing may require a few weeks of downtime.
Below you’ll find the audio and video versions of the podcast, along with the transcript and figures for this activity.
Molecular Markers SM Pt 3 Panel Discussion Audio Podcast
Molecular Markers SM Pt 3 Panel Discussion Transcript
Molecular Markers SM Pt 3 Panel Discussion Figs
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 17:28 — 38.3MB) | Embed
We know that there is a big difference between a lung (or pulmonary) nodule and having cancer. Formal screening studies or just random CT scans done for other reasons will often show nodules that are of questionable significance, leading us to recommend either follow-up imaging or an immediate biopsy, depending on the level of suspicion. Often, the biopsy gives us an explanation for the nodule: perhaps cancer, but otherwise, perhaps just inflammatory or scar tissue, or else infection. That answer is usually the right answer, but not always. There is a chance that a result that comes back as “not cancer” is actually a false negative result: this happens there is actually cancer, but the correct answer wasn’t detected. What are the features that suggest a greater probability that we can’t necessarily be as confident of a biopsy result that comes back as something other than cancer?
We can get some insight about this question from the published experience from the radiology groups at Cornell University and Mt. Sinai Medical Centers in New York City, who just published on their results of the clinical and imaging features of their false negative CT-guided biopsy results over a three-year period from the beginning of 2002 to the end of 2004 (Dr. Yankelevitz, who has great experience as an expert in CT screening and biopsies and who did a terrific webinar for us on detecting and evaluating lung nodules last year, is the senior author of this paper). To do this, they reviewed the results from 170 patients in that interval who had an initial biopsy that was reported as negative initially who were then either found to: