Article and Video CATEGORIES

Cancer Journey

Search By

Dr. Jack West is a medical oncologist and thoracic oncology specialist who is the Founder and previously served as President & CEO, currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Global Resource for Advancing Cancer Education (GRACE)


Thresholds of Deviation (from the Standard of Care)
Sun, 10/20/2019 - 11:17
This is an oldie but goodie article from GRACE's archives. Enjoy!
Howard (Jack) West, MD, Vice President of Clinical Development at Summit Therapeutics, Founder and Past Board President, GRACE



We talk a lot here about the strength of the evidence and the standards of care for one treatment over another. But the reality is that our clinical guidelines leave a lot of room for tweaking, with many options listed as “consider X”, “consider Y”. That’s probably how it should be, because people are individuals who often don’t represent a garden variety patient in a classic clinical setting.

Though there is an emphasis in modern conventional medicine on hard evidence to support our clinical management of patients, and this focus on “evidence-based medicine” is probably especially strong in oncology (and with GRACE), every oncologist falls somewhere on a spectrum between being rigidly focused on following exactly what the evidence supports vs. being completely guided by a combination of a good rationale and some intuition. Patients and families also have very different expectations about whether their doctor/medical team is very driven by “current best practices” or more inclined toward “outside the box thinking”. Complementary and alternative medicines are not often accompanied by hard evidence, but their exceptional popularity speaks to the fact that many people don’t feel that they require heaps of evidence to act. Meanwhile, it typically takes years for the cutting edge research concepts of today to become the standard of care later: carefully conducted studies take a lot of time, and in the meantime, we all struggle with which ideas to adopt and which ones to wait on until we learn more.

Neither approach in itself is always the right one. We’ve seen cases where giving an EGFR inhibitor after chemo and radiation for locally advanced NSCLC can be harmful for many patients, despite this being an unexpected finding at the time (and still not something we can explain). We’ve seen that integration of Avastin (bevacizumab), a targeted agent that improves survival in many patients with advanced lung cancer, into chemo/radiation treatment for stage III NSCLC or limited disease SCLC can lead to dangerous or even fatal side effects that weren’t anticipated. But there’s no doubt that some patients today could benefit from what will ultimately prove to be the standard therapies of tomorrow (or at least of 2014). We just aren’t terrific at predicting.

Earlier this week, I presented my general framework for using or not using molecular markers to guide my clinical recommendations, and this represents a setting in which new data are exciting but precede more conclusive results by years. I explained that my personal approach is to not use markers like ERCC1, RRM1, and thymidylate synthase levels to shape my treatment decisions for patients, because they haven’t been proven to be helpful in large prospective trials. Instead, they’ve mostly looked like they could be helpful based on retrospective assessments in which we pick through the data after the study has been completed, which isn’t as helpful as planning to use a variable and then using it to guide treatment prospectively.

Yet, less than 24 hours after I presented this view, I found myself offering a second opinion in which I recommended that we send tumor tissue from a 30 year-old man with NSCLC for molecular marker testing to help us consider what chemo to pursue. Why be such a hypocrite? In his particular case, he was diagnosed in the late fall with a stage IIIA N2 node-positive NSCLC and had received cisplatin-based chemo and concurrent radiation from another oncologist, followed by surgery. Unfortunately, he had a small amount of residual viable cancer in a few mediastinal lymph nodes, a situation that suggests a less favorable prognosis than if the mediastinal nodes were all completely negative for cancer (mediastinal sterilization).

This was a case in which we simply have no good data (and by that I really mean any data), to tell us how we should proceed. The trials that have looked at this situation have generally tried to give a couple of additional post-operative cycles of the same chemo that was given pre-operatively. But there has never been a trial that compared continuing the same treatment vs. trying a to kill the cancer by shooting from a different angle and using different chemotherapy. And in this situation, without any good reference point for guidance, I’d be happy to use imperfect data to help inform my decision. If the molecular marker studies suggest that gemcitabine or more or alimta or more platinum is a very good or poor choice, I’ll take that hint, because it’s not overriding a standard of care here. Similarly, I feel that it’s pretty reasonable to use ERCC1 status to help make a decision about the value of adjuvant chemo for resected NSCLC if a patient is otherwise on the fence about whether it’s worth doing or not, but I’m not comfortable using that data to steer someone away from it if all other indicators suggest that it’s the appropriate thing to do. In other words, I think the threshold to use tentative, imperfect data can be lower for a situation in which there is no right answer than in a situation in which you’d potentially be thumbing your nose at a well-established, evidence-based standard of care.

This is really also the way I feel about alternative medicine approaches. I would hate to see someone dismiss surgery for early stage lung cancer or an EGFR inhibitor if they have an EGFR mutation because they would rather pursue alternative medicines. On the other hand, it’s certainly very appropriate for people to pursue whatever avenue for treatment concepts they’d like to follow if conventional oncology approaches can’t offer much promise.

To sum it up: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” Though it’s ideal to have a solid path you know is right, reality isn’t always that convenient, and it makes sense to just do the best you can under the circumstances in an ambiguous situation. And my own general recommendations are still adapted to the individual person in front of me, as it should probably always be.

As always, I welcome your thoughts.


2 Responses to Thresholds of Deviation (from the Standard of Care)

    ts says:

    Dr. West,
    It is really helpful to my peace of mind to read that you still recommend surgery and standard platinum chemo as first lines in curative attempts – if I read this correctly. I guess that may all change someday, but it is good to remind myself that I have received the best care as is known in this time.

    Dr West says:

    Sure — absolutely yes, for many patients.

Video Language

Next Previous link

Previous PostNext Post

Related Content

Terapias Dirigidas de Cáncer de Pulmón 2023
En este foro anual de pacientes en vivo, los principales oncólogos torácicos de todo el mundo discuten temas relevantes para los objetivos del cáncer de pulmón, así como mutaciones raras. En esta serie de videos los Doctores Fernando Diaz, Luis Raez, Luis Corrales, Estelamari Rodriguez y Alberto Chiappori presentan el Panel de Discusión donde hablan sobre temas relevantes del cáncer de pulmón. 
Terapias Dirigidas de Cáncer de Pulmón 2023
En este foro anual de pacientes en vivo, los principales oncólogos torácicos de todo el mundo discuten temas relevantes para los objetivos del cáncer de pulmón, así como mutaciones raras. En esta serie de videos los Doctores Fernando Diaz, Luis Raez, Luis Corrales, Estelamari Rodriguez y Alberto Chiappori presentan el Panel de Discusión donde hablan sobre temas relevantes del cáncer de pulmón. 
September 2023 Blood Cancer OncTalk
The September 2023 Blood Cancer OncTalk has now ended.  Videos are available OnDemand! The full unedited versions of the September 2023 Blood Cancer OncTalk, are now available OnDemand. These topics will be edited and offered as shorter videos in the coming weeks.   The full videos are available on our YouTube channel via this link:

Forum Discussions

Stan - Thank you once again for your kind words.  Thank you as well for your donation.  As you know, your donation helps us to exist and continue to fulfill our...

Hi Stan, It's good to hear your voice and know your cheesecakes are still making the rounds.  Though I'm sure startling, I imagine some of those little pockets of the house...

Hi Rutbats,  Welcome to GRACE and thanks for the kind words. 


We can't say what you should or shouldn't do and I can't say why your RA doc made their...

Thank you very much for your quick answer, Janine.

I have an appointment with a pulmonologist in 10 days. I will summarize the conversation with him here, so that other people...

Glad to know you're moving forward with a pulmonologist.  The more you know the better the conversation with your pulmonologist.  Remember you can help your docs know what level their conversation...

Hi Terry, Welcome to Grace. 

I saw this exact post somewhere else months back and the only response was to a lab.  I hope that doesn't happen here, we don't allow...

Recent Comments

Hi Stan, It's good to hear…
By JanineT GRACE … on Fri, 12/01/2023 - 07:14
Thank you Stan, for your kind words.
By dbrock on Thu, 11/30/2023 - 11:55
Glad to know you're moving…
By JanineT GRACE … on Mon, 11/27/2023 - 11:27
Thank you very much for your…
By rutbats on Mon, 11/27/2023 - 08:07