The ASCO meeting I'm at right now is so insanely busy during the days and nights that it's next to impossible to carve out the time to write posts during the meeting. While the talk show hosts just show re-runs while they're on vacation, we're at least going to put up some new content, even if it's from work previously done (and this is far from a vacation).

With all this recent talk about never-smokers with lung cancer, and the interest in stories of patients with so-called “oligometastatic” cancer (minimal metastatic burden to perhaps a single site), I thought I would describe a recent case in my clinic as an illustration of how I use this information in everyday decision making. Mrs. D, a very fit 36 year-old woman with a young child at home, presented to her family doctor last year with back pain. It didn’t seem to be getting better, so her doctor ordered an x-ray of the back which showed a very nasty-looking spot in the lower spine.

One of the central ideas in medical oncology is that if you have two or more anticancer treatments that are active, you test them together to determine whether it's safe and whether the combination works better than each individually. We've been doing this with chemotherapy combinations for decades, but it's only been in the last few years that we have had more than one targeted therapy in lung cancer with enough activity to move ahead with combination work.

Last week, updated information on the AVAiL (AVAstin in Lung cancer) trial (see prior post) of cisplatin/gemcitabine with either placebo or a low or higher (full) dose of avastin was presented in a meeting in Stockholm.

As I mentioned in another post, one of the first branch points in the decision tree about what I recommend as treatment for fit patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC is the question of eligibility for avastin.

As I described in a recent post introducing the concept of the series, “What I really do”, I wanted to provide a summary of how interpret the evidence I show here, how I really approach real life patients. Some of this will illustrate that the experts don’t agree 100%, and that we all add some interpretation and style to how we manage patients. What I describe isn’t meant to be a dogmatic declaration of what everyone should do, but just the way I apply the evidence from trials of somewhat selected patients in the real world.

Because the anti-angiogenic drug avastin (bevacizumab) has been associated with some degree of increased risk of bleeding since the beginning of its development in lung cancer, the key trials have historically excluded patients who have been on blood thinners, at least at the standard dose (full dose anti-coagulation, or FDAC). In fact, though, patients with colon cancer have historically not been restricted, so the question has really been whether it's necessary to restrict NSCLC patients who need FDAC from receiving avastin.

Since the anti-angiogenic agent avastin (bevacizumab) has been shown to confer a survival benefit in a subset of patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC (see prior post), we have been struggling with questions of whether the restricted eligibility requirements in the pivotal initial avastin trial were necessary.

Several members have asked about the appropriate dose of avastin (bevacizumab), which is really still a controversial subject. It's worth exploring how we got here and where we are now.

While other doses of avastin have been used with other tumor types, the first study in lung cancer that used avastin tested two different doses, 7.5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg combined with carboplatin and taxol (paclitaxel). This work was done at Vanderbilt Univ. Cancer Center by Dr. David Johnson and colleagues, and Dr. Laskin worked with them for a couple of years. This study had the following design:

I've recently received some questions about the advantages and disadvantages of maintenance Avastin as a single agent for patients after completion of 6 cycles of first line chemo and avastin together for avastin-eligible patients. While this is generally considered to be a standard of care, many oncologists question whether it should be done. It's worth looking at how that standard came about and the strength of the evidence for it.