As I noted in prior posts on the subject of unresectable stage III NSCLC, there is a general consensus that overlapping chemo and radiation is associated with better cure rates for this stage of locally advanced NSCLC than doing one followed by the other. At the same time, however, the overlapping, or concurrent chemo and radiation approach is associated with more challenges in terms of side effects, particularly esophagitis, as well as greater drops in blood counts, and potentially more inflammation in the lungs, or pneumonitis.

The oral EGFR inhibitors Iressa and Tarceva both have activity in advanced NSCLC, with proven responses in a minority of patients and improvements in cancer-related symptoms as well.

Most of the discussion with about inhibiting the EGFR axis in lung cancer has focused on the orally available tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that work inside the cells. However, another way to inhibit the cells is by giving an IV "monoclonal antibody" which is a protein that attaches to the outside of the cell at the EGFR target and can block activity. A figure of the two approaches is shown here, with the antibody circled in red:

Both standard chemotherapy and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been approved in NSCLC, and other anti-EGFR agents like erbitux/cetuximab and vectabix/panitumumab are also commercially available for treating other cancers and are being studied in lung cancer. Iressa was previously approved as a single agent in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC, and Tarceva is now available but approved also as a single agent therapy. However, some oncologists give EGFR inhibitor therapies in combination with standard chemo.

The emergence of targeted therapies provides a goal of treating the cancer more selectively, thereby minimizing side effects, while hopefully achieving results as good as or better than standard chemotherapy. Although this is important in the entire population of cancer patients, this is a particularly welcome benefit in patients who may be reluctant to or not healthy enough to receive standard chemotherapy.

While SCLC accounts for only about 13% of lung cancer, and only approximately one third of patients with SCLC have limited disease SCLC (LD-SCLC), this remains a high stakes area with the potential for being cured, so it needs to be treated as optimally as possible. I'm going to give a brief history and highlight some of the current principles of what has developed as the current standard of care.

While progress in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been slow, over the past few years there have been leads in management of extensive disease that have introduced a potential change in the standard of care based on better results.

After several weeks of posts on other aspects of lung cancer, I am long overdue to write on small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Although it is good to see the number of SCLC cases decreasing over time, and becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of lung cancer cases overall (only about 13% in the US and steadily falling), this has translated into fewer clinical trials and less of a focus on SCLC in the lung cancer community. However, there are some promising developments that may lead to some long overdue progress in the field.

I reviewed some of the differences in the biology and clinical behavior of never-smoker lung cancers vs. the much more common lung cancer seen in current or former smokers. The main reason it is worth discussing is that there appear to be important differences in how never-smokers with NSCLC respond to some treatments, particularly EGFR tyrosine inhibitors like Tarceva, or Iressa previously.

Although we are all frustrated by the relatively slow pace of progress in lung cancer, there are times when we can look back and feel that we have made a real impact. Six years ago there were no treatments that were FDA approved and appeared to benefit patients who had previously been treated with first-line chemo for NSCLC. Now there are several.