When I first described the developing work with the EGFR monoclonal antibody erbitux (cetuximab) two years ago (see prior post), I described a trial that was just getting started called SWOG 0536.

At the recent Chicago lung cancer meeting, the idea of maintenance therapy emerged as a hot topic that is experiencing ongoing changes in our treatment approaches over time. The controversies about this topic begin with the very terminology. Here are four proposed names for the same basic idea:

1) maintenance therapy, which implies that one of the initial treatments is being continued on a longitudinal basis

My kids are right in the middle of that time when they watch SpongeBob and see commercials for toys, cereals, and music, nearly every one is puncuated at the end with, "Daddy, can we get that? I want that." There comes a time in everyone's life, hopefully early on, when we learn that we won't actually find eternal bliss with every advertised item.

An interesting trial presented at ASCO 2008 came out of Japan, asking the question of whether there is an advantage to continuing first line platinum-based doublet chemo for up to six cycles or whether it might be better to give just three cycles and then switch from chemo right to the EGFR inhibitor iressa in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC (abstract here).

The general approach to NSCLC is in transition right now, as the line between first and second line therapy are becoming increasingly blurred. A few years ago, the clear standard was that we usually stop first line chemo after four to six cycles, then follow a patient clinically and radiographically until they show evidence of progression, at which time we’d start second line treatment.

Yesterday, as described in a press release, the FDA approved the regimen of cisplatin and alimta as a first line therapy for advanced NSCLC, based on the positive results from a trial called "JMDB" by the sponsor company (Eli Lilly).

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.

One of the topics that frequently occurs in the clinic, and that patients often ask about, is the situation in which there is some suggestion of slight progression. This can take the form of many different situations: a rising tumor marker (see

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, similar to ASCO but based in Europe, has been going on in Stockholm, where the results of a study called the First Line Iressa versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Asia Study (taking some liberties to force it into the acronym "IPASS") was presented in the Presidential Symposium by my friend and Hong Kong-based colleague Tony Mok.

The setting of unresectable, stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC (without a malignant pleural effusion) is currently one for which what we feel is best for the patient isn't necessarily something for which we have good evidence. For fit patients, there is a strong consensus that giving concurrent chemo with radiation provides a modestly but consistently higher cure rate than giving chemo and radiation sequentially. But that concurrent chemoradiation plan lasts for only 6-8 weeks, but whether there's more we should be doing, or what we should do, is entirely unclear.