I doubt there is a group of lung cancer patients more common but less well studied than the substantial subset of frail and/or very elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. While “elderly” patients, usually defined as age 70, have been evaluated as a subset of the population in larger studies and even been the subject of specific studies just for the elderly, most of this work has shown that fit elderly patients do as well as younger patients getting the same aggressive treatment.

I go to many meetings in which cases are presented and medical oncologists provide their repsonses about how they'd be inclined to treat a patient. Although we bemoan the lack of much progress in managing small cell lung cancer, one of the effects of that is that there is pretty strong uniformity in how we manage it, since the standards are quite well established.

To begin with, my overall impression is that the preponderance of evidence on adjuvant (post-operative) chemotherapy supports that it can reduce the recurrence risk and improve the survival at five years, which I'd presume to be pretty close to the "cure rate". The benefit isn't uniformly distributed for all patients: higher risk patients, as defined by stage and other additional factors like number of lymph nodes involved and the grade of the cancer, also matter.

We’re recognizing more and more that lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is a distinct disease, with different patterns of who gets it, how the cancer behaves, and it responds to treatments. But this recognition is still a work in progress, coming from a background in which the party line has been that NSCLC is treated the same regardless of the histologic type (squamous, adenocarcinoma, large cell, or other), smoking history, or other factors.

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.

In Japan, a different chemotherapy approach than cisplatin doublet chemo has been used in the post-operative setting. In contrast to the North American and European approach of 3-4 cycles of platinum-based chemo, in Japan they have studied an oral chemotherapy called UFT, a combination of uracil and tegafur. This combination is in the same family as an old chemo drug called 5-FU that is still used in various settings today, although not commonly in lung cancer.

Someone recently asked a question about a recommendation she had received about being treated with a first-line combination of gemzar (gemcitabine) and navelbine (vinorelbine), because we have focused so much on doublets of either cisplatin or carboplatin with a newer drug like taxol (paclitaxel), taxotere (docetaxel), gemzar, navelbine, or most recently possibly alimta (pemetrexed). Why don't we pair the partners of the platinums and perhaps do even better?

I had described earlier this week (prior post here) how the long-term follow up of one of the more important adjuvant chemotherapy trials for early stage resected NSCLC patients showed that there may be long-term adverse effects of chemotherapy. My last post also suggested that the benefit of pre-operative chemotherapy in another trial appeared to be limited to the patients with stage IIB and IIIA disease and wasn’t present for stage IB and IIA patients.

In my last post I described the results of the ChEST trial that showed a borderline statistically significant improvement in survival of patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy for stage IB to IIIA NSCLC prior to surgery. This study was very similar to another neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial, known as SWOG 9900, which also randomized patients to upfront surgery or 3 cycles of pre-operative chemotherapy followed by surgery.

In contrast with post-operative chemotherapy, which has become a standard treatment approach to reduce the probability of recurrence of resected stage II and IIIA NSCLC (still pretty controversial for stage IB), pre-operative chemotherapy (also known as neoadjuvant, or induction chemotherapy) is less well studied and isn’t a typical approach.