As I described in prior post, prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is established as a treatment approach for patients with LD-SCLC who have had a complete or "good partial" response to chemo and radiation. Some physicians also recommend PCI for patients with ED-SCLC who have experienced a very good response, since about 10% of the patients on the PCI trials that led to our current recommendations had ED-SCLC.

As described in one of my first posts, Avastin was approved by the US FDA for the first line treatment of advanced NSCLC in patients with non-squamous cancers, no history of coughing up blood, and no brain metastases, based on the positive trial ECOG 4599 (abstract here) that demonstrated a survival benefit for carbo/taxol/a

One of the themes that we've covered in some of the posts introducing the clinical entity of BAC is the variability in its natural history. In fact, much of what we've been learning about BAC has been in the last several years, and we're still learning more about it all the time. One of the things we've struggled with is the range of outcomes, that some patients can experience rapid deterioration and no response at all to EGFR inhibitors, while other patients can have a remarkably slow progression, and they sometimes will have an astounding regression of disease from EGFR inhibitors.

One of the more common approaches to treating stage IIIA NSCLC with N2 lymph nodes (mediastinal, or mid-chest, on the same side as the primary tumor) is chemotherapy or chemoradiation before surgery. For those who recommend induction therapy (treatment before planned resection), there is a pretty even split between those who recommend chemotherapy alone and those who recommend chemo with concurrent radiation. So how do knowledgeable people come to different conclusions, and who is right?

There is still plenty of active debate about whether patients with stage III NSCLC who have mediastinal lymph nodes, the ones in the middle of the chest between the lungs but on the same side as the main tumor, should receive surgery in some circumstances or not.

Historically, surgery for lung cancer has been through an open thoracotomy (thorax = chest; otomy = cutting/slicing), which involves a long incision around the side of the chest, removal of ribs, and spreading of the remaining ribs to get a good view of the area of the operation. Even with the most skilled surgeons, it's a procedure that is rigorous for a patient to get through and has a recovery period typically of weeks.

Iressa was approved by the US FDA in May of 2003 as a third-line therapy, and for the next 18 months it was the only EGFR inhibitor on the market.

I haven’t really covered the history or issues of directly comparing the two oral inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, which are Iressa (gefitinib) and Tarceva (erlotinib). This is really because over the last few years, gefitinib has had disappointing results in some important trials and is no longer readily used or available, while the remarkably similar drug Tarceva has been approved by the US FDA and is a standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC that has previously been treated with chemotherapy.

While lobectomy or pneumonectomy may be the surgical treatment of choice for most NSCLC tumors in younger, fit patients, a limited resection may be an ideal choice in certain settings. In my previous post I discussed the data supporting a limited resection in older patients, who are likely to have competing health risks that may make it less critical to pursue the most aggressive surgical strategy. Another situation in which a sub-lobar resection may be particularly appealing is when the tumor is quite small and/or has characteristics suggestive of an indolent natural history.

While the prevailing standard of care for resectable lung cancer is a lobectomy or pneumonectomy, we want the surgery to be as appropriate as possible for patients. That means not short-changing patients by doing a lesser surgery than they need to do as well as possible with the cancer, but also not overtreating patients with a more aggressive surgery than they need. There are two main variables that potentially alter the equation and may make a sublobar resection a more appropriate consideration.