Member Wendy asked me about a drug called picoplatin that I had heard of but really didn't have much familiarity with. This gave me an occasion to flesh out some background on this agent, which is being developed as a potential therapy for patients previously treated for lung cancer.

Many of us who work in the field of lung cancer, whether as doctor, patient, friend, or family member, bemoan that lung cancer is too often viewed as a black sheep among cancers – little attention and too few resources. But one of the key ways in which lung cancer has lagged behind has been in terms of clinical trials participation, and this is something that we can control, and our underperformance (on both the physician and patient side) has hurt the field.

In my last post I described a new study that will be randomizing previously treated advanced NSCLC patients with a current or prior smoking history to receive either tarceva or a new chemotherapy called pralatrexate. Now it’s time to provide a little background on this new agent.

I've described in a prior post and many of my comments here how tarceva and iressa, oral targeted therapies against EGFR, have been pretty consistently impressive in never-smokers. Not infallibly great, but these agents have shown high response rates in the 25-50% range for never-smokers, and have also been pretty favorable for remote and minimal smokers.

Several trials have recently opened up for never-smokers with any lung adenocarcinoma or those with BAC (or adeno/BAC mix, invasive adenocarcinoma with BAC features) with any smoking status. Both of these groups have only recently gained recognition as likely being a distinct clinical entity with a different natural history (clinical behavior outside of treatment) and pattern of responsiveness to treatments that is different from other types of lung cancer.

In my recent post on the JMDB trial that randomized patients between cisplatin/alimta and cisplatin gemcitabine in first line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the take home conclusions were that overall efficacy was very similar, with the cis/alimta arm looking a little better in several side effect parameters, most notably a less significant decline in blood counts and lower risk for fevers with a low white blood cell count.

In my last post, I noted that the FLEX trial of cisplatin/navelbine with or without the EGFR monoclonal antibody erbitux was reported to be positive, demonstrating a significant survival benefit.

Merck KgAA, the company developing cetuximab/Erbitux, the monoclonal antibody against EGFR, reviewed here) outside of the US, has announced that their pivotal FLEX trial (for First-Line Trial for patients with EGFR-Expressing Advanced NSCLC) is positive, demonstrating a signficant improvement in overall survival, as indicated

Let's move to combinations of velcade with other anti-cancer agents. My friend, Dr.Angela Davies from the University of California at Davis, led a single-arm phase II trial conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group, SWOG 0339, that evaluated the combination of velcade with gemcitabine and carboplatin (abstract here).

Our tendency in oncology is that once we find a new active drug in cancer, we try to add it to our current standard treatment approach and see if we can do better than what our current standard achieves. More is better. And we knew that the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors Iressa and Tarceva could lead to significant shrinkage of some lung cancers. So the lung cancer community was relatively optimistic about the clinical trials that compared chemo alone to the same chemo with Iressa or Tarceva.