The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a central component of a cell pathway for growth and cell division that is thought to be affected in many cancers, including NSCLC. EGFR inhibitors have been the focus of clinical trials for several years and are now used for many types of cancer.

There's a really helpful resource for patients, developed by several leading experts in EGFR-based therapy and specifically the very common skin toxicity associated with EGFR inhibitors like iressa, tarceva, erbitux, and some others.

The issue of population-based differences in response to lung cancer treatments was essentially introduced with the EGFR inhibitors, so it’s appropriate to introduce racial differences overall with this work. Mention of more favorable results with EGFR inhibitors iressa and tarceva emerged with the earliest clinical studies and have since become a well established truism. Let’s explore what we know now and how we got here.

Member Sandra recently asked the question that several other people have asked in one form or another: how do we choose among the treatment options for second line therapy in NSCLC. I've covered in several posts and a huge number of responses in the Q&A Forum the leading options we generally consider for second line therapy for NSCLC.

The antibody to the epidermal growth factor receptor erbitux (cetuximab) (introductory post here) has been used as an effective treatment for colon and also head and neck cancer for several years, but its role in lung cancer has yet to be defined.

Rashes from EGFR inhibitors: we like to see them, because we know that many trials have shown that skin toxicity on drugs like tarceva is associated with better survival (see prior post), but the fact is that sometimes a rash is more than an inconvenience and can really make people miserable, or at least pretty unhappy, as described in the comments and questions from a discussion forum thread today.

I still need to add a post on the more recent history of managing Pancoast tumors, but I wanted to add an important and potentially relevant bit of information I learned today. I'm attending a small meeting in New York and had the opportunity to talk with some folks from the company that makes Tarceva, OSI Pharmaceuticals, who relayed some potentially relevant news people here should know.

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.

Despite the fact that a very significant proportion of the "real world" patients have considerable medical problems such as markedly decreased lung function (pretty common with many years of smoking), weight loss (5 or 10% of body weight is usually considered a problem), or otherwise are not able to be very active.

In addition to a direct comparison of iressa to chemo in the second line setting for advanced NSCLC (see recent post on INTEREST trial), as conducted with the INTEREST trial I described in a recent post, a very similar comparison of Iressa to chemo was also performed in another setting where single-agent chemo is also the treatment of choice. Specifically, the INVITE trial evaluated iressa vs.