Dr. George Simon, medical oncologist and Director of the Thoracic Oncology Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, has been kind enough to sit down for an interview with me earlier this year, which was made into a podcast several months ago.

Dr. Alan Sandler is an international leader in the lung cancer world, also identified as among the most down to earth and funniest people in the field (and though that might not sound like much, he travels with an audio clip of a rim shot to play after his jokes). His talks are light-hearted, but he's so highly regarded because he has also been deeply involved in several of the pivotal research activities that have helped shape our current treatments.

Dr.

In the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that contained the IPASS trial results, Dr. Rosell and colleagues reported results of their effort to institute large-scale EGFR mutation testing in lung cancer patients in Spain, who then received erlotinib (Tarceva).

Patients often ask me, "Why are we only doing four cycles of chemotherapy for my lung cancer?" This is a great question and one for which the answer is a moving target, based on recent data incorporating maintenance therapies. A recently published meta-analysis took another look at this question in NSCLC.

The question of whether we should routinely have advanced NSCLC patients with a response or stable disease after four cycles of first line chemotherapy transition to immediate maintenance therapy or be watched during a treatment break has been the subject of several clinical trials and debates in the lung cancer community over the past couple of years.

For many years, chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic NSCLC had been limited to the use of “doublet” (two-drug) therapy using different combination regimens that were overall found to have very similar outcomes, but with different toxicity (side effect) profiles. Attempts to add a third chemotherapy agent for a triplet regimen, and numerous attempts to add different targeted-therapy agents, had dismal success. Not only did most of the combinations fail to improve on the survival outcomes, they increased the number of side effects compared with doublet chemotherapy alone.

Completing our tour of clinical factors that we might use for predicting benefit with the EGFR monoclonal antibody Erbitux (cetuximab) in the FLEX trial is the development of a rash. We're actually discussing rash separately from the other clinical factors from the FLEX trial that we discussed in the prior post for a couple of reasons.

In the last post that presented the highlights of the FLEX trial that tested the benefit of adding Ebritux (cetuximab) to standard chemo.