Here is the second case in my expert round table discussion on locally advanced NSCLC with medical oncologist Dr. George Blumenschein froMD Anderson Cancer Center and radiation oncologist Dr. Walter Curran from Emory University.

A radiologist, the person who specializes in reviewing imaging studies in medicine, is often someone you notice if they're unusually bad or unusually good. They perform a service and you presume that they're good at it, but a few are so sharp that the other doctors they work with notice it at every tumor board discussion or one on one exchange.

As I described in a post last year, one of the common features of angiogensis inhibitors is that lesion often cavitate, shrinking not only from the outside in, but hollowing out and dying from the inside out.

Continuing on the introduction to the concept from a recent prior post, the issue of whether it’s important to see an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) if there is no improvement in overall survival (OS) after additional therapy is going to be a central issue in lung cancer management, relevant in several key issues in coming years.

One of the topics that frequently occurs in the clinic, and that patients often ask about, is the situation in which there is some suggestion of slight progression. This can take the form of many different situations: a rising tumor marker (see

Intuitively, you'd think that people who are doing worse while getting treated for lung cancer are not going to do as well as people who have improvement in their symptoms after treatment starts. But how much do patient symptoms count in our current medical system for deciding whether a treatment is working or not, and when to move to a new therapy? The answer is that patient reported symptoms don't have a clear role yet.

A cancer has to grow faster than the tissue around it to become a tumor. Progressive growth is therefore a central feature of a cancer and a critical factor in distinguishing cancerous nodules from benign ones. There is a characteristic "volume doubling time" (VDT), the interval it takes for a nodule to double in volume. It's worth keeping in mind that because a nodule is generally spherical, an increase in the diameter by just 28% (such as a 2 mm increase from 7 to 9 mm) actually represents a doubling of the volume of a nodule.

As you might suspect, there are features of different spolitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) that makes us more or less suspicious for cancer. The first is the size of the nodule. Looking at multiple series of SPNs, the likelihood of cancer among nodules that measured under 5 mm is generally in the 0-1% range. Nodules in the 5-10 mm range have been found to be cancer in up to about about 28% of cases, with most studies showing the risk of cancer in this range to be one in four or five.

We know PET scans can provide additional metabolic information that can be more sensitive and specific for cancer than chest x-rays and even CT scans in the initial staging of lung cancer (see prior post on introduction to PET scans). PET scans are now nearly universally employed in the initial workup, at least of patients who have NSCLC and aren’t already known to have stage IV disease.

Among the key issues in following patients with a history of treated lung cancer is the pattern of recurrence. We need to have a sense of when the risk is highest and where people are more likely to demonstrate new evidence of disease. Fortunately, there are several studies that can help us with these questions.