What we are striving for in cancer care today is personalized medicine. So, if a patient with newly diagnosed NSCLC has an activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, we give that patient Tarceva (erlotinib), a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Right? Well, yes -- but it doesn’t always work (the response rate is in the 70-75% range). Why not? We’re not sure, but it would be nice to learn why we don't see near a 100% response rate among patients with EGFR mutations, so that we can know to recommend other alternatives.

I would consider the recently published IPASS trial that compared Iressa (gefitinib) to standard chemo of carbo/taxol (paclitaxel) to be an extremely influential trial in lung cancer that has essentially ushered in a new era of molecularly-defined guidance of our treatment for many patients with advanced NSCLC, and we can expect that this is how we’ll be approaching a much broader population of lung cancer patients.

As more and more oncologists become aware of the importance of testing for at least the EGFR mutation in tumor, and soon, perhaps, in blood, it seems likely that more patients will have their first systemic treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) be an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), usually Tarceva (erlotinib), until Iressa (gefitinib) is re-approved (perhaps).

In 2008 the SWOG 0023 trial was published, which looked at the question of maintenance Iressa (gefitinib) after definitive chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced (Stage III) NSCLC. The trial randomized patients who had not progressed after completing CRT with concurrent cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy followed by consolidation Taxotere (docetaxel) to either Iressa or placebo. Patients were then followed until progression or death.

The ASCO meeting I'm at right now is so busy that there really isn't time to write a new post (though I'm still "tweeting from the meeting"). Though the talk show hows just air re-runs of old shows when they're on vacation, I'm trying to continue to add new content to the website during this time (and it's about as far from a vacation as anyone has in Orlando).

The ASCO meeting I'm at right now is so insanely busy during the days and nights that it's next to impossible to carve out the time to write posts during the meeting. While the talk show hosts just show re-runs while they're on vacation, we're at least going to put up some new content, even if it's from work previously done (and this is far from a vacation).

Among the many challenges in clinical oncology is the fact that a very significant proportion of our patients are quite a bit more debilitated than the vast majority of patients in clinical trials that test our anti-cancer therapies. Approximately a third of the patients with advanced NSCLC have what would be considered a poor performance status (PS) of 2 or 3 (0 to 5 scale, 0 being asymptomatic, and 5 being dead), but they are extremely under-represented on our clinical trials.

Erlotinib (Tarceva) was approved for treatment of progressive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after the BR21 study that showed that tarceva not only improved survival but also improved lung cancer symptoms and quality of life. This study and others have also taught us that the benefit of tarceva is much better in those who had never smoked and less effective in current smokers.

It has become a common topic of conversation on this site (and in the lung cancer community at large) to discuss mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, since we frequently throw out the terms “deletion 19 mutation”, “L858R”, and “T790M”, I thought would be worthwhile to explain a little bit about the different EGFR mutations and what we know about their clinical significance.

One of the general rules in oncologist is that we typically use our most effective treatments first, and often early, though there are certainly exceptions. Women with metastatic breast cancer may have a higher response rate by receiving combination chemotherapy than single agent chemo, but when a gentle single drug chemotherapy or hormone therapy option will do very well and provide fewer side effects, that’s usually the approach we recommend until bigger guns are needed.