During the entire time I've been commenting on the most evidence-based and commonly used agents for previously treated patients, I've focused on taxotere, alimta, and tarceva (example in prior post here). In fact, that overlooks an agent that has actually been tested in a large study and been found to have similar activity to taxotere, but it remains pretty much an afterthought.

Just last week I described in a prior post the news that a large trial of Nexavar (sorafenib) had been reported as negative in first line advanced NSCLC, and with some evidence of an increased risk of death on the novel agent in combination with chemo in the subset of patients with squamous cell NSCLC.

I'll get back to the storyline of our growing understanding of the differences of individuals based on pharmacogenomics very soon. But I wanted to give people some breaking news that just came out.

While the differences in anticipated clinical benefits from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors like tarceva and iressa are well known (summarized in prior post), less well appreciated is the potentially significant differences in results with garden variety standard chemotherapy.

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.

In the Q&A forums recently, members Jianming and Neil introduced us to the novel agent XL647, in clinical trials now, but I figured it was worth me collecting more background and providing a more thorough background. XL647 is an oral small molecular that inhibits multiple tyrosine kinases, receptors on cells that trigger cascades of activity in the cells, thereby leading to tumor development and growth.

One of the successful examples of incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures into an important clinical trial was in the NCI-Canada study BR.21 (abstract here). This study assigned patients to either tarceva or placebo in a 2:1 randomization to the active drug:

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.

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.