There's a website called Adjuvant! Online, developed by oncologist Peter Ravdin, that is best known for its use after surgery for breast cancer in assessing the value of post-operative chemo. Because I don't really treat breast cancer, I haven't spent time on the website, but I do know that it's a valued resource among practicing oncologists who care for patients with breast cancer.

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.

Although I've previously written about the question about optimal duration of therapy for first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC (post here), these conclusions have been based on a limited number of trials. One study randomized patients to three or six cycles of rather old chemo and found no significant differences (abstract here).

As I described in my prior post, the marker ERCC1 (excision-repair cross complementing group 1) is a prognostic variable that is associated with a more favorable survival in patients who aren't treated with chemo after surgery for early stage NSCLC. But this marker also appears to be predictive of resistance to cisplatin and a worse survival in patients treated with platinum-based chemo after surgery.

There's a general concept out there that chemo is ineffective in treating brain metastases, and in fact, I've mentioned it in some comments here in the past. The reasoning behind this is that we know there's a blood-brain barrier, and we've presumed that chemo is blocked from crossing it.

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.

In a post several months ago, I described the results of a trial from Japan, designated V-15-32, that directly compared Iressa to Taxotere as a second line therapy. Although overall comparable, the study showed that Japanese patients receiving Iressa had a higher response rate, but despite that had a lower median and one year survival.

In my recent post on the JMDB trial that randomized patients between cisplatin/alimta and cisplatin gemcitabine in first line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the take home conclusions were that overall efficacy was very similar, with the cis/alimta arm looking a little better in several side effect parameters, most notably a less significant decline in blood counts and lower risk for fevers with a low white blood cell count.

In my last post, I noted that the FLEX trial of cisplatin/navelbine with or without the EGFR monoclonal antibody erbitux was reported to be positive, demonstrating a significant survival benefit.