One of the themes that we've covered in some of the posts introducing the clinical entity of BAC is the variability in its natural history. In fact, much of what we've been learning about BAC has been in the last several years, and we're still learning more about it all the time. One of the things we've struggled with is the range of outcomes, that some patients can experience rapid deterioration and no response at all to EGFR inhibitors, while other patients can have a remarkably slow progression, and they sometimes will have an astounding regression of disease from EGFR inhibitors.

As I've described in a prior post, one of the most consistent findings in the work with the EGFR inhibitors Iressa (gefitinib) and Tarceva (erlotinib) is that never-smokers are far more likely to demonstrate a response and survival benefit than patients who do smoke or did smoke. Here, for instance, is the set of survival curves separated by smoking status for the large randomized trial of tarceva vs.

Celecoxib (Celebrex) has been studied in combination with chemo for NSCLC and has generated enough promising results to raise expectations but also enough negative data to produce disappointment. Dr.

We'll break from brain metastases for a while to talk about another potential avenue of targeted therapy in lung cancer: the cyclo-oxygenase, or COX, pathway.

Most of the focus on predicting response to EGFR inhibitors has been on identifing molecular markers that are associated with major response to this kind of treatment. But we know that there is a group of patients who get no benefit from these expensive drugs, and in these patients, EGFR inhibitors would just lead to side effects and keep them from a potentially more effective therapy for them.

Yesterday I reviewed a series of studies of the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetixumab, or Erbitux, combined with chemotherapy. Overall, these trials are modestly encouraging, without what I would consider to be a potential antagonistic effect when chemo and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) like Iressa or Tarceva. However, we still don't have studies big enough to establish any role for erbitux. Today, I'll cover the very limited experience of single-agent Erbitux in advanced NSCLC.

In my last post, I described the somewhat disappointing results for tarceva compared with chemotherapy in a trial of unselected advanced NSCLC patients with a marginal performance status. However, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors like iressa and tarceva were developed as targeted therapies, so perhaps they might prove to be more effective if used selectively, in a targeted population.

The emergence of targeted therapies provides a goal of treating the cancer more selectively, thereby minimizing side effects, while hopefully achieving results as good as or better than standard chemotherapy. Although this is important in the entire population of cancer patients, this is a particularly welcome benefit in patients who may be reluctant to or not healthy enough to receive standard chemotherapy.

I reviewed some of the differences in the biology and clinical behavior of never-smoker lung cancers vs. the much more common lung cancer seen in current or former smokers. The main reason it is worth discussing is that there appear to be important differences in how never-smokers with NSCLC respond to some treatments, particularly EGFR tyrosine inhibitors like Tarceva, or Iressa previously.

In a recent post, I described the approval of taxotere as a second-line chemotherapy with a modest but survival benefit for patients previously treated with one line of chemo, usually a platinum-based doublet.