Chemotherapy after surgery has become increasingly well established as beneficial for many patients who have undergone surgery for early stage NSCLC, at least for stage II and IIIA resected disease (stage IB has had more mixed results and remains quite debatable). The chemo regimens that have been most clearly shown to confer improved survival are cisplatin-based and can have very challenging toxicity in anybody, especially after a major lung surgery.

Immune-based approaches in lung cancer tend to generate significant buzz among patients and the general public, as well as in the media, but not as much optimism within the oncology world. Much of that is for good reason: while the concept of a minimally toxic, long-lasting anti-cancer approach like a vaccine is very appealing to all of us, oncologists have seen many hyped immune-based therapies deliver far less than their promise. This is for several reasons.

In contrast to the guidelines that exist for treating advanced lung cancer in the first-line setting for 4-6 cycles, there are really just practice patterns and good judgment to guide decisions of how long to treat in the second-line therapy. First, this is a relatively new question. As I previously mentioned when describing the history of treatment for advanced lung cancer, ten years ago there was plenty of debate about whether the benefits of treating NSCLC were sufficient to make this a standard of care.

The guidelines from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for NSCLC start the discussion on how long to continue first-line chemo as follows: "The optimal duration of chemotherapy remains a matter of debate." Just in case you thought it was only me saying that we don't know the exact answer for one issue or another, the evidence-based guidelines are filled with hedge comments like this.

In my last post, I described our evolving recognition in the lung cancer field that significant response as the threshold for clinical benefit is too high and that stable disease is likely a relative benefit as well. An important trial presented by Dr.

It's only been in the past few years that we have begun to appreciate that there may be many different subgroups of patients who fit within the broader lung cancer population. We now have begun to see differences in the safety and/or activity of certain drugs in never-smokers vs. smokers, patients with adenocarcinomas (and especially bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, or BAC)vs. squamous cell carcinomas or other subtypes, and even in women compared with men.

For patients with locally advanced NSCLC, the question of whether to pursue a surgical or a non-surgical approach has a great deal to do with the extent of mediastinal (middle of the chest) lymph node involvement. The mediastinal nodes are shown here:

As I described in a prior post, pre-operative chemo and radiation are one very reasonable, aggressive option for stage IIIA NSCLC, particularly if the mediastinal lymph nodes involved are not large and there is only a single lymph node area involved.

As a medical oncologist, my primary role is to direct general management plans for many cancer patients and to develop chemotherapy and targeted therapy regimens. These regimens are sometimes directly administered through my office, and sometimes are coordinated with oncologists closer to a patient's home. The treatment is pretty much a cookbook approach, so it's really the same no matter who administers it.

As I noted in prior posts on the subject of unresectable stage III NSCLC, there is a general consensus that overlapping chemo and radiation is associated with better cure rates for this stage of locally advanced NSCLC than doing one followed by the other. At the same time, however, the overlapping, or concurrent chemo and radiation approach is associated with more challenges in terms of side effects, particularly esophagitis, as well as greater drops in blood counts, and potentially more inflammation in the lungs, or pneumonitis.