Several weeks ago, my colleagues Dr. Tom Hensing from North Shore Health System in Chicago, affiliated with the University of Chicago, and Dr. David Jackman from Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, were kind enough to take the time to go over a series of cases in a webinar format. We reviewed the time line of several patients with advanced NSCLC, focusing on two central questions:

1) For various clinical situations, which molecular markers would you be inclined to recommend?

Dr. Mark Socinski, international leader in the field of lung cancer, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, gave a terrific presentation on timing and selection of treatment after the first line setting for advanced NSCLC. In addition to the podcast of his presentation itself, here now is the question and answer session that followed it.

The Q&A portion includes slides with the questions as well as some slides that illustrate key points. Below, you'll find the audio and video versions of the podcast, the figures, and also the transcript of the program.

I'm very pleased to offer the podcast materials for the recent webinar by Dr. Mark Socinski, medical oncologist and leader of the excellent Thoracic Oncology Program at the University of North Carolina, in Chapel Hill. He's been a long-time leader of the entire field of lung cancer for many years, and he's among the best at synthesizing new information into a cogent perspective.

Here is the audio and video versions of the podcast, along with the figures and transcript that go with the program.

[powerpress]

I'm very pleased to offer the excellent podcast produced from the recent webinar by Dr. Suresh Ramalingam, a leader in the lung cancer field who heads the Thoracic Oncology Program at Emory University in Atlanta. He's also a good friend I've known since our fellowship training days, and he was kind and generous enough to refuse the honorarium we offered for his participation, instead requesting that it be donated back and used for other GRACE programs. Instead, he was happy to do this entirely out of a commitment to the lung cancer community.

A topic that came up in a recent expert round table case discussion was the issue of how to manage a patient with a lung cancer for which the pathology report says "NSCLC not otherwise specified (NOS)", or "poorly differentiated NSCLC, NOS". What does this actually mean, and what does it mean in terms of treatment options?

This is part 2 of my round table case discussion with Dr. Anne Tsao, a medical oncologist and thoracic oncology expert from MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and Dr. Alex Farivar, a thoracic surgeon with expert training in mesothelioma at Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle. This particular case covers a patient with a mesothelioma, cancer of the lining around the lung, which is also known as malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Here is the audio and video versions of the podcast, along with the transcript and figures.

[powerpress]

Brain metastases from NSCLC is almost a field of its own. This is because of the relatively high frequency with which metastases appear, the fact that they may return, even after treatment with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), and that our chemotherapy has long been considered to be ineffective against them. In fact, the extent of them as a problem is reflected in the number of thread questions on this subject in the GRACE forum.

The question of whether we should routinely have advanced NSCLC patients with a response or stable disease after four cycles of first line chemotherapy transition to immediate maintenance therapy or be watched during a treatment break has been the subject of several clinical trials and debates in the lung cancer community over the past couple of years.

Over the past several months the topic of so-called maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC has been one of the most timely and controversy questions in lung cancer. We've had posts here covering a trial testing immediate vs.

At ASCO a little over a month ago we learned the preliminary results of the SATURN trial that compared "maintenance" Tarceva (erlotinib), the oral EGFR inhibitor, to an oral placebo in patients who showed no progression after four cycles of first line chemotherapy.