Continuing with the analysis of a publication about tarceva (erlotinib) for patients with advanced BAC that I introduced in the last post, we'll turn now to the analysis that Dr. Vince Miller and colleagues did on the biomarkers that might predict more or less clinical benefit with an EGFR inhibitor like tarceva (abstract here).

Completing the analysis of the randomized trial that compared alimta (pemetrexed) and taxotere (docetaxel) in second line treatment of NSCLC (abstract here), which showed nearly identical response rates and survival but a more favorable side effect profile with alimta, another retrospective review of results looked at differences between the arms in older vs.

One of the issues we struggle the most with, as oncologists, patients, and families, is how to choose a therapy that won’t make someone feel worse. There are so many things to factor into these decisions: what is the baseline function of the person, what comorbidities (other chronic illnesses) might interact or interfere, what side effects are acceptable or worth the risk, to what degree is the cancer interfering with their functioning and can this be reversed with chemo, and of course what does any individual patient want and expect from chemo?

While there is a lot of variability in the clinical behavior of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), there are some commonly observed findings that are now leading lung cancer experts to consider it as a distinct clinical entity worthy of special consideration for management. Among the important areas for potentially special clinical management is in surgical management of early stage disease.

I had previously written about a spectrum from pure bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) to invasive adenocarcinoma in one of my first posts here, but the real credit for this concept goes back to Dr.

PET scans are an important way to discriminate between metabolically active nodules, suggestive of cancer but sometimes representing inflammation or infection, and non-PET-avid lesions that are felt much likely to represent cancer. They are also a cornerstone of "clinical" staging by imaging and patient exam (vs. "pathologic" staging by surgery to clarify where cancer is or isn’t).

Several trials have recently opened up for never-smokers with any lung adenocarcinoma or those with BAC (or adeno/BAC mix, invasive adenocarcinoma with BAC features) with any smoking status. Both of these groups have only recently gained recognition as likely being a distinct clinical entity with a different natural history (clinical behavior outside of treatment) and pattern of responsiveness to treatments that is different from other types of lung cancer.

Despite the fact that a very significant proportion of the "real world" patients have considerable medical problems such as markedly decreased lung function (pretty common with many years of smoking), weight loss (5 or 10% of body weight is usually considered a problem), or otherwise are not able to be very active.

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.

The fact is that lung cancer, like many others, is a disease disproportionately affecting older populations, with the median age now in the 69-70 range.

(Click to enlarge)