This week I happened to see a man in my clinic who I had first met at the time of his diagnosis with metastatic lung cancer more than five years ago. He's from another part of Washington state, and this was his first time back with me to revisit treatment options.

Over the past couple of years a few large trials have emerged that have shown some value in switching patients to a new chemotherapy after, for instance, four cycles of first line chemo for advanced NSCLC, vs. an otherwise very reasonable alternative of stopping treatment in non-progressing patients and following them off of treatment, until progression.

With special thanks to Harvey and Bernice Janssen for providing support to make it possible, I'm pleased to post a new video presentation on the topic of Timing the Transition to Maintenance/Second Line Chemotherapy for Advanced NSCLC. We can expect new information to emerge in the coming months and years, but here is the current snapshot of what we know, along with a little describing what I think (noted as such), about this important topic today.

[powerpress]

For those accessing the audio only version (mp3), the accompanying figures are here, as well as a transcript:

Erlotinib (Tarceva) was approved for treatment of progressive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after the BR21 study that showed that tarceva not only improved survival but also improved lung cancer symptoms and quality of life. This study and others have also taught us that the benefit of tarceva is much better in those who had never smoked and less effective in current smokers.

It has become a common topic of conversation on this site (and in the lung cancer community at large) to discuss mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, since we frequently throw out the terms “deletion 19 mutation”, “L858R”, and “T790M”, I thought would be worthwhile to explain a little bit about the different EGFR mutations and what we know about their clinical significance.

With all this recent talk about never-smokers with lung cancer, and the interest in stories of patients with so-called “oligometastatic” cancer (minimal metastatic burden to perhaps a single site), I thought I would describe a recent case in my clinic as an illustration of how I use this information in everyday decision making. Mrs. D, a very fit 36 year-old woman with a young child at home, presented to her family doctor last year with back pain. It didn’t seem to be getting better, so her doctor ordered an x-ray of the back which showed a very nasty-looking spot in the lower spine.

One of the general rules in oncologist is that we typically use our most effective treatments first, and often early, though there are certainly exceptions. Women with metastatic breast cancer may have a higher response rate by receiving combination chemotherapy than single agent chemo, but when a gentle single drug chemotherapy or hormone therapy option will do very well and provide fewer side effects, that’s usually the approach we recommend until bigger guns are needed.

Back when I first started doing this, one of my earliest posts (see here) was on the question of whether EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (see introduction to this work in prior post).

One of the central ideas in medical oncology is that if you have two or more anticancer treatments that are active, you test them together to determine whether it's safe and whether the combination works better than each individually. We've been doing this with chemotherapy combinations for decades, but it's only been in the last few years that we have had more than one targeted therapy in lung cancer with enough activity to move ahead with combination work.

There are two widely tested epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) -- iressa (gefitinib) and tarceva (erlotinib).