A member recently asked me whether treatment in the second-line or later setting for advanced lung cancer would potentially improve survival at a cost of quality of life, or whether patients can benefit not only in terms of how long they live but also how they live during that time. Since advanced lung cancer, both NSCLC and SCLC, aren't generally able to be approached with curative intent, it's important for the treatment not to be worse than the disease. Ideally, patients will even feel better with treatment, rather than have to choose between quality of life (QoL) and quantity of life.

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.

Before turning back to brain metastases, I wanted to cover a topic that has generated some recent questions, and that is the issue of potential interactions of tarceva with food and other drugs. Just as an introduction, the standard dose of single-agent tarceva in lung cancer is 150 mg by mouth daily, and this is meant to be taken on an empty stomach, at least one-hour before or two hours after eating.

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.

Iressa was approved by the US FDA in May of 2003 as a third-line therapy, and for the next 18 months it was the only EGFR inhibitor on the market.

I haven’t really covered the history or issues of directly comparing the two oral inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR, which are Iressa (gefitinib) and Tarceva (erlotinib). This is really because over the last few years, gefitinib has had disappointing results in some important trials and is no longer readily used or available, while the remarkably similar drug Tarceva has been approved by the US FDA and is a standard treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC that has previously been treated with chemotherapy.

Although EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy agents have been tested in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC, and tarceva, alimta, and taxotere are all approved by the US FDA in this setting, we haven't had studies directly comparing chemo to targeted therapy. However, we're starting to get the first glimpses of information, including a randomized Phase III trial out of Japan that gave previously treated advanced NSCLC patients either iressa or taxotere.

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.