While progress in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been slow, over the past few years there have been leads in management of extensive disease that have introduced a potential change in the standard of care based on better results.

An acne-like rash or dry skin is a very common side effect of the drugs that target the epidermal growth factor receptor, with approximately 3/4 of patients who receive the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhbitor tarceva/erlotinib experiencing skin toxicity. Similar skin toxicities are also seen, but a bit less commonly, with the very similar drug iressa/gefitinib, and also frequently with erbitux/cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody that is less well studied in lung cancer.

After several weeks of posts on other aspects of lung cancer, I am long overdue to write on small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Although it is good to see the number of SCLC cases decreasing over time, and becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of lung cancer cases overall (only about 13% in the US and steadily falling), this has translated into fewer clinical trials and less of a focus on SCLC in the lung cancer community. However, there are some promising developments that may lead to some long overdue progress in the field.

As mentioned in prior posts, the anti-angiogenic monoclonal antibody Avastin (bevacizumab) is now approved in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy. Among the very interesting questions is whether Avastin should be added with other active drugs for NSCLC. Most of us in the field strongly suspect that the survival benefit from Avastin will also be the case with other types of therapy, but we’re only starting to get the evidence to address this.

In a recent post, I described the approval of taxotere as a second-line chemotherapy with a modest but survival benefit for patients previously treated with one line of chemo, usually a platinum-based doublet.

Although we are all frustrated by the relatively slow pace of progress in lung cancer, there are times when we can look back and feel that we have made a real impact. Six years ago there were no treatments that were FDA approved and appeared to benefit patients who had previously been treated with first-line chemo for NSCLC. Now there are several.

As described in a prior post, chemotherapy after surgery is often recommended after surgery, at least for a subset of patients with stage IB to IIIA (without mediastinal lymph node involvement) NSCLC, based on a potential to increase cure long-term survival compared to surgery alone.

Stage IIIA NSCLC, particularly with N2 lymph node involvement, is probably the NSCLC treatment setting that is most controversial. While it is the latest stage that we routinely consider surgery for, it is actively debated whether patients with stage IIIA NSCLC should have surgery or be treated with a combination of chemo and radiation without surgery.

Locally advanced, or stage III, NSCLC, can potentially include patients for whom surgery is an option, but for many patients with stage IIIA and a majority of those with stage IIIB NSCLC, a non-surgical approach is the best treatment recommendation. It's important to keep in mind that the goal of treatment for patients with locally advanced NSCLC but who don't have a malignant pleural effusion (fluid inside the chest but outside of the lung, with cancer cells in it) can potentially be cured.

As we established several years ago that it is indeed possible to do clinical trials with more than 50 or even 100 patients with advanced BAC, we were also seeing that those first forays into advanced BAC with standard chemotherapy were somewhat disappoingting (described further in another post).