I go to many meetings in which cases are presented and medical oncologists provide their repsonses about how they'd be inclined to treat a patient. Although we bemoan the lack of much progress in managing small cell lung cancer, one of the effects of that is that there is pretty strong uniformity in how we manage it, since the standards are quite well established.

To begin with, my overall impression is that the preponderance of evidence on adjuvant (post-operative) chemotherapy supports that it can reduce the recurrence risk and improve the survival at five years, which I'd presume to be pretty close to the "cure rate". The benefit isn't uniformly distributed for all patients: higher risk patients, as defined by stage and other additional factors like number of lymph nodes involved and the grade of the cancer, also matter.

Imclone put out a press release yesterday that the previously described, US-based BMS-099 trial of carboplatin-taxane (either taxol (paclitaxel) or taxotere (docetaxel), investigator's discretion) with or without the EGFR monoclonal antibody erbitux (ceteuximab) has failed to demonstrate a statistically significant i

As I mentioned in another post, one of the first branch points in the decision tree about what I recommend as treatment for fit patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC is the question of eligibility for avastin.

This is my first post on this wonderful site.

Recently I saw a patient who had undergone surgery for stage II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and was receiving chemotherapy with another cancer doctor. He came to me for a second opinion. Among the questions he had was what tests should he get after completing all his treatment.

One of the abstracts in lung cancer that I noted as being particularly noteworthy before ASCO 2008, but which I haven't managed to mention since, is a trial of a monoclonal antibody known as CP-751,871 that targets and inhibits insulin-like growth factor receptor-1(IGF-1R), a molecule that appears to be involved with cell growth, balance of programmed cell death, and likelihood of metastatic spread (abstract he

In Japan, a different chemotherapy approach than cisplatin doublet chemo has been used in the post-operative setting. In contrast to the North American and European approach of 3-4 cycles of platinum-based chemo, in Japan they have studied an oral chemotherapy called UFT, a combination of uracil and tegafur. This combination is in the same family as an old chemo drug called 5-FU that is still used in various settings today, although not commonly in lung cancer.

Someone recently asked a question about a recommendation she had received about being treated with a first-line combination of gemzar (gemcitabine) and navelbine (vinorelbine), because we have focused so much on doublets of either cisplatin or carboplatin with a newer drug like taxol (paclitaxel), taxotere (docetaxel), gemzar, navelbine, or most recently possibly alimta (pemetrexed). Why don't we pair the partners of the platinums and perhaps do even better?

I had described earlier this week (prior post here) how the long-term follow up of one of the more important adjuvant chemotherapy trials for early stage resected NSCLC patients showed that there may be long-term adverse effects of chemotherapy. My last post also suggested that the benefit of pre-operative chemotherapy in another trial appeared to be limited to the patients with stage IIB and IIIA disease and wasn’t present for stage IB and IIA patients.

In my last post I described the results of the ChEST trial that showed a borderline statistically significant improvement in survival of patients who received cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy for stage IB to IIIA NSCLC prior to surgery. This study was very similar to another neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial, known as SWOG 9900, which also randomized patients to upfront surgery or 3 cycles of pre-operative chemotherapy followed by surgery.