Continuing with this series of case-based podcasts we've done in partnership with LUNGevity, we'll again have a series of experts offer their own perspective to another challenging scenario. All are with the same format of me hosting and presenting the case to Drs. Bob Doebele from University of Colorado and Jyoti Patel from Northwestern University, who participated in the live webinar version of this, then followed in the recording by other terrific colleagues of mine weighing on the same case. These experts are:

Over the last 5 years, it’s become standard to consider and often recommend post-operative chemotherapy to patients with higher risk, early stage lung cancer in order to reduce the risk of it recurring and increase the cure rate. In that time, we’ve also seen that there are subgroups of patients who may be harmed by chemo. This may be because their risk of recurrence is not high enough to justify the potentially detrimental effects of adjuvant chemotherapy, or because they are relatively resistant to chemo, or a combination of these issues.

The decision about pursuing post-operative treatment is often difficult and requires carefully weighing the risks of treatment with potentially challenging and even dangerous chemotherapy against the potential to eradicate micrometastases and actually lead some people to be cured who otherwise wouldn't be. It's important to remember that some people are already cured, while others won't be cured even with treatment.

While there are good reasons to not pursue chemo after surgery for stage I NSCLC, there are several factors that argue at least for strong consideration of adjuvant chemotherapy for higher risk patients. Because stage IB generally has a less favorable prognosis than stage IA, it's not suprising that the debate about which patients should or should not be receiving post-op chemo has centered more on the stage IB population, which have much more commonly been included in trials testing the value of adjuvant chemotherapy.