Search Results

Clinical trial data continue to emerge on treatments in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), supporting the strategy that histology and molecular driver mutations should guide treatment selection. During her presentation at the NCCN 19th Annual Conference, Dr. Leora Horn highlighted 3 specific areas in which the 2014 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for NSCLC focus attention: updates on the assortment of chemotherapy options, targeted therapies and how acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors appears to have become the catalyst of the development of newer-generations of agents, and the revisited role of newer immunotherapeutic options.

At one time, histology alone guided treatment decisions in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but now molecular diagnostics help to categorize patients with lung cancer by driver mutations. This additional information arms oncologists with the keys to selecting the right targeted agent with the best chance of success for different subgroups of patients with NSCLC. During her presentation at the NCCN 20th Annual Conference, Dr. Leora Horn focused attention on both approved and emerging therapies in metastatic disease that target an assortment of molecular subsets, such as EGFR mutations, ALK rearrangements, ROS1 rearrangements, and BRAF mutations.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Over the past 40 years, treatments with standard chemotherapy agents have not resulted in substantial improvements in long-term survival for patients with advanced lung cancer. Therefore, new targets have been sought, and angiogenesis is a promising target for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeted against the vascular endothelial growth factor, is the only antiangiogenic agent currently recommended by NCCN for the treatment of advanced NSCLC. However, several antibody-based therapies and multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors are currently under investigation for the treatment of patients with NSCLC. This article summarizes the available clinical trial data on the efficacy and safety of these agents in patients with advanced lung cancer.

For appropriate treatment selection, the updated NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) recommend broad molecular profiling for all patients with nonsquamous disease. Three different tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are recommended as first-line treatment of EGFR mutation–positive NSCLC: gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib. Most patients whose disease responds will still experience progression, and the type of disease progression drives management. Systemic progression requires switching TKI treatment, whereas patients with oligoprogression and central nervous system progression may have their new lesions treated but continue on their TKI. A new third-generation TKI has been approved and others are currently under development, and new combinations of these drugs with a VEGFR inhibitor offer promise to improve outcomes.

Mutational testing has moved to the forefront as an integral component in the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently 3 targeted therapies (erlotinib, afatinib, and crizotinib) are approved by the FDA to treat patients with specific genetic abnormalities in NSCLC. As mutational screening expands to include a greater number of genes, the results will become more difficult to interpret, particularly if mutations are found in multiple genes or genes that are not actionable at the time of testing. This case report summarizes the diagnosis and treatment of a patient with NSCLC that harbored multiple potentially targetable driver mutations. It also discusses the current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for mutational testing in NSCLC and the inherent difficulties with interpreting mutational results when multiple mutations are found in a single gene or across multiple genes.

Background: Targeted therapies have shown clinical benefit in the treatment of solid tumors. The toxicity profiles and treatment duration and schedule of these agents differ considerably from those of traditional chemotherapy. Many studies of targeted therapies report sizeable numbers of grade 1 or 2 toxicities. We sought to determine whether anticipation of low-grade toxicities and treatment logistics impact patient willingness to undergo therapy. Patients and Methods: A total of 209 patients with cancer (101 lung and 108 breast) were surveyed at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center regarding willingness to comply with treatment based on anticipated efficacy, dosing convenience, and toxicity profiles. All toxicities were Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 grade 1 and 2. Willingness to comply with treatment depending on toxicity, anticipated benefit, cancer type, and dosing convenience was compared. Results: A substantial number of patients (2.9%–48.8%, depending on the toxicity described) professed unwillingness to undergo treatment because of anticipated grade 1 and 2 toxicities. Gastrointestinal and constitutional toxicities had a stronger negative impact on patient willingness to undergo therapy than dermatologic toxicity. Patients with lung cancer were significantly more likely to accept dermatologic and gastrointestinal toxicities than those with breast cancer. Willingness to tolerate toxicities correlated with expected benefit in terms of life expectancy and chance of cure. Lengthy travel distance for treatment negatively impacted willingness to undergo treatment. Conclusions: Anticipation of low-grade toxicities and dosing inconvenience negatively impacts patient willingness to be treated, which may affect adherence and therapeutic outcomes from therapy. Long-term tolerability should be considered when developing and assessing the impact of novel agents.

Background: Despite widespread recommendation and supportive policies, screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is incompletely implemented in the US healthcare system. Low provider knowledge of the lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines represents a potential barrier to implementation. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that low provider knowledge of guidelines is associated with less provider-reported screening with LDCT. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a large academic medical center and affiliated Veterans Health Administration in the Mid-South United States that comprises hospital and community-based practices. Participants included general medicine providers and specialists who treat patients aged >50 years. The primary exposure was LCS guideline knowledge (US Preventive Services Task Force/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). High knowledge was defined as identifying 3 major screening eligibility criteria (55 years as initial age of screening eligibility, smoking status as current or former smoker, and smoking history of ≥30 pack-years), and low knowledge was defined as not identifying these 3 criteria. The primary outcome was self-reported LDCT order/referral within the past year, and the secondary outcome was screening chest radiograph. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of screening by knowledge. Results: Of 625 providers recruited, 407 (65%) responded, and 378 (60.5%) were analyzed. Overall, 233 providers (62%) demonstrated low LCS knowledge, and 224 (59%) reported ordering/referring for LDCT. The aOR of ordering/referring LDCT was less among providers with low knowledge (0.41; 95% CI, 0.24–0.71) than among those with high knowledge. More providers with low knowledge reported ordering screening chest radiographs (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4–5.0) within the past year. Conclusions: Referring provider knowledge of LCS guidelines is low and directly proportional to the ordering rate for LDCT in an at-risk US population. Strategies to advance evidence-based LCS should incorporate provider education and system-level interventions to address gaps in provider knowledge.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with advanced cancer. These guidelines only include information about stage IV NSCLC. Patients with widespread metastatic disease (stage IV) are candidates for systemic therapy, clinical trials, and/or palliative treatment. The goal is to identify patients with metastatic disease before initiating aggressive treatment, thus sparing these patients from unnecessary futile treatment. If metastatic disease is discovered during surgery, then extensive surgery is often aborted. Decisions about treatment should be based on multidisciplinary discussion.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Appropriate targeted therapy is very effective in patients with advanced NSCLC who have specific genetic alterations. Therefore, it is important to test tumor tissue from patients with advanced NSCLC to determine whether they have genetic alterations that make them candidates for specific targeted therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe the different testing methods currently available for determining whether patients have genetic alterations in the 2 most commonly actionable genetic alterations, notably anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements and sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.