PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of jcoHomeThis ArticleSearchSubmitASCO JCO Homepage
 
J Clin Oncol. Dec 20, 2009; 27(36): 6251–6266.
Published online Nov 16, 2009. doi:  10.1200/JCO.2009.23.5622
PMCID: PMC2793036
American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update on Chemotherapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Christopher G. Azzoli, Sherman Baker, Jr, Sarah Temin, William Pao, Timothy Aliff, Julie Brahmer, David H. Johnson, Janessa L. Laskin, Gregory Masters, Daniel Milton, Luke Nordquist, David G. Pfister, Steven Piantadosi, Joan H. Schiller, Reily Smith, Thomas J. Smith, John R. Strawn, David Trent, and Giuseppe Giaccone
From the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Virginia Commonwealth University, Massey Cancer Center, Richmond; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Virginia Cancer Center, Richmond, VA; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN; Northwest Oncology & Hematology Associates, Coral Springs, FL; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; Hematology/Oncology of Indiana, PC, Indianapolis, IN; Nebraska Cancer Specialists, PC, Omaha, NE; Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA; University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Corresponding author: American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2318 Mill Rd, Suite 800, Alexandria, VA, 22314; e-mail: guidelines/at/asco.org.
Received April 13, 2009; Accepted September 25, 2009.
The purpose of this article is to provide updated recommendations for the treatment of patients with stage IV non–small-cell lung cancer. A literature search identified relevant randomized trials published since 2002. The scope of the guideline was narrowed to chemotherapy and biologic therapy. An Update Committee reviewed the literature and made updated recommendations. One hundred sixty-two publications met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were based on treatment strategies that improve overall survival. Treatments that improve only progression-free survival prompted scrutiny of toxicity and quality of life. For first-line therapy in patients with performance status of 0 or 1, a platinum-based two-drug combination of cytotoxic drugs is recommended. Nonplatinum cytotoxic doublets are acceptable for patients with contraindications to platinum therapy. For patients with performance status of 2, a single cytotoxic drug is sufficient. Stop first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy at disease progression or after four cycles in patients who are not responding to treatment. Stop two-drug cytotoxic chemotherapy at six cycles even in patients who are responding to therapy. The first-line use of gefitinib may be recommended for patients with known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation; for negative or unknown EGFR mutation status, cytotoxic chemotherapy is preferred. Bevacizumab is recommended with carboplatin-paclitaxel, except for patients with certain clinical characteristics. Cetuximab is recommended with cisplatin-vinorelbine for patients with EGFR-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. Docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed is recommended as second-line therapy. Erlotinib is recommended as third-line therapy for patients who have not received prior erlotinib or gefitinib. Data are insufficient to recommend the routine third-line use of cytotoxic drugs. Data are insufficient to recommend routine use of molecular markers to select chemotherapy.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
The US Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for pemetrexed for maintenance therapy for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on July 2, 2009, when this guideline went to press. The data supporting this change have been recently presented and were outside the scope of the comprehensive data review for this guideline. The recommendation on maintenance therapy in this guideline will be updated pending consideration of recently published relevant data.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) originally published clinical practice guidelines concerning unresectable NSCLC in 1997 and updated them in 2003. ASCO guidelines are reviewed on an ongoing basis, and guidelines are selected for updates when new peer-reviewed studies are reported that might change the guideline's recommendations. Since 2003, a large number of publications relevant to this guideline were reported in the literature, and ASCO decided to update the guideline. Because of the volume of literature, the scope of this guideline was limited to chemotherapy and biologic therapy for stage IV NSCLC and review of molecular markers. The recommendations were made based on literature published from January 2002 to May 2009 and primarily based on statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS) documented in prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment strategies demonstrated to improve only progression-free survival (PFS) prompted greater scrutiny regarding issues such as toxicity and quality of life. Table 1 provides a summary of the updated recommendations.
Table 1.
Table 1.
Summary of Recommendations
First-Line Chemotherapy
  • Which patients with stage IV (as defined by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Lung Cancer Staging Project1) NSCLC should be treated with chemotherapy? (Note: In this document, the term chemotherapy refers to any anticancer drug, regardless of its mechanism of action [ie, cytotoxic and biologic drugs included] unless otherwise specified.)
  • What is the most effective first-line chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with stage IV NSCLC? What are the benefits, with respect to OS, PFS, toxicity, and quality of life/symptom relief, in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC with chemotherapy?
  • What is the best chemotherapy for treatment of patients with performance status (PS) 2 with stage IV NSCLC?
  • What is the best chemotherapy for treatment of elderly patients with stage IV NSCLC?
  • Is cisplatin more effective than carboplatin in the first-line treatment of stage IV NSCLC?
  • What is the optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for stage IV NSCLC?
  • What are the benefits, with respect to OS, PFS, toxicity, and quality of life/symptom relief, in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC with targeted therapies?
Second-Line Chemotherapy
  • Is there an optimal second-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC? Is there evidence to support the use of combination biologic therapy as second-line therapy? Is there an optimal schedule of administration in second-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC?
  • What is the optimal second-line treatment for elderly patients with stage IV NSCLC?
Third-Line Chemotherapy
  • Is there a role for third-line therapy in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC?
Molecular Analysis
  • For the purposes of prescribing chemotherapy, what is the relevance of molecular analysis of tissue?
Literature Review
For the 2009 update, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched from 2002 to July 2008 for studies meeting the inclusion criteria of the guideline update protocol. In brief, treatment studies were eligible for inclusion if they randomly assigned patients with stage IV NSCLC to one type of chemotherapy versus another, chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), or chemotherapy versus placebo and reported efficacy outcomes (OS, PFS, or objective response), toxicity, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL)/symptom relief. For cytotoxic chemotherapy, searches were limited to phase III RCTs; for biologic agents, searches included phase II and III randomized trials. For molecular analysis, the search included phase II and III trials, cohort studies, and retrospective and subgroup analyses from clinical trials. This systematic review was initially conducted by Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care and completed by ASCO. For a full discussion of the literature review update methodology and process, refer to the online version of this guideline, available at www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc.
Panel Composition and Consensus Development Based on Evidence
The ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee convened an Update Committee consisting of experts in medical oncology, in both academic and community practice, and in statistics; and two patient representatives. All members of the Committee participated in the preparation of the draft guideline document, which was then disseminated for review by the entire Committee. The guideline was submitted to the Journal of Clinical Oncology for peer review. The content of the guidelines and the manuscript were reviewed and approved by the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee and by the ASCO Board of Directors before publication.
Summary of Literature Review
Since the last update, the systematic review identified 190 papers that related to at least one of the clinical questions published for the first time or that published updated results. Not all guideline questions had new data available. Of the 190 papers, 94 reported on chemotherapy, 23 reported on biologic therapy, and 73 reported on molecular analysis. In addition, data were extracted from publications, abstracts, and presentations added after the completion of the systematic review. The recommendations were based on 52 RCTs and 29 meta-analyses (MAs), plus retrospective tissue analyses that were included only for molecular analysis. Studies that met the eligibility criteria, which were included in the full guideline update, are listed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Table 2.
Studies Meeting Eligibility Criteria Included in Guideline
Limitations of the Literature
There were limited numbers of trials enrolling patients with poor PS (PS ≥ 2 based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG]/Zubrod scale or < 70% on the Karnofsky PS scale) or elderly patients. In addition, there is currently a lack of phase III data on patients who have been treated with third-line therapy and beyond. The recommendations in this guideline were based on statistically significant improvements in outcomes documented in prospective RCTs, primarily in OS. As a result, potentially important issues in the selection of treatment, including toxicity, quality of life, and cost effectiveness, were discounted by the Update Committee during the review process. For some clinical questions, only improvement in PFS was observed. Treatments that improved only PFS prompted greater scrutiny for toxicity, adverse events (AEs), and quality of life.
Recommendations on first-line chemotherapy begin with A, those on second-line chemotherapy begin with B, those on third-line chemotherapy begin with C, and those on molecular analysis begin with D.
First-Line Chemotherapy
1. Clinical question.
Which patients with stage IV NSCLC should be treated with chemotherapy?
2003 recommendations.
Chemotherapy is appropriate for selected patients with stage IV NSCLC. In stage IV disease, chemotherapy prolongs survival and is most appropriate for individuals with good PS (ECOG/Zubrod PS of 0 or 1 and possibly 2). In patients with stage IV disease, if chemotherapy is to be administered, it should be initiated while the patient still has a good PS.
2009 recommendation A1.
Evidence supports the use of chemotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC with ECOG/Zubrod PS of 0, 1, and possibly 2.
Literature update.
The conclusions of this recommendation are consistent with those of the 2003 guideline update. Since the publication of the previous guideline update, there has been an update in an MA of trials comparing chemotherapy with supportive care only in patients with NSCLC.2 This MA compared the efficacy of chemotherapy with BSC and showed a benefit to chemotherapy in reduction of risk of death (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.83; P ≤ .0001) and an increase in 1-year survival. The MA included 16 trials with a total of 2,714 patients; 12 trials used platinum-based regimens, and 13 reported PS. The MA found that patients with a PS of 2 also received a benefit, although it was less than the benefit seen in patients with a PS of 0 to 1.
The most common grade 3 or 4 AEs of an RCT with 725 participants comparing chemotherapy plus BSC versus BSC alone published since the last update3 were hematologic AEs, nausea, and vomiting. Rare but serious AEs included neurologic and renal toxicities.
2. Clinical question.
What is the most effective first-line chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendations.
First-line chemotherapy administered to patients with advanced NSCLC should be a two-drug combination regimen. Non–platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens may be used as alternatives to platinum-based regimens in the first line.
2009 recommendation A2.
In patients with a PS of 0 or 1, evidence supports using a combination of two cytotoxic drugs for first-line therapy. Platinum combinations are preferred over nonplatinum combinations because they are superior in response rate, and marginally superior in OS. Nonplatinum combinations are reasonable in patients who have contraindications to platinum therapy. Recommendations A8 and A9 address whether to add bevacizumab or cetuximab to first-line cytotoxic therapy.
Literature update.
Since the publication of the previous guideline, four trials47 and an MA8 comparing two drugs versus one drug demonstrated improvement in radiologic response rate for patients receiving two drugs, and one trial7 and the MA8 found statistically significant improvements in OS. The range of number of participants in the individual trials was 2894 to 561 patients.5 None of the individual trials, or the MA, testing combinations of three cytotoxic drugs versus two drugs demonstrated a survival benefit with the use of three cytotoxic drugs, but they all demonstrated increases in toxic AEs with three cytotoxic drugs.811 These data corroborate the previous recommendation on the benefit of a combination of two cytotoxic drugs and also show that a combination of two cytotoxic drugs is better than a combination of three cytotoxic drugs.
Since the 2003 guideline, 15 RCTs47,919 and four literature-based MAs2023 were published comparing platinum- with non–platinum-containing regimens. The number of participants in the MAs ranged from 2,35120 to 7,633 patients,21 and the number of participants in the individual RCTs ranged from 28117 to 1,725 patients.21 Seven trials47,9,10,15 and the four MAs2023 reported a significant advantage in response to platinum-based therapy compared with non–platinum-based regimens, and the four MAs2023 and one individual study7 showed a significant survival advantage with platinum-based therapy.
The toxicities reported were higher with platinum agents. AEs specific to platinum include nephrotoxicity and GI problems. Twelve individual trials47,1014,16,17,136 showed statistically significantly higher hematologic toxicities in platinum treatment arms, and seven trials4,5,911,13,15 showed significantly higher nonhematologic toxicities in platinum arms. Contraindications to platinum-based therapy include allergy to cisplatin or carboplatin, baseline hearing loss, renal insufficiency, intolerable nausea despite optimal emesis prophylaxis (ASCO guideline on antiemetics156), intolerance to corticosteroids needed for emesis prophylaxis, and patient refusal to take a platinum drug. For these patients, nonplatinum combinations are acceptable alternatives.
This section of the guideline reviewed data on alternative schedules of administration. The evidence was limited to two studies of paclitaxel/carboplatin regimens24,25 and demonstrated no difference in weekly versus every-3-week administration of paclitaxel/carboplatin. Hematologic toxicities were greater in the every-3-week schedules.
Some cisplatin-based combinations lead to better outcomes than others. Observations that docetaxel/cisplatin was superior to vinorelbine/cisplatin in a general NSCLC population, that pemetrexed/cisplatin was superior to gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, and that gemcitabine/cisplatin was superior to pemetrexed/cisplatin for patients with squamous NSCLC were based on individual clinical trials or retrospective (although preplanned) subgroup analyses.26,27 The data are not sufficient to narrow down the selection of a platinum-based doublet to only two choices based on efficacy alone, and the clinician must often choose one chemotherapy regimen over another based on other factors, including drug schedule and AEs.
3. Clinical question.
What is the best chemotherapy for treatment of patients with PS 2 with stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
For elderly patients or patients with an ECOG/Zubrod PS of 2, available data support the use of single-agent chemotherapy.
2009 recommendation A3.
Available data support the use of single-agent chemotherapy in patients with a PS of 2. Data are insufficient to make a recommendation for or against using a combination of two cytotoxic drugs for patients with a PS of 2.
Literature update.
This recommendation remains unchanged from the 2003 guideline update. Since that update, new evidence examining single agents versus two-drug combinations for patients with a PS of 2 included two phase III trials with planned subgroup analyses by PS,5,28 one phase III trial designed exclusively for patients with PS 2,29 and a phase II trial comparing traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy with erlotinib in patients with PS 2.30 This recommendation is also based, in part, on evidence of exclusion of participants with PS 2 from at least one new study.31 Four analyses reported survival results,5,2830 and three reported PFS or time to progression (TTP)5,28,29; all reported response rates. Participant sizes ranged from 10330 to 561 patients.5
One RCT and a subset analysis found no survival benefit between comparators for patients with PS 2 (a doublet v a doublet29 and a singlet v a doublet28), whereas the other subset analysis and other RCT found that patients with PS 2 had a survival benefit from a doublet versus a single agent.5,30 The only analysis reporting on AEs stratified by PS found no difference between singlet and doublet therapy.5
Because of heterogeneity among patients classified as PS 2, subjectivity of scoring PS, and lack of consistent data in favor of an optimal chemotherapy regimen, the Update Committee was unable to recommend a combination of two cytotoxic drugs for patients with PS 2, and the Committee recognizes that some patients classified as PS 2 may not be able to tolerate even single-agent chemotherapy.
4. Clinical question.
What is the best chemotherapy for treatment of the elderly with stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
For elderly patients or patients with an ECOG/Zubrod PS of 2, available data support the use of single-agent chemotherapy.
2009 recommendation A4.
The evidence does not support the selection of a specific first-line chemotherapy drug or combination based on age alone.
Literature update.
Since the publication of the previous guideline update, updated evidence included three new RCTs,28,32,33 two new subgroup analyses,5,34 one retrospective analysis,35 and one pooled analysis36 that addressed this question. These studies examined optimal first-line treatment for patients older than 65 or 70 years (definitions of elderly varied between studies). The size of the elderly populations in the trials and three analyses (not the MA) ranged from 6735 to 401 patients.34
The results of the three analyses5,34,35 and the pooled analysis36 found no differences in survival between patients defined as elderly and those described as younger. In addition, two trials compared two regimens, with all participants older than 65 or 70 years.28,32 The evidence as a whole did not demonstrate the superiority of one regimen over another for patients who were elderly in terms of survival. Four of the studies reported toxicities, with two finding higher toxicities with a doublet versus a singlet.28,32
In summary, clinical trial data since the 2003 update reinforce the recommendation that age alone should not be used to select chemotherapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Older patients may experience more toxicity from cytotoxic chemotherapy than younger patients but may garner an equal amount of benefit.
5. Clinical question.
Is cisplatin more effective than carboplatin in the first-line treatment of stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
This was not specifically addressed in the 2003 recommendation.
2009 recommendation A5.
The choice of either cisplatin or carboplatin is acceptable. Drugs that may be combined with platinum include the third-generation cytotoxic drugs docetaxel, gemcitabine, irinotecan, paclitaxel, pemetrexed, and vinorelbine. The evidence suggests that cisplatin combinations have a higher response rate than carboplatin and may improve survival when combined with third-generation agents. Carboplatin is less likely to cause nausea, nephrotoxicity, and neurotoxicity than cisplatin but is more likely to cause thrombocytopenia.
Literature update.
This recommendation is based on a lack of consistent superiority of either agent in terms of OS, toxicity, or quality of life across the literature. The literature search identified three MAs3739 and nine individual RCTs24,4047 that compared cisplatin with carboplatin in combination with a variety of other cytotoxic drugs. The participant size of the individual RCTs ranged from 15343 to 1,218 patients.26 Two literature-based MAs38,39 and one individual patient data MA (IPDMA)37 found significantly better response rates with cisplatin versus carboplatin. The three MAs and three individual trials found no significant differences in survival between cisplatin and carboplatin.42,46,47 In the MAs, cisplatin was superior to carboplatin in terms of survival in certain subgroups, including nonsquamous NSCLC, and when combined with third-generation agents.
Carboplatin is more likely to increase myelosuppression and to cause thrombocytopenia and is less likely to cause nausea than cisplatin. There were several individual trials that have demonstrated that carboplatin is more likely than cisplatin to cause thrombocytopenia.20,37,39,47 Data on neurotoxicity are confounded by a preponderance of trials that combine carboplatin with taxanes, which are among the most neurotoxic drugs.46 Cisplatin is more likely to cause ototoxicity and peripheral neuropathy than carboplatin. The risk of some of these toxicities may preclude cisplatin or carboplatin or both. For example, some relative contraindications to cisplatin include baseline hearing loss, renal insufficiency, comorbid illnesses such as congestive heart failure or urinary problems that limit intravenous saline hydration, and diabetes, which limits use of corticosteroids for emesis prophylaxis. Relative contraindications to carboplatin include baseline thrombocytopenia and bleeding risk.
In summary, cisplatin may have better results in efficacy outcomes than carboplatin; carboplatin may have less toxicity. Clinicians must take individual patient factors into consideration when recommending cisplatin or carboplatin to their patients.
6. Clinical question.
What is the optimal duration of first-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
In patients with stage IV NSCLC, first-line chemotherapy should be stopped at four cycles in patients who are not responding to treatment. The panel consensus is that first-line chemotherapy should be administered for no more than six cycles in patients with stage IV NSCLC.
2009 recommendation A6.
In patients with stage IV NSCLC, first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy should be stopped at disease progression or after four cycles in patients whose disease is not responding to treatment. Two-drug cytotoxic combinations should be administered for no more than six cycles. For patients who have stable disease or who respond to first-line therapy, evidence does not support the continuation of cytotoxic chemotherapy until disease progression or the initiation of a different chemotherapy prior to disease progression.
Literature update.
This recommendation is based on four RCTs4851 published since the last update. In addition, there were two RCTs on the issue of continuation or initiation of different chemotherapy (published in abstract form only).52,53 The range of numbers of participants in the four published RCTs on duration was 23050 to 452 patients.49 None of the trials showed a significant survival advantage with additional/longer durations beyond four cycles. Two of the trials found statistically significantly better PFS or TTP with additional chemotherapy.48,49 Of the three trials that reported HRQOL measures,4951 one found an advantage in HRQOL for six versus three cycles on one measure,49 and one found advantage for four versus six cycles on another single measure.51 Peripheral neuropathy50 and thrombocytopenia were greater with prolonged chemotherapy51; however, the studies did not report other significant differences in toxicity between shorter versus longer durations.
Immediate sequential or alternating use of non–cross-resistant drugs for the treatment of patients with NSCLC has not historically proven to be superior to optimal first-line combination chemotherapy.137 With the advent of second-line drugs that improve survival for patients after first-line chemotherapy, there is renewed interest in whether initiation of a non–cross-resistant drug immediately after completion of first-line therapy may improve survival. Neither of the two RCTs found a statistically significant improvement in survival with this strategy; in both, there was a statistically significant difference in PFS in favor of immediate administration; however, the full guideline notes possible biases in these studies.52,53 The Update Committee anticipates the results of two studies looking at erlotinib as a maintenance therapy.
In summary, until more mature data are presented showing a survival benefit, these data suggest that PFS, but not OS, may be improved either by continuing an effective chemotherapy beyond four cycles or by immediate initiation of alternative chemotherapy. The improvement in PFS, however, is tempered by an increase in AEs from additional cytotoxic chemotherapy.
7. Clinical question.
What are the benefits, with respect to OS, PFS, toxicity, and quality of life/symptom relief, in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC with targeted therapies?
2003 recommendation.
Initial treatment with an investigational agent or regimen is appropriate for selected patients with stage IV NSCLC, provided that patients are crossed over to an active treatment regimen if they have not responded after two cycles of therapy.
2009 recommendation A7.
In unselected patients with stage IV NSCLC, erlotinib or gefitinib should not be used in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy as first-line therapy. In unselected patients, evidence is insufficient to recommend single-agent erlotinib or gefitinib as first-line therapy. The first-line use of gefitinib may be recommended for patients with activating EGFR mutations. If EGFR mutation status is negative or unknown, then cytotoxic chemotherapy is preferred (recommendation A2).
Literature update.
Since the last update, there were six RCTs on these topics.30,5458 Four trials examined using erlotinib or gefitinib in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy doublets in the first-line setting.5457 Sample size ranged from 1,03756 to 1,172 patients.57 All four trials reported all efficacy outcomes and found no advantage in survival, PFS, or response with the addition of an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to chemotherapy. In three of the four trials, there were more AEs in the arm with the EGFR TKI (primarily skin toxicities and diarrhea).54,56,57
The sole publication on erlotinib as first-line monotherapy was a small phase II trial comparing it with carboplatin/paclitaxel for patients with PS 2.30 Doublet chemotherapy conferred a significant survival advantage versus erlotinib alone, although PFS and overall response rate were not significantly different. Participants were not selected on the basis of EGFR mutation status.
In the phase III Iressa Pan Asia Study (IPASS), investigators compared gefitinib with carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment in populations specific to East Asia, all of whom had adenocarcinoma and were light or never smokers.58 The primary end point was PFS, which was statistically significantly longer with gefitinib; OS, as secondary end point, was not. Hematologic AEs, alopecia, neuropathy, and nausea were greater with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea and skin toxicities were greater with gefitinib. The results of analysis of PFS by EGFR mutation status found that patients with mutations experienced a better outcome with gefitinib and patients without mutations benefited more from chemotherapy. The EGFR mutation status of most patients' tumors is negative or unknown, in which case cytotoxic chemotherapy is preferred (recommendation A2).
2009 recommendation A8.
On the basis of the results of one large phase III RCT, the Update Committee recommends the addition of bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, to carboplatin/paclitaxel, except for patients with squamous cell carcinoma histologic type, brain metastases, clinically significant hemoptysis, inadequate organ function, ECOG PS of more than 1, therapeutic anticoagulation, clinically significant cardiovascular disease, or medically uncontrolled hypertension (based on exclusion criteria for Sandler et al31 registration trial). Bevacizumab may be continued, as tolerated, until disease progression.
Literature update.
There were three RCTs (two phase III) published on the antiangiogenesis agent bevacizumab.31,5961 The number of participants ranged from 9959 to 1,043.61 Two of the studies reported OS and PFS,31,59 and one reported PFS only.61 The phase III trial that added bevacizumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel and reported OS found statistically significant increases for OS, as well as for PFS and response.31 The second phase III trial, of bevacizumab with cisplatin/gemcitabine, confirmed the PFS benefits, but the analysis of survival results was not yet available when the investigators published the trial's results.61
The primary AEs with bevacizumab included grade 4 and 5 hematologic events, as well as nonhematologic toxicities. Serious bleeding was initially seen in the phase II trial with certain tumors, leading to a narrowing of eligibility criteria in phase III to patients with non–squamous cell carcinoma, as well as excluding patients with any of the criteria outlined in recommendation A8. Toxic deaths have occurred in all trials, including a trial of bevacizumab as second-line therapy with and without chemotherapy or erlotinib.62 Because the addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin did not improve OS and because of the lack of phase III data on combining bevacizumab with other cytotoxic regimens, data were not sufficient for the Update Committee to recommend adding bevacizumab to cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens other than carboplatin and paclitaxel. Improvements in PFS and overall response rate, while clinically significant, are tempered by an increase in toxicity from bevacizumab. For bevacizumab, there is special concern for toxicity in the elderly population, based on a subgroup analysis of the major phase III trial, which showed increased toxicity and no obvious improvement in OS in the elderly subgroup.63 The optimal duration of bevacizumab beyond chemotherapy has yet to be determined.
2009 recommendation A9.
Based on the results of one large phase III RCT, clinicians may consider the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin/vinorelbine in first-line therapy in patients with an EGFR-positive tumor as measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cetuximab may be continued, as tolerated, until disease progression.
Literature update.
Four RCTs compared cetuximab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone.6467 In the phase III FLEX (First-Line Erbitux in Lung Cancer) study, which included 1,125 participants, patients who received cisplatin/vinorelbine with the addition of cetuximab had a median OS that was 1.2 months greater than in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (P = .0441), although PFS was the same in both arms.67 In another phase III abstract, PFS was statistically significantly greater with the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy, but survival was not.66 Positive EGFR protein expression assessed by IHC was an eligibility criterion of the FLEX trial.67 A correlative study of a phase II trial not eligible for the systematic review found that patients with EGFR amplification as measured by fluorescent in situ hybridization experienced better PFS and median OS time.68 These results have not yet been validated in a prospective study.
Febrile neutropenia, acne/rash, diarrhea, and infusion-related reactions were AEs seen with cetuximab combined with chemotherapy. The results of these studies suggest that cetuximab may add benefit in terms of survival when combined with cisplatin/vinorelbine. As in the case of bevacizumab, there are insufficient data to recommend the addition of cetuximab to other chemotherapy regimens. The duration of cetuximab is recommended to continue until intolerance or progression of disease, based on the design of the studies. However, the optimal duration of treatment with cetuximab beyond chemotherapy is not known.
Second-Line Chemotherapy
1. Clinical questions.
Is there an optimal second-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC? Is there evidence to support the use of combination biologic therapy as second-line therapy? Is there an optimal schedule of administration in second-line treatment for stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
Docetaxel is recommended as second-line therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with adequate PS who have experienced progression on first-line, platinum-based therapy. Gefitinib is recommended for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after failure of both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapies.
2009 recommendation B1.
Docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed is acceptable as second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC with adequate PS when the disease has progressed during or after first-line, platinum-based therapy.
Literature update.
These recommendations include both cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapies. They are based on nine new phase III RCTs, two new phase II RCTs, a new IPDMA,69 a new systematic review,70 and two subgroup analyses of phase III trials on second-line chemotherapy that showed overall benefit for docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed. Five new phase III RCTs,7175 one phase II RCT,76 two retrospective analyses of clinical trials,77,78 one systematic review,79 and one IPDMA69 were on chemotherapy; one phase II RCT62 and one phase III RCT80 were on combination biologic therapy; and three phase III trials were on schedules of administration.8183 Seven of the RCTs compared new treatment (with or without standard treatment) with standard treatment or compared new targeted agents with placebo.62,7276,80 Pemetrexed was compared with docetaxel,72 erlotinib was compared with placebo,74 and gefitinib was compared with BSC/placebo75 and also with docetaxel.73,76 Study size ranged from 120 to 1,692 patients.62,75 The recommendation for docetaxel is supported by data cited in the 2003 update and a newer systematic review. Of the eight new second-line RCTs on treatment, with primary efficacy end points, one showed a statistically significant benefit in OS,74 and four of them showed noninferiority.7173,76 Three trials were negative; two trials used combinations including bevacizumab plus erlotinib, and the other trial compared gefitinib versus placebo.62,75,80
Four studies compared different dosages or schedules of administration of docetaxel.71,8183 The three trials comparing schedules of administration found that there was no survival advantage to weekly administration (compared with every-3-week administration)8183; hematologic toxicities were generally significantly greater in the every-3-week schedule.
In some of the studies that compared docetaxel with newer agents, AEs of docetaxel included neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, diarrhea, and alopecia. The most common AEs of erlotinib were rash and diarrhea. In addition, a low incidence of interstitial lung disease was seen.55 Common AEs of pemetrexed were neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, but these were seen less often than with docetaxel. Common AEs of gefitinib were rash and diarrhea; in addition, a low incidence of interstitial lung disease was observed.
2. Clinical question.
What is the optimal second-line treatment for elderly patients with stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
This was not specifically addressed in a 2003 recommendation.
2009 recommendation B2.
The evidence does not support the selection of a specific second-line chemotherapy drug or combination based on age alone.
Literature update.
Since the previous guideline, a new retrospective subset analysis of an RCT on second-line chemotherapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC older than age 70 years was published that compared outcomes from docetaxel and pemetrexed by age.135 Five hundred seventy-one participants took part in the registration trial for pemetrexed from which this analysis is drawn. People ≥ age 70 received similar benefit from both agents. The difference in survival between patients ≥ age 70 versus younger than age 70 taking docetaxel was not significant (median OS, 7.7 v 8.0 months, respectively; P = not significant). People ≥ age 70 had longer OS (not statistically significant) and TTP with pemetrexed than patients younger than age 70 (median OS, 9.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; P = not significant). Toxicity did not differ significantly by age.
Third-Line Chemotherapy
1. Clinical question.
Is there a role for third-line therapy in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC?
2003 recommendation.
This was not specifically addressed in a 2003 recommendation.
2009 recommendation C1.
When disease progresses on or after second-line chemotherapy, treatment with erlotinib may be recommended as third-line therapy for patients with PS 0 to 3 who have not received prior erlotinib or gefitinib.
Literature update.
This recommendation is based on one RCT, the erlotinib versus placebo trial, which was the basis for recommending erlotinib as a second-line therapy option (recommendation B1).74 This trial included participants who had received one or two prior regimens. Erlotinib seems to be as beneficial as third-line therapy as for second-line therapy. In a multivariate analysis of survival, the difference between prior numbers of regimens was not significant. In general, there is a paucity of clinical trial data on participants who have had two prior regimens of chemotherapy.
2009 recommendation C2.
The data are not sufficient to make a recommendation for or against using a cytotoxic drug as third-line therapy. These patients should consider clinical trials, experimental treatment, or BSC.
Literature update.
There are currently no phase III data supporting the routine use of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the third-line setting. Therefore, this recommendation refers to a retrospective analysis of the outcome of 700 patients who had received two or more prior chemotherapy regimens, including at least one platinum and docetaxel regimen, for recurrent NSCLC.84 The study found that survival and response rates decreased with each subsequent regimen. Patients receiving third- and fourth-line cytotoxic therapy have infrequent responses, the responses are of short duration, and the toxicities are considerable. For these patients, supportive care only is a reasonable option, in addition to experimental treatments and clinical trials.
Molecular Analysis
1. Clinical question.
For the purposes of prescribing chemotherapy, what is the relevance of molecular analysis of tissue?
2003 recommendation.
NSCLC histology is not an important prognostic factor in patients with advanced, unresectable disease. The use of newer, putative prognostic factors such as RAS mutations or p53 mutations is investigational and should not be used in clinical decision making.
2009 recommendation D1.
Evidence is insufficient to recommend the routine use of molecular markers to select systemic treatment in patients with metastatic NSCLC.
Literature update.
This is a topic new to this guideline update. The guideline reviewed molecular markers for which there were more than five peer-reviewed publications. The systematic review found ≥ five publications on the following markers: EGFR, KRAS, ERRC1/RRM1, and VEGF.
EGFR.
Multiple studies have attempted to elucidate whether EGFR status can be used to predict response to EGFR TKIs. EGFR status is assessed in tumors using three major methods: at the protein level by IHC; at the DNA copy number level, such as by fluorescent in situ hybridization; and at the DNA sequence level by mutational analysis. All tests can be performed on paraffin-embedded tumor sections, but mutational analysis requires extraction of DNA.
The literature included 37 reports on studies involving EGFR status and, primarily, use of EGFR TKIs (mostly gefitinib).68,85120 In addition, the review included a systematic review79 and an IPDMA.69 The number of tumors analyzed per study ranged from 2098 to 731.104 Twenty-four studies were retrospective, including five analyses of the major clinical trials involving gefitinib and erlotinib. In these five analyses,87,89,91,94,104 tumor specimen collection was not mandated, and the percentage of patients' tumors examined for biomarkers was low. There were three meta-analyses or pooled analyses69,79,92; five clinical trials,88,90,105,114 including one phase III RCT58; and four retrospective analyses of clinical trials.68,91,104,113
Thirty-one studies reported OS. Twenty of 31 studies reported on OS by mutation status, and 14 of 31 studies showed a significant benefit for patients with tumors that were EGFR mutation positive (measured by any of three methods). Twenty-eight of 31 studies reported PFS (or TTP); 21 of 31 studies reported PFS by mutation status, 16 of which reported significant benefit for patients with mutation-positive tumors (measured by any of three methods).
Recommendation A7 supports the first-line use of gefitinib over carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients whose NSCLC tumors harbor EGFR mutation based on a clinically significant improvement in PFS, favorable toxicity profile, and improved quality of life. These data justify attempts to test NSCLC tumors for the presence of EGFR mutation. However, no study to date has demonstrated an improvement in OS when chemotherapy is selected on the basis of a molecular marker.
KRAS.
KRAS accounts for 90% of RAS mutations in lung adenocarcinomas, and approximately 97% of KRAS mutations in NSCLC involve codons 12 or 13; mutations are uncommon in squamous cell carcinomas.138,139 Multiple studies have attempted to elucidate whether KRAS mutations can be used as a biomarker predictive of lack of response to EGFR TKIs. The literature search identified seven publications on trials involving KRAS.87,88,91,92,100,121,157 Numbers of tumors analyzed ranged from 4188 to 274.87 Two studies were retrospective analyses of RCTs,87,91 two were retrospective tissue analyses,100 one was a prospective analysis of patients in an expanded access program,121 one was a pooled analysis,92 and one was a correlative study of a prospective phase II single-arm trial with people ≥ 70 years of age.88 All studies reported KRAS mutation rates. The analyses studied responses to a variety of chemotherapeutic agents and both EGFR TKIs. Six of the seven analyses reported response, three reported median survival, and four reported PFS/TTP. For patients whose tumors had KRAS mutations, none of the analyses reported a benefit in response, survival, or PFS from either erlotinib or gefitinib. Response rate to EGFR TKIs in patients whose tumors harbor a KRAS mutation is close to zero. Prospective phase III data are currently lacking.
ERCC1/RRM1.
Several molecules impact the metabolism and efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents, including ribonucleotide reductase subunit 1 (RRM1), which is important for nucleotide metabolism and is the dominant molecular determinant of gemcitabine efficacy, and excision repair cross-complementing (or cross-complementation) group 1 (ERRC1), a component of the nucleotide excision repair complex that is important for platinum-induced DNA adduct repair. The guideline reviewed seven publications on these markers,122128 including four retrospective analyses of clinical trials, two prospective analyses from RCTs, and one correlative study. Samples sizes ranged from 53127 to 346.123 The chemotherapy in the studies included cisplatin, carboplatin, paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and ifosfamide. The studies suggest that low levels of these markers may be predictive of benefit from chemotherapy; however, there are currently insufficient prospective phase III data to recommend use of these markers.
VEGF.
Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key angiogenic factor implicated in tumor blood vessel formation and permeability. Overexpression of VEGF has been observed in a variety of cancers and has been associated with worse relapse-free survival and OS. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, has shown clinical benefit in NSCLC. VEGF levels are commonly measured in serum or plasma by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The literature search identified five studies analyzing VEGF in serum; four were prospective studies (not all of RCTs), and all participants in these four trials received chemotherapy (ie, none received bevacizumab).129133 All four studies reported response, whereas only two reported OS. The study sizes ranged from 21130 to 160129 patients. The single study that reported significant figures found that patients with low levels of VEGF had almost twice the survival time of patients with high (> 500 pg/mL) levels.130 A fifth VEGF study was a small, prospective corollary study of the ECOG 4599 trial.129 It found that baseline plasma levels of VEGF predicted PFS. In addition, patients with higher baseline levels had significantly better responses to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy than to chemotherapy alone, and low levels of VEGF were not predictive of response or survival.
2009 recommendation D2.
In order to obtain tissue for more accurate histologic classification or for investigational purposes, the Update Committee supports reasonable efforts to obtain more tissue than what is contained in a routine cytology specimen.
Literature update.
Traditionally, chemotherapeutic regimens have been chosen for patients with stage IV NSCLC irrespective of tumor histology or molecular subtype. Furthermore, the diagnosis of stage IV NSCLC is commonly made with a cytologic specimen prepared from a fine-needle aspirate, which often provides a scant amount of cells that may be insufficient for histologic classification or additional molecular tests. Such an approach was adequate when treatment options were limited. However, emerging data suggest that this paradigm is changing. Some agents seem to be more effective or less toxic with certain histologic subtypes (the discussions in the full guideline after first-line recommendations A2, A5, A7, and A8). Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated that the efficacy of treatments could potentially be improved further by selecting drugs based on molecular markers. Collectively, these trends have provoked an attempt to prioritize treatments based on the likelihood of the most benefit and least toxicity.
The Update Committee also recognizes the importance of ongoing and anticipated clinical trials of novel drugs or combinations of drugs that demand histologic or molecular classification for enrollment. Molecular tests promise to redefine patients with NSCLC into subgroups of patients in whom different optimal treatment pathways will emerge. Some studies, such as those testing new drugs for patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib, have been informed by molecular changes acquired during EGFR TKI therapy observed in patients who have been subjected to serial biopsies during their clinical course.
Thus, especially in routine care of patients, the Update Committee supports reasonable efforts to obtain more tissue than what is contained in a cytology specimen. The Update Committee recognizes that the ability to distinguish squamous from nonsquamous NSCLC or to have additional tissue available for molecular testing may be valuable, but not vital, to patient management. For example, the ability to rule out squamous histology in a patient with NSCLC would allow an oncologist to consider drugs that may lower the patient's risk of death by 20% to 30%, which may improve median survival time by approximately 2 months. When considering a more invasive or additional biopsy, such as a core biopsy, the treating oncologist must balance the potential for improved efficacy based on drug selection against the risk of delaying treatment and/or the risk of the biopsy procedure itself on an individual patient basis.
For a full discussion of methods and studies identified, including those in Table 2, refer to the online version of this guideline, available at www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc; also available are guideline-based clinical tools and resources.
The survival of patients with stage IV NSCLC remains poor, and all eligible patients should be encouraged to participate in clinical research trials at any time during the course of their disease. More research on strategies to improve communication between clinicians and patients with stage IV NSCLC may improve shared decision making and increase participation in research.
The data available for review by the Update Committee prompted special consideration of patients who are elderly and/or have poor PS. Future studies focusing on these subgroups are needed. In future studies, the elderly should be defined by physiologic age using geriatric assessments. Patients with PS ≥ 2 related to NSCLC should be distinguished from patients impaired by comorbid medical illness.
Recent clinical trials have identified other tumor or patient characteristics that can have prognostic and/or predictive importance, including histology (squamous v nonsquamous),27 molecular subgroups (EGFR mutation, EGFR amplification, EGFR expression, or KRAS mutation),58,87,91,92,104,113 number of prior therapies (no, one, or ≥ two prior therapies),72,74 time on prior therapy,72 smoking status (including never smokers [< 100 cigarettes over lifetime],55,74,140 former light smokers [< 15 pack-years], and heavy smokers [≥ 15 pack-years]),55,74,140 and Asian ethnicity.58,74 Future clinical trials should build on these discoveries, enrich for patients most likely to benefit, and stratify by prognostic factors, including PS, sex, smoking status, prior therapy, and molecular characteristics, whenever there is a potential for imbalance in enrollment. Techniques for molecular testing of tumor tissue should be optimized and standardized before being tested in prospective clinical trials. Ideally, new technologies should be refined so that they may be more readily adopted into the community practice setting.
This section represents consensus opinion that was not based on the evidence in the systematic review, unlike the guideline recommendations, but was based on literature that used questionnaires, surveys, interviews, observations and analyses of office consultations, and other qualitative research methods.
Patients with NSCLC often have complex medical, psychological, and social issues that their physicians must take into account before discussing therapy. For example, patients with lung cancer may experience depression as a result of diagnosis with this disease with a bad prognosis, loss of sense of self, fears of pain and death, and/or feelings of alienation. Lung cancer carries a unique social stigma because of its association with cigarette smoking. Some patients are angry because they never smoked but have the social stigma thrust on them. Insufficient time and training, system-level barriers, and/or patient factors, such as misconceptions about the disease and treatment, can constitute barriers to effective communication by clinicians.
Research on communication between clinicians and patients with NSCLC has found missed opportunities for expressing empathy,141 observed clinicians using blaming words, observed a lack of discussion on prognosis (20% of patients may not want discussion of prognostic information),142 and found a lack of information exchange and trust between patients and clinicians of different racial/ethnic backgrounds.143,144
Although effective communication can be challenging, intensive training has been shown to help physicians to communicate more effectively with patients with cancer.141,144 A way to involve the patient in shared decision making is to offer a session dedicated solely to the discussion of treatment options; the clinician should present the patient with a personalized description of his or her individual risks and benefits. Another factor to support shared decision making concerning stage IV NSCLC treatment is the presence of a caregiver at appointments, which can help elicit more information from the oncologist, among other benefits.143,145,146 In the session on treatment options, a balanced presentation of benefits and risks is important. The trade-offs that patients with lung cancer are willing to accept for treatments such as chemotherapy vary widely.147149 Physician presumptions about which trade-offs patients with NSCLC are willing to accept may not always be accurate or may not align with patient-reported attitudes.147 Patients with lung cancer may overestimate the survival benefits of potentially toxic treatment.150,151 Therefore, it is advisable for the clinician to assess the patient's preferences and the accuracy of his or her perception of the risks and benefits involved in chemotherapy or biologic therapy for stage IV NSCLC.150 The full guideline also has an in-depth discussion of presenting benefits and risks of NSCLC treatment and suggests language for clinicians to consider using in consultations.
This section of the guideline was based on an environmental scan of the literature. Racial and ethnic disparities are notable in lung cancer. Ethnic and racial minorities experience poorer outcomes compared with whites in all stages of lung cancer. Lung cancer health care disparities can result from patients' risk behaviors (smoking, smoke inhalation, and number of cigarettes smoked daily), socioeconomic status (including education level), access to health services, and comorbid illnesses.152154 Health disparities frequently are the result of ineffectual communication between health care providers and patients.155 When patients receive uniform clinical care, differences in outcomes between racial groups are minimized.152 Awareness of these disparities in access to care should be considered in the context of the stage IV NSCLC clinical practice guideline update, and health care providers should strive to deliver the highest level of cancer care to all patients.
The economic costs of the agents discussed in this guideline vary, and although a cost-effectiveness analysis is beyond the scope of this guideline and did not impact the recommendations, Table 3 provides estimated costs for reference based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Rockville, MD).
Table 3.
Table 3.
Regimens and Prices for Treatment of Stage IV NSCLC (for a patient with BSA 1.96 [weight = 81.5 kg, height = 169 cm] from July 1, 2009 reimbursement data for Medicare Plan B*)
ASCO's practice guidelines reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a guideline was submitted for publication. Guidelines are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. Guidelines cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any guideline is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO guidelines describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical practice and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical trials. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's guidelines or for any errors or omissions.
The Update Committee was assembled in accordance with ASCO's Conflict of Interest Management Procedures for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Members of the panel completed ASCO's disclosure form, which requires disclosure of financial and other interests that are relevant to the subject matter of the guideline, including relationships with commercial entities that are reasonably likely to experience direct regulatory or commercial impact as the result of promulgation of the guideline. Categories for disclosure include employment relationships, consulting arrangements, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, and expert testimony. In accordance with the Procedures, the majority of the members of the Committee did not disclose any of these relationships. Disclosure information for each member of the Committee is published adjunct to this guideline.
DEDICATION
This guideline is dedicated to the memories of Karen Parles and Anita Johnston who, while living with NSCLC, educated, influenced, and inspired countless clinicians, researchers, advocates, and others with and affected by NSCLC. Their work and their memories will continue to do so.
Supplementary Material
[Additional Resources on ASCO.org]
[Publisher's Note]
Acknowledgment
The Update Committee wishes to express its gratitude to Roxanne Cosby of Cancer Care Ontario for her work on the systematic review; to Edward P. Balaban, DO; Waun Ki Hong, MD; Vicki Leigh Keedy, MD; Robert M. Langdon Jr, MD; Richard L. Theriault, DO; reviewers for the Journal of Clinical Oncology; the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee, including Beverly Moy, MD, for review of the Health Disparities section; and the ASCO Board of Directors for their thoughtful reviews of earlier drafts; and to Michael N. Neuss, MD, and Shirley Shuster, APRN, BC, OCN, for additional assistance.
Appendix
Table A1.
Update Committee Panel Members
MemberInstitution
Christopher G. Azzoli, MD, Co-ChairMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Giuseppe Giaccone, MD, Co-ChairNational Cancer Institute
John R. Strawn, MD, Patient RepresentativeHouston, TX
Reily Smith, Patient RepresentativeBakersfield, CA
Timothy Aliff, MDNorthwest Oncology & Hematology Associates
Sherman Baker Jr, MDVirginia Commonwealth University, Massey Cancer Center
Julie Brahmer, MDSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University
David H. Johnson, MD, Co-Chair 2003 Update and current panelistVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Janessa L. Laskin, MDBritish Columbia Cancer Agency
Gregory Masters, MDHelen F. Graham Cancer Center
Daniel Milton, MDHematology/Oncology of Indiana, PC
Luke Nordquist, MDNebraska Cancer Specialists, PC
William Pao, MD, PhDVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
David G. Pfister, MD, Co-Chair 2003 Update and current panelistMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Steven Piantadosi, MD, PhDSamuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute
Joan H. Schiller, MDUniversity of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center
Thomas J. Smith, MDVirginia Commonwealth University, Massey Cancer Center
David Trent, MD, PhDVirginia Cancer Center
Footnotes
Supported by the National Library of Medicine (T.J.S.).
Editor's Note: This guideline represents an abridged version of the complete guideline update and contains the updated recommendations and a brief discussion of the relevant literature. The complete guideline, with a comprehensive discussion of the literature and additional tables, is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following author(s) indicated a financial or other interest that is relevant to the subject matter under consideration in this article. Certain relationships marked with a “U” are those for which no compensation was received; those relationships marked with a “C” were compensated. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.
Employment or Leadership Position: None Consultant or Advisory Role: Julie Brahmer, Eli Lilly (C), ImClone Systems (C); Joan H. Schiller, Genentech (C), AstraZeneca (C), Pfizer (C), Eli Lilly (C) Stock Ownership: None Honoraria: Sherman Baker Jr, Lilly Oncology; Janessa L. Laskin, Hoffman-La Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Christopher G. Azzoli, Allos Therapeutics, sanofi-aventis, Genentech BioOncology; David H. Johnson, Merck; Janessa L. Laskin, Hoffman-La Roche; David G. Pfister, sanofi-aventis, Eli Lilly, Astra-Zeneca, Genentech; Joan H. Schiller, ArQuele, Pfizer, Merck Expert Testimony: None Other Remuneration: Willam Pao, Molecular MD
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conception and design: Christopher G. Azzoli, Giuseppe Giaccone
Administrative support: Christopher G. Azzoli, Sarah Temin
Collection and assembly of data: Christopher G. Azzoli, Sarah Temin
Data analysis and interpretation: Christopher G. Azzoli, Sherman Baker Jr, William Pao, David H. Johnson, David G. Pfister, Joan H. Schiller, Thomas J. Smith, Giuseppe Giaccone
Manuscript writing: Christopher G. Azzoli, Sherman Baker Jr, Sarah Temin, William Pao, David H. Johnson, David G. Pfister, Joan H. Schiller, Thomas J. Smith, John R. Strawn, Giuseppe Giaccone
Final approval of manuscript: Christopher G. Azzoli, Sherman Baker Jr, William Pao, Timothy Aliff, Julie Brahmer, David H. Johnson, Janessa L. Laskin, Gregory Masters, Daniel Milton, Luke Nordquist, David G. Pfister, Steven Piantadosi, Joan H. Schiller, Reily Smith, Thomas J. Smith, John R. Strawn, David Trent, Giuseppe Giaccone
1. Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:706–714. [PubMed]
2. NSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4617–4625. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Spiro SG, Rudd RM, Souhami RL, et al. Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Improved survival without detriment to quality of life. Thorax. 2004;59:828–836. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Georgoulias V, Ardavanis A, Agelidou A, et al. Docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cisplatin as front-line treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A randomized, multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2602–2609. [PubMed]
5. Lilenbaum RC, Herndon JE, 2nd, List MA, et al. Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (study 9730) J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:190–196. [PubMed]
6. Negoro S, Masuda N, Takada Y, et al. Randomised phase III trial of irinotecan combined with cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:335–341. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Sederholm C, Hillerdal G, Lamberg K, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus single-agent gemcitabine in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer: The Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8380–8388. [PubMed]
8. Delbaldo C, Michiels S, Syz N, et al. Benefits of adding a drug to a single-agent or a 2-agent chemotherapy regimen in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:470–484. [PubMed]
9. Alberola V, Camps C, Provencio M, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus a cisplatin-based triplet versus nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3207–3213. [PubMed]
10. Comella P, Filippelli G, De Cataldis G, et al. Efficacy of the combination of cisplatin with either gemcitabine and vinorelbine or gemcitabine and paclitaxel in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III randomised trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG 0101) Ann Oncol. 2007;18:324–330. [PubMed]
11. Greco FA, Spigel DR, Kuzur ME, et al. Paclitaxel/carboplatin/gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II/III study of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network. Clin Lung Cancer. 2007;8:483–487. [PubMed]
12. Georgoulias V, Ardavanis A, Tsiafaki X, et al. Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2937–2945. [PubMed]
13. Gridelli C, Gallo C, Shepherd FA, et al. Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3025–3034. [PubMed]
14. Kosmidis PA, Kalofonos HP, Christodoulou C, et al. Paclitaxel and gemcitabine versus carboplatin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:115–122. [PubMed]
15. Laack E, Dickgreber N, Muller T, et al. Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine versus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: From the German and Swiss Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2348–2356. [PubMed]
16. Pujol JL, Breton JL, Gervais R, et al. Gemcitabine-docetaxel versus cisplatin-vinorelbine in advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III study addressing the case for cisplatin. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:602–610. [PubMed]
17. Sculier JP, Lafitte JJ, Lecomte J, et al. A phase III randomised trial comparing sequential chemotherapy using cisplatin-based regimen and paclitaxel to cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1037–1042. [PubMed]
18. Stathopoulos GP, Veslemes M, Georgatou N, et al. Front-line paclitaxel-vinorelbine versus paclitaxel-carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1048–1055. [PubMed]
19. Tan EH, Szczesna A, Krzakowski M, et al. Randomized study of vinorelbine–gemcitabine versus vinorelbine–carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2005;49:233–240. [PubMed]
20. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, et al. Addition of platinum compounds to a new agent in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A literature based meta-analysis of randomised trials. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1782–1789. [PubMed]
21. D'Addario G, Pintilie M, Leighl NB, et al. Platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of the published literature. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2926–2936. [PubMed]
22. Pujol JL, Barlesi F, Daures JP. Should chemotherapy combinations for advanced non-small cell lung cancer be platinum-based? A meta-analysis of phase III randomized trials. Lung Cancer. 2006;51:335–345. [PubMed]
23. Rajeswaran A, Trojan A, Burnand B, et al. Efficacy and side effects of cisplatin- and carboplatin-based doublet chemotherapeutic regimens versus non-platinum-based doublet chemotherapeutic regimens as first line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Lung Cancer. 2008;59:1–11. [PubMed]
24. Belani CP, Lee JS, Socinski MA, et al. Randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-etoposide to carboplatin-paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1069–1075. [PubMed]
25. Schuette W, Blankenburg T, Guschall W, et al. Multicenter randomized trial for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer using every-3-week versus weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin. Clin Lung Cancer. 2006;7:338–343. [PubMed]
26. Fossella F, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et al. Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: The TAX 326 study group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3016–3024. [PubMed]
27. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3543–3551. [PubMed]
28. Hainsworth JD, Spigel DR, Farley C, et al. Weekly docetaxel versus docetaxel/gemcitabine in the treatment of elderly or poor performance status patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A randomized phase 3 trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network. Cancer. 2007;110:2027–2034. [PubMed]
29. Langer CJ, O'Byrne KJ, Socinski MA, et al. Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) in combination with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of PS 2 patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:623–630. [PubMed]
30. Lilenbaum R, Axelrod R, Thomas S, et al. Randomized phase II trial of erlotinib or standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:863–869. [PubMed]
31. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, et al. Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2542–2550. [PubMed]
32. Kudoh S, Takeda K, Nakagawa K, et al. Phase III study of docetaxel compared with vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: Results of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group Trial (WJTOG 9904) J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3657–3663. [PubMed]
33. Vansteenkiste J, Vandebroek J, Nackaerts K, et al. Influence of cisplatin-use, age, performance status and duration of chemotherapy on symptom control in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Detailed symptom analysis of a randomised study comparing cisplatin-vindesine to gemcitabine. Lung Cancer. 2003;40:191–199. [PubMed]
34. Belani CP, Fossella F. Elderly subgroup analysis of a randomized phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (TAX 326) Cancer. 2005;104:2766–2774. [PubMed]
35. Hensing TA, Peterman AH, Schell MJ, et al. The impact of age on toxicity, response rate, quality of life, and survival in patients with advanced, stage IIIB or IV nonsmall cell lung carcinoma treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Cancer. 2003;98:779–788. [PubMed]
36. Pallis AG, Polyzos A, Boukovinas I, et al. Pooled analysis of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with front line docetaxel/gemcitabine regimen: The Hellenic Oncology Research Group experience. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:505–510. [PubMed]
37. Ardizzoni A, Boni L, Tiseo M, et al. Cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: An individual patient data meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:847–857. [PubMed]
38. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing cisplatin to carboplatin in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3852–3859. [PubMed]
39. Jiang J, Liang X, Zhou X, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing carboplatin-based to cisplatin-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2007;57:348–358. [PubMed]
40. Belani CP, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et al. Effect of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer on patients' quality of life: A randomized controlled trial. Lung Cancer. 2006;53:231–239. [PubMed]
41. Booton R, Lorigan P, Anderson H, et al. A phase III trial of docetaxel/carboplatin versus mitomycin C/ifosfamide/cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin C/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomised multicentre trial of the British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG1) Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1111–1119. [PubMed]
42. Ohe Y, Ohashi Y, Kubota K, et al. Randomized phase III study of cisplatin plus irinotecan versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine, and cisplatin plus vinorelbine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Four-arm cooperative study in Japan. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:317–323. [PubMed]
43. Paccagnella A, Favaretto A, Oniga F, et al. Cisplatin versus carboplatin in combination with mitomycin and vinblastine in advanced non small cell lung cancer: A multicenter, randomized phase III trial. Lung Cancer. 2004;43:83–91. [PubMed]
44. Rosell R, Gatzemeier U, Betticher DC, et al. Phase III randomised trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A cooperative multinational trial. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1539–1549. [PubMed]
45. Rudd RM, Gower NH, Spiro SG, et al. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in patients with stage IIIB or IV non–small-cell lung cancer: A phase III randomized study of the London Lung Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:142–153. [PubMed]
46. Scagliotti GV, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, et al. Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4285–4291. [PubMed]
47. Zatloukal P, Petruzelka L, Zemanova M, et al. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: A phase III randomized trial. Lung Cancer. 2003;41:321–331. [PubMed]
48. Brodowicz T, Krzakowski M, Zwitter M, et al. Cisplatin and gemcitabine first-line chemotherapy followed by maintenance gemcitabine or best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase III trial. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:155–163. [PubMed]
49. Park JO, Kim SW, Ahn JS, et al. Phase III trial of two versus four additional cycles in patients who are nonprogressive after two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy in non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5233–5239. [PubMed]
50. Socinski MA, Schell MJ, Peterman A, et al. Phase III trial comparing a defined duration of therapy versus continuous therapy followed by second-line therapy in advanced-stage IIIB/IV non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1335–1343. [PubMed]
51. von Plessen C, Bergman B, Andresen O, et al. Palliative chemotherapy beyond three courses conveys no survival or consistent quality-of-life benefits in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:966–973. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Belani CP, et al. Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC: A phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(suppl):426s. abstr 8011.
53. Fidias PM, Dakhil SR, Lyss AP, et al. Phase III study of immediate compared with delayed docetaxel after front-line therapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:591–598. [PubMed]
54. Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, et al. Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial—INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:777–784. [PubMed]
55. Herbst RS, Prager D, Hermann R, et al. TRIBUTE: A phase III trial of erlotinib hydrochloride (OSI-774) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5892–5899. [PubMed]
56. Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al. Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial—INTACT 2. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:785–794. [PubMed]
57. Gatzemeier U, Pluzanska A, Szczesna A, et al. Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: The Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1545–1552. [PubMed]
58. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:947–957. [PubMed]
59. Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WF, et al. Randomized phase II trial comparing bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2184–2191. [PubMed]
60. Manegold C, Von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, et al. A phased III randomised study of first-line bevacizumab combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients (PTS) with advanced or recurrent non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) Ann Oncol. 2008;19(suppl 8):viii1–viii4.
61. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, et al. Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer: AVAil. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1227–1234. [PubMed]
62. Herbst RS, O'Neill VJ, Fehrenbacher L, et al. Phase II study of efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy or erlotinib compared with chemotherapy alone for treatment of recurrent or refractory non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4743–4750. [PubMed]
63. Ramalingam SS, Dahlberg SE, Langer CJ, et al. Outcomes for elderly, advanced-stage non–small-cell lung cancer patients treated with bevacizumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel: Analysis of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial 4599. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:60–65. [PubMed]
64. Butts CA, Bodkin D, Middleman EL, et al. Randomised phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin [corrected], with or without cetuximab, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5777–5784. [PubMed]
65. Rosell R, Robinet G, Szczesna A, et al. Randomised phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:362–369. [PubMed]
66. Lynch TJ, Patel T, Dreisbach L, et al. A randomized multicenter phase III study of cetuximab (Erbitux) in combination with taxane/carboplatin versus taxane/carboplatin alone as first-line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): BMS 099. Presented at the 12th World Conference on Lung Cancer; September 2-6, 2007; Seoul, South Korea.
67. Pirker R, Pereira JR, Szczesna A, et al. Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): An open-label randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2009;373:1525–1531. [PubMed]
68. Hirsch FR, Herbst RS, Olsen C, et al. Increased EGFR gene copy number detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization predicts outcome in non–small-cell lung cancer patients treated with cetuximab and chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3351–3357. [PubMed]
69. Wu YL, Zhong WZ, Li LY, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and their correlation with gefitinib therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis based on updated individual patient data from six medical centers in mainland China. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:430–439. [PubMed]
70. Barlési F, Jacot W, Astoul P, et al. Second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review. Lung Cancer. 2006;51:159–172. [PubMed]
71. Cullen MH, Zatloukal P, Sorenson S, et al. A randomized phase III trial comparing standard and high-dose pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:939–945. [PubMed]
72. Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, et al. Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1589–1597. [PubMed]
73. Kim ES, Hirsh V, Mok T, et al. Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): A randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1809–1818. [PubMed]
74. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al. Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123–132. [PubMed]
75. Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, et al. Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Lancet. 2005;366:1527–1537. [PubMed]
76. Cufer T, Vrdoljak E, Gaafar R, et al. Phase II, open-label, randomized study (SIGN) of single-agent gefitinib (IRESSA) or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIb or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2006;17:401–409. [PubMed]
77. Scagliotti G, Hanna N, Fossella F, et al. The differential efficacy of pemetrexed according to NSCLC histology: A review of two phase III studies. Oncologist. 2009;14:253–263. [PubMed]
78. Wacker B, Nagrani T, Weinberg J, et al. Correlation between development of rash and efficacy in patients treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib in two large phase III studies. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3913–3921. [PubMed]
79. Costa DB, Kobayashi S, Tenen DG, et al. Pooled analysis of the prospective trials of gefitinib monotherapy for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancers. Lung Cancer. 2007;58:95–103. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Hainsworth J. Phase III, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab (Avastin) in combination with erlotinib (Tarceva) compared with erlotinib alone for treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (Beta) J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3(suppl 4):S302.
81. Camps C, Massuti B, Jimenez A, et al. Randomized phase III study of 3-weekly versus weekly docetaxel in pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A Spanish Lung Cancer Group trial. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:467–472. [PubMed]
82. Gridelli C, Gallo C, Di Maio M, et al. A randomised clinical trial of two docetaxel regimens (weekly vs 3 week) in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: The DISTAL 01 study. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1996–2004. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
83. Schuette W, Nagel S, Blankenburg T, et al. Phase III study of second-line chemotherapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with weekly compared with 3-weekly docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8389–8395. [PubMed]
84. Massarelli E, Andre F, Liu DD, et al. A retrospective analysis of the outcome of patients who have received two prior chemotherapy regimens including platinum and docetaxel for recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2003;39:55–61. [PubMed]
85. Dudek AZ, Kmak KL, Koopmeiners J, et al. Skin rash and bronchoalveolar histology correlates with clinical benefit in patients treated with gefitinib as a therapy for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2006;51:89–96. [PubMed]
86. Yang CH, Shih JY, Chen KC, et al. Survival outcome and predictors of gefitinib antitumor activity in East Asian chemonaive patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2006;107:1873–1882. [PubMed]
87. Eberhard DA, Johnson BE, Amler LC, et al. Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor and in KRAS are predictive and prognostic indicators in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy alone and in combination with erlotinib. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5900–5909. [PubMed]
88. Jackman DM, Yeap BY, Lindeman NI, et al. Phase II clinical trial of chemotherapy-naive patients > or = 70 years of age treated with erlotinib for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:760–766. [PubMed]
89. Bell DW, Lynch TJ, Haserlat SM, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and gene amplification in non–small-cell lung cancer: Molecular analysis of the IDEAL/INTACT gefitinib trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8081–8092. [PubMed]
90. Cappuzzo F, Ligorio C, Janne PA, et al. Prospective study of gefitinib in epidermal growth factor receptor fluorescence in situ hybridization–positive/phospho-Akt–positive or never smoker patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: The ONCOBELL trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2248–2255. [PubMed]
91. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, Bunn PA, Jr, et al. Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib in a phase III placebo-controlled study in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5034–5042. [PubMed]
92. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, Cappuzzo F, et al. Combination of EGFR gene copy number and protein expression predicts outcome for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:752–760. [PubMed]
93. Riely GJ, Pao W, Pham D, et al. Clinical course of patients with non-small cell lung cancer and epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 and exon 21 mutations treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:839–844. [PubMed]
94. Clark GM, Zborowski DM, Santabarbara P, et al. Smoking history and epidermal growth factor receptor expression as predictors of survival benefit from erlotinib for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study BR.21. Clin Lung Cancer. 2006;7:389–394. [PubMed]
95. Asahina H, Yamazaki K, Kinoshita I, et al. A phase II trial of gefitinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:998–1004. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
96. Kimura H, Kasahara K, Shibata K, et al. EGFR mutation of tumor and serum in gefitinib-treated patients with chemotherapy-naive non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1:260–267. [PubMed]
97. Shigematsu H, Lin L, Takahashi T, et al. Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:339–346. [PubMed]
98. Uramoto H, Sugio K, Oyama T, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations are associated with gefitinib sensitivity in non-small cell lung cancer in Japanese. Lung Cancer. 2006;51:71–77. [PubMed]
99. Shih JY, Gow CH, Yu CJ, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in needle biopsy/aspiration samples predict response to gefitinib therapy and survival of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:963–969. [PubMed]
100. Lee KH, Han SW, Hwang PG, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and response to chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2006;36:344–350. [PubMed]
101. Hotta K, Kiura K, Toyooka S, et al. Clinical significance of epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations on treatment outcome after first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy in Japanese patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:632–637. [PubMed]
102. Yoshida K, Yatabe Y, Park JY, et al. Prospective validation for prediction of gefitinib sensitivity by epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:22–28. [PubMed]
103. Kondo M, Yokoyama T, Fukui T, et al. Mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor of non-small cell lung cancer were associated with sensitivity to gefitinib in recurrence after surgery. Lung Cancer. 2005;50:385–391. [PubMed]
104. Tsao MS, Sakurada A, Cutz JC, et al. Erlotinib in lung cancer: Molecular and clinical predictors of outcome. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:133–144. [PubMed]
105. Sunaga N, Tomizawa Y, Yanagitani N, et al. Phase II prospective study of the efficacy of gefitinib for the treatment of stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations, irrespective of previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer. 2007;56:383–389. [PubMed]
106. Han SW, Kim TY, Lee KH, et al. Clinical predictors versus epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in gefitinib-treated non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer. 2006;54:201–207. [PubMed]
107. Han SW, Jeon YK, Lee KH, et al. Intron 1 CA dinucleotide repeat polymorphism and mutations of epidermal growth factor receptor and gefitinib responsiveness in non-small-cell lung cancer. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2007;17:313–319. [PubMed]
108. Pugh TJ, Bebb G, Barclay L, et al. Correlations of EGFR mutations and increases in EGFR and HER2 copy number to gefitinib response in a retrospective analysis of lung cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:128. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
109. Takano T, Ohe Y, Sakamoto H, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and increased copy numbers predict gefitinib sensitivity in patients with recurrent non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6829–6837. [PubMed]
110. Gregorc V, Ceresoli GL, Floriani I, et al. Effects of gefitinib on serum epidermal growth factor receptor and HER2 in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:6006–6012. [PubMed]
111. Zhang XT, Li LY, Mu XL, et al. The EGFR mutation and its correlation with response of gefitinib in previously treated Chinese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1334–1342. [PubMed]
112. Inoue A, Suzuki T, Fukuhara T, et al. Prospective phase II study of gefitinib for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3340–3346. [PubMed]
113. Cappuzzo F, Hirsch FR, Rossi E, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor gene and protein and gefitinib sensitivity in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:643–655. [PubMed]
114. Sutani A, Nagai Y, Udagawa K, et al. Gefitinib for non-small-cell lung cancer patients with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations screened by peptide nucleic acid-locked nucleic acid PCR clamp. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1483–1489. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
115. Sone T, Kasahara K, Kimura H, et al. Comparative analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and gene amplification as predictors of gefitinib efficacy in Japanese patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2007;109:1836–1844. [PubMed]
116. Satouchi M, Negoro S, Funada Y, et al. Predictive factors associated with prolonged survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with gefitinib. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1191–1196. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
117. Tamura K, Okamoto I, Kashii T, et al. Multicentre prospective phase II trial of gefitinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations: Results of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group trial (WJTOG0403) Br J Cancer. 2008;98:907–914. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
118. Cappuzzo F, Ligorio C, Toschi L, et al. EGFR and HER2 gene copy number and response to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:423–429. [PubMed]
119. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, McCoy J, et al. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization associates with increased sensitivity to gefitinib in patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma subtypes: A Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6838–6845. [PubMed]
120. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, Dziadziuszko R, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization subgroup analysis of TRIBUTE, a phase III trial of erlotinib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:6317–6323. [PubMed]
121. van Zandwijk N, Mathy A, Boerrigter L, et al. EGFR and KRAS mutations as criteria for treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Retro- and prospective observations in non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:99–103. [PubMed]
122. Ceppi P, Volante M, Novello S, et al. ERCC1 and RRM1 gene expressions but not EGFR are predictive of shorter survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1818–1825. [PubMed]
123. Cobo M, Isla D, Massuti B, et al. Customizing cisplatin based on quantitative excision repair cross-complementing 1 mRNA expression: A phase III trial in non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2747–2754. [PubMed]
124. Lord RV, Brabender J, Gandara D, et al. Low ERCC1 expression correlates with prolonged survival after cisplatin plus gemcitabine chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:2286–2291. [PubMed]
125. Rosell R, Danenberg KD, Alberola V, et al. Ribonucleotide reductase messenger RNA expression and survival in gemcitabine/cisplatin-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:1318–1325. [PubMed]
126. Rosell R, Scagliotti G, Danenberg KD, et al. Transcripts in pretreatment biopsies from a three-arm randomized trial in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Oncogene. 2003;22:3548–3553. [PubMed]
127. Simon G, Sharma A, Li X, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of molecular analysis-directed individualized therapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2741–2746. [PubMed]
128. Tibaldi C, Giovannetti E, Vasile E, et al. Correlation of CDA, ERCC1, and XPD polymorphisms with response and survival in gemcitabine/cisplatin-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1797–1803. [PubMed]
129. Dowlati A, Gray R, Sandler AB, et al. Cell adhesion molecules, vascular endothelial growth factor, and basic fibroblast growth factor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1407–1412. [PubMed]
130. Dudek AZ, Mahaseth H. Circulating angiogenic cytokines in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Correlation with treatment response and survival. Cancer Invest. 2005;23:193–200. [PubMed]
131. Lissoni P, Rovelli F, Malugani F, et al. Changes in circulating VEGF levels in relation to clinical response during chemotherapy for metastatic cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2003;18:152–155. [PubMed]
132. Mihaylova Z, Ludovini V, Gregorg V, et al. Serum level changes of matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9, vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor during platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. J BUON. 2007;12:105–111. [PubMed]
133. Tas F, Duranyildiz D, Oguz H, et al. Serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and bcl-2 levels in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Invest. 2006;24:576–580. [PubMed]
134. Belani CP, Ramalingam S, Perry MC, et al. Randomized, phase III study of weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus standard every-3-weeks administration of carboplatin and paclitaxel for patients with previously untreated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:468–473. [PubMed]
135. Weiss GJ, Langer C, Rosell R, et al. Elderly patients benefit from second-line cytotoxic chemotherapy: A subset analysis of a randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4405–4411. [PubMed]
136. Langer CJ. Irinotecan in advanced lung cancer: Focus on North American trials. Oncology. 2004;18(suppl 4):17–28. [PubMed]
137. Grossi F, Aita M, Follador A, et al. Sequential, alternating, and maintenance/consolidation chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A review of the literature. Oncologist. 2007;12:451–464. [PubMed]
138. Brose MS, Volpe P, Feldman M, et al. BRAF and RAS mutations in human lung cancer and melanoma. Cancer Res. 2002;62:6997–7000. [PubMed]
139. Suzuki Y, Orita M, Shiraishi M, et al. Detection of ras gene mutations in human lung cancers by single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis of polymerase chain reaction products. Oncogene. 1990;5:1037–1043. [PubMed]
140. Janjigian YY. Pack years of cigarette smoking as a predictor of survival in 2,013 patients with stage IIIb/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(suppl):425s. abstr 8005.
141. Morse DS, Edwardsen EA, Gordon HS. Missed opportunities for interval empathy in lung cancer communication. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1853–1858. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
142. Back AL, Young JP, McCown E, et al. Abandonment at the end of life from patient, caregiver, nurse, and physician perspectives: Loss of continuity and lack of closure. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:474–479. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
143. Gordon HS, Street RL, Jr, Sharf BF, et al. Racial differences in trust and lung cancer patients' perceptions of physician communication. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:904–909. [PubMed]
144. Gordon HS, Street RL, Jr, Sharf BF, et al. Racial differences in doctors' information-giving and patients' participation. Cancer. 2006;107:1313–1320. [PubMed]
145. Shepherd HL, Tattersall MH, Butow PN. Physician-identified factors affecting patient participation in reaching treatment decisions. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1724–1731. [PubMed]
146. Street RL, Gordon HS. Companion participation in cancer consultations. Psychooncology. 2008;17:244–251. [PubMed]
147. Chu DT, Kim SW, Kuo HP, et al. Patient attitudes towards chemotherapy as assessed by patient versus physician: A prospective observational study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2007;56:433–443. [PubMed]
148. Matsuyama R, Reddy S, Smith TJ. Why do patients choose chemotherapy near the end of life? A review of the perspective of those facing death from cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3490–3496. [PubMed]
149. Silvestri G, Pritchard R, Welch HG. Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Descriptive study based on scripted interviews. BMJ. 1998;317:771–775. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
150. Quirt CF, Mackillop WJ, Ginsburg AD, et al. Do doctors know when their patients don't? A survey of doctor-patient communication in lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 1997;18:1–20. [PubMed]
151. Weeks JC, Cook EF, O'Day SJ, et al. Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA. 1998;279:1709–1714. [PubMed]
152. Blackstock AW, Herndon JE, 2nd, Paskett ED, et al. Outcomes among African-American/non-African-American patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma: Report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:284–290. [PubMed]
153. Earle CC, Neumann PJ, Gelber RD, et al. Impact of referral patterns on the use of chemotherapy for lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1786–1792. [PubMed]
154. Haiman CA, Stram DO, Wilkens LR, et al. Ethnic and racial differences in the smoking-related risk of lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:333–342. [PubMed]
155. Kreps GL. Communication and racial inequities in health care. Am Behav Sci. 2006;49:760–774.
156. Kris MG, Hesketh PJ, Somerfield MS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline for Antiemetics in Oncology: Update 2006. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2932–2947. [PubMed]
157. Pao W, Wang TY, Riely GJ, et al. KRAS mutations and primary resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Articles from Journal of Clinical Oncology are provided here courtesy of
American Society of Clinical Oncology