Podcasts about Erlotinib

An infamous study that led to a drug approval of limited benefit, but still made its way into an episode of Better Call Saul. Erlotinib + gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.9525

An interview with Dr. Natasha Leighl, Dr. Andrew Robinson, and Dr. Gregory Riely on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Guideline Update.” This guideline provides recommendations on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV NSCLC whose cancer has driver alterations, focusing on seven targets - EGFR, ALK, ROS-1, BRAF V600e, RET, MET exon 14 skipping mutations, and NTRK. Read the full guideline at asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT PRESENTER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcasts.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Natasha Leighl from Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, Ontario, Dr. Andrew Robinson from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and Dr. Gregory Riely from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, authors on Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Driver Alterations: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Guideline Update. Thank you for joining me today, Drs. Leighl, Robinson, Riely. DR. ANDREW ROBINSON: Thank you for having us. DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: Thanks for having us, Brittany. BRITTANY HARVEY: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Leighl, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic? DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: I don't have relevant disclosures, but I do have institutional research funding from a number of companies, including Amgen, ARRAY, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, and personal fees from Bristol-Myers and MSD, which are unrelated. Thanks. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. And Dr. Robinson, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline? DR. ANDREW ROBINSON: I do not have any relevant disclosures related to this guideline. My institutional list of research funding is not as extensive as Dr. Leighl's, but is still fairly extensive and includes many of those companies. BRITTANY HARVEY: And Dr. Riely, do you have any relevant disclosures? DR. GREGORY RIELY: I receive institutional research funding from Novartis, Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Moradi, Merck, and Takeda. But those are my only disclosures. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you all. Then let's get into some of the content of this guideline update. So this guideline is an update of an earlier ASCO guideline on the systemic treatment of patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, which was then divided into two companion guidelines, one on systemic therapy treatment options for patients without driver alterations, which was published in 2020, and then this one for patients whose cancer has driver alterations. So Dr. Robinson, can you give us a general overview of what this particular guideline covers? DR. ANDREW ROBINSON: Thank you, Brittany. It was a great experience to be part of this important guideline and an honor. As you mentioned, this guideline is on treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients with driver mutations. And it's a companion guideline to the earlier guideline published on treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver mutations. The guideline followed a robust evidence gathering and evaluation process as a standard for ASCO-Ontario Health guidelines. In this case, we ended up reviewing several phase III trials, as well as many earlier phase studies and specific driver mutation groups. If we look back to 2017, there were four driver mutation group recommendations included in the guideline. We now have recommendations for seven different oncogenes, as well as some recommendations that are specific not only for the oncogene involved, but also the specific mutation within that gene. The non-driver mutation guideline is referenced as well frequently in this guideline, as many of the treatment options that are recommended in that guideline are also appropriate for patients with driver mutations, with the exception of a couple of key mutation groups such as EGFR. Recommendations in the guideline are qualified as weak, moderate, or strong, and the level of evidence for each recommendation is given. For many of these novel agents, the evidence is relatively low in comparison to what we are used to with recommendations based on phase II trials without comparator arms, and with surrogate endpoints for patient benefits such as response rates and duration of response, as opposed to quality of life and overall survival. Nonetheless, it was felt appropriate to include many of these agents in the recommendations, with the caveat that the level of evidence is weak or non-evidence-based. One of the recommendations in the introduction to these guidelines is to continue with studies such as phase III clinical trials in many of these settings, in order to move from an informal consensus-based recommendation, to a recommendation based on moderate to high quality evidence. We hope oncologists and their patients will find these guidelines useful. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then, as you just mentioned, this guideline focuses on seven targets, EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, RET, MET, and NTRK. I'd like to review those key recommendations for each of those targets. So first, Dr. Robinson, what is recommended for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation? DR. ANDREW ROBINSON: Thank you. In terms of stage IV EGFR mutation positive lung cancer, the recommendations in the 2017 guidelines were to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors upfront, such as gefitinib, afatinib, or erlotinib, and to follow that with osimertinib if a mutation was found in T790M, or chemotherapy depending on what was available. In the current treatment guideline, we have recommendations not only for first and second line treatment, but also some acknowledgment and recommendations for treatment of patients with EGFR mutations other than the classical exon 19 deletion mutation or LA58R. For patients with a classical EGFR mutation, several strategies have been shown to be superior to first generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the first line setting. And the panel strongly recommended osimertinib to be used as first line therapy with a high level of evidence, based on the FLAURA clinical trial. This demonstrated not only an overall survival benefit, but a quality-of-life benefit. Other strategies that have been shown to benefit include dacomitinib as first line therapy, gefitinib plus chemotherapy as first line therapy. Erlotinib/bevacizumab and erlotinib/ramucirumab are also options with a lower level of evidence, as they have not been shown yet to be associated with improved overall survival. But they are associated with improved progression-free survival. Most of the recommendations, other than osimertinib, are really recommendations for what to pursue if osimertinib is not available. If we move to patients with sensitizing but non-classical EGFR mutations, the evidence is certainly much more sparse, as are these patients. And the recommendation was for afatinib first line or osimertinib was also considered an option based on phase II data. For patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, recommendation at this time was not to use a targeted agent first line, but to default to the non-driver mutation guidelines. For second line therapy, after tyrosine kinase inhibition stops benefiting, the recommendation was to use doublet platinum chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. The atezolizumab/bevacizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel combination was acknowledged as an option based on an exploratory analysis of the phase III EMPOWER trial, but this was considered exploratory and this regimen was not strongly recommended until further evidence accrues. BRITTANY HARVEY: OK, thank you. Then Dr. Leighl, what is recommended for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and ALK rearrangement? DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: So for patients with ALK rearranged stage IV lung cancer, in the first line setting, next generation ALK inhibitors alectinib or brigatinib should be offered to patients. This is based on randomized trials comparing these to first generation inhibitors, crizotinib specifically, demonstrating better outcomes including progression-free survival and better intracranial activity. If you live in a region where alectinib and brigatinib are not available, earlier inhibitors like crizotinib or ceritinib should be offered again based on high quality evidence randomized trials demonstrating that these are better than chemotherapy. In the second line setting, if your patient has received alectinib or brigatinib first line, lorlatinib may be offered. If your patient received an earlier generation inhibitor crizotinib, they should be offered alectinib, brigatinib, or ceritinib, again based on randomized trials. And later, lorlatinib third line may be offered. It's also important to remember that in this group of patients, chemotherapy, especially pemetrexed-based chemotherapy, is very active. And we would refer you to the ASCO-Ontario Health non-driver mutation guidelines for chemotherapy recommendations when targeted therapy is no longer an option. I should also note that when we drafted these guidelines, we did not yet have results of the first line lorlatinib study, the CROWN study, where we found that lorlatinib was also superior to crizotinib, the first generation inhibitor. This is currently under review by the US FDA. So while it's not recommended in our guideline, we may see this added to future guidelines in our next guideline update. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you. And then, what is recommended for patients with ROS1 rearrangement? DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: So for patients with ROS1 rearranged stage IV lung cancer, in the first line setting, specific ROS1 inhibitors, crizotinib or entrectinib may be offered. Because this is based on very impressive response rates and prolonged duration of response and patient benefit, in single arm studies, we have to recognize that alternatives may also include standard treatment based on the ASCO non-driver mutation guidelines, as well as other target agents, such as ceritinib or lorlatinib, that may be offered. If, though, your patient has progressive disease and previously received non-targeted therapy, targeted therapy with crizotinib, ceritinib, or entrectinib, can certainly be offered. Also, if your patient has received ROS1 targeted therapy in the first line setting, standard treatment based on the ASCO non-driver mutation guidelines should be offered also with consideration of clinical trials. BRITTANY HARVEY: And then additionally, what is recommended for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and an NTRK fusion? DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: Thanks, Brittany. For patients with stage IV disease and an activating NTRK fusion, entrectinib or larotrectinib may be offered in the first line setting based on single arm studies, including patients with lung cancer and very dramatic response rates and prolonged duration of response. However, standard treatment based on the non-driver mutation guideline chemotherapy-based may also be offered in the second line setting. If NTRK targeted therapy was given first line, standard treatment with chemotherapy-based options may be offered second line based on the non-driver mutation guideline. If NTRK targeted therapy, though, was not given in the first line setting, entrectinib or larotrectinib may be offered to your patient. And I think at this point, we really don't know what the optimal sequence is for these patients. But I think it's very clear from the data that we do have, that we want to try and identify this target and get patients on targeted therapy as soon as possible in the course of their disease. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then Dr. Riely, can you review what the guideline recommends for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and a BRAF mutation? DR. GREGORY RIELY: Thank you, Brittany. I'll highlight that the BRAF mutation guideline pertains specifically to those patients with BRAF V600E mutations. The other BRAF mutations that we observed, we don't have sufficient data to make recommendations. But for those patients with BRAF V600E alterations, again, based on the quality of the data and the type of data available, the guidelines recommend consideration of first line use of dabrafenib with trametinib. This is a consideration rather than a should recommendation, given the absence of randomized clinical trial evidence. But nonetheless, we recommend that they be considered in the first line setting. If, in fact, you choose to use a non-targeted approach in the first line setting, then the guidelines do recommend consideration of dabrafenib with trametinib in the second line setting. So it's, again, the first line setting, dabrafenib/trametinib combination. Or, if not used in the first line setting, then recommendation dabrafenib/trametinib in the second line setting. BRITTANY HARVEY: OK, then, what is recommended for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and a MET mutation? DR. GREGORY RIELY: Again, specific for MET, we're talking about MET exon 14 alterations rather than MET amplification with other mutations, which we might call emerging targets. So for patients with metastatic exon 14 altered non-small cell lung cancer, the recommendation is for the use of capmatinib or tepotinib. These are newer MET inhibitors that have recently been approved. And again, the guidelines recommend that they should be considered in the first line setting. If, however, you choose to use non-targeted therapies in the first line setting, then MET directed therapy such as capmatinib or tepotinib should be considered in the second line setting. BRITTANY HARVEY: And then the final target addressed in this guideline, what is recommended for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and RET rearrangement? DR. GREGORY RIELY: RET rearrangements are relatively uncommon, but important in a subset of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. And we have MET targeted agents that are available. The current guidelines recommend that in the first line setting, we consider the use of selpercatinib. And in the second line setting, if patients have not previously received a RET inhibitor, one should consider selpercatinib in that context. Patients who have received a targeted therapy in the first line then conventional chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy or bevacizumab should be considered. I will note that the guidelines were finalized prior to the approval of pralsetinib, and pralsetinib is another RET inhibitor with similar data in this context. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you all for reviewing those recommendations. So Dr. Robinson alluded to this earlier, but Dr. Riely, could you describe what emerging targets the panel reviewed but were unable to make recommendations for at this time? DR. GREGORY RIELY: The development of treatments in patients with non-small cell lung cancer has really proceeded at a breakneck pace over the past 10 years. We've seen newer alterations identified, new drugs tested in those populations, and new drugs approved in relatively rapid succession. We have a number of targets that are currently being studied with new drugs, but we don't quite have enough data yet and the drugs aren't yet approved, so they can't be included in the guidelines. Some of these targets include KRAS G12C, recently seen a number of direct KRAS inhibitors that have been developed and seem to have activity in that group of patients. And that's a hot area to look forward to. We've also seen that patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions don't seem to benefit from currently available EGFR TKIs at the standard recommended dose. And so we don't have recommendations for their utilization here, but there are new drugs that are being developed to target this group of patients. Similarly, patients with HER2 mutations seem to not benefit from available therapies, but there are drugs that are being developed, and we look forward to seeing more data in that context. Finally, patients with NRG1 fusions are another emerging target, but we don't have good recommendations yet or good drugs yet. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Understood. So then, Dr. Robinson, in your view, why is this guideline important, and how will it impact clinical practice? DR. ANDREW ROBINSON: Well, this guideline is important because it's taking a problem that we see in the real world, which is patients with lung cancer with an ever-expanding number of driver mutations, and trying to give recommendations for the integration of new therapies with standard clinical practice. It's important that I've highlighted that for most of these mutations, without phase III evidence, the recommendations were to consider the targeted agent as first line therapy. But also, if it's not given first line, to use it in subsequent lines. And I think we need to recognize that these targeted agents, it's most important that patients get these drugs at some point in their care, even if we don't know exactly what the optimal point in their care is. The guideline was sort of the first one in lung cancer, where we've taken a number of these rare mutations and examined the phase II data, and will likely be the template for what is going forward with an ever-expanding number of medications. So hopefully, we get a bit of standardization out of it. Hopefully, we've highlighted some of the areas that are still unclear and can be a template for the next round of targeted therapy guidelines. BRITTANY HARVEY: Definitely, it's an ever-changing landscape. So finally, Dr. Leighl, what do these updated guideline recommendations mean for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer? DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: So this is really great news. And as Dr. Riely and Dr. Robinson have highlighted, in just a very short number of years since 2017, we've made tremendous progress. We have at least three new targets, many new treatments for almost every class of targeted therapy indication in lung cancer. And most of these new targets are their oral therapies or pills. And many of them should now be offered to patients as first or second line treatment instead of chemotherapy. So for patients, this really means many more will be able to enjoy a chemotherapy-free world, or at least a chemotherapy-free period for a time. I think it's really important for patients and the oncology team to remember that genomic testing is essential. And it's an essential part of the stage IV non-squamous, non-small-cell lung cancer diagnostic process, and in some places, you know, any non-small-cell lung cancer. And this may be a very important part of the process. And it really doesn't depend on clinical factors like smoking. It's really about your pathologic diagnosis or in your tumor sample. So it's really key that we make sure that patients get their samples tested as soon as possible in their lung cancer journey, preferably with comprehensive profiling so we can identify any of these targets, if our patients have them, and then get them onto the right treatment as fast as possible. If there isn't enough tissue for testing, liquid biopsy has emerged as a potential alternative. And I think it's so important for patients and oncology professionals to remember that PD-L1 expression, which is an important marker for immune therapy, is not enough. At least a quarter of our patients with PD-L1 expression that suggests immunotherapy should be an option, in fact, have these actionable genomic targets. And we do know that in these patients, targeted therapy should come first. So again, tremendous progress, many exciting opportunities for our patients to be chemo-free for much longer. And again, important to get the right test as soon as possible so we can get you onto the right treatment as soon as possible. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Well, thank you all for reviewing the extensive literature associated with this guideline and developing these recommendations, and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Leighl, Dr. Riely, and Dr. Robinson. DR. GREGORY RIELY: Thank you. DR. ANDREW ROBINSON: You're welcome, and thanks a lot to the ASCO staff for doing all of the work in sort of herding the cats that are oncologists, as well as getting all the references and the deep literature searches for us. DR. NATASHA LEIGHL: Agreed. Thanks so much. BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

Lorna Main is a nursing thought leader in the UK, teaches nursing at the University of Greenwich and is completing a doctorate.Scientific papers referenced (and relevant) in the podcast:Bowles, N. (1995) Story telling: a search for meaning within nursing practice Nurse, Education Today (15) 365-369Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches 4 th Ed. Sage Publications. LondonCrotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications. LondonDenscombe, M. (2014) The Good Research Guide for small scale social research projects 5 th Ed. Open University Press. UKGerrish, K. and Lacey, A. (2010) The Research Process in Nursing 6 th Ed. Wiley –Blackwell. UK.Gillard, S., Borschmann, R., Turner, K., Goodrich-Purnell, N., Lovell, K., and Chamber, M. (2011) Producing different analytical narratives, coproducing integrated analytical narrative: a qualitative study of UK detained mental health patient experience involving service user researchers International Journal of Social Research Methodology. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20 (Last accessed 7/7/2018)Haigh, C. and Hardy, P. (2011) Tell me a story – a conceptual exploration of storytelling in healthcare education. Nurse Education Today (31) 408-411Hart, C. (2014) Doing a Literature Review, Releasing the Social Sciences, Research imagination. Sage Publications. U.K.Jordens, C.F.C. and Little, M. (2004) ‘In this scenario, I do this, for these reasons’: narrative, genre and ethical reasoning in the clinic. Social Science & Medicine, May 1635–1645Lazzerfield-Jensen, A. (2014) Telling stories out of school: Experiencing the paramedic’s oral traditions and role dissonance Nurse Education in Practice (14) 734-739Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2018) The Code. NMC publications. London https://www.nmc.org.uk/standards/code/ (Accessed 7/7/2018)Ohnsorge, K., Keller, H.R., Widdershoven G.A.M., Sutter, C.R. (2012) ‘Ambivalence’ at the end of life: How to understand patients’ wishes ethically Nursing Ethics 19(5) 629–641Ouyang, W.C. (2004) Genres, ideologies, genre ideologies and narrative transformation, Middle Eastern Literatures (7) 2, 125-131Rorty, A. (1996) Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric Berkeley, Univ. of Calif. Press.Smith, S.M., Soubhi, H., Fortin, M., Hudon, C., O’Dowd, T. (2012) Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings British Medical Journal 345:e5205 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5205Walter, L.C. and Covinsky, K.E. (2001) Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients A Framework for Individualized Decision Making. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/193893 (Accessed 6/7/2018)

Dr. Jack West discusses results and the significance of two important Japanese trials that test the combination of erlotinib (Tarceva) with bevacizumab (Avastin), which shows a consistent improvement in progression-free survival but not overall survival.

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, defines maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC and discusses maintenance treatment strategies.

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, defines maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC and discusses maintenance treatment strategies.

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, defines maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC and discusses maintenance treatment strategies.

Dr. Heather Wakelee, Stanford University Medical Center, evaluates the lack of evidence for the use of targeted therapies after surgery, and describes ongoing trials attempting to resolve that issue.

Dr. Heather Wakelee, Stanford University Medical Center, evaluates the lack of evidence for the use of targeted therapies after surgery, and describes ongoing trials attempting to resolve that issue.

Dr. Heather Wakelee, Stanford University Medical Center, evaluates the lack of evidence for the use of targeted therapies after surgery, and describes ongoing trials attempting to resolve that issue.

Dr. Jared Weiss, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, describes the types of situations in which local therapy is appropriate for treating limited acquired resistance.

Dr. Jared Weiss, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, describes the types of situations in which local therapy is appropriate for treating limited acquired resistance.

Dr. Jared Weiss, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, describes the types of situations in which local therapy is appropriate for treating limited acquired resistance.

Dr. Jared Weiss, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, evaluates a variety of particular systemic treatment agents for possible use in elderly patients.

Dr. Jared Weiss, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, evaluates a variety of particular systemic treatment agents for possible use in elderly patients.

Dr. Jared Weiss, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, evaluates a variety of particular systemic treatment agents for possible use in elderly patients.

Drs. Leora Horn, Ben Solomon, & Jack West discuss the open question of whether there are clinically significant differences among leading EGFR tyrosine kinases based on the specific EGFR mutation to be treated.

Drs. Leora Horn, Ben Solomon, & Jack West discuss the open question of whether there are clinically significant differences among leading EGFR tyrosine kinases based on the specific EGFR mutation to be treated.

Drs. Leora Horn, Ben Solomon, & Jack West discuss the open question of whether there are clinically significant differences among leading EGFR tyrosine kinases based on the specific EGFR mutation to be treated.

Interview with William N. William Jr, MD, and Scott M. Lippman, MD, author of Erlotinib and the Risk of Oral Cancer: The Erlotinib Prevention of Oral Cancer (EPOC) Randomized Clinical Trial

MSKCC medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely reviews the optimal first line treatment of patients with an EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung cancer.

MSKCC medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely reviews the optimal first line treatment of patients with an EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung cancer.

MSKCC medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely reviews the optimal first line treatment of patients with an EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung cancer.

Dr. Greg Riely, medical oncologist from MSKCC, discusses the controversial question of whether patients should continue on an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor after progression.

Dr. Greg Riely, medical oncologist from MSKCC, discusses the controversial question of whether patients should continue on an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor after progression.

Dr. Greg Riely, medical oncologist from MSKCC, discusses the controversial question of whether patients should continue on an oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor after progression.

Medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely, MSKCC, summarizes the development of acquired resistance after a good initial response to EGFR inhibitor therapy and the clinical patterns of progression commonly seen.

Medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely, MSKCC, summarizes the development of acquired resistance after a good initial response to EGFR inhibitor therapy and the clinical patterns of progression commonly seen.

Medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely, MSKCC, summarizes the development of acquired resistance after a good initial response to EGFR inhibitor therapy and the clinical patterns of progression commonly seen.

Dr. Greg Riely, medical oncologist from MSKCC, considers the evidence on whether there are clinically significant differences among the currently available first and second generation oral EGFR inhibitors for patients with an EGFR mutation.

Dr. Greg Riely, medical oncologist from MSKCC, considers the evidence on whether there are clinically significant differences among the currently available first and second generation oral EGFR inhibitors for patients with an EGFR mutation.

Dr. Greg Riely, medical oncologist from MSKCC, considers the evidence on whether there are clinically significant differences among the currently available first and second generation oral EGFR inhibitors for patients with an EGFR mutation.

Medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely, MSKCC, discusses evidence for whether there are clinically significant differences among specific EGFR mutations that should lead to differences in management.

Medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely, MSKCC, discusses evidence for whether there are clinically significant differences among specific EGFR mutations that should lead to differences in management.

Medical oncologist Dr. Greg Riely, MSKCC, discusses evidence for whether there are clinically significant differences among specific EGFR mutations that should lead to differences in management.

Dr. Jack West, medical oncologist, reviews evidence in favor of adding Avastin (bevacizumab) to the EGFR inhibitor Tarceva (erlotinib) for patients with lung cancer that harbors an activating EGFR mutation.

Dr. Jack West, medical oncologist, reviews evidence in favor of adding Avastin (bevacizumab) to the EGFR inhibitor Tarceva (erlotinib) for patients with lung cancer that harbors an activating EGFR mutation.

Dr. Jack West, medical oncologist, reviews evidence in favor of adding Avastin (bevacizumab) to the EGFR inhibitor Tarceva (erlotinib) for patients with lung cancer that harbors an activating EGFR mutation.

The concept of maintenance therapy for advanced lung cancer has emerged over the past few years. Dr. Jack West, medical oncologist, reviews the concepts behind it and treatment options for patients.

The concept of maintenance therapy for advanced lung cancer has emerged over the past few years. Dr. Jack West, medical oncologist, reviews the concepts behind it and treatment options for patients.

The concept of maintenance therapy for advanced lung cancer has emerged over the past few years. Dr. Jack West, medical oncologist, reviews the concepts behind it and treatment options for patients.

A trial studying Cometriq (cabozantinib) for RET rearrangements showed a promising response rate, which led the doctors to discuss if they think RET is going to be the next actionable target in lung cancer.

A trial studying Cometriq (cabozantinib) for RET rearrangements showed a promising response rate, which led the doctors to discuss if they think RET is going to be the next actionable target in lung cancer.

A trial studying Cometriq (cabozantinib) for RET rearrangements showed a promising response rate, which led the doctors to discuss if they think RET is going to be the next actionable target in lung cancer.

A trial comparing Tarceva (erlotinib) to Cometriq (cabozantinib) showed modest benefit for EGFR wild type patients, but the challenging side effect profile should lead us to question if we can identify only patients most likely to benefit from Cometriq.

A trial comparing Tarceva (erlotinib) to Cometriq (cabozantinib) showed modest benefit for EGFR wild type patients, but the challenging side effect profile should lead us to question if we can identify only patients most likely to benefit from Cometriq.