Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Giuseppe Giaccone is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Giuseppe Giaccone.


Lancet Oncology | 2010

Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study

Federico Cappuzzo; Tudor Ciuleanu; Lilia Stelmakh; Saulius Cicenas; Aleksandra Szczesna; Erzsébet Juhász; Emilio Esteban; Olivier Molinier; Wolfram Brugger; Ivan Melezínek; Gaelle Klingelschmitt; Barbara Klughammer; Giuseppe Giaccone

BACKGROUND First-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is usually limited to four to six cycles. Maintenance therapy can delay progression and prolong survival. The oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine-kinase inhibitor erlotinib has proven efficacy and tolerability in second-line NSCLC. We designed the phase 3, placebo-controlled Sequential Tarceva in Unresectable NSCLC (SATURN; BO18192) study to assess use of erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with non-progressive disease following first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. METHODS Between December, 2005, and May, 2008, 1949 patients were included in the run-in phase (four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy). At the end of the run-in phase, 889 patients who did not have progressive disease were entered into the main study, and were randomly allocated using a 1:1 adaptive randomisation method through a third-party interactive voice response system to receive erlotinib (150 mg/day; n=438) or placebo (n=451) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by EGFR immunohistochemistry status, stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, chemotherapy regimen, smoking history, and region. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all analysable patients irrespective of EGFR status, and PFS in patients whose tumours had EGFR protein overexpression, as determined by immunohistochemistry. This study is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00556712. FINDINGS 884 patients were analysable for PFS; 437 in the erlotinib group and 447 in the placebo group. After a median follow-up of 11.4 months for the erlotinib group and 11.5 months for the placebo group, median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib than with placebo: 12.3 weeks for patients in the erlotinib group versus 11.1 weeks for those in the placebo group (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.82; p<0.0001). PFS was also significantly longer in patients with EGFR-positive immunohistochemistry who were treated with erlotinib (n=307) compared with EGFR-positive patients given placebo (n=311; median PFS 12.3 weeks in the erlotinib group vs 11.1 weeks in the placebo group; HR 0.69, 0.58-0.82; p<0.0001). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were rash (37 [9%] of 443 patients in the erlotinib group vs none of 445 in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (seven [2%] of 443 patients vs none of 445). Serious adverse events were reported in 47 patients (11%) on erlotinib compared with 34 patients (8%) on placebo. The most common serious adverse event was pneumonia (seven cases [2%] with erlotinib and four [<1%] with placebo). INTERPRETATION Maintenance therapy with erlotinib for patients with NSCLC is well tolerated and significantly prolongs PFS compared with placebo. First-line maintenance with erlotinib could be considered in patients who do not progress after four cycles of chemotherapy. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.


Journal of Thoracic Oncology | 2013

Molecular Testing Guideline for Selection of Lung Cancer Patients for EGFR and ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology

Neal I. Lindeman; Philip T. Cagle; Mary Beth Beasley; Dhananjay Chitale; Sanja Dacic; Giuseppe Giaccone; Robert B. Jenkins; David J. Kwiatkowski; Juan Sebastian Saldivar; Jeremy A. Squire; Marc Ladanyi

Objective: To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Participants: Three cochairs without conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the 3 sponsoring professional societies: College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Writing and advisory panels were constituted from additional experts from these societies. Evidence: Three unbiased literature searches of electronic databases were performed to capture articles published published from January 2004 through February 2012, yielding 1533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for their relevance to the recommendations. Evidence was formally graded for each recommendation. Consensus Process: Initial recommendations were formulated by the cochairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least 2 panelists. Drafts were circulated to the writing panel (version 1), advisory panel (version 2), and the public (version 3) before submission (version 4). Conclusions: The 37 guideline items address 14 subjects, including 15 recommendations (evidence grade A/B). The major recommendations are to use testing for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions to guide patient selection for therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, respectively, in all patients with advanced-stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, smoking history, or other clinical risk factors, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards. Already, new treatments targeting genetic alterations in other, less common driver oncogenes are being evaluated in lung cancer, and testing for these may be addressed in future versions of these guidelines.


JAMA | 2014

Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs.

Mark G. Kris; Bruce E. Johnson; Lynne D. Berry; David J. Kwiatkowski; A. John Iafrate; Ignacio I. Wistuba; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Wilbur A. Franklin; Samuel L. Aronson; Pei Fang Su; Yu Shyr; D. Ross Camidge; Lecia V. Sequist; Bonnie S. Glisson; Fadlo R. Khuri; Edward B. Garon; William Pao; Charles M. Rudin; Joan H. Schiller; Eric B. Haura; Mark A. Socinski; Keisuke Shirai; Heidi Chen; Giuseppe Giaccone; Marc Ladanyi; Kelly Kugler; John D. Minna; Paul A. Bunn

IMPORTANCE Targeting oncogenic drivers (genomic alterations critical to cancer development and maintenance) has transformed the care of patients with lung adenocarcinomas. The Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium was formed to perform multiplexed assays testing adenocarcinomas of the lung for drivers in 10 genes to enable clinicians to select targeted treatments and enroll patients into clinical trials. OBJECTIVES To determine the frequency of oncogenic drivers in patients with lung adenocarcinomas and to use the data to select treatments targeting the identified driver(s) and measure survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From 2009 through 2012, 14 sites in the United States enrolled patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinomas and a performance status of 0 through 2 and tested their tumors for 10 drivers. Information was collected on patients, therapies, and survival. INTERVENTIONS Tumors were tested for 10 oncogenic drivers, and results were used to select matched targeted therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Determination of the frequency of oncogenic drivers, the proportion of patients treated with genotype-directed therapy, and survival. RESULTS From 2009 through 2012, tumors from 1007 patients were tested for at least 1 gene and 733 for 10 genes (patients with full genotyping). An oncogenic driver was found in 466 of 733 patients (64%). Among these 733 tumors, 182 tumors (25%) had the KRAS driver; sensitizing EGFR, 122 (17%); ALK rearrangements, 57 (8%); other EGFR, 29 (4%); 2 or more genes, 24 (3%); ERBB2 (formerly HER2), 19 (3%); BRAF, 16 (2%); PIK3CA, 6 (<1%); MET amplification, 5 (<1%); NRAS, 5 (<1%); MEK1, 1 (<1%); AKT1, 0. Results were used to select a targeted therapy or trial in 275 of 1007 patients (28%). The median survival was 3.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.96-7.70) for the 260 patients with an oncogenic driver and genotype-directed therapy compared with 2.4 years (IQR, 0.88-6.20) for the 318 patients with any oncogenic driver(s) who did not receive genotype-directed therapy (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.9], P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Actionable drivers were detected in 64% of lung adenocarcinomas. Multiplexed testing aided physicians in selecting therapies. Although individuals with drivers receiving a matched targeted agent lived longer, randomized trials are required to determine if targeting therapy based on oncogenic drivers improves survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01014286.


Lancet Oncology | 2013

Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomised controlled trial

Marina Chiara Garassino; Olga Martelli; Massimo Broggini; Gabriella Farina; Silvio Veronese; Eliana Rulli; Filippo Bianchi; Anna Bettini; Flavia Longo; Luca Moscetti; Maurizio Tomirotti; Mirko Marabese; Monica Ganzinelli; Calogero Lauricella; Roberto Labianca; Irene Floriani; Giuseppe Giaccone; Valter Torri; Alberto Scanni; Silvia Marsoni

BACKGROUND Erlotinib is registered for treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its efficacy for treatment of patients whose tumours are EGFR wild-type-which includes most patients-is still contentious. We assessed the efficacy of erlotinib compared with a standard second-line chemotherapy in such patients. METHODS We did this randomised controlled trial in 52 Italian hospitals. We enrolled patients who had metastatic NSCLC, had had platinum-based chemotherapy, and had wild-type EGFR as assessed by direct sequencing. Patients were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to receive either erlotinib orally 150 mg/day or docetaxel intravenously 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days or 35 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days. Randomisation was stratified by centre, stage, type of first-line chemotherapy, and performance status. Patients and investigators who gave treatments or assessed outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, investigators who analysed results were. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00637910. FINDINGS We screened 702 patients, of whom we genotyped 540. 222 patients were enrolled (110 assigned to docetaxel vs 112 assigned to erlotinib). Median overall survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 5·8-10·9) with docetaxel versus 5·4 months (4·5-6·8) with erlotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·53-1·00; p=0·05). Progression-free survival was significantly better with docetaxel than with erlotinib: median progression-free survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·4-3·8) with docetaxel versus 2·4 months (2·1-2·6) with erlotinib (adjusted HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·02). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were: low absolute neutrophil count (21 [20%] of 104 in the docetaxel group vs none of 107 in the erlotinib group), skin toxic effects (none vs 15 [14%]), and asthenia (ten [10%] vs six [6%]). INTERPRETATION Our results show that chemotherapy is more effective than erlotinib for second-line treatment for previously treated patients with NSCLC who have wild-type EGFR tumours.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2008

Biomarkers of Response to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Working Group: Standardization for Use in the Clinical Trial Setting

David A. Eberhard; Giuseppe Giaccone; Bruce E. Johnson

The body of literature on the correlations between molecular assessments and patient outcomes after treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors continues to grow. It will be important in the future to determine how to most effectively integrate molecular assays that assess the likelihood of therapeutic benefit into clinical practice. Although EGFR-targeted therapies such as erlotinib have been approved for use without molecular testing, immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and mutational analyses of the EGFR gene have all been proposed as candidates to help predict response or survival benefit from EGFR-targeted therapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Further prospective validation from ongoing randomized studies will be needed to fully determine which assays are best to help predict patient outcome. In addition, it will be critical for these assays to undergo standardization before widespread clinical use. The Molecular Assays in NSCLC Working Group, under the sponsorship of Genentech Inc, Roche Pharmaceuticals, and OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc, was convened to evaluate the available molecular assays for use in the clinical trial setting and provide recommendations for application and interpretation of these tests for future clinical trials. Recommendations of the Molecular Assays in NSCLC Working Group for the use of EGFR molecular assays are presented and include guidelines for tissue storage, handling, and processing. Recommendations for the standardization of molecular assays are also discussed.


The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics | 2013

Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Guideline from the college of american pathologists, international association for the study of lung cancer, and association for molecular pathology

Neal I. Lindeman; Philip T. Cagle; Mary Beth Beasley; Dhananjay Chitale; Sanja Dacic; Giuseppe Giaccone; Robert B. Jenkins; David J. Kwiatkowski; Juan Sebastian Saldivar; Jeremy A. Squire; Marc Ladanyi

OBJECTIVE To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. PARTICIPANTS Three cochairs without conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the 3 sponsoring professional societies: College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Writing and advisory panels were constituted from additional experts from these societies. EVIDENCE Three unbiased literature searches of electronic databases were performed to capture published articles from January 2004 through February 2012, yielding 1533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for their relevance to the recommendations. EVIDENCE was formally graded for each recommendation. CONSENSUS PROCESS Initial recommendations were formulated by the cochairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least 2 panelists. Drafts were circulated to the writing panel (version 1), advisory panel (version 2), and the public (version 3) before submission (version 4). CONCLUSIONS The 37 guideline items address 14 subjects, including 15 recommendations (evidence grade A/B). The major recommendations are to use testing for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions to guide patient selection for therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, respectively, in all patients with advanced-stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, smoking history, or other clinical risk factors, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards. Already, new treatments targeting genetic alterations in other, less common driver oncogenes are being evaluated in lung cancer, and testing for these may be addressed in future versions of these guidelines.


Clinical Cancer Research | 2012

Phase II Study of Single-Agent Navitoclax (ABT-263) and Biomarker Correlates in Patients with Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer

Charles M. Rudin; Christine L. Hann; Edward B. Garon; Moacyr Ribeiro de Oliveira; Philip Bonomi; D. Ross Camidge; Quincy Chu; Giuseppe Giaccone; Divis Khaira; Suresh S. Ramalingam; Malcolm R Ranson; Caroline Dive; Evelyn McKeegan; Brenda Chyla; Barry L. Dowell; Arunava Chakravartty; Cathy E. Nolan; Niki S. Rudersdorf; Todd Busman; Mack Mabry; Andrew Krivoshik; Rod Humerickhouse; Geoffrey I. Shapiro; Leena Gandhi

Purpose: Bcl-2 is a critical regulator of apoptosis that is overexpressed in the majority of small cell lung cancers (SCLC). Nativoclax (ABT-263) is a potent and selective inhibitor of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL. The primary objectives of this phase IIa study included safety at the recommended phase II dose and preliminary, exploratory efficacy assessment in patients with recurrent and progressive SCLC after at least one prior therapy. Experimental Design: Thirty-nine patients received navitoclax 325 mg daily, following an initial lead-in of 150 mg daily for 7 days. Study endpoints included safety and toxicity assessment, response rate, progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), as well as exploratory pharmacodynamic correlates. Results: The most common toxicity associated with navitoclax was thrombocytopenia, which reached grade III–IV in 41% of patients. Partial response was observed in one (2.6%) patient and stable disease in 9 (23%) patients. Median PFS was 1.5 months and median OS was 3.2 months. A strong association between plasma pro–gastrin-releasing peptide (pro-GRP) level and tumor Bcl-2 copy number (R = 0.93) was confirmed. Exploratory analyses revealed baseline levels of cytokeratin 19 fragment antigen 21-1, neuron-specific enolase, pro-GRP, and circulating tumor cell number as correlates of clinical benefit. Conclusion: Bcl-2 targeting by navitoclax shows limited single-agent activity against advanced and recurrent SCLC. Correlative analyses suggest several putative biomarkers of clinical benefit. Preclinical models support that navitoclax may enhance sensitivity of SCLC and other solid tumors to standard cytotoxics. Future studies will focus on combination therapies. Clin Cancer Res; 18(11); 3163–9. ©2012 AACR.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2013

Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the study of lung cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology

Neal I. Lindeman; Philip T. Cagle; Mary Beth Beasley; Dhananjay Chitale; Sanja Dacic; Giuseppe Giaccone; Robert B. Jenkins; David J. Kwiatkowski; Juan Sebastian Saldivar; Jeremy A. Squire; Marc Ladanyi

OBJECTIVE To establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers that are required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. PARTICIPANTS Three cochairs without conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the 3 sponsoring professional societies: College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Writing and advisory panels were constituted from additional experts from these societies. EVIDENCE Three unbiased literature searches of electronic databases were performed to capture articles published from January 2004 through February 2012, yielding 1533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for their relevance to the recommendations. Evidence was formally graded for each recommendation. CONSENSUS PROCESS Initial recommendations were formulated by the cochairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least 2 panelists. Drafts were circulated to the writing panel (version 1), advisory panel (version 2), and the public (version 3) before submission (version 4). CONCLUSIONS The 37 guideline items address 14 subjects, including 15 recommendations (evidence grade A/B). The major recommendations are to use testing for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions to guide patient selection for therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, respectively, in all patients with advanced-stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, smoking history, or other clinical risk factors, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards. Already, new treatments targeting genetic alterations in other, less common driver oncogenes are being evaluated in lung cancer, and testing for these may be addressed in future versions of these guidelines.


PLOS ONE | 2010

Identification of MicroRNA-21 as a Biomarker for Chemoresistance and Clinical Outcome Following Adjuvant Therapy in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Jin-Hyeok Hwang; Johannes Voortman; Elisa Giovannetti; Seth M. Steinberg; Leticia G. Leon; Yong-Tae Kim; Niccola Funel; Joo Kyung Park; Min A Kim; Gyeong Hoon Kang; Sun-Whe Kim; Marco Del Chiaro; Godefridus J. Peters; Giuseppe Giaccone

Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis. The high risk of recurrence following surgical resection provides the rationale for adjuvant therapy. However, only a subset of patients benefit from adjuvant therapy. Identification of molecular markers to predict treatment outcome is therefore warranted. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether expression of novel candidate biomarkers, including microRNAs, can predict clinical outcome in PDAC patients treated with adjuvant therapy. Methodology/Principal Findings Formalin-fixed paraffin embedded specimens from a cohort of 82 resected Korean PDAC cases were analyzed for protein expression by immunohistochemistry and for microRNA expression using quantitative Real-Time PCR. Cox proportional hazards model analysis in the subgroup of patients treated with adjuvant therapy (N = 52) showed that lower than median miR-21 expression was associated with a significantly lower hazard ratio (HR) for death (HR = 0.316; 95%CI = 0.166–0.600; P = 0.0004) and recurrence (HR = 0.521; 95%CI = 0.280–0.967; P = 0.04). MiR-21 expression status emerged as the single most predictive biomarker for treatment outcome among all 27 biological and 9 clinicopathological factors evaluated. No significant association was detected in patients not treated with adjuvant therapy. In an independent validation cohort of 45 frozen PDAC tissues from Italian cases, all treated with adjuvant therapy, lower than median miR-21 expression was confirmed to be correlated with longer overall as well as disease-free survival. Furthermore, transfection with anti-miR-21 enhanced the chemosensitivity of PDAC cells. Conclusions Significance Low miR-21 expression was associated with benefit from adjuvant treatment in two independent cohorts of PDAC cases, and anti-miR-21 increased anticancer drug activity in vitro. These data provide evidence that miR-21 may allow stratification for adjuvant therapy, and represents a new potential target for therapy in PDAC.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Gregory A. Masters; Sarah Temin; Christopher G. Azzoli; Giuseppe Giaccone; Sherman Baker; Julie R. Brahmer; Peter M. Ellis; Ajeet Gajra; Nancy Rackear; Joan H. Schiller; Thomas J. Smith; John R. Strawn; David Trent; David H. Johnson

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS An Update Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology NSCLC Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from January 2007 to February 2014. RESULTS This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS There is no cure for patients with stage IV NSCLC. For patients with performance status (PS) 0 to 1 (and appropriate patient cases with PS 2) and without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation or ALK gene rearrangement, combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care. Recommendations for patients in the first-line setting include platinum-doublet therapy for those with PS 0 to 1 (bevacizumab may be added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel if no contraindications); combination or single-agent chemotherapy or palliative care alone for those with PS 2; afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with sensitizing EGFR mutations; crizotinib for those with ALK or ROS1 gene rearrangement; and following first-line recommendations or using platinum plus etoposide for those with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Maintenance therapy includes pemetrexed continuation for patients with stable disease or response to first-line pemetrexed-containing regimens, alternative chemotherapy, or a chemotherapy break. In the second-line setting, recommendations include docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma; docetaxel, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with squamous cell carcinoma; and chemotherapy or ceritinib for those with ALK rearrangement who experience progression after crizotinib. In the third-line setting, for patients who have not received erlotinib or gefitinib, treatment with erlotinib is recommended. There are insufficient data to recommend routine third-line cytotoxic therapy. Decisions regarding systemic therapy should not be made based on age alone. Additional information can be found at http://www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Collaboration


Dive into the Giuseppe Giaccone's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Arun Rajan

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ronan J. Kelly

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Stephen V. Liu

Georgetown University Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Anish Thomas

State University of New York Upstate Medical University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Corey A. Carter

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Seth M. Steinberg

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Arlene Berman

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge