Weight loss is frequently seen in patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung even when the tumour is small and there is no mechanical interference with the gastrointestinal tract [ 11. The use of increasingly aggressive chemotherapy drug regimens and combined modality programs increase the probability of weight loss and debility. These intensive programs can also produce severe and sometimes protracted myelosuppression with risk of intercurrent infections. This review will focus on these two aspects of supportive care: nutritional support and prophylaxis against infection. The etiology of cancer-related weight loss is likely multifactorial. Increased energy requirements, anorexia secondary to tumour-induced changes in taste, insulin resistance and other metabolic abnormalities and anorexia induced by psychological reactions to the disease likely all play a role in patients with small cell lung cancer. The frequency of weight loss in lung cancer (approximately 40-501 of patients) and its known negative impact on survival, led to several studies of intravenous nutritional support These studies, which administered the intravenous nutrients at the beginning of antineoplastic therapy, were given in the hope that they might increase response to therapy, improve survival and ameliorate toxicity [2,3]. As a result of encouraging preliminary observations, the Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute organized a number of randomized controlled clinical trials in tumour types known to be responsive to chemotherapy, including small cell lung cancer. In the study of patients with SCLC mported by Clamon [4], 119 evaluable patients were randomized to receive either 28 days of intravenous hyperalimentation (IVH) or an ad lib oral diet. The IVH consisted of an amino acid mixture, hypertonic glucose and a lipid emulsion and the amount of calories and protein delivered was calculated to maximize nutritional repletion. The median survival time for patients with limited disease treated on the study was 18 months and for those with extensive disease, it was 11 months. However, there were no differences in the response rate or survival between the nutritionally supported group and the control group. In particular, IVH did not sig