Pembrolizumab for management of patients with NSCLC and brain metastases: long-term results and biomarker analysis from a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We did a phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma with untreated brain metastases to determine the activity of PD-1 blockade in the CNS. Interim results were previously published, and we now report an updated analysis of the full NSCLC cohort. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 2 study of patients from the Yale Cancer Center (CT, USA). Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with stage IV NSCLC with at least one brain metastasis 5-20 mm in size, not previously treated or progressing after previous radiotherapy, no neurological symptoms or corticosteroid requirement, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than two. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria was used to evaluate CNS disease; systemic disease was not required for participation. Patients were treated with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Patients were in two cohorts: cohort 1 was for those with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% and cohort 2 was patients with PD-L1 less than 1% or unevaluable. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a brain metastasis response (partial response or complete response, according to mRECIST). All treated patients were analysed for response and safety endpoints. This study is closed to accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02085070. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and May 21, 2018, 42 patients were treated. Median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 4·5-26·2). 11 (29·7% [95% CI 15·9-47·0]) of 37 patients in cohort 1 had a brain metastasis response. There were no responses in cohort 2. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to treatment included two patients with pneumonitis, and one each with constitutional symptoms, colitis, adrenal insufficiency, hyperglycaemia, and hypokalaemia. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in six (14%) of 42 patients and were pneumonitis (n=2), acute kidney injury, colitis, hypokalaemia, and adrenal insufficiency (n=1 each). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab has activity in brain metastases from NSCLC with PD-L1 expression at least 1% and is safe in selected patients with untreated brain metastases. Further investigation of immunotherapy in patients with CNS disease from NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: Merck and the Yale Cancer Center.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 5.2018.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on targeted therapies and immunotherapies for metastatic NSCLC, because therapeutic recommendations are rapidly changing for metastatic disease. For example, new recommendations were added for atezolizumab, ceritinib, osimertinib, and pembrolizumab for the 2017 updates.

Management of EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

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

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma, Version 3.2016.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM). These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss systemic therapy regimens and surgical controversies for MPM. The NCCN panel recommends cisplatin/pemetrexed (category 1) for patients with MPM. The NCCN panel also now recommends bevacizumab/cisplatin/pemetrexed as a first-line therapy option for patients with unresectable MPM who are candidates for bevacizumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for MPM, available at NCCN.org, addresses all aspects of management for MPM including diagnosis, evaluation, staging, treatment, surveillance, and therapy for recurrence and metastasis; NCCN Guidelines are intended to assist with clinical decision-making.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 4.2016.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC; Versions 1-4). These NCCN Guidelines Insights will discuss new immunotherapeutic agents, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, for patients with metastatic NSCLC. For the 2016 update, the NCCN panel recommends immune checkpoint inhibitors as preferred agents (in the absence of contraindications) for second-line and beyond (subsequent) therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC (both squamous and nonsquamous histologies). Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are preferred based on improved overall survival rates, higher response rates, longer duration of response, and fewer adverse events when compared with docetaxel therapy.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 6.2015.

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

Non-small cell lung cancer, version 1.2015.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on the principles of radiation therapy (RT), which include the following: (1) general principles for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic NSCLC; (2) target volumes, prescription doses, and normal tissue dose constraints for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/palliative RT; and (3) RT simulation, planning, and delivery. Treatment recommendations should be made by a multidisciplinary team, including board-certified radiation oncologists who perform lung cancer RT as a prominent part of their practice.

Small cell lung cancer: past, present, and future.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for about 10% to 15% of all lung cancers. It is characterized by its rapid doubling time, high rate of dissemination, and increased sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiation. Although the incidence of SCLC has been steadily decreasing over time, it remains a serious public health problem given its aggressive clinical behavior and the lack of effective therapies. This review looks at the evolution of SCLC treatment and the standard treatments that are currently available, including platinum-based combination chemotherapy, hyperfractionated thoracic radiation, and prophylactic cranial irradiation. The development of novel therapies for SCLC has been lagging behind, but completed clinical trials and ongoing investigations are helping us define what will be the best therapeutic targets for this disease.

Randomized Trial of Afatinib Plus Cetuximab Versus Afatinib Alone for First-Line Treatment of EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Final Results From SWOG S1403.

PURPOSE: The irreversible ErbB family tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) afatinib plus the EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab was previously shown to overcome resistance to EGFR TKIs. We studied whether the combination of afatinib plus cetuximab compared with afatinib alone would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with treatment-naive EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by preventing or delaying resistance. METHODS: Patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC without prior treatment of advanced disease were enrolled in this phase II, multicenter trial and randomly assigned to receive afatinib 40 mg orally daily plus cetuximab 500 mg/m2 intravenously every 2 weeks or afatinib alone. The primary end point was PFS. RESULTS: Between March 25, 2015 and April 23, 2018, 174 patients were randomly assigned, and 168 (83 on afatinib + cetuximab and 85 on afatinib) were eligible. There was no improvement in PFS in patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab compared with afatinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.43; P = .94; median, 11.9 months v 13.4 months). Similarly, there was no difference in response rate (67% v 74%; P = .38) or overall survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.36; P = .44). Toxicity was greater with the combination: grade ≥ 3 adverse events related to treatment occurred in 72% of patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab compared with 40% of those receiving afatinib alone, most commonly rash and diarrhea. Dose reductions were more common in patients receiving the combination, and 30% of patients in this arm discontinued cetuximab due to toxicity. At interim analysis, there was insufficient evidence to support continued accrual, and the trial was closed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cetuximab to afatinib did not improve outcomes in previously untreated EGFR-mutant NSCLC, despite recognized activity in the acquired resistance setting.

Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, has been shown to benefit patients with a variety of cancers. METHODS: Between July 2001 and April 2004, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a randomized study in which 878 patients with recurrent or advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (stage IIIB or IV) were assigned to chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin alone (444) or paclitaxel and carboplatin plus bevacizumab (434). Chemotherapy was administered every 3 weeks for six cycles, and bevacizumab was administered every 3 weeks until disease progression was evident or toxic effects were intolerable. Patients with squamous-cell tumors, brain metastases, clinically significant hemoptysis, or inadequate organ function or performance status (ECOG performance status, >1) were excluded. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median survival was 12.3 months in the group assigned to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, as compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; P=0.003). The median progression-free survival in the two groups was 6.2 and 4.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.66; P<0.001), with corresponding response rates of 35% and 15% (P<0.001). Rates of clinically significant bleeding were 4.4% and 0.7%, respectively (P<0.001). There were 15 treatment-related deaths in the chemotherapy-plus-bevacizumab group, including 5 from pulmonary hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel plus carboplatin in the treatment of selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer has a significant survival benefit with the risk of increased treatment-related deaths. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021060.)

New treatment strategies in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and performance status 2.

Patients with performance status (PS) 2 represent approximately 30%-40% of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) seen in clinical practice. Although these patients have been historically excluded from randomized clinical trials, recent studies have suggested a benefit from systemic chemotherapy. The development of biologic agents offers a new promise for the treatment of PS 2 patients as a result of the perceived improved therapeutic index of these agents. However, many of the recent advances in NSCLC have been limited to good PS patients and have not translated into an improvement in the management of the PS 2 population because the studies have excluded this patient population or have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit.

Development of Imminent Mortality Predictor for Advanced Cancer (IMPAC), a Tool to Predict Short-Term Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: End-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer is aggressive and costly. Oncologists inconsistently estimate life expectancy and address goals of care. Currently available prognostication tools are based on subjective clinical assessment. An objective prognostic tool could help oncologists and patients decide on a realistic plan for end-of-life care. We developed a predictive model (Imminent Mortality Predictor in Advanced Cancer [IMPAC]) for short-term mortality in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 669 patients with advanced cancer who were discharged from Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital were extracted. Statistical learning techniques were used to develop a tool to estimate survival probabilities. Patients were randomly split into training (70%) and validation (30%) sets 20 times. We tested the predictive properties of IMPAC for mortality at 30, 60, 90, and 180 days past the day of admission. RESULTS: For mortality within 90 days at a 40% sensitivity level, IMPAC has close to 60% positive predictive value. Patients estimated to have a greater than 50% chance of death within 90 days had a median survival time of 47 days. Patients estimated to have a less than 50% chance of death had a median survival of 290 days. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for IMPAC averaged greater than .70 for all time horizons tested. Estimated potential cost savings per patient was $15,413 (95% CI, $9,162 to $21,665) in 2014 constant dollars. CONCLUSION: IMPAC, a novel prognostic tool, can generate life expectancy probabilities in real time and support oncologists in counseling patients about end-of-life care. Potentially avoidable costs are significant.

Do older patients with non-small cell lung cancer also benefit from first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy? Observations from a pooled analysis of 730 prospectively-treated patients (Alliance Study A151622).

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to define the role of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed three first-line NSCLC trials: CALGB 9730, CALGB 30203, and CALGB 30801, which tested carboplatin and paclitaxel; carboplatin and gemcitabine; and carboplatin with either pemetrexed or gemcitabine, respectively. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Age-based comparisons with a cutpoint of 65 years were performed with Cox proportional hazards models with adjustments for sex, tumor histology, cancer stage, chemotherapy, and smoking history and after stratifying by performance score. Secondary endpoints were grade 3-5 adverse events, chemotherapy cycles completed, and whether toxicity prompted chemotherapy discontinuation. RESULTS: 730 patients were included; 337 (46%) were 65+ years of age. No statistically significant difference in survival was observed for older (≥65) versus younger patients (HR = 1.096; 95% CI = (0.94, 1.28); p = 0.25). A trend emerged with increased odds of a grade 3-5 adverse event for patients ≥65 years versus <65 years (OR = 1.52; 95% CI = (0.99, 2.31); p = 0.05). The proportion of completed chemotherapy cycles was marginally lower in older patients (difference = -5%; 95% CI = (-9, 0.2); p = 0.06) for those ≥65 years versus <65 years, but no statistically significant difference occurred in the rate of chemotherapy discontinuation for toxicity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = (0.85, 2.19); p = 0.21) for patients ≥65 years versus <65 years. A cutpoint of 70 years yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: These findings support carboplatin doublet-based chemotherapy in select older patients with advanced NSCLC.

Clinical Features and Management of Acquired Resistance to PD-1 Axis Inhibitors in 26 Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: With expanding indications for programmed death 1 (PD-1) axis inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), acquired resistance (AR) to these therapies is increasingly being encountered. We sought to characterize clinical patterns of AR to PD-1 axis inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC, and evaluate subsequent outcome and management strategies for such patients. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC who developed AR to PD-1 axis inhibitor therapy initiated between December 2009 and February 2016 at one institution were identified and examined by clinical and radiographic features. AR was defined as progressive disease after initial response by either Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 or immune-related response criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with AR to PD-1 axis inhibitor therapy were identified and evaluated. Median time to AR was 313 days; the 2-year survival rate from AR was 70% (95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.92). Twenty patients (77%) experienced AR in lymph nodes (LNs), including 11 patients with LN-only progression. Twenty-three (88%) patients had recurrence limited to one (54%) or two (35%) sites of disease. Fourteen patients (54%) continued PD-1 axis inhibitor therapy beyond progression. Three patients were re-challenged with the same PD-1 axis inhibitor after holiday from and progression off therapy, 2 again responded. Fifteen patients (58%) received local therapy to site(s) of AR, 11 continued respective PD-1 axis inhibitor after local therapy. The 2-year survival rate from AR among these 15 patients was 92% (95% confidence interval: 0.77-1). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired resistance to PD-1 axis inhibitors is often limited to one or two sites when local therapy and continuation of PD-1 axis inhibitor therapy can result in prolonged benefit. LN metastases appear to be particularly susceptible sites to AR. When progression of disease following response occurs after holiday from PD-1 axis inhibitor, re-challenge can again lead to tumor regression.

Time-to-Treatment-Failure and Related Outcomes Among 1000+ Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: Comparisons Between Older Versus Younger Patients (Alliance A151711).

INTRODUCTION: Time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) is the interval from chemotherapy initiation to premature discontinuation. We evaluated TTF based on age. METHODS: Pooled analyses were conducted with first-line chemotherapy trials for advanced NSCLC (CALGB 9730, 30203, and 30801). Comparisons among patients who were 65 years and older and 70 years and older were performed for TTF (primary endpoint), reasons for early chemotherapy cessation, grade 3+ adverse events, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 1006 patients, 460 (46%) were older than 65 years of age. One hundred forty-five older patients (32% of this age cohort) completed all six planned chemotherapy cycles as did 170 (32%) younger patients. Median TTF was 2.9 months (95% confidence interval: 2.7- 3.2) in older patients and 3 months (95% confidence interval: 2.9-3.5) in younger patients; adjustment for performance status and stratification by chemotherapy by trial yielded no statistically significant age-based difference in TTF. However, reasons for early chemotherapy cessation differed between age groups (multivariate p = 0.004). Older patients were less likely to discontinue from cancer progression (41% versus 55%) and more likely from toxicity or patient choice (16% and 15%, respectively) compared to younger patients (13% and 6%, respectively). Older patients were more likely to experience grade 3+ adverse events (86% versus 79%) with no statistically significant difference in survival. An age cutpoint of 70+ years showed no difference in TTF, a lower trend of early cessation due to cancer progression, and somewhat shorter older patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: TTF was comparable between older and younger patients; but different, age-based, and potentially modifiable reasons account for it.

Measuring the Impact of Academic Cancer Network Development on Clinical Integration, Quality of Care, and Patient Satisfaction.

PURPOSE: Many US academic centers have acquired community practices to expand their clinical care and research footprint. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether the acquisition and integration of community oncology practices by Yale/Smilow Cancer Hospital improved outcomes in quality of care, disease team integration, clinical trial accrual, and patient satisfaction at network practice sites. METHODS: We evaluated quality of care by testing the hypothesis that core Quality Oncology Practice Initiative measures at network sites that were acquired in 2012 were significantly different after their 2016 integration into the network. Clinical and research integration were measured using the number of tumor board case presentations and total accruals in clinical trials. We used Press-Ganey scores to measure patient satisfaction pre- and postintegration. RESULTS: Mean Quality Oncology Practice Initiative scores at Smilow Care Centers were significantly higher in 2016 than in 2012 for core measures related to improvement in tumor staging ( z = 1.33; P < .05), signed consent and documentation plans for antineoplastic treatment ( z = 2.69; P < .01; and z = 2.36; P < .05, respectively), and appropriately quantifying and addressing pain during office visits ( z = 2.95; P < .05; and z = 3.1; P < .01, respectively). A total of 493 cases were presented by care center physicians at the tumor board in 2017 compared with 45 presented in 2013. Compared with 2012, Smilow Care Center clinical trial accrual increased from 25 to 170 patients in 2017. Last, patient satisfaction has remained at greater than the 90th percentile pre- and postintegration. CONCLUSION: The process of integration facilitates the ability to standardize cancer practice and provides a platform for quality improvement.

Randomized phase 2 study of tivantinib plus erlotinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in previously treated KRAS mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are identified in approximately 25% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and are associated with resistance to currently available targeted therapies. The MET oncogene may be implicated in malignant progression of KRAS-mutant tumors. In a pre-specified subset analysis of KRAS mutant cancers in an earlier phase 2 study of erlotinib plus the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib, combination therapy was associated with substantial clinical benefit compared to erlotinib alone (progression-free survival [PFS] HR 0.18; P < 0.01). The current study was conducted to evaluate this combination further in KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Previously treated patients with advanced KRAS mutant NSCLC were randomized to receive either oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) plus erlotinib (150 mg daily) (ET) or single-agent chemotherapy (investigator's choice of pemetrexed, docetaxel, or gemcitabine) (C). The primary endpoint was PFS. At progression, crossover from C to ET was permitted. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to ET (n = 51) or to C (n = 45). Median PFS was 1.7 months (mos) for ET and 4.3 mos for C (HR 1.19; 95% CI, 0.71-1.97; P = 0.50). There was no difference in overall survival (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.76-1.88; P = 0.44). There were 4 partial responses in the C arm, and none in the ET arm. Overall, adverse events occurred more frequently in the C arm, with more cytopenias, nausea, fatigue, and alopecia. Dermatologic toxicities were more common in the ET arm. CONCLUSION: In previously treated patients with advanced KRAS mutant NSCLC, the combination of the MET inhibitor tivantinib and erlotinib is not superior to conventional single-agent chemotherapy.

Should health-related quality of life be measured in cancer symptom management clinical trials? Lessons learned using the functional assessment of cancer therapy.

There are several advantages to including comprehensive health-related quality of life (HRQL) in symptom trials in oncology. The most obvious is to test the hypothesis that HRQL will be improved in addition to the symptom benefit. We should not "require," however, that a successful symptom intervention also improve other dimensions of HRQL. On the other hand, we should expect that it will not make other dimensions worse through side effects or exacerbation of disease, even if it improves the symptom. HRQL assessment in the trial helps evaluate the competing risks of any therapy. Furthermore, assessment of HRQL is now accomplished with very brief assessment (usually 30 questions or less), and the knowledge gained is valuable. With HRQL, one can compare cancer patients with those with other conditions and can determine the contribution of symptoms and side effects to the more broadly defined HRQL. Examples using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy measurement system will demonstrate how HRQL assessment has contributed to our understanding of common cancer symptoms and their place in the conceptualization of HRQL. The prevalence of clinically significant symptoms is greatest in poor performance status (PS) patients compared with patients with good PS. Symptom improvement trials specifically designed for these patients should be encouraged, particularly with interventions that can provide symptomatic relief and improve multidimensional HRQL.

Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, stage IV: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition).

BACKGROUND: Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a treatable but incurable disease. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was performed to identify pertinent peer-reviewed articles that addressed the questions posed for this section. The writing committee developed and graded recommendations, which were subsequently approved by the American College of Chest Physicians. RESULTS: Platinum-based doublets remain the standard of care in patients with good performance status (PS); there is no evidence that the addition of a third cytotoxic agent improves survival. Likewise, with only one exception, the addition of a new targeted or biological agent to platinum-based doublets does not improve survival. The one exception is the addition of bevacizumab, an antiangiogenic agent, to carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with stage IV disease and good PS. Patients for whom bevacizumab is recommended must also be selected on the basis of histology (nonsquamous), absence of brain metastases and hemoptysis, and no indication for therapeutic anticoagulation. In patients with stage IV NSCLC and PS of 2, chemotherapy is recommended, but the optimal approach has not been defined. Elderly patients, defined as >/= 70 years old, also derive benefit from chemotherapy. Most elderly patients should receive single-agent chemotherapy, but elderly patients with good PS and without significant comorbidities seem to derive a similar benefit from platinum-based doublets compared with their younger counterparts without a prohibitive difference in treatment toxicities. Because stage IV NSCLC is incurable, quality-of-life issues are important, and tools exist to monitor a patient's quality of life during therapy. Last, patients need to be informed of the implication of the diagnosis of stage IV NSCLC and be educated about treatment options that are available to them. CONCLUSIONS: Advances have been made in stage IV NSCLC, and the appropriate use of chemotherapy continues to evolve on the basis of well-designed clinical trials that address critical issues in this population.