Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 60 % of lung cancer cases occur in Asia, indicating an epidemiological disparity and need for effective therapies. Amivantamab-lazertinib is approved for first-line EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in many countries. In the protocol-specified final overall survival (OS) analysis of MARIPOSA (NCT04487080), amivantamab-lazertinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS versus osimertinib (HR, 0.75; P = 0.005) among all participants. We evaluated OS for amivantamab-lazertinib versus osimertinib in Asian participants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with previously untreated EGFR-mutated, locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomized 2:2:1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib, osimertinib, or lazertinib (for evaluating contribution of components). Self-identified Asian race was a stratification factor. OS was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Of 1074 randomized participants, 629 self-identified as Asian (amivantamab-lazertinib:250; osimertinib:251; lazertinib:128). At a median follow-up of 38.7 months, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged OS versus osimertinib among Asian participants. Median OS was not reached (NR; 95 % CI, NR-NR) for amivantamab-lazertinib versus 38.4 months (95 % CI, 35.1-NR) for osimertinib (HR, 0.74; 95 % CI, 0.56-0.97; nominal P = 0.026). Assuming exponential distribution of OS in both arms, amivantamab-lazertinib is projected to prolong median OS among Asian participants by > 12 months versus osimertinib. At 36 months, 61 % and 53 % were alive in the amivantamab-lazertinib and osimertinib arms. Safety profile was consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the overall population, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved OS versus osimertinib among Asian participants with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, making it the first regimen to improve survival among Asian patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hayashi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: