Osimertinib Plus Durvalumab versus Osimertinib Monotherapy in EGFR T790M–Positive NSCLC following Previous EGFR TKI Therapy: CAURAL Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Durvalumab is an anti-programmed death ligand 1 monoclonal antibody. The phase III open-label CAURAL trial (NCT02454933) investigated osimertinib plus durvalumab versus osimertinib monotherapy in patients with EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M mutation-positive advanced NSCLC and disease progression after EGFR-TKI therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive orally administered osimertinib (80 mg once daily) with or without durvalumab (10 mg/kg administered intravenously every 2 weeks) until progression. Treatment could continue beyond progression, providing clinical benefit continued (judged by the investigator). The amended primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of osimertinib plus durvalumab; efficacy was an exploratory objective. RESULTS: CAURAL recruitment was terminated early because of increased incidence of interstitial lung disease-like events in the osimertinib plus durvalumab arm from the separate phase Ib TATTON trial (NCT02143466). At termination of CAURAL recruitment, 15 patients had been randomly assigned to treatment with osimertinib and 14 to treatment with osimertinib plus durvalumab. The most common AEs were diarrhea (53% [grade ≥3 in 6% of patients]) in the osimertinib arm and rash (67% [grade ≥3 in 0 patients]) in the combination arm. One patient who had been randomized to the combination arm reported grade 2 interstitial lung disease while receiving osimertinib monotherapy (after discontinuing durvalumab therapy after one dose). The objective response rates were 80% in the osimertinib arm and 64% in the combination arm. CONCLUSION: Limited patient numbers preclude formal safety and efficacy comparisons between the two treatment arms. The combination of programmed cell death 1/programmed death ligand 1 inhibitors and EGFR-TKIs as therapy for NSCLC is not well understood, but it requires a careful approach if considered in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".