Overall Survival with Amivantamab–Lazertinib in <i>EGFR</i> -Mutated Advanced NSCLC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was significantly improved with amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib. Results of the protocol-specified final overall survival analysis in this trial have not been reported. METHODS: -mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R substitution), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib, osimertinib, or lazertinib. Overall survival (assessed in an analysis of the time from randomization to death from any cause) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group was a key secondary end point. Additional end points included safety. RESULTS: A total of 429 participants each were assigned to receive amivantamab-lazertinib or osimertinib. Over a median follow-up of 37.8 months, amivantamab-lazertinib led to significantly longer overall survival than osimertinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.92; P = 0.005); 3-year overall survival was 60% and 51%, respectively. At the clinical cutoff date, 38% of participants in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 28% in the osimertinib group were still receiving the assigned treatment. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with amivantamab-lazertinib (in 80% of participants) than with osimertinib (in 52%), particularly skin-related events, venous thromboembolism, and infusion-related events; these findings were consistent with the established safety profile of each treatment. No new safety signals were observed with additional follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: -mutated advanced NSCLC than osimertinib but was associated with an increased risk of adverse events of grade 3 or higher. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".