Affiliations 

  • 1 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 2 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 3 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
  • 4 University Malaya Medical Centre, University of Malaya, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 5 Hospital Pulau Pinang, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
  • 6 Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 7 Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 8 Oncology Department, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Johor, Malaysia
  • 9 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • 10 Hospital Umum Sarawak, Jalan Hospital, Sarawak, Malaysia
  • 11 Center for Lung Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
  • 12 Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan, Pahang, Malaysia
  • 13 Division of Respiratory and Respiratory Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand
  • 14 Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea
  • 15 Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Republic of Korea
  • 16 CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
  • 17 Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
  • 18 Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University, College of Medicine, Gyeongsangnam-do, Republic of Korea
  • 19 Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore
  • 20 Yuhan Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • 21 Division of Hematology-Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: silkahn@skku.edu
J Thorac Oncol, 2023 Oct;18(10):1351-1361.
PMID: 37702629 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2023.06.016

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Lazertinib is a third-generation central nervous system-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting mutant EGFR in NSCLC. Lazertinib exhibited improved efficacy versus gefitinib in the LASER301 study; this subset analysis compared lazertinib with gefitinib among Asian patients.

METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.

RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications