Lazertinib versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment for EGFR-Mutated Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: LASER301 Korean Subset

  • Ki Hyeong Lee
  • , Byoung Chul Cho
  • , Myung Ju Ahn
  • , Yun Gyoo Lee
  • , Youngjoo Lee
  • , Jong Seok Lee
  • , Joo Hang Kim
  • , Young Joo Min
  • , Gyeong Won Lee
  • , Sung Sook Lee
  • , Kyung Hee Lee
  • , Yoon Ho Ko
  • , Byoung Yong Shim
  • , Sang We Kim
  • , Sang Won Shin
  • , Jin Hyuk Choi
  • , Dong Wan Kim
  • , Eun Kyung Cho
  • , Keon Uk Park
  • , Jin Soo Kim
  • Sang Hoon Chun, Jangyoung Wang, Seok Young Choi, Jin Hyoung Kang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)48-60
Number of pages13
JournalCancer Research and Treatment
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright 2024 by the Korean Cancer Association.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • EGFR mutation
  • Lazertinib
  • Non-small-cell lung carcinoma

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lazertinib versus Gefitinib as First-Line Treatment for EGFR-Mutated Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: LASER301 Korean Subset'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this