ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative effectiveness of lazertinib in patients with EGFR T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer using a real-world external control.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- First-line treatment for advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Medicinal Chemistry of Fourth-generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Piperidine-catalyzed synthesis of (RSC advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lazertinib is a recently developed third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors used for patients with advanced EGFR T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. We evaluated the effectiveness of lazertinib compared with osimertinib using an external control. We obtained individual patient data for the lazertinib arm from the LASER201 trial and the osimertinib arm from registry data at the Samsung Medical Center. In total, 75 and 110 patients were included in the lazertinib and osimertinib groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, each group had 60 patients and all baseline characteristics were balanced. The median follow-up duration was 22.0 and 29.6 months in the lazertinib and osimertinib group, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) were 76.7% and 86.7% for lazertinib and osimertinib, respectively (p = 0.08). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-19.1) and 14.4 months (95% CI 11.8-18.1) for the lazertinib and osimertinib group, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; 95% CI 0.64-1.45, p = 0.86). The median overall survival with lazertinib was not reached and that with osimertinib was 29.8 months (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.77, p = 0.005). Our study suggests that lazertinib has an ORR and PFS comparable to those of osimertinib and has the potential for superior survival benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.