ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Clinical study of aumolertinib versus osimertinib in the treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of aumolertinib and osimertinib in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The primary outcome was median progression-free survival (mPFS). Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to evaluate PFS and overall survival (OS), Cox regression was used for prognostic factors assessment.
resultsA total of 202 patients were included, comprising 106 aumolertinib users and 96 osimertinib users. In the first-line treatment, no significant difference was observed in mPFS between aumolertinib and osimertinib group (19.0 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.91; P = 0.58). The disease control rate (DCR) (95.7% vs. 89.8%), objective response rate (ORR) (39.1% vs. 30.6%), and median OS (27.0 vs. 38.0 months) were comparable between the two groups, with no statistical significance. In the second-line treatment, aumolertinib and osimertinib demonstrated similar mPFS (13.5 vs. 13.0 months; HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75-1.71; P = 0.55), DCR (90.0% vs. 87.2%), ORR (16.7% vs. 17.0%), and median OS (24.0 vs. 20.0 months). Adverse events of grade 1-2 were also similar between the two groups. Cox regression revealed that performance status (P < 0.001) and the treatment lines of aumolertinib/osimertinib (P = 0.015) were independent prognostic factors.
conclusionAumolertinib and osimertinib exhibit comparable efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, providing a reference path for clinicians to optimize drug treatment strategies in NSCLC.
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.