ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy and safety of first-line osimertinib monotherapy versus osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy or amivantamab plus lazertinib in metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC: an indirect comparison.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Osimertinib (Osi) has long represented the standard first-line treatment for metastatic EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. Recently, two randomized phase 3 trials demonstrated that osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy (Osi+CT) and amivamtamab plus lazertinib (Ami+Laz) improve outcomes compared with Osi alone, although no direct comparison between these regimens are available. This study aimed to indirectly compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Materials and methods: Three randomized clinical trials (FLAURA, FLAURA-2, and MARIPOSA) were included following PRISMA guidelines. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves using the IPDfromKM algorithm. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were calculated for PFS and OS. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastases and by EGFR mutation subtypes. A network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate adverse drug reactions. Results: In the indirect comparison, Osi+CT and Ami+Laz showed no statistical difference in terms of PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.04), with PFS-RMST estimates at 30 months numerically longer with Osi+CT (22.53 vs 20.59 months). No statistically significant differences in OS were observed between regimens (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73-1.22). Subgroup PFS analyses according to baseline CNS metastases and EGFR mutation subtypes showed no statistically conclusive differences between regimens. Safety profiles varied: Osi+CT was associated with higher rates of grade ≥ 3 hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities, while Ami+Laz was linked to higher rates of dermatologic events, infusion-related reactions, hypoalbuminemia, and peripheral edema. Conclusions: Despite the inherent limitations of indirect comparisons, these findings suggest that Osi+CT and Ami+Laz provide comparable survival benefits, while distinct toxicity profiles may influence therapeutic decision-making in conjunction with patients' clinical characteristics and preferences.
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.