Tag: #ASCO26

  • Daraxonrasib vs Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (RASolute3o2)

    ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

    RASolute 302

    Daraxonrasib versus chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Phase 3, open-label, randomized.

    Total N
    500
    248 vs 252; 91.8% RAS G12
    Primary endpoint
    OS & PFS
    RAS G12 population
    OS hazard ratio
    0.40
    95% CI 0.30 to 0.53
    ORR
    31.6%
    vs 11.2%, overall pop.

    Trial design

    RASolute 302 was a phase 3, international, open-label, randomized trial conducted at 59 sites in six countries. Enrollment ran from October 16, 2024 to November 7, 2025. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1. Crossover to the other group was not permitted. An independent data monitoring committee oversaw safety.

    Treatment arms

    Daraxonrasib (n=248)
    300 mg orally once daily. An oral RAS(ON) multiselective tri-complex inhibitor of the GTP-bound state of mutant and wild-type RAS. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.
    Investigator’s choice chemotherapy (n=252)
    One of four regimens, given per local prescribing practice: gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; modified FOLFIRINOX; FOLFOX; or liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin.

    Key eligibility

    • Age: at least 18 years
    • Disease: histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1
    • Prior therapy: progression after one prior line of fluoropyrimidine- or gemcitabine-based therapy for metastatic disease (or progression less than 6 months after neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy)
    • Performance status: ECOG 0 or 1
    • RAS status: documented tumor RAS mutational status by local testing (KRAS, NRAS, or HRAS at codon 12, 13, or 61, or no RAS mutation identified)
    • Key exclusions: known CNS metastases; prior RAS-targeted therapy

    Stratification factors

    • ECOG performance status (0 vs 1)
    • Metastatic disease at initial diagnosis (yes vs no)
    • Liver metastases at baseline (yes vs no)
    • Tumor RAS mutational status (RAS G12D/V vs other RAS G12 vs RAS G13 or Q61 or no RAS mutation identified)

    Endpoints

    Dual primary

    Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1, in the RAS G12 population.

    Key secondary

    OS and PFS in the overall population; objective response rate (ORR) in the RAS G12 and overall populations; patient-reported time to deterioration (TTD) in pain and in global health status/quality of life, in both populations.

    Additional secondary

    Time to response and safety. Adverse events graded per NCI CTCAE v5.0.

    The overall population included patients with RAS G12, G13, or Q61 mutations or with no RAS mutation identified. The RAS G12 population (459 patients, 91.8%) comprised those with RAS G12 mutations.

    Analysis timing Data reported are from the first interim OS analysis (IA1), which was also the final PFS analysis, performed after enrollment completion and at least 166 deaths in the RAS G12 population. Data cutoff: February 10, 2026. Median follow-up: 8.5 months (range 3.2 to 15.9).

    Overall survival

    PopulationEvents, n (%) Median OS, mo (95% CI)HR (95% CI)P value
    RAS G12 · Daraxonrasib (n=228)72 (32)13.2 (10.0–NE) 0.40
    (0.30–0.54)
    P<0.001
    5.9×10⁻¹⁰
    RAS G12 · Chemotherapy (n=231)127 (55)6.6 (5.4–8.2)
    Overall · Daraxonrasib (n=248)79 (32)13.2 (10.0–NE) 0.40
    (0.30–0.53)
    P<0.001
    4.6×10⁻¹¹
    Overall · Chemotherapy (n=252)141 (56)6.7 (5.8–8.0)

    NE = not estimable. HR by stratified Cox model.

    53.2%
    12-mo OS, daraxonrasib (overall pop.)
    17.3%
    12-mo OS, chemotherapy (overall pop.)
    60%
    Reduction in risk of death (both pops.)

    RAS G12 12-month OS: 53.3% vs 18.7%.

    Progression-free survival (BICR)

    PopulationEvents, n (%) Median PFS, mo (95% CI)HR (95% CI)P value
    RAS G12 · Daraxonrasib (n=228)112 (49)7.3 (6.3–8.1) 0.45
    (0.34–0.59)
    P<0.001
    3.2×10⁻⁹
    RAS G12 · Chemotherapy (n=231)121 (52)3.5 (2.9–3.8)
    Overall · Daraxonrasib (n=248)127 (51)7.2 (5.7–7.5) 0.49
    (0.38–0.64)
    P<0.001
    5.2×10⁻⁸
    Overall · Chemotherapy (n=252)130 (52)3.6 (2.9–4.2)

    6-month PFS (RAS G12): 58.7% vs 31.7%. 6-month PFS (overall): 56.0% vs 32.9%.

    Objective response (confirmed, BICR)

    RAS G12 population
    33.2%
    Daraxonrasib (n=237)
    95% CI 27.0–39.9
    11.8%
    Chemotherapy (n=221)
    95% CI 7.8–16.8
    Overall population
    31.6%
    Daraxonrasib (n=248)
    95% CI 25.8–38.0
    11.2%
    Chemotherapy (n=252)
    95% CI 7.5–15.9

    Both comparisons P<0.0001. Median time to response was 1.9 months in both groups. ORR denominators are patients with measurable disease at baseline per BICR (RAS G12: daraxonrasib 237, chemotherapy 221; overall: 248 and 252). Duration of response and tumor-shrinkage (waterfall) data were not reported in the available sources.

    Overall survival subgroups (overall population)

    Hazard ratios and 95% CIs by unstratified Cox model. The unstratified “Overall” HR is 0.42 (0.32 to 0.55); the headline stratified HR is 0.40 (0.30 to 0.53). Events shown as daraxonrasib / chemotherapy. Point size is not scaled here; n’s appear on every row.

    Patient-reported time to deterioration (overall population)

    MeasureDaraxonrasib, moChemotherapy, moHR (95% CI)P value
    Pain (EORTC QLQ-PAN26)9.23.80.51 (0.37–0.71)P<0.001
    Global health status / QoL (QLQ-C30)5.72.60.60 (0.46–0.79)P<0.001

    RAS G12 pain medians were 9.0 vs 3.7 months; GHS/QoL 5.6 vs 2.4 months.

    Note on attribution The overview table below reports treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) except the first two rows, which are all-cause treatment-emergent (TEAE). The bar chart reports TRAEs.

    Safety overview

    EventDaraxonrasib (n=241)Chemotherapy (n=214)
    Median time on treatment, mo6.21.5–3.2*
    Any TEAE (all-cause), n (%)241 (100)209 (97.7)
    Grade ≥3 TEAE (all-cause), n (%)149 (61.8)149 (69.6)
    Any TRAE, n (%)236 (97.9)200 (93.5)
    Grade ≥3 TRAE, n (%)105 (43.6)123 (57.5)
    Serious TRAE, n (%)26 (10.8)40 (18.7)
    TRAE leading to dose reduction, n (%)87 (36.1)123 (57.5)
    TRAE leading to dose interruption, n (%)135 (56.0)118 (55.1)
    TRAE leading to discontinuation, n (%)3 (1.2)24 (11.2)
    Grade 5 (fatal) TRAE, n (%)1 (0.4)0

    *Chemotherapy median time on treatment is reported as a range across the four component regimens. One daraxonrasib patient died of treatment-related pneumonitis (the single grade 5 TRAE). Median dose intensity: 93.1% daraxonrasib vs 65.3 to 95.0% across chemotherapy regimens.

    Treatment-related adverse events (any grade) in ≥20% of either arm

    Daraxonrasib, any grade Daraxonrasib, grade ≥3 Chemotherapy, any grade Chemotherapy, grade ≥3

    Any-grade incidence with grade ≥3 in parentheses. Threshold: any-grade incidence at least 20% in either arm. Grade ≥3 bars overlay the any-grade bar. Several terms are grouped composites (for example, rash, stomatitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral neuropathy).

    Most common events by arm

    Daraxonrasib (TRAE, any grade)

    Rash 85.5%, diarrhea 58.1%, stomatitis 53.1%, nausea 46.5%, vomiting 36.9%. Mostly low-grade dermatologic and gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 rash 13.7% and stomatitis 12.0% were the only grade ≥3 TRAEs at 10% or higher. No grade 4 TRAEs except as noted; one grade 5.

    Chemotherapy (TRAE, any grade)

    Fatigue 44.4%, anemia 39.7%, nausea 39.3%, neutropenia 38.3%, diarrhea 37.9%, thrombocytopenia 33.2%, peripheral neuropathy 25.2%. Grade ≥3 TRAEs at 10% or higher: neutropenia 27.6% and anemia 16.4%.

    Primary sources

    Journal article. O’Reilly EM, Wainberg ZA, Hendifar AE, et al. Daraxonrasib or chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. Published online May 31, 2026. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2605555.
    Conference presentation. Wolpin BM, et al. Daraxonrasib, a RAS(ON) multiselective inhibitor versus chemotherapy in previously treated mPDAC: primary and final analysis from the phase 3 RASolute 302 study. Presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2026, Chicago.
    Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06625320. Sponsor: Revolution Medicines.

    Abbreviations

    AE — adverse event
    ALT — alanine aminotransferase
    AST — aspartate aminotransferase
    BICR — blinded independent central review
    CI — confidence interval
    CNS — central nervous system
    CR — complete response
    CTCAE — Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
    DoR — duration of response
    ECOG PS — Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status
    EORTC QLQ-C30 — EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire
    EORTC QLQ-PAN26 — EORTC pancreatic cancer module
    FOLFOX — leucovorin, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin
    GHS — global health status
    GnP — gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel
    GTP — guanosine triphosphate
    HR — hazard ratio
    mFOLFIRINOX — modified fluorouracil, irinotecan, leucovorin, oxaliplatin
    mPDAC — metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
    Nal-IRI — nanoliposomal irinotecan
    NE — not estimable
    ORR — objective response rate
    OS — overall survival
    PFS — progression-free survival
    PO QD — orally once daily
    PR — partial response
    PRO — patient-reported outcome
    QoL — quality of life
    RECIST — Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
    TEAE — treatment-emergent adverse event
    TRAE — treatment-related adverse event
    TTD — time to deterioration
    Cancer Communicator QuickView. Data reference tool compiled from the published NEJM article and the ASCO 2026 presentation for RASolute 302 (NCT06625320). Data cutoff February 10, 2026. Funded by Revolution Medicines. This summary is for educational purposes and is not medical advice.

  • QuickView: Abemaciclib vs Placebo in Advanced Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma (SARC041)

    ASCO 2026 Annual Meeting · Plenary

    SARC041

    Abemaciclib versus placebo in advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma. A phase 3 randomized, double-blind trial.

    108Total randomized
    PFSPrimary end point
    0.38PFS hazard ratio
    9%ORR, abemaciclib

    Background and design

    SARC041 was an investigator-initiated phase 3 randomized, double-blind trial sponsored by the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC). It tested abemaciclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, against placebo in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma, a sarcoma subtype marked by near-universal high-level CDK4 amplification. Enrollment was conducted in the United States. Patients who progressed on placebo could cross over to open-label abemaciclib.

    Key eligibility

    • Age 18 years or older
    • ECOG performance status 0 to 1
    • Recurrent or metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma (purely well-differentiated disease excluded)
    • Disease progression by RECIST 1.1 within the 6 months before study entry
    • Any number of prior therapies, including none
    • Excluded: extensive disease needing immediate treatment

    Randomization

    Patients were randomized 1:1, stratified by prior systemic treatment (0 versus 1 or more lines).

    Abemaciclib (n = 54)
    200 mg orally twice daily, continuous
    Placebo (n = 54)
    200 mg orally twice daily; crossover to abemaciclib permitted on progression

    Imaging by CT every 6 weeks for 36 weeks, then every 12 weeks.

    End points

    PrimaryProgression-free survival (PFS)
    SecondaryObjective response rate; PFS after crossover for patients initially randomized to placebo; overall survival; toxicity (CTCAE v5)
    ExploratoryPFS by prior therapy (0 versus 1 or more prior lines)

    Statistical plan

    The target sample size was 108 evaluable patients (54 per arm), providing 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 for PFS. The design assumed a median PFS of 3.3 months in the placebo arm; a hazard ratio of 0.6 corresponded to a median PFS of 5.4 months in the abemaciclib arm.

    Baseline characteristics

    CharacteristicPlacebo (N = 54)Abemaciclib (N = 54)
    Sex
    Female25 (46%)17 (31%)
    Male29 (54%)37 (69%)
    Tumor location at diagnosis
    Abdomen / retroperitoneum43 (80%)49 (92%)
    Chest4 (7.5%)1 (1.9%)
    Lower extremity7 (13%)3 (5.7%)
    Spine0 (0%)1 (1.9%)
    Age at enrollment
    Median (range)67 (41 to 84)67 (19 to 84)
    Prior lines of therapy
    028 (52%)27 (50%)
    1 or more26 (48%)27 (50%)

    Primary end point: progression-free survival

    9.7 moMedian PFS, abemaciclib
    1.5 moMedian PFS, placebo
    0.38Hazard ratio (90% CI, 0.25 to 0.59)

    Stratified log-rank P less than 0.001.

    Landmark PFSAbemaciclibPlacebo
    6-month PFS60%22%
    12-month PFS39%13%

    Objective response rate

    9%ORR, abemaciclib
    0%ORR, placebo

    Response measured by RECIST percent change from baseline. Confidence intervals and odds ratio for ORR were not reported in the source.

    PFS after crossover

    Of placebo-arm patients, 46 (85%) received abemaciclib after progression.

    3.4 moMedian PFS after crossover
    4%Response rate after crossover

    Overall survival

    NRMedian OS, abemaciclib (not reached)
    25.5 moMedian OS, placebo
    0.55Hazard ratio (95% CI, 0.28 to 1.07)

    Stratified log-rank P equals 0.07. OS was assessed despite 85% crossover from placebo to abemaciclib.

    Landmark OSAbemaciclibPlacebo
    12-month OS85%71%
    24-month OS72%51%

    Exploratory: PFS by prior therapy (abemaciclib arm)

    Among patients receiving abemaciclib, those with no prior lines of therapy had longer median PFS than those with one or more prior lines. This forest-style comparison uses the only two subgroups and the at-risk counts reported in the source.

    Subgroup (abemaciclib only)
    n
    Median PFS (months)
    mPFS
    No prior lines of therapy
    27
    16.4
    1 or more prior lines of therapy
    27
    5.3

    Log-rank P equals 0.029. Bars are scaled to median PFS; a per-subgroup hazard ratio and confidence interval were not reported. The two n values (27 and 27) are the at-risk counts at time zero shown in the source figure.

    Tolerability overview

    39%Dose reductions, abemaciclib
    2%Dose reductions, placebo

    The source reported selected adverse events by grade and dose-reduction rates. A summary of any-grade AEs, overall grade 3 or higher AEs, treatment-related versus all-cause attribution, and fatal events was not presented in the source.

    Key adverse events by grade

    Values are percentages. The source did not separate treatment-related from all-cause events.

    Adverse eventPlaceboAbemaciclib
    G2G3G4G2G3G4
    Hematologic
    Anemia2224
    Lymphocyte count decreased272
    Neutrophil count decreased29112
    Platelet count decreased4
    White blood cell decreased137
    Gastrointestinal and other
    Abdominal pain or fullness6442
    Diarrhea2287
    Creatinine increased42206

    Events at 20% or higher in either arm (any reported grade)

    Bars sum the grade 2 to 4 percentages reported for each event. Diarrhea, anemia, and creatinine increased reached the 20% threshold in the abemaciclib arm; no listed event reached 20% with placebo.

    Diarrhea
    Abema 35%
    Placebo 2%
    Anemia
    Abema 26%
    Placebo 2%
    Creatinine increased
    Abema 26%
    Placebo 6%

    Per-event totals are the sum of reported grade 2 to 4 values: diarrhea 28 plus 7 equals 35; anemia 22 plus 4 equals 26; creatinine increased 20 plus 6 equals 26. Grade 1 events were not reported, so true any-grade rates may be higher.

    References

    1. Dickson MA, Ballman KV, Weiss M, et al. SARC041: a phase 3 randomized double-blind study of abemaciclib versus placebo in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Presented at: 2026 ASCO Annual Meeting (Plenary Session); May 29 to June 2, 2026; Chicago, IL.
    2. SARC041: study of abemaciclib versus placebo in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04967521.

    No peer-reviewed journal publication was available at the time this QuickView was prepared. All efficacy and safety values are drawn from the ASCO 2026 presentation and should be confirmed against the full publication when released.

    Abbreviations

    AE
    adverse event
    CDK4/6
    cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6
    CI
    confidence interval
    CT
    computed tomography
    CTCAE
    Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
    DDLS
    dedifferentiated liposarcoma
    ECOG PS
    Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status
    HR
    hazard ratio
    mPFS
    median progression-free survival
    NR
    not reached
    ORR
    objective response rate
    OS
    overall survival
    PFS
    progression-free survival
    PO bid
    orally twice daily
    RECIST
    Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

    Cancer Communicator QuickView. Editorial summary for medical education. Not promotional material.

  • #ASCO26 News: Teclistamab Monotherapy Improves PFS and OS in Early RRMM

    #ASCO26 News: Teclistamab Monotherapy Improves PFS and OS in Early RRMM

    Results from the phase 3 MajesTEC-9 trial, presented on Day 1 of the 2026 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, showed that teclistamab monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with investigator’s choice of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd) or carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy, including lenalidomide and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    The open-label, multicenter trial enrolled patients with documented progression or lack of response to their last regimen. Patients who had received prior BCMA-directed therapy were excluded from the study. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to teclistamab monotherapy (n = 296) or PVd or Kd (n = 297). The primary endpoint of the study was independent review committee (IRC)–assessed PFS.

    At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median PFS was not reached with teclistamab vs 8.2 months with PVd or Kd. Estimated 18-month PFS was 69.8% vs 26.9%, respectively, corresponding to an HR for progression or death of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.38; P < .001).

    The overall response was 84.5% with teclistamab vs 54.2% on PVd or Kd. Patients on the teclistamab arm had deeper responses with a complete response or better response occurring in 65.9% of patients on teclistamab vs 16.8% with PVd or Kd (P < .001). MRD-negative complete response or better was reported in 38.5% vs 6.7%, respectively.

    Overall survival was also significantly improved with teclistamab treatment. The estimated 18-month OS was 79.2% with teclistamab and 68.6% with PVd or Kd, with an HR for death of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.43-0.83; P = .002).

    Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 84.9% of patients receiving teclistamab and 76.3% receiving PVd or Kd. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 66.0% of teclistamab-treated patients, mostly grade 1 or 2, and ICANS occurred in 4.1%. Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 41.6% and 29.0%, respectively. Grade 5 adverse events occurred in 6.5% and 3.5%, respectively. In both arms, most of the adverse event-related deaths were due to infection.

    In a New England Journal accompanying editorial, María-Victoria Mateos, PhD, described MajesTEC-9 as a landmark trial that supports teclistamab monotherapy as a pragmatic and accessible BCMA-targeted approach in early relapse, while emphasizing that broader use will depend on infection prevention, patient selection, and sequencing.

    Table. Key Efficacy Outcomes in MajesTEC-9

    Teclistamab (n = 296)PVd or Kd (n = 297)HR (95% CI); P
    Median PFS, moNR8.20.29 (0.23-0.38); P < .001
      18-mo PFS, %69.826.9
    Median OS, moNRNR0.60 (0.43-0.83); P = .002
      18-mo OS, %79.268.6
    ORR, %84.554.2
      ≥CR, %65.916.8
      ≥MRD-negative CR, %38.56.7

    Abbreviations: BCMA, B-cell maturation antigen; CR, complete response; ICANS, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome; Kd, carfilzomib and dexamethasone; MRD, minimal residual disease; NR, not reached; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; PVd, pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone.

    References

    Mina R, et al. MajesTEC-9: Phase 3 study of teclistamab monotherapy vs investigator’s choice of PVd or Kd in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy. Presented at: ASCO Annual Meeting 2026; Day 1; Abstract 7507.

    Touzeau C, Mina R, Quach H, et al; MajesTEC-9 Trial Investigators. Teclistamab in multiple myeloma with one to three previous lines of therapy. N Engl J Med. Published May 29, 2026. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2603870

    Mateos M-V. Redefining early relapse in multiple myeloma — time to change the rules. N Engl J Med. Published May 29, 2026. doi:10.1056/NEJMe2605404

  • #ASCO26: First-Line Sunvozertinib Prolongs PFS in EGFR Exon 20 Insertion–Mutated Advanced NSCLC

    #ASCO26: First-Line Sunvozertinib Prolongs PFS in EGFR Exon 20 Insertion–Mutated Advanced NSCLC

    The oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunvozertinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with carboplatin–pemetrexed as first-line treatment for advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations in the phase 3, international WU-KONG28 trial. Results of the primary analysis were reported in an opening Oral Abstract Session at the 2026 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    WU-KONG28 enrolled adults with previously untreated, locally advanced stage IIIB or IIIC or metastatic stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertions, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Patients with brain metastases were eligible if the metastases were stable after local therapy. From December 2022 through May 2025, 324 patients from 154 sites in 15 countries were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral sunvozertinib 300 mg once daily (n = 163) or carboplatin–pemetrexed administered every 3 weeks for up to 4 or 6 cycles, at investigator discretion, followed by pemetrexed maintenance therapy (n = 161). Randomization was stratified by baseline brain metastasis status. Patients in the chemotherapy group could cross over to sunvozertinib after disease progression was confirmed by blinded independent central review (BICR).

    The primary end point was BICR-assessed PFS according to RECIST version 1.1. The key secondary end point was overall survival (OS); other secondary end points included investigator-assessed PFS, objective response, change in tumor size, and duration of response. The data cutoff for the primary analysis was January 16, 2026.

    At a median follow-up of 24.0 months in the sunvozertinib group and 18.0 months in the chemotherapy group, median BICR-assessed PFS was 10.3 months with sunvozertinib compared with 7.5 months with chemotherapy. Sunvozertinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50–0.85; P < .001). PFS rates at 12 months were 46.1% and 26.7%, respectively; at 18 months, rates were 33.2% and 17.1%; and at 24 months, rates were 23.0% and 10.3%.

    Objective response by BICR was reported in 58.9% of patients treated with sunvozertinib compared with 31.1% of those treated with chemotherapy. Median best percentage change from baseline in tumor size was −42.1% with sunvozertinib and −24.7% with chemotherapy. Median duration of response was 11.2 months and 7.1 months, respectively.

    OS data were immature at 38.9% maturity. At a median OS follow-up of 26.1 months with sunvozertinib and 26.7 months with chemotherapy, 62 and 64 patients, respectively, had died. Median OS was 29.8 months with sunvozertinib and 28.8 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70–1.40; P = .48). Interpretation of OS is limited by maturity and the crossover design: among 112 patients in the chemotherapy group with BICR-confirmed disease progression, 101 (90.2%) crossed over to sunvozertinib.

    Safety analyses included 163 patients treated with sunvozertinib and 150 treated with chemotherapy. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 75.5% and 56.7% of patients, respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events with sunvozertinib were increased serum creatine kinase level (20.9%), diarrhea (14.1%), and anemia (9.2%); with chemotherapy, the most common were decreased neutrophil count (18.7%), anemia (11.3%), decreased white-cell count (6.7%), and decreased platelet count (6.7%). Serious adverse events were reported in 45.4% of patients receiving sunvozertinib and 26.7% receiving chemotherapy.

    Adverse events led to drug discontinuation in 11.7% of patients treated with sunvozertinib and 12.0% treated with chemotherapy; treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation in 7.4% and 11.3%, respectively. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis led to sunvozertinib discontinuation in 1.8% and 1.2% of patients. No treatment-related fatal adverse events occurred with sunvozertinib; 1 treatment-related fatal pneumonia event occurred in the chemotherapy group.

    Table. Key Efficacy Outcomes in WU-KONG28

    EndpointSunvozertinib (n = 163)Chemotherapy (n = 161)
    Median PFS by BICR, mo10.37.5
           HR (95% CI); P0.65 (0.50–0.85); < .001
    PFS at 12 mo, %46.126.7
    PFS at 18 mo, %33.217.1
    PFS at 24 mo, %23.010.3
    Objective response by BICR, %58.931.1
    Median DOR, mo11.27.1
    Median OS, mo29.828.8
    OS at 24 mo, %57.456.2


    Abbreviations: BICR, blinded independent central review; CI, confidence interval; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; HR, hazard ratio; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; DOR, duration of response.

    References