Subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab, both in combination with lazertinib, in refractory EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: Patient satisfaction and resource utilization results from the PALOMA-3 study

  • Mariam Alexander
  • , Ying Cheng
  • , Se Hoon Lee
  • , Antonio Passaro
  • , Alexander I. Spira
  • , Byoung Chul Cho
  • , Sun Min Lim
  • , Yuichiro Ohe
  • , Adnan Nagrial
  • , Jiunn Liang Tan
  • , Vanina Wainsztein
  • , Elisa Ramos
  • , Maria del Rosario Garcia Campelo
  • , Hiroaki Akamatsu
  • , Danny Nguyen
  • , Alexis B. Cortot
  • , Alona Zer
  • , Dilek Erdem
  • , Rachel E. Sanborn
  • , Till Oliver Emde
  • Anna R. Minchom, Bogdan Zurawski, Maria Lurdes Ferreira, James Chih Hsin Yang, Melina E. Marmarelis, Julia Schuchard, Jefferson Alves, Debopriya Ghosh, Gregor Balaburski, Remy B. Verheijen, Liliana Ribeiro, Mohamed Gamil, Joshua M. Bauml, Mahadi Baig, Natasha B. Leighl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Introduction: Intravenous anticancer treatments present challenges for patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), prompting the development of subcutaneous formulations. In the phase 3 PALOMA-3 study, subcutaneous amivantamab demonstrated noninferior pharmacokinetics and response rates versus intravenous amivantamab (both with lazertinib), with substantially faster administration, a 5-fold reduction in infusion-related reactions, reduced venous thromboembolism, and numerically prolonged survival. Methods: Participants with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and progression on osimertinib and chemotherapy were randomized to subcutaneous (n = 206) or intravenous amivantamab (n = 212), plus lazertinib. Resource utilization and participant-reported treatment satisfaction were evaluated at cycle (C) 1 day (D) 1 and C3D1. Results: Time-in-chair was substantially lower for subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab (C1D1: median [range], 23 min or 0.4 h [0–12.0 h] vs 6.5 h [0–24.0 h]; C3D1: 35 min or 0.6 h [0–6.6 h] vs 3.4 h [0.5–9.0 h]), as were HCP time and participant time-in-room. More participants who received subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab reported feeling unrestricted (C1D1, 66 % vs 29 %; C3D1, 60 % vs 42 %) or unbothered (C1D1, 69 % vs 30 %; C3D1, 71 % vs 45 %) by administration, and reported gaining time for other activities (C1D1, 36 % vs 7 %; C3D1, 37 % vs 6 %). Few participants who received subcutaneous amivantamab reported moderate-to-very severe injection-site pain (C1D1, 14 %; C3D1, 16 %), swelling (C1D1, 5 %; C3D1, 6 %), or redness (C1D1, 5 %; C3D1, 6 %). Most subcutaneous amivantamab recipients preferred and were more satisfied with its administration versus historical experience with intravenous therapies and would recommend it. Conclusions: In PALOMA-3, subcutaneous amivantamab, which simplifies and shortens administration, reduces resource utilization, and enhances treatment experience, was a preferred option for patients who received amivantamab-lazertinib.

Original languageEnglish
Article number115624
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume227
DOIs
StatePublished - 9 Sep 2025

Keywords

  • EGFR-mutated NSCLC
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Resource utilization
  • Subcutaneous amivantamab

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab, both in combination with lazertinib, in refractory EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: Patient satisfaction and resource utilization results from the PALOMA-3 study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this