TY - JOUR
T1 - Subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab, both in combination with lazertinib, in refractory EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer
T2 - Patient satisfaction and resource utilization results from the PALOMA-3 study
AU - Alexander, Mariam
AU - Cheng, Ying
AU - Lee, Se Hoon
AU - Passaro, Antonio
AU - Spira, Alexander I.
AU - Cho, Byoung Chul
AU - Lim, Sun Min
AU - Ohe, Yuichiro
AU - Nagrial, Adnan
AU - Tan, Jiunn Liang
AU - Wainsztein, Vanina
AU - Ramos, Elisa
AU - Campelo, Maria del Rosario Garcia
AU - Akamatsu, Hiroaki
AU - Nguyen, Danny
AU - Cortot, Alexis B.
AU - Zer, Alona
AU - Erdem, Dilek
AU - Sanborn, Rachel E.
AU - Emde, Till Oliver
AU - Minchom, Anna R.
AU - Zurawski, Bogdan
AU - Ferreira, Maria Lurdes
AU - Yang, James Chih Hsin
AU - Marmarelis, Melina E.
AU - Schuchard, Julia
AU - Alves, Jefferson
AU - Ghosh, Debopriya
AU - Balaburski, Gregor
AU - Verheijen, Remy B.
AU - Ribeiro, Liliana
AU - Gamil, Mohamed
AU - Bauml, Joshua M.
AU - Baig, Mahadi
AU - Leighl, Natasha B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Authors
PY - 2025/9/9
Y1 - 2025/9/9
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - EGFR-mutated NSCLC
KW - Patient satisfaction
KW - Resource utilization
KW - Subcutaneous amivantamab
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012038374
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115624
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115624
M3 - Article
C2 - 40730077
AN - SCOPUS:105012038374
SN - 0959-8049
VL - 227
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
M1 - 115624
ER -