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.
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
Journal Volume
227
Start Page
Article number 115624
ISSN
1879-0852
Date Issued
2025-07-10
Author(s)
Alexander, Mariam
Cheng, Ying
Lee, Se-Hoon
Passaro, Antonio
Spira, Alexander I
Cho, Byoung Chul
Lim, Sun Min
Ohe, Yuichiro
Nagrial, Adnan
Tan, Jiunn Liang
Wainsztein, Vanina
Ramos, Elisa
Campelo, Maria Del Rosario Garcia
Akamatsu, Hiroaki
Nguyen, Danny
Cortot, Alexis B
Zer, Alona
Erdem, Dilek
Sanborn, Rachel E
Emde, Till-Oliver
Minchom, Anna R
Zurawski, Bogdan
Ferreira, Maria Lurdes
Marmarelis, Melina E
Schuchard, Julia
Alves, Jefferson
Ghosh, Debopriya
Balaburski, Gregor
Verheijen, Remy B
Ribeiro, Liliana
Gamil, Mohamed
Bauml, Joshua M
Baig, Mahadi
Leighl, Natasha B
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subjects
EGFR-mutated NSCLC
Patient satisfaction
Resource utilization
Subcutaneous amivantamab
Type
journal article