The COMPEL study showed a near doubling of progression-free survival by continuing osimertinib with chemotherapy after first-line progression. This contradicts findings with first-generation TKIs (like gefitinib) and establishes "TKI continuation" as a new standard of care.
Features like brain metastases or p53 co-mutations are considered high-risk. However, about 75% of patients have at least one such factor, making the "high-risk" profile the norm, not the exception, and reinforcing the need for upfront combination therapy.
The SAVANNAH study showed that targeting MET amplification after TKI failure is only effective with stringent diagnostic criteria (e.g., IHC 3+ in >90% of cells). Lower cutoffs lead to poor outcomes, highlighting the need for precise biomarker testing to select patients for this therapy.
The FLORA two study's overall survival benefit was so compelling that clinicians should now default to osimertinib plus chemotherapy for most first-line EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients, only opting out for specific reasons like comorbidities or patient preference.
The North Star study shows local therapy like radiation or surgery improves survival in stage IV patients on osimertinib, but only if every site of residual disease is treated. Treating some but not all spots provides no additional benefit over standard TKI therapy.
The Mariposa study showed an overall survival benefit for first-line amivantamab. However, since very few patients in the control arm received subsequent amivantamab, the benefit may simply demonstrate the drug's effectiveness at *any* point, not necessarily that it must be used first-line.