Beyond Osimertinib Monotherapy: Frontline Intensification in EGFR-Mutant NSCLC After FLAURA2 and MARIPOSA

Chinmay Jani, MD University of Miami Health System | Ruchi Jani Smt NHL Municipal Medical College | Gilberto Lopes, MD Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami

Key Points

• Upfront combination strategies—osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed (FLAURA2) and amivantamab plus lazertinib (MARIPOSA)—demonstrate significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival compared with osimertinib monotherapy in EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

• These regimens use distinct mechanisms to delay resistance, with chemotherapy targeting heterogeneous tumor clones and amivantamab–lazertinib inhibiting EGFR- and MET-driven escape pathways.

• Clinical benefit appears pronounced in high-risk subgroups, including patients with L858R mutations, liver metastases, TP53 co-mutations, detectable circulating tumor DNA, and central nervous system involvement.

• Treatment selection should balance efficacy with differing toxicity profiles, patient comorbidities, and logistical considerations.

The discovery of activating EGFR mutations as dominant oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) marked a major milestone in precision oncology.¹ Present in approximately 20% to 30% of White patients and 30% to 50% of Asian patients with adenocarcinoma, these alterations transformed the treatment landscape for advanced NSCLC. The phase 3 FLAURA trial subsequently established osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), as the global first-line standard by demonstrating superior efficacy across exon 19 deletions (Ex19del), L858R substitutions, and select uncommon EGFR variants.^2,3 However, despite these advances, acquired resistance to osimertinib remains nearly universal. Resistance emerges through diverse on-target mechanisms, including secondary EGFR mutations, as well as off-target pathways such as MET amplification, bypass signaling, and histologic transformation.¹ Consequently, the clinical focus has evolved from simply delaying progression to developing strategies capable of preempting resistance and improving long-term survival outcomes.

Two pivotal phase 3 trials have now demonstrated clinically meaningful survival advantages over osimertinib monotherapy and have reshaped first-line treatment considerations in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. FLAURA2 (NCT04035486) enrolled 557 patients with untreated Ex19del or L858R EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC, randomizing them 1:1 to osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy for 4 induction cycles followed by maintenance, or osimertinib monotherapy.^4,5 Patients with asymptomatic or controlled central nervous system (CNS) metastases were eligible, reflecting the clinical reality of brain involvement in this disease. MARIPOSA (NCT04487080) took a mechanistically distinct approach, evaluating lazertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, combined with amivantamab, a bispecific antibody targeting both EGFR and MET, against osimertinib alone in 1074 patients with the same mutation-selected population.^6,7 Both trials have now reported overall survival (OS) data, establishing two distinct frontline paradigms that have substantially altered the frontline treatment decision-making in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Table 1. Trial Design: FLAURA2 vs MARIPOSA

Trial Feature	FLAURA28	MARIPOSA9
NCT	NCT04035486	NCT04487080
Phase / Design	Phase 3, open-label, randomized 1:1	Phase 3, open-label, randomized 2:2:1
N (randomized)	557	1074 (429 Ami+Laz vs 429 Osi)
Experimental Regimen	Osimertinib 80 mg/day + pemetrexed + platinum ×4 cycles → osimertinib + pemetrexed maintenance	Amivantamab + lazertinib
Comparator	Osimertinib 80 mg monotherapy	Osimertinib 80 mg monotherapy
Key Eligibility	Untreated Ex19del/L858R adv. NSCLC, ECOG 0–1; CNS mets allowed	Untreated Ex19del/L858R adv. NSCLC, ECOG 0–1; CNS mets allowed
Primary End Point	Investigator-assessed PFS	BICR PFS
FDA Approval	FDA-approved osimertinib + platinum-pemetrexed combination	FDA-approved amivantamab + lazertinib combination (2024)

Osi = Osimertinib; Ami = Amivantamab; Laz = Lazertinib; adv. = advanced; CNS mets = Central nervous system metastases; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; BICR= Blinded Independent Central Review; PFS = Progression Free Survival

Both trials met their primary endpoints with statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), and both have now reported OS benefit over osimertinib monotherapy. In FLAURA2, osimertinib plus platinum-pemetrexed yielded a median PFS of 25.5 months versus 16.7 months (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.79; P < .001)⁴ and a 23% reduction in the risk of death, with a median OS of 47.5 months versus 37.6 months (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61–0.96), representing nearly 10 additional months at the median.⁵ The L858R subgroup derived a particularly pronounced benefit, with a median PFS of 24.7 months versus 13.9 months compared with 27.9 months versus 19.4 months in the Ex19del cohort. MARIPOSA’s final OS analysis showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful survival advantage for amivantamab plus lazertinib (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61–0.92; P = .005), with median OS not reached in the combination arm versus 36.7 months with osimertinib.⁶ At 3 years, 60% of patients receiving amivantamab–lazertinib were alive compared with 51% on osimertinib. Together, these studies support intensified upfront therapy as a new standard consideration in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.

Table 2. Efficacy Outcomes: FLAURA2 vs MARIPOSA

Efficacy End Point	FLAURA2 (Osi + Chemo vs Osi)8, 10	MARIPOSA (Ami + Laz vs Osi)9
Median PFS	25.5 vs 16.7 months; HR, 0.62 (0.49–0.79); P < .0014	23.7 vs 16.6 months; HR, 0.70 (0.58–0.85); P < .0016
Median OS	47.5 vs 37.6 months; HR, 0.77 (0.61–0.96)5	NR vs 36.7 months; HR, 0.75 (0.61–0.92); P = .0056
3-Year OS Rate	63% vs 51%	60% vs 51%
ORR	83% vs 76%	86% vs. 85%
Median DoR	24 vs 15.3 months4	25.8 vs 16.8 months
Intracranial PFS	30.2 vs 27.6 months; HR, 0.58 (0.33–1.01)11	24.9 vs 22.2 months; HR, 0.82 (0.62–1.09)
PFS: Ex19del subgroup	27.9 vs 19.4 months	Benefit maintained across mutation types
PFS: L858R subgroup	21.4 vs 13.1 months; HR, 0.62 (0.43–0.89)	20.3 vs 11.1 months; HR, 0.65 (0.48–0.89)

NR = Not Reached; DoR = Duration of Response; HR = Hazard Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval. Cross-trial comparisons are contextual and should not be interpreted as head-to-head rankings. Intracranial PFS data for FLAURA2 reflect the overall population; MARIPOSA data reflect the brain metastasis subgroup.

CNS disease control is an increasingly central consideration in this population, and both combination strategies have demonstrated meaningful intracranial activity. In FLAURA2, among patients with baseline brain metastases, 36-month OS reached 57% with the combination versus 40% with monotherapy,⁵ and median PFS was 24.9 months versus 13.8 months.⁴ In MARIPOSA, the brain metastasis subgroup showed a median PFS of 18.3 months versus 13 months (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53–0.92).⁶ It is important to note that MRI scheduling was different in both trials. In MARIPOSA, all patients underwent scheduled CNS assessments by means of MRI of the head. Imaging was performed at baseline, with subsequent imaging occurring every 8 weeks for the first 30 months, followed by every 12 weeks in patients with a history of brain metastasis or every 24 weeks in patients without a history of brain metastasis. At the same time, in FLAURA2, imaging was performed at Week 13 (±1 week) and then every 12 weeks (±1 week) relative to the first dose until RECIST 1.1-defined radiological disease progression. Osimertinib and lazertinib are both CNS-penetrant, and emerging data suggest potential intracranial activity of amivantamab via additional biologic mechanisms.^12,13

The two regimens confront osimertinib resistance through complementary but mechanistically distinct strategies. FLAURA2’s chemotherapy intensification is premised on eliminating drug-tolerant subclones and polyclonal resistance mutations through broad cytotoxic activity.⁴ EGFR-mutant adenocarcinomas typically express low thymidylate synthase, potentially enhancing pemetrexed sensitivity,¹⁴ and the early, sustained PFS curve separation in FLAURA2 supports eradicating resistant micrometastatic disease upfront rather than delaying chemotherapy, while COMPEL suggests that introducing chemotherapy after progression on osimertinib may not fully recapitulate the benefit observed with upfront intensification.¹⁵ Amivantamab–lazertinib, by contrast, directly intercepts the dominant molecular escape routes: amivantamab targets EGFR and MET, promotes receptor degradation, and in MARIPOSA significantly reduced the emergence of MET amplification and secondary EGFR resistance mutations relative to osimertinib monotherapy.^6,7 This same rationale supports the use of amivantamab plus chemotherapy in the second-line setting following osimertinib progression, as established in MARIPOSA-2.¹⁶

Subgroup analyses have substantially clarified which patients derive the greatest relative benefit from intensification. TP53 co-mutations, associated with immune evasion, therapeutic resistance, and poorer outcomes.^17,18 Exploratory analyses suggest that patients with TP53 co-mutations and other high-risk molecular features may derive greater relative benefit from upfront intensification strategies. Both the FLAURA2 and MARIPOSA studies demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit across several high-risk EGFR-mutant NSCLC subgroups. In FLAURA2, the combination of osimertinib plus chemotherapy maintained benefit in patients with Ex19del and showed significant improvement in patients with L858R mutations, with a median PFS (mPFS) of 21.4 months versus 13.1 months (HR, 0.62). Similarly, MARIPOSA demonstrated benefit with amivantamab plus lazertinib in the L858R subgroup, with an mPFS of 20.3 months versus 11.1 months (HR, 0.65). Among patients with detectable baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), FLAURA2 showed substantial benefit with an mPFS of 24.8 months versus 13.9 months (HR, 0.60), while MARIPOSA demonstrated an mPFS of 20.3 months versus 14.8 months (HR, 0.68; P = .002). In patients with liver metastases, FLAURA2 showed an mPFS of 19.5 months versus 11.1 months (HR, 0.66), although the confidence interval crossed 1.0, whereas MARIPOSA demonstrated a statistically significant benefit with an mPFS of 18.2 months versus 11 months (HR, 0.58; P = .017). Similarly, both studies suggested improved outcomes in tumors harboring TP53 co-mutations. However, statistical significance was more clearly demonstrated in MARIPOSA, which reported an mPFS of 18.2 months versus 12.9 months (HR, 0.65; P = .003), while FLAURA2 reported an HR of 0.57 with confidence intervals crossing unity.

Table 3. High-Risk Subgroup Analyses: FLAURA2 vs MARIPOSA¹⁹

High-Risk Feature	FLAURA2 (Osi + Chemo)19,20	MARIPOSA (Ami + Laz)21
Ex19del Mutation	Benefit maintained; 27.9 vs 19.4 months (HR, 0.60; 0.44-0.83)	Benefit maintainedNot reached vs 18.5 months
L858R Mutation	24.7 vs 13.9 months; HR, 0.63 (0.44–0.90)	18.4 vs 14.8 months; HR, 0.78 (0.59–1.02)
Liver Metastases	19.5 vs 11.1 months; HR, 0.66 (0.41–1.07)	18.2 vs 11 months; HR, 0.58; P = .017
TP53 Co-mutation	HR, 0.57 (0.29–1.12)	mPFS 18.2 vs 12.9 months; HR, 0.65; P = .003
Baseline ctDNA Detected	24.8 vs 13.9 months; HR, 0.60 (0.45–0.80)	20.3 vs 14.8 months; HR, 0.68; P = .002
Chemo Intolerance	Not suitable — chemo is integral to regimen	Potential options for patients wishing to avoid chemotherapy.

Clinical note: Patients with multiple concurrent high-risk features are strong candidates for upfront intensification. Subgroup analyses are exploratory and should be interpreted accordingly.

Efficacy cannot be considered in isolation. Both regimens carry higher rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events compared with osimertinib monotherapy, but the toxicity profiles diverge importantly. In FLAURA2, grade 3 or greater events occurred in approximately 64% of patients, with treatment discontinuation in only 11%, driven predominantly by manageable hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities, such as neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and nausea.⁵ Amivantamab–lazertinib produced grade 3 or greater events in approximately 80% of patients, with a substantially higher discontinuation rate of 35%. Its dominant toxicities were dermatologic (rash, paronychia), infusion-related, and metabolic, alongside a markedly elevated rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—prompting increasing consideration of prophylactic anticoagulation strategies in selected patients. Fatigue was comparable between regimens. Since the approval of MARIPOSA, COCOON, and SKIPPirr trials have shown the benefit of prophylactic measures to mitigate infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and dermatological toxicities.²²²³ These differences in toxicity burden, patient preference, comorbidity profile, and institutional infrastructure for toxicity monitoring are as integral to the first-line decision as the efficacy data themselves. 

Table 4. Comparative Safety: FLAURA2 vs MARIPOSA

Safety Parameter	FLAURA2 (Osi + Chemo)	MARIPOSA (Ami + Laz, IV)
Grade ≥3 AEs	~70% vs ~34% (higher due to chemo)5	~80% vs ~52% (higher vs Osi)
Dominant Toxicities	Neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea	Rash, paronychia, infusion reactions, hypoalbuminemia, VTE
Infusion-Related Reactions	Not applicable	~66% (IV); ~13% (SC formulation)
Stomatitis / Fatigue	Less frequent stomatitis; comparable fatigue	More frequent stomatitis; comparable fatigue

AEs = Adverse Events; VTE = Venous Thromboembolism; SC = Subcutaneous; IV = Intravenous. Grade ≥3 rates approximated from published primary analyses. VTE and infusion-related reaction rates for the SC formulation are from the PALOMA-3 trial.

Translating these data into clinical practice requires integration of biomarker profiles, disease burden, patient fitness, treatment preferences, and access considerations. Given the significant PFS and OS benefit demonstrated in the overall populations of both MARIPOSA and FLAURA-2, these intensified first-line approaches should now be considered standard-of-care options for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Treatment intensification appears particularly relevant in patients with high-risk clinical and molecular features, including high disease burden, liver metastases, L858R mutations, TP53 co-mutations, elevated baseline ctDNA, and active CNS disease.

FLAURA-2 may be particularly suitable for patients with adequate hematologic reserve and performance status who are willing to receive an intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy-containing regimen. Importantly, oncology practices across the United States have extensive experience administering platinum-doublet chemotherapy regimens over several decades, making integration of chemotherapy-based intensification relatively familiar in routine clinical workflows and toxicity management. In contrast, amivantamab plus lazertinib offers a chemotherapy-free intensification strategy targeting a similar high-risk population, making it an attractive option for patients wishing to avoid chemotherapy or those in whom hematologic toxicity is a greater concern. However, incorporation of MARIPOSA into routine practice also requires familiarity with newer bispecific antibody-based treatment paradigms, including understanding of IRRs, dermatologic toxicities, VTE risk, and evolving toxicity management guidelines associated with EGFR/MET-directed bispecific therapies. Importantly, while both regimens demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with liver metastases and TP53 co-mutations, statistically significant subgroup benefit was more clearly established in the MARIPOSA regimen.

A development with meaningful implications for first-line decision-making is the regulatory approval of a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of amivantamab, Rybrevant Faspro (amivantamab and hyaluronidase-lpuj), granted by the FDA in December 2025 across all indications for which IV amivantamab had previously been approved.²⁴   The approval was supported by the phase 3 PALOMA-3 trial (NCT05388669), which enrolled 418 patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC who had progressed on osimertinib, randomizing them 1:1 to SC or IV amivantamab, both combined with lazertinib. The percentages of patients alive at 6 and 12 months, respectively, were 85% and 65% in the SC group, and 75% and 51% in the IV group. An exploratory OS analysis favored the SC formulation (HR for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 – 0.92; P = .02).²⁵

The practical implications are substantial. IV amivantamab requires approximately 5 to 6 hours of chair time on the first infusion day. SC administration reduces this to approximately 5 minutes for injection itself as well as eliminates cycle 1, day 2 infusion. SC amivantamab also demonstrated an approximately 5-fold reduction in IRRs, with rates of 13% versus 66% with IV administration in PALOMA-3. The VTE rate was also lower with the SC formulation approximately 9% versus 14% for IV in patients with and without prophylactic anticoagulation with further reduction in a subgroup of patients on prophylactic anticoagulation (7% vs 12%).²⁵ In April 2026, the FDA approved an every-4-week dosing schedule for SC amivantamab plus lazertinib starting from Week 5.²⁶  For institutions with limited infusion capacity or patients facing logistical barriers to prolonged clinic visits, SC amivantamab substantially improves the practical feasibility of the amivantamab–lazertinib strategy through shorter administration times and the potential for monthly dosing beginning at Week 5. In settings where SC amivantamab is available, SC administration may become the new preferred approach because of reduced chair time and lower IRR rates. The ongoing phase 2b COPERNICUS study (NCT06667076) is evaluating SC amivantamab with lazertinib in the first-line setting and with platinum-based chemotherapy in the second-line setting while prospectively incorporating VTE prophylaxis and enhanced dermatologic management during the initial treatment period. The study is designed to assess how this optimized SC regimen with proactive toxicity mitigation performs in a broader, real-world population beyond the selected patients enrolled in pivotal trials.²⁷

The key unanswered question remains how SC amivantamab plus lazertinib compares directly with osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting. Although both regimens have demonstrated OS benefit over osimertinib monotherapy, no head-to-head trial exists, and indirect cross-trial comparisons remain limited by differences in patient populations, control arms, and follow-up. A randomized comparison would help clarify the optimal intensification strategy and identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit from each approach. Until such data emerge, treatment decisions should rely on available evidence, subgroup analyses, patient comorbidities, logistical considerations, and shared decision-making.

References

1. Zhou F, Guo H, Xia Y, et al.  The changing treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2025;22(2):95-116. doi:10.1038/s41571-024-00971-2

2.Ramalingam SS, Vansteenkiste J, Planchard D, et al. Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(1):41-50.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1913662

3.Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, et al. Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):113-125. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713137

4. Planchard D, Jänne PA, Cheng Y, et al. Osimertinib with or without chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(21):1935-1948. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2306434

5. Jänne PA, Planchard D, Kobayashi K, et al. Survival with osimertinib plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(1):27-38. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2510308

6. Yang JC, Lu S, Hayashi H, et al. Overall survival with amivantamab-lazertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2025;393(17):1681-1693. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2503001

7.Cho BC, Lu S, Felip E, et al. Amivantamab plus lazertinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(16):1486-1498. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2403614

8. Jänne PA, Planchard D, Cheng Y, et al. Osimertinib with or without platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC (FLAURA2). European Society for Medical Oncology. 2023.

9. Cho BC, Felip E, Spira AI, et al. LBA14 Amivantamab plus lazertinib vs osimertinib as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Primary results from MARIPOSA, a phase III, global, randomized, controlled trial. AnnOncol. 2023;34(2):S1306. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.062

10. In first-line locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC, longest reported mPFS and mOS with TAGRISSO + chemotherapy vs TAGRISSO. AstraZeneca. Updated November 2025. Accessed  www.tagrissohcp.com/metastatic/flaura2/efficacy.html.

11. Jänne PA, Planchard D, Kobayashi K, et al. CNS efficacy of osimertinib with or without chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(7):808-820. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.02219

12. Lee SH, Lu S, Hayashi H, et al. Lazertinib versus osimertinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC: A randomized, double-blind, exploratory analysis from MARIPOSA. J Thorac Oncol. 2025;20(11):1655-1668. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2025.06.030

13. Leighl NB, Trigo J, Park K, et al. Intracranial and systemic progression on amivantamab in platinum-treated epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2025;205:108579. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2025.108579

14. Christoph DC, Asuncion BR, Hassan B, et al. Significance of folate receptor alpha and thymidylate synthase protein expression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with pemetrexed. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(1):19-30. doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e31827628ff

15. Peled N, Tufman A, Sequist LV, et al. COMPEL: osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC and progression on first-line osimertinib. ESMO Open. 2025;10(10):105807. doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2025.105807

16. Passaro A, Wang J, Wang Y, et al. Amivantamab plus chemotherapy with and without lazertinib in EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib: primary results from the phase III MARIPOSA-2 study. Ann Oncol. 2024;35(1):77-90. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.117

17. Shi H, Xu K, Kong X, et al. Dissecting the immune evasion and therapeutic resistance mechanisms in EGFR/TP53 co-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: implications for targeted and immunotherapy strategies. Front Immunol. 2025;16:1652213. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1652213

18. Sun H, Ren P, Chen Y, et al. Optimal therapy for concomitant EGFR and TP53 mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world study. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):198. doi:10.1186/s12885-023-10637-4

19. Maffezzoli M, Lau J, Justin S, Misbah D, Banna GL. Who truly benefits from first-line intensification in EGFR-mutant NSCLC? Curr Oncol Rep. 2025;27(12):1409-1415. doi:10.1007/s11912-025-01723-w

20. Jänne PA, Kobayashi K, Robichaux J, et al. Abstract CT017: FLAURA2: exploratory analysis of baseline (BL) and on-treatment plasma EGFRm dynamics in patients (pts) with EGFRm advanced NSCLC treated with first-line (1L) osimertinib (osi) ± platinum-pemetrexed. Cancer Research. 2024;84(7_Supplement):CT017-CT. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2024-CT017

21. Felip E, Cho BC, Gutiérrez V, et al. Amivantamab plus lazertinib vs osimertinib in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with biomarkers of high-risk disease: A secondary analysis from the phase 3 MARIPOSA study. Ann Oncol. 2024;35(9):805-816. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2024.05.541

22. Spira AI, Paz-Ares L, Han JY, et al. Preventing infusion-related reactions with intravenous amivantamab-results from SKIPPirr, a phase 2 study: A brief report. J Thorac Oncol. 2025;20(6):809-816. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2025.01.018

23. Cho BC, Li W, Spira AI,et al. Enhanced versus standard dermatologic management with amivantamab-lazertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: The COCOON global randomized controlled trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2025;20(10):1517-1530. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2025.07.117

24. FDA. Approval of amivantamab and hyaluronidase-lpuj (Rybrevant Faspro) for subcutaneous injection. Updated December 17, 2025. Accessed. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-amivantamab-and-hyaluronidase-lpuj-subcutaneous-injection.

25. Leighl NB, Akamatsu H, Lim SM, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous amivantamab, both in combination with lazertinib, in refractory epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: Primary results from the phase III PALOMA-3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(30):3593-3605. doi:10.1200/JCO.24.01001

26. FDA approves RYBREVANT FASPRO™ (amivantamab and hyaluronidase-lpuj) as the only EGFR-targeted therapy that can be administered once a month. Johnson & Johnson. Published February 17, 2026. Accessed. https://www.jnj.com/media-center/press-releases/fda-approves-rybrevant-faspro-amivantamab-and-hyaluronidase-lpuj-as-the-only-egfr-targeted-therapy-that-can-be-administered-once-a-month. 

27. Halmos B, Florez N, Goldberg S, et al. The phase 2b COPERNICUS study of subcutaneous amivantamab with lazertinib as first-line treatment, or with chemotherapy as second-line treatment, for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a vodcast. Oncol Ther. 2025;13(4):871-880. doi:10.1007/s40487-025-00386-8