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.
Publication Title
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
9-9-2025
Keywords
Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Female; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Male; Middle Aged; ErbB Receptors; Aged; Patient Satisfaction; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Mutation; Injections, Subcutaneous; Adult; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Administration, Intravenous; Acrylamides; Aniline Compounds; Aged, 80 and over; Morpholines; Health Resources; Quinazolines; Infusions, Intravenous; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Treatment Outcome; Indoles; Pyrimidines; EGFR-mutated NSCLC; Patient satisfaction; Resource utilization; Subcutaneous amivantamab.; oregon; portland; chiles
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.
Area of Special Interest
Cancer
Specialty/Research Institute
Oncology
Specialty/Research Institute
Pulmonary Medicine
DOI
10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115624
