Osimertinib with or without Chemotherapy in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC

Author(s): David Planchard, M.D., Ph.D., Pasi A. Jänne, M.D., Ph.D., Ying Cheng, M.D., James C.-H. Yang, M.D., Ph.D., Noriko Yanagitani, M.D., Ph.D., Sang-We Kim, M.D., Shunichi Sugawara, M.D., Ph.D., Yan Yu, M.D., Yun Fan, M.D., Sarayut L. Geater, M.D., Konstantin Laktionov, Ph.D., Chee K. Lee, M.D., Ph.D., et al., for the FLAURA2 Investigators*
Source: N Engl J Med 2023; 389:1935-1948 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2306434
Anjan J Patel MD

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Osimertinib with chemotherapy improved the chance of being alive at two years compared to targeted therapy alone at 57 vs 41%. Further analysis of FLAURA2 and new studies will surely look to identify which patients benefit most from the combination of targeted therapy and chemotherapy. For young or healthy patients, this is an acceptable first line option.  This is not yet reflected on NCCN but is likely to be added soon.


Osimertinib is a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for EGFR-TKI–sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. Evidence suggests that the addition of chemotherapy may extend the benefits of EGFR-TKI therapy.


In this phase 3, international, open-label trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation) advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received treatment for advanced disease to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) with chemotherapy (pemetrexed [500 mg per square meter of body-surface area] plus either cisplatin [75 mg per square meter] or carboplatin [pharmacologically guided dose]) or to receive osimertinib monotherapy (80 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Response and safety were also assessed.


A total of 557 patients underwent randomization. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the osimertinib–chemotherapy group than in the osimertinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 24 months, 57% (95% CI, 50 to 63) of the patients in the osimertinib–chemotherapy group and 41% (95% CI, 35 to 47) of those in the osimertinib group were alive and progression-free. Progression-free survival as assessed according to blinded independent central review was consistent with the primary analysis (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.80). An objective (complete or partial) response was observed in 83% of the patients in the osimertinib–chemotherapy group and in 76% of those in the osimertinib group; the median response duration was 24.0 months (95% CI, 20.9 to 27.8) and 15.3 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 19.4), respectively. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events from any cause was higher with the combination than with monotherapy — a finding driven by known chemotherapy-related adverse events. The safety profile of osimertinib plus pemetrexed and a platinum-based agent was consistent with the established profiles of the individual agents.


First-line treatment with osimertinib–chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than osimertinib monotherapy among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04035486. opens in new tab.)

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Thoracic Group and International Center for Thoracic Cancers, Villejuif, and the Faculty of Medicine, Paris-Saclay University, Paris — both in France (D.P.); the Department of Medical Oncology, Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, Boston (P.A.J.); the Department of Thoracic Oncology, Jilin Cancer Hospital, Changchun (Y.C.), the Department of Medical Oncology, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin (Y.Y.), and the Department of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou (Y.F.) — all in China; the Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University Cancer Center, Taipei (J.C.-H.Y.); the Department of Thoracic Medical Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo (N.Y.), the Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Sendai Kousei Hospital, Sendai (S.S.), and the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Saitama Medical University International Medical Center, Hidaka (K.K.) — all in Japan; the Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea (S.-W.K.); the Department of Internal Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand (S.L.G.); the Federal State Budgetary Institution “N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow (K.L.); the Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Care Centre, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia (C.K.L.); the Department of Oncology, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas, Surquillo, Peru (N.V.); the Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester (S.A.), and Oncology Research and Development (D.G., Y.R.) and Oncology Biometrics (A.T.), AstraZeneca, Cambridge — both in the United Kingdom; the Department of Clinical Oncology, Rondebosch Oncology Centre, Cape Town, South Africa (J.-M.M.); the Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Východoslovenský Onkologický Ústav, Košice, Slovakia (I.A.); and the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles (J.G.). Dr. Planchard can be contacted at david.planchard@gustaveroussy.fr or at the Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Thoracic Group and International Center for Thoracic Cancers, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif, France. Dr. Jänne can be contacted at pasi_janne@dfci.harvard.edu or at the Department of Medical Oncology, Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave., LC4114, Boston, MA 02215.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Plasma Proteome–Based Test for First-Line Treatment Selection in Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

FCS medical oncologist and hematologist Ernesto Bustinza-Linares, MD has co-authored an abstract published in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Journal, JCO Precision Oncology, that uncovers a new testing method to determine personalized care options for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The abstract’s authors address the limitations of existing guidelines that recommend checkpoint immunotherapy, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, for treating NSCLC, which often discounts patient variability and immune factors. The findings from the study show that by incorporating additional plasma proteome-based testing, combined with the standard protein inhibitor testing, clear differences in patient outcomes were observed after applying targeted treatments based on the testing results.

Read More »

Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Mutated Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Disease Progression on Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Final Results of CheckMate 722

This is the same issue as the Phase III, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Patients With EGFR- or ALK-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ATTLAS, KCSG-LU19-04) article, this one was negative though. A question for the previous trial would be: do we need PDL-1 inhibitor, or just VEGF inhibitor, recall the pts with tumors with high PDL-1 expression did better though, so most likely we need both with chemotherapy.

Read More »

Phase III, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Patients With EGFR- or ALK-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ATTLAS, KCSG-LU19-04)

Adding VEGF inhibitor to PD-1 blocker in addition to chemotherapy is better than a chemotherapy-alone regimen as a second-line therapy after TKI failure. This is true especially in patients with tumors with high PD-L1 expression, with not much besides chemotherapy as second-line therapy for those patients (or other clinical trials) that may be a better option that includes immunotherapy.

Read More »