Cited by 619Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentLung Cancer Research Studies

Sotorasib versus docetaxel for previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Open access
de Langen, Adrianus Johannes, Johnson, Melissa L, Mazieres, Julien, Dingemans, Anne-Marie C, Mountzios, Giannis, Pless, Miklos, Wolf, Jürgen, Schuler, Martin +24 more·2023·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Sotorasib is a specific, irreversible inhibitor of the GTPase protein, KRAS G12C. We compared the efficacy and safety of sotorasib with a standard-of-care treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the KRAS G12C mutation who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs.Methods We conducted a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial at 148 centres in 22 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, who progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Key exclusion criteria included new or progressing untreated brain lesions or symptomatic brain lesions, previously identified oncogenic driver mutation other than KRAS G12C for which an approved therapy is available (eg EGFR or ALK), previous treatment with docetaxel (neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel was allowed if the tumour did not progress within 6 months after the therapy was terminated), previous treatment with a direct KRAS G12C inhibitor, systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of study day 1, and therapeutic or palliative radiation therapy within 2 weeks of treatment initiation. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily) or intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 once every 3 weeks) in an open-label manner using interactive response technology. Randomisation was stratified by number of previous lines of therapy in advanced disease (1 vs 2 vs >2), ethnicity (Asian vs non-Asian), and history of CNS metastases (present or absent). Treatment continued until an independent central confirmation of disease progression, intolerance, initiation of another anticancer therapy, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was assessed by a blinded, independent central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04303780, and is active but no longer recruiting.Findings Between June 4, 2020, and April 26, 2021, 345 patients were randomly assigned to receive sotorasib (n=171 [50%]) or docetaxel (n=174 [50%]). 169 (99%) patients in the sotorasib group and 151 (87%) in the docetaxel group received at least one dose. After a median follow-up of 17·7 months (IQR 16·4-20·1), the study met its primary endpoint of a statistically significant increase in the progression-free survival for sotorasib, compared with docetaxel (median progression-free survival 5·6 months [95% CI 4·3-7·8] vs 4·5 months [3·0-5·7]; hazard ratio 0·66 [0·51-0·86]; p=0·0017). Sotorasib was well tolerated, with fewer grade 3 or worse (n=56 [33%] vs n=61 [40%]) and serious treatment-related adverse events compared with docetaxel (n=18 [11%] vs n=34 [23%]). For sotorasib, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were diarrhoea (n= 20 [12%]), alanine aminotransferase increase (n=13 [8%]), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=9 [5%]). For docetaxel, the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (n=13 [9%]), fatigue (n=9 [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (n=8 [5%]).Interpretation Sotorasib significantly increased progression-free survival and had a more favourable safety profile, compared with docetaxel, in patients with advanced NSCLC with the KRAS G12C mutation and who had been previously treated with other anticancer drugs.Funding Amgen.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00221-0

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clinical trials of multiple KRASG12C inhibitors have shown promising efficacy in advanced, previously treated NSCLC, leading to FDA accelerated approval of adagrasib and sotorasib.

    “Clinical trials of multiple KRASG12C inhibitors have shown promising efficacy in advanced, previously treated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), leading to United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval of two of these therapies (adagrasib and sotorasib) and many others being investigated in this setting (9–17).”

    From Mechanisms of Resistance to Oncogenic KRAS Inhibition in Pancreatic Cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction and Discussion report clinical efficacy for sotorasib in previously treated advanced KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC, and Research in context says adagrasib has also been reported efficacious in this population. The passages do not state that either drug received FDA accelerated approval or that the trial results led to those approvals. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sotorasib, adagrasib, and divarasib monotherapies have demonstrated objective response rates ranging from 7.1% to 53.4% and median progression-free survival of 4.0-13.1 months.

    “For example, sotorasib, adagrasib, and divarasib monotherapies have demonstrated objective response rates ranging from 7.1% to 53.4% and median progression-free survival of 4.0-13.1 months, 13-20”

    From Anti-tumor efficacy of HRS-4642 and its potential combination with proteasome inhibition in KRAS G12D-mutant cancer (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results report a 28.1% objective response rate and 5.6-month median progression-free survival for sotorasib, both within the cited ranges. This trial does not establish the stated ranges or provide corresponding results for adagrasib and divarasib; the Results passages have no page number in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In patients with non-small cell lung cancer, divarasib had a numerically higher ORR (56.4%) than sotorasib (37% in a phase 2 trial and 28% in a phase 3 trial) and adagrasib (43% in a phase 2 trial).

    “This is further supported by a numerically higher ORR seen with divarasib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (56.4%) compared with sotorasib (37% in a phase 2 trial and 28% in a phase 3 trial) and adagrasib (43% in a phase 2 trial)11,23–25.”
  • In CodeBreaK 200, median overall survival was not improved with sotorasib compared with docetaxel (10.6 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 1.01).

    “while median overall survival was not improved with sotorasib compared with docetaxel (10.6 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 1.01) [25]”
  • In CodeBreaK 200, sotorasib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with docetaxel in previously treated KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC (median PFS, 5.6 vs. 4.5 months; HR, 0.66).

    “In the randomized phase III CodeBreaK 200 trial, sotorasib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with docetaxel in previously treated KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC (median PFS, 5.6 vs. 4.5 months; HR, 0.66).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Langen, A. J., Johnson, M. L., Mazieres, J., Dingemans, A.-M. C., Mountzios, G., Pless, M., Wolf, J., Schuler, M., Lena, H., Skoulidis, F., Yoneshima, Y., Kim, S.-W., Linardou, H., Novello, S., van der Wekken, A. J., Chen, Y., Peters, S., Felip, E., Solomon, B. J., Ramalingam, S. S., Dooms, C., Lindsay, C. R., Ferreira, C. G., Blais, N., Obiozor, C. C., Wang, Y., Mehta, B., Varrieur, T., Ngarmchamnanrith, G., Stollenwerk, B., Waterhouse, D., & Paz-Ares, L.
Affiliations
  • Sarah Cannon (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Henry Dunant Hospital (GR)
  • Kantonsspital Winterthur (CH)
  • University Hospital Cologne (DE)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Kyushu University Hospital (JP)
  • Asan Medical Center (KR)
  • Metropolitan Hospital (GR)
  • Ospedale San Luigi Gonzaga (IT)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
  • Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES)
  • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
  • Emory University (US)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Amgen (United States) (US)
  • Amgen (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Oncology Hematology Care (US)
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
Corresponding author
Paz-Ares, Luis
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
401
Issue
10378
Pages
733-746
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W4319337483
Cited by
619
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 146 · 2025: 196 · 2024: 196 · 2023: 81
FWCI
113.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Amgen
  • Amgen Inc San Francisco
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Lung Cancer Research Studies
Keywords
sotorasib, docetaxel, KRAS G12C mutation, non-small cell lung cancer, KRAS inhibitors, progression-free survival, second-line therapy, previously treated advanced NSCLC, central nervous system metastasis, treatment safety, oral versus intravenous administration, head-to-head comparison
MeSH terms
Docetaxel, Adolescent, Adult, Antineoplastic Agents, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Mutation, Piperazines, Pyridines, Pyrimidines, Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras), Disease-Free Survival

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review