Osimertinib and Savolitinib: SAFFRON Trial Results
In this article
On 25 October 2026, the full results of the phase 3 SAFFRON trial, which compares the combination of osimertinib + savolitinib with platinum-based chemotherapy, were presented at Presidential Symposium II of the ESMO 2026 Congress in Madrid (LBA6) and published the same day in the New England Journal of Medicine. In 338 patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease had progressed after osimertinib and who had MET overexpression or amplification, median progression-free survival was 7.6 vs 5.4 months (HR 0.55) and median overall survival was 17.8 vs 12.9 months (HR 0.68). The result looks strong, but the trial was open-label, the overall survival data are only 53% mature, life-ending adverse events were more frequent in the combination arm, and the combination is not yet approved in the US.
Who is this article for? For patients with EGFR-mutated lung cancer whose disease has progressed after osimertinib and their families, for health professionals who follow lung cancer, and for anyone curious about how to read a clinical trial. This article is not medical advice; no treatment decision can be made on the basis of this text.
This news arrived in two stages. On 17 August 2026, AstraZeneca announced that the trial had met both its primary endpoint (PFS) and its key secondary endpoint (overall survival), but gave no numbers. In September 2026 it was reported that a new drug application for the combination had been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The data presented today are the first time the August "positive result" sentence appears with numbers.
Who is behind the "new global standard" and "first" statements? Strong claims circulate quickly in news like this; it is worth separating who said what.
- "A new global standard of care" is the statement of the trial's principal investigator and presenter, Prof. Shun Lu (Shanghai Chest Hospital). It is not a regulatory decision; because the combination is not approved in the US, there is neither a label nor a guideline recommendation.
- "The first global phase 3 in this setting" is how CancerNetwork describes the trial. We could not verify this claim independently.
- "Clear evidence to support global registrations" comes from the chief executive of HUTCHMED, the co-developer of savolitinib; this is company language, not an impartial assessment.
- Lu's disclosed conflicts of interest: consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Takeda; research support from AstraZeneca (according to OncLive).
Background: progression after osimertinib and MET
EGFR mutations occur in roughly 10-15% of non-small cell lung cancers in the US and Europe and in 30-40% in Asia (according to AstraZeneca's announcement). Osimertinib (Tagrisso) is an oral third-generation EGFR inhibitor commonly used in the first or second line in these patients. Over time, however, the disease progresses in many patients, and one of the mechanisms of progression is activation of the MET pathway. AstraZeneca estimates that about 34% of tumors that progress after osimertinib develop high MET overexpression or amplification. Because MET status can only be measured in tumor tissue taken after progression, the first step in finding this group of patients is usually a repeat biopsy and molecular testing. We covered the types of lung cancer in our article on the differences between small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (in Turkish) and molecular testing itself in our article on next-generation sequencing (NGS) (in Turkish).
| Trial | Design and patients | Main result | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAVANNAH (phase 2) |
Multi-arm phase 2 (different savolitinib doses); osimertinib + savolitinib. Primary efficacy population 80 patients; MET cutoffs were later raised to IHC3+ ≥90% and/or FISH ≥10 copies | Response rate 56.3% (investigator), 55.0% (BICR); median PFS 7.4 months (investigator), 7.5 months (BICR) | Source of SAFFRON's MET cutoffs; basis of the temporary authorisation in Switzerland |
| SACHI (phase 3, China) |
211 patients, 68 centers, open-label; MET amplification only; control: platinum + pemetrexed | Median PFS 8.2 vs 4.5 months (investigator), HR 0.34 (0.23–0.49); independent review: 7.2 vs 4.2 months, HR 0.40 (0.28–0.59) | Basis of the approval in China. Overall survival immature (40%): 22.9 vs 17.7 months, HR 0.84 (0.55–1.29) |
| SAFFRON (phase 3, global) |
338 patients, open-label; MET overexpression or amplification; control: platinum + pemetrexed | Median PFS 7.6 vs 5.4 months (BICR), HR 0.55 (0.42–0.72); overall survival 17.8 vs 12.9 months, HR 0.68 (0.50–0.91) | Subject of this article |
A caution when reading this table: The three trials are not interchangeable. SACHI was run only in China and only in patients with MET amplification, and its primary endpoint was investigator assessment; SAFFRON is global, includes a broader group with MET overexpression or amplification, and its primary endpoint is blinded independent central review (BICR). The fact that SACHI's HR (0.34) is smaller than SAFFRON's (0.55) does not mean "SACHI is better"; the patient group, the method of assessment and the country differ. What the three trials share is that the control arm was platinum-based chemotherapy.
What is savolitinib?
Savolitinib (Orpathys) is a selective MET inhibitor taken orally twice a day; it is co-developed by AstraZeneca and HUTCHMED and marketed by AstraZeneca. The idea is simple: while osimertinib keeps suppressing EGFR, savolitinib targets the tumor cells that escape through MET. Savolitinib alone is approved in China for NSCLC with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation. The combination is approved in China for non-squamous NSCLC with MET amplification after an EGFR-TKI (based on SACHI); in Switzerland there is a temporary authorisation based on SAVANNAH (according to AstraZeneca). In the US, an application was submitted in September 2026, with no approval.
SAFFRON at a glance
| Trial | SAFFRON (NCT05261399) — global, open-label, randomized phase 3 |
| Publication | Lu S, et al. N Engl J Med, 25 October 2026; doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2611335. Presented the same day at ESMO 2026, LBA6 (Presidential Symposium II). The article title could not be verified |
| Sponsor / drug owner | AstraZeneca (savolitinib: co-developed with HUTCHMED) |
| Patients | 1,746 patients screened, 338 randomized 1:1. 230 centers, 29 countries (AstraZeneca announcement; OncLive reports 25 countries) |
| Arms | Osimertinib 80 mg once daily + savolitinib 300 mg twice daily (n=171) vs pemetrexed 500 mg/m² + carboplatin (AUC 5) or cisplatin 75 mg/m², every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then pemetrexed maintenance (n=167) |
| Primary endpoint | Progression-free survival by blinded independent central review (BICR) (RECIST 1.1) |
| Secondary / exploratory | PFS in the MET-overexpressed group, overall survival, response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, investigator-assessed PFS, safety |
| Stratification | Race, brain metastases at baseline, line of therapy in which osimertinib was used |
| Crossover | Not permitted (CancerNetwork); crossover or post-progression treatment rates were not reported |
| Data cutoff | 6 July 2026; overall survival maturity 53% |
Who was enrolled?
- Locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC (exon 19 deletion, L858R and/or T790M) that had progressed after osimertinib in the first or second line as the most recent therapy.
- MET overexpression (IHC 3+ in at least 90% of tumor cells) or MET amplification (at least 10 gene copies by FISH); either was enough. Both were confirmed centrally on the post-progression biopsy.
- ECOG performance status 0-1; asymptomatic, stable brain metastases were allowed.
| Characteristic | Combination | Chemotherapy |
|---|---|---|
| Median age | 64 | 64 |
| Female | 64% | 65% |
| Asian | 63% | 66% |
| ECOG 1 | 65% | 71% |
| Metastatic disease | 95% | 95% |
| Never smoked | 68% | 68% |
| Brain metastases at baseline | 31% | 31% |
The arms are balanced on these characteristics. The only noticeable difference is the share of ECOG 1 (65% vs 71%); the chemotherapy arm has somewhat more patients with a slightly lower performance status. The effect of this difference on the outcome was not assessed in the sources.
Results
Median times (months)
Colored bar: osimertinib + savolitinib; gray bar: chemotherapy.
Overall survival maturity is 53%; these are medians calculated while roughly half of the patients had not yet had a loss-of-life event.
| Endpoint | Combination | Chemotherapy | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median PFS, BICR (primary) | 7.6 months (5.6–9.7) | 5.4 months (4.2–5.8) | HR 0.55 (0.42–0.72); p<0.001 |
| 12-month PFS rate | 36% | 10% | — |
| Median PFS, investigator assessment | 7.4 months | 4.2 months | HR 0.47 (0.36–0.61); consistent with the primary analysis (OncoDaily) |
| Median overall survival | 17.8 months (15.6–23.7) | 12.9 months (10.6–16.8) | HR 0.68 (0.50–0.91); p=0.010; difference 4.9 months |
| 12-month overall survival rate | 70% | 53% | — |
| Confirmed response rate (BICR) | 51% (88 patients) | 27% (45 patients) | OR 2.90 (1.85–4.61) |
| Median duration of response | 9.7 months (7.6–12.5) | 5.7 months (4.4–8.1) | — |
| Disease control rate | 85% | 65% | OR 3.18 (1.88–5.50) |
| Best change in target lesion size (median) | –44% | –25% | — |
| Still receiving study treatment at data cutoff | 26% | 2% | — |
How to read this: In absolute terms, the difference in medians is +2.2 months for PFS and +4.9 months for overall survival. In relative terms, the risk of progression or loss of life is 45% lower for PFS, and the risk of loss of life is 32% lower for overall survival. When explaining to a patient, absolute months should come before relative percentages, because "a 45% reduction" on its own does not say how much time was gained. The one-year rate also helps: at month 12, 36% of patients in the combination arm and 10% in the chemotherapy arm were alive without progression of the disease.
Subgroups: what was said, and what was not?
| Subgroup | Combination | Chemotherapy | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MET-overexpressed (124 vs 118 patients) | 8.5 months | 5.6 months | 0.51 (0.37–0.71); p<0.001 (within the prespecified hierarchy) |
| MET-amplified (129 vs 116 patients) | 7.6 months | 4.2 months | 0.48 (0.35–0.66); not formally tested |
| Both FISH amplification and IHC overexpression (83 vs 68 patients) | Medians not reported | 0.39 (0.26–0.59) | |
| Brain metastases at baseline (53 vs 51 patients) | Medians not reported | 0.50 (0.31–0.82) | |
These subgroup figures need careful reading. The MET-overexpressed and MET-amplified groups are not mutually exclusive: from the totals (124 + 129 − 83 ≈ 170) it appears that nearly everyone enrolled had at least one of the two and about half had both (this inference is ours). The answer to "is amplification or overexpression better?" therefore cannot be drawn from these data. The amplified group was not formally tested (exploratory); three sources report this group's HR as 0.48, whereas OncoDaily gives about 0.49. In addition, in two sources the combination arm's median PFS and confidence interval for the amplified group are identical to those of the whole population (7.6 months; 5.6–9.7) — possibly a transcription error, which is why we have not given the confidence interval of the median. In the brain metastases subgroup a systemic PFS benefit is seen; however, an advantage in intracranial efficacy is not shown by these data. Because subgroups were not the trial's primary question, all except the MET-overexpressed group are at the "hypothesis-generating" level.
Safety: life-ending events and longer exposure
| Adverse event | Combination | Chemotherapy |
|---|---|---|
| Any grade, regardless of cause (TEAE) | 99% | 97% |
| Grade ≥3 TEAE | 64% | 63% |
| Treatment-related adverse event, any grade | 93% | 92% |
| Treatment-related adverse event, grade ≥3 | 40% | 52% |
| Peripheral edema | 49% (grade ≥3: 8%) | Not reported |
| Anemia | 26% (grade ≥3: 5%) | 54% (grade ≥3: 18%) |
| Diarrhea | 26% (grade ≥3: 1%) | Not reported |
| Nausea | 25% (grade ≥3: 4%) | 37% (grade ≥3: 1%) |
| Decreased platelet count | Not reported | 31% |
| Treatment-related event with a loss of life | 1 patient (pneumonitis) | None |
| Median treatment exposure | 8.5 months (0.7–37.9) | 3.5 months (0–20.3) |
The picture cuts both ways. In the combination arm, severe treatment-related adverse events were less frequent (40% vs 52%); AstraZeneca also reports that the safety profile is consistent with the known profiles of the two drugs and that no new safety signals were seen. On the other hand, serious adverse events, treatment discontinuation and events with a loss of life were more frequent in the combination arm. The most common adverse event was peripheral edema (49%); in the phase 2 SAVANNAH trial of the same combination, peripheral edema was also the most common (46.0%).
Adverse events with a loss of life: context. In the combination arm 12 patients (7%), and in the chemotherapy arm none, had a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) with a loss of life. In 9 of these 12 patients, progression of the disease had been documented before the loss of life or progression was cited as the cause; in other words, most of these events appear to be related to the course of the cancer itself. Only one event was considered treatment-related (pneumonitis). The causes of the remaining three are not in the summaries we could reach. In addition, treatment duration was roughly twice as long in the combination arm (median 8.5 months; 3.5 months for chemotherapy): in a group that receives treatment for longer, the chance of seeing events naturally rises as well. However, the sources contain no exposure-adjusted rates; so we can say neither "this difference comes only from exposure" nor "it comes from the drug". Detailed toxicity analyses (edema, liver, heart, interstitial lung disease) are not yet visible.
How robust is this result?
Seven points to keep in mind when reading:
- Open-label trial. Both patient and physician know which treatment is given. Because PFS was assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR), this bias is partly limited for PFS; for overall survival and adverse event reporting there is no such safeguard. Investigator-assessed PFS was also consistent with the primary analysis (7.4 vs 4.2 months).
- Overall survival at 53% maturity. OncoDaily reports that the result crossed the prespecified significance boundary; however, the number of events is not in the available summaries, and CancerNetwork labels this analysis "final" while other sources do not. We do not know whether follow-up will continue; the figure may change.
- Crossover and subsequent treatments. What treatments patients in the chemotherapy arm received after progression was not reported. It therefore cannot be said how much of the overall survival difference comes from the first treatment and how much from later ones.
- The control is chemotherapy only. The comparison was with platinum + pemetrexed. There is no direct comparison with other options after osimertinib (for example, amivantamab-containing regimens); the verdict "this combination is better than the other options" does not follow from this trial.
- A highly selected group of patients. 1,746 patients were screened and 338 were randomized. The high MET cutoffs (IHC 3+ ≥90% or FISH ≥10 copies), ECOG 0-1 and the need for a repeat biopsy after progression show that the result is valid only for this group. For MET levels below the cutoff, these data say nothing.
- Subgroups were not formally tested and overlap. See the warning above.
- Sponsored trial and secondary sources. The trial was announced by AstraZeneca, which commercializes the drug; the presenter's conflicts of interest are given above. In addition, we could not access the full NEJM text or the ESMO presentation; the numbers were compiled from AstraZeneca's announcement and the OncLive, CancerNetwork and OncoDaily summaries. These sources are largely consistent; small differences (HR 0.48/0.49, number of countries 29/25) are noted above.
What happens next?
The SAVANNAH (phase 2) results were published in Annals of Oncology; SACHI (phase 3, China) was presented at ASCO 2025. China approved the combination on the basis of SACHI; Switzerland granted a temporary authorisation based on SAVANNAH (approval dates could not be verified).
Data cutoff for the SAFFRON primary analysis.
AstraZeneca announced, without numbers, that SAFFRON had met its PFS and overall survival goals.
A new drug application for osimertinib + savolitinib was submitted to the FDA (patients with MET overexpression or amplification who progressed after EGFR-targeted therapy). No approval.
Full results were presented at ESMO 2026 (LBA6) and published in NEJM.
AstraZeneca says it will share the data with global regulators. The timing of the FDA decision has not been announced; the situation in Europe could not be verified.
The situation in Turkey. The osimertinib + savolitinib combination is not yet approved in the US; we found no information on its licensing or reimbursement in Turkey. The licensing and reimbursement status of savolitinib in Turkey, as well as the extent to which and where MET (IHC) and FISH tests can be performed in Turkey, could not be verified (the TİTCK and SGK databases could not be accessed); we did not speculate. Whether Turkey is among the trial's 25-29 countries could not be verified either. FDA approval, TİTCK licensing and SGK reimbursement are three separate processes; we covered them in our articles on FDA-approved new cancer drugs and the Turkey access map and unlicensed cancer drugs (both in Turkish). Taking part in clinical trials (in Turkish) can be one way to reach new drugs.
DROZDOGAN Academy Commentary
This result shows why "re-biopsy after progression and MET testing" matters in EGFR-mutated lung cancer that progresses after osimertinib. But a drug being approved, being given to a patient and contributing to a patient's life are three separate steps.
⚡ Why it matters
After progression on osimertinib, the standard option was for a long time platinum-based chemotherapy. SAFFRON stands out as a global phase 3 in which, in patients selected by a biomarker, a targeted combination showed superiority over chemotherapy in both PFS and overall survival — but "new global standard" is the investigator's own interpretation, and the description "first global phase 3" has not been independently verified.
✅ What is strong
A randomized, multicenter phase 3 of 338 patients; the primary endpoint was assessed by independent central review and was consistent with investigator assessment. The size of the effect (PFS HR 0.55; overall survival HR 0.68), together with the confidence intervals, is clearly away from 1. The response rate (51% vs 27%) and duration of response (9.7 vs 5.7 months) also favor the combination. It is consistent in direction with the SACHI trial in China.
⚠️ What is weak
Open-label design; overall survival is at 53% maturity and post-progression treatments are unknown; the control is chemotherapy only; the patient group is highly selected through the high MET cutoffs. Adverse events with a loss of life (12 vs 0), serious adverse events (41% vs 28%) and treatment discontinuation (14% vs 8%) are more frequent in the combination arm; how much of this comes from the longer treatment duration has not yet been shown with exposure-adjusted data. The results are for now compiled from the sponsor's announcement and secondary press.
🩺 What it means in practice for patients and physicians
There is no practical change today: the combination is not approved in the US, and no treatment decision can be made on the basis of this data. But for a patient whose disease has progressed after osimertinib, talking to the oncologist about whether a repeat biopsy and MET testing are possible, and which treatment options and open clinical trials exist, is the concrete meaning of these data. The investigators also stress the need for routine tissue rebiopsy and MET testing at progression.
❓ Open questions
Will the difference hold as overall survival matures? What will the picture look like when events with a loss of life are adjusted for exposure? Where does it stand against other options, such as amivantamab-containing regimens? Will patients with lower MET levels benefit from this combination? And the most practical question: when will the FDA decide, and when will it reach Turkey?
Bottom line: In EGFR-mutated lung cancer that progressed after osimertinib and has MET overexpression or amplification, osimertinib + savolitinib showed a significant advantage over chemotherapy in delaying progression of the disease and (in a still immature analysis) in survival time. This is strong but not yet complete evidence: matured overall survival, exposure-adjusted safety data and the approval decision should be awaited. "New global standard" is for now the investigator's interpretation; it is not a regulatory decision.
Frequently asked questions
- What did the SAFFRON trial show?
- In EGFR-mutated lung cancer that progressed after osimertinib and has MET overexpression or amplification, osimertinib + savolitinib achieved a median progression-free survival of 7.6 vs 5.4 months and a median overall survival of 17.8 vs 12.9 months compared with pemetrexed + platinum chemotherapy. The response rate was 51% vs 27%.
- What is savolitinib?
- An oral cancer drug that targets MET, taken twice a day. On its own it is approved in China for lung cancer with a MET exon 14 skipping mutation. The combination with osimertinib is approved in China and has a temporary authorisation in Switzerland; it is not approved in the US.
- How do I find out about MET overexpression or amplification?
- With tests on tumor tissue: overexpression is measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and amplification by FISH. After progression on osimertinib, a new biopsy is often needed. Your oncologist will assess what the test and its result mean.
- Can this treatment be used in Turkey?
- We found no information that savolitinib is licensed or reimbursed in Turkey; the combination is not approved in the US either. A clinical trial or special access options can only be assessed by the oncologist managing the treatment.
- What are the side effects of the combination?
- The most common were peripheral edema (49%), anemia (26%), diarrhea (26%) and nausea (25%). Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events were less frequent than with chemotherapy (40% vs 52%); however, serious adverse events (41% vs 28%), treatment discontinuation (14% vs 8%) and events with a loss of life (12 vs 0) were more frequent in the combination arm. Treatment duration was also roughly twice as long.
- Were the events with a loss of life caused by the drug?
- In 9 of the 12 events in the combination arm, progression of the disease was documented or cited as the cause; only one (pneumonitis) was considered treatment-related. The details of the remaining three are not in the summaries, and exposure-adjusted rates were not reported; a firm verdict therefore cannot be given.
- Is the overall survival difference definitive?
- The difference was reported as statistically significant, but the overall survival data are at 53% maturity; the number of events and post-progression treatments are not in the summaries. Numbers may change as follow-up continues.
Glossary
- EGFR
- A receptor that drives cell growth; when mutated it can leave switched on a signal that pushes the cancer cell to grow continuously.
- Osimertinib
- An oral third-generation EGFR inhibitor used in EGFR-mutated lung cancer.
- MET
- A receptor that influences cell growth and movement. Its overexpression or an increase in gene copy number (amplification) is one of the mechanisms of resistance to osimertinib.
- IHC / FISH
- Laboratory tests that measure how much protein (immunohistochemistry) and how many gene copies (fluorescence in situ hybridization) are present in tumor tissue.
- PFS (progression-free survival)
- The time from the start of treatment to progression of the disease or loss of life.
- Overall survival (OS)
- The time until loss of life from any cause; the gold-standard endpoint in oncology.
- HR (hazard ratio)
- The ratio of the rate at which an event occurs in two groups. Below 1 favors the experimental arm; if the confidence interval includes 1, the difference is not statistically certain.
- BICR
- Blinded independent central review: imaging is assessed by independent experts who do not know which treatment the patient received.
- TEAE
- Treatment-emergent adverse event; any unfavorable event seen during the treatment period, whether or not the drug is the cause. Treatment-related ones (TRAE) are counted separately.
- Open-label
- A trial design in which the patient and the physician know which treatment is given.
Transparency note. Verified: The trial's NCT number, design, arms, doses, patient numbers, primary and secondary result numbers, safety numbers and presentation/publication details (largely consistent between AstraZeneca's announcement and the OncLive, CancerNetwork and OncoDaily summaries); the SAVANNAH and SACHI results (from publication/congress summaries); the approval in China, the temporary authorisation in Switzerland and the FDA application in September 2026 (according to AstraZeneca and OncLive). Not verifiable and therefore not written: the full NEJM text and article title and the ESMO presentation (not accessible; numbers from secondary sources); overall survival event counts; crossover and post-progression treatments; the causes of the remaining three events with a loss of life; exposure-adjusted adverse event rates; peripheral edema and diarrhea rates in the chemotherapy arm; quality-of-life results; the dates of the China approval and the Swiss authorisation; savolitinib's licensing and reimbursement status in Turkey; availability of MET tests in Turkey; whether the trial had a center in Turkey; the current content of the ClinicalTrials.gov record. Small inconsistencies: The number of countries is 29 at AstraZeneca and 25 at OncLive; the HR of the MET-amplified group is 0.48 in three sources and about 0.49 in OncoDaily; the combination arm's median PFS and confidence interval for the amplified group are identical to the whole population's in two sources (possible transcription error); CancerNetwork labels the overall survival analysis "final". Source note: "New global standard" and "clear evidence to support global registrations" belong to the investigator and the company, and the description "first global phase 3" to CancerNetwork; they are attributed this way in the text. The assessments and comments belong to this article. This article is not medical advice, and no treatment decision should be made on the basis of this text.
References
- Lu S, et al. SAFFRON: osimertinib plus savolitinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR-mutated NSCLC with MET overexpression or amplification after osimertinib. N Engl J Med. 25 October 2026. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2611335. ESMO 2026, LBA6. (Article title could not be verified.)
- AstraZeneca. Tagrisso plus Orpathys improved progression-free survival and overall survival in the SAFFRON Phase III trial in EGFR-mutated lung cancer. 17 August 2026. astrazeneca.com
- OncLive. SAFFRON Data Reveal New Global SOC in EGFR NSCLC With MET Overexpression and/or Amplification After Osimertinib. 25 October 2026. onclive.com
- CancerNetwork. Osimertinib/Savolitinib Improves Survival in MET-Altered EGFR-Mutant NSCLC. 25 October 2026. cancernetwork.com
- OncoDaily. SAFFRON Phase III. 25 October 2026. oncodaily.com
- OncLive. Savolitinib Plus Osimertinib NDA Submitted to FDA for MET-Driven EGFR-Mutated NSCLC. 29 September 2026. onclive.com
- Targeted Oncology. SACHI Trial: Savolitinib/Osimertinib Improves PFS in MET-Amplified NSCLC (ASCO 2025, LBA8505). targetedonc.com
- Savolitinib plus osimertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC with MET overexpression and/or amplification (SAVANNAH). Ann Oncol. 2025. cancer.fr
- ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05261399 (SAFFRON); NCT05015608 (SACHI); NCT03778229 (SAVANNAH).
Was this article helpful?
Your feedback helps us improve our content.
