LASER301

An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.

Screened window

Jan 30, 2020 → Sep 8, 2026

Cited window

Sep 21, 2020 → Jan 16, 2026

Retrieved

Oct 31, 2026

Title

A Phase III, Randomized, Double-blind Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Lazertinib Versus Gefitinib as the First-line Treatment in Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Sensitizing Mutation Positive, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Registry

NCT04248829

Study IDs

YH25448-301

Sponsor

Yuhan Corporation

Design

Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel

Status

Completed

Enrollment

393 actual

Registered

2020-01-30

Start

2020-02-13 actual

Primary completion

2022-07-29 actual

Primary endpoint

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) According to RECIST v1.1 by Investigator Assessment

Interventions

4 registered

This report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.

• –Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on immature overall survival evidence when weighing first-line treatment options for advanced EGFR-mutated lung cancer.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on first-line combination treatment and expectations for immature overall survival evidence.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a question about combining amivantamab with osimertinib rather than lazertinib in first-line EGFR-mutated advanced lung cancer.
• –Not yet captured in this edition: a view on tentative cross-trial efficacy comparisons as a rationale for first-line treatment enthusiasm.
• –Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
• –119 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
• –Further source limits: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; sources about other trials are not included.
• –The report describes the sources reviewed for this edition, not all HCPs or all public discussion; source totals and repeated posts cannot be interpreted as independent-clinician counts.
• –Some passages have not been fully assessed for clinical views, including portions of the a podcast episode published on 3 August 2024. Coverage of that episode does not support a complete account of its resistance rationale, administration-route preferences, early efficacy–toxicity appraisal or tentative cross-trial calculations. Discussion that omits the trial name or uses different spellings may also be missing, so an unmentioned issue is not evidence of no concern.
• –Several podcast passages lack an identifiable speaker. Their views remain attached to the episode and cannot be assigned from its title or guest list.
• –Some named authors have no established clinical role in these sources; other professional descriptions come only from the source itself. Named or verified identity does not increase the truth or representativeness of a view.
• –Cross-trial comparisons, clinical impressions, hypotheses and questions are not head-to-head findings. MARIPOSA, FLAURA2 and MARIPOSA-2 observations remain attached to those studies and settings.
• –LASER301 CNS findings apply to the eligible asymptomatic or stable CNS population. The intracranial response-rate difference was numerical and not statistically significant, despite enthusiastic response-rate commentary.
• –The LASER301 primary publication's OS analysis was immature and not statistically significant. OS statements about MARIPOSA cannot establish a LASER301 OS benefit.
• –Reported approvals, reimbursement conditions, availability and prices are dated source accounts. Exact current country-specific indications and access are not established here.
• –Publication and post dates do not establish session dates, a change of mind, or disagreement between statements made in different settings.

How reports are built and checked: Methods.

Last checked for new commentary Oct 31, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.

Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.

Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "LASER301" (NCT04248829), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.

1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "laser301-04248829". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/laser301-nct04248829.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT04248829", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct04248829 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.

When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.

curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/laser301-nct04248829.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/laser301-nct04248829.md

# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "laser301-04248829" })