MedicineEurope PMC

Ranked by formulaVerdict: Major

Divarasib as Compared with Sotorasib or Adagrasib in KRAS G12C-Mutated NSCLC

Divarasib, a next-generation, oral KRAS G12C inhibitor, is more potent and selective in vitro than the first-generation KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib.

By Skoulidis, Ahn, Gadgeel +31The New England journal of medicine

Score█████░░░░░5.3

Key numbers

  • 95% confidence interval
  • 95% CI
  • 58.4% in the divarasib group

VerdictA leading story on any desk.

Read the original

Abstract

Background Divarasib, a next-generation, oral KRAS G12C inhibitor, is more potent and selective in vitro than the first-generation KRAS G12C inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib. Methods In this phase 3, international, open-label trial, patients with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive divarasib orally at a dose of 400 mg once daily or control treatment (sotorasib orally at a dose of 960 mg once daily or adagrasib orally at a dose of 600 mg twice daily) until the occurrence of disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, loss of clinical benefit, withdrawal of consent, death, or trial termination. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, confirmed overall response, duration of response, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. Results A total of 338 patients received divarasib (167 patients) or control treatment (171 patients; 156 received sotorasib and 15 received adagrasib). The median follow-up was 14.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 9.8 months with divarasib and 5.7 months with control treatment (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.76; P<0.001). The median overall survival was 17.7 months with divarasib and 12.0 months with control treatment (hazard ratio for death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.78; P<0.001). Of the 328 patients who could be evaluated for response, a confirmed response occurred in 58.4% in the divarasib group and in 32.3% in the control group. The median duration of response was 11.9 months with divarasib and 6.9 months with control treatment. Fewer grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were noted with divarasib (24.6%) than with control treatment (34.5%). Conclusions Among patients with previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC, divarasib led to significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than control treatment. (Supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; Krascendo 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT06497556.).

Ferdinandos Skoulidis, Myung-Ju Ahn, Shirish Gadgeel, Sanjay Popat, Niels Reinmuth, Bianca van Veggel, Farastuk Bozorgmehr, Victoria J Bray, Michael Duruisseaux, Wade T Iams, Julien Mazieres, Laura Bonanno, Lore Decoster, Jiaxin Niu, Marcos Pantarotto, Carlos Henrique Andrade Teixeira, Sevim Uzun, Bo Wang, Bryan A Chan, Enriqueta Felip, Molly S C Li, Hiroaki Akamatsu, Kristof Cuppens, Tae Min Kim, Martin Reck, Youyou Hu, Sarah M Shagan, Mark T Lin, Uyi Osaghae, Tien Hoang, et al.

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage2 / 5
Reusable within one subfield (a technique, dataset, or protocol a few groups will adopt).
10% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude3 / 5
Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
20% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence5 / 5
Definitive: phase 3 randomized evidence on hard endpoints, multi-lab replication, or community verification at scale.
32% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty3 / 5
A genuinely new approach to an open problem.
8% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory2 / 5
Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
5% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes3 / 5
Meaningful benefit to many people within a few years.
25% of this desk’s rubric

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: gains (efficacy); design (randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled); verification (confidence interval, p-value, independent replication); stakes (mortality, major disease, prevention or cure).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score█████░░░░░5.3

Score = 10 × (80% × adjusted merit / 10 + 10% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit
7.0 / 10
Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit
5.5 / 10
Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (50%).
Attention
0%
Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness
85%
Half-life decay since publication.
  • Citations0 (reference 20, via openalex, Oct 27, 2026, 06:17 UTC)

The record

  • Reviewed by heuristic-v10 on Oct 27, 2026, 06:17 UTC. Paper type: clinical.
  • Categories: Journal Article
  • TOP, No.5 in the Medicine edition of October 27, 2026.